Minutus

Wendy asserted, I'm paraphrasing I hope adequately, that a collegiate standard of conduct equates to politeness. I don't agree. A collegiate standard infers a state of homeostasis from which the best exchange of information occurs.

I offer an example, personal one for me, of my involvement within a hospital setting of a complementary unit. During the a.m. conferences amongst a group of physicians representing different paradigms, the discussion was quite robust, with much exchange that was not always with a flowery nature. What was consistent and ever present was a collective respect for one another. The issues of difficulty always reduced to an inability to convey information that someone else may better understand what the speaker is conveying. And politeness was not part of the equation. Respect for differences was.

The force involved should be the force of argument in the absence of pajorative & sarcastic commentary that currently occur with a concommitant denial and avoidance of replies tendered.

It becomes a question of balance when one considers the delete key or enter key.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Isali wrote:
standard of conduct equates to politeness. I don't agree. A collegiate
standard infers a state of homeostasis from which the best exchange of
information occurs.

Isali you've understood me totally incorrectly! I said that a "nice"
politically-correct type of communication is *no more* "collegiate" than
Dave's more abrasive style. In other words, neither meet the standard. As
far as I'm concerned, a collegiate standard of communication is one of
open-minded, incisive, unprejudiced, respectful (hopefully even humorous)
enquiry free from inappropriate ego-attachments to opinion and shadow plays.
Homeostasis ... not a bad term for it.

And as Christine said, I think we've done this one to death now.

Regards
Wendy