foolish
Wow – a lot has been written in the last day or so. (And some people still can't resist getting in a few jabs whenever they can.) I'd like to address what I feel are a few of the main points of discussion in this thread:
1) People who post ideas in a forum are not looking to simply make a statement and not expect others to respond. If that was the case, they'd set up a blog where they could just expound or pontificate their own ideas. Most people, including myself, welcome critical feedback from others. In fact, I am grateful to those who have found errors in my initial draft and allowed me to make corrections in the pre-publication phase of my book. But when responses are sent with extreme prejudice, inflammatory or derisive remarks, the conversation becomes degraded and looses its value.
Let's say that you, as a parent, have a child that did something wrong. So you take out your belt-strap and give him a good whopping. A friend of yours hears about this and tells you, out of concern, that perhaps this was unnecessary or inappropriate. So you reply, “ Oh, so you want to just allow kids to grow up without any discipline at all, do you?”
The point is (and I think I'm speaking for some of the other members) that it's not the idea that critique is not needed or wanted in these discussions, it's just the counterproductive manner that some people use to “discipline” those who err in the arena of theoretical debate that bothers me. And, unfortuantely, it only takes a few individuals to spoil it for the rest.
Some members have noticed that there seems to be a few people in the history section who choose to diminish the otherwise professional quality of the forum, and have made a request that it should be handled somehow. Is that really such an unreasonable request? I would think that this could be handled most appropriately by the moderators. (By the way, it would be interesting to know why the previous moderators quit.)
2) As far as the appropriateness of what should get posted in the history section, or whether you need a new section for those who want to discuss issues which are not fully supported by primary source evidence, it might be a good idea if either a) a list of prerequisites or expectations were present so people could understand them prior to posting, or b) the moderators would jump in as soon as it became evident that the thread be better suited in another area.
In my case, for example, we went on for quite some time before the discussion turned to whether I should have posted the thread in the history section or not.
3) The posting of an idea which has no additional information to follow up with will soon end on it's own. There is nothing left to do, and nothing to fear. The fact that some ideas cause others to respond is evidence of interest. If anyone is questioning what level of interest exists in ideas that are not entirely based on historical fact, just take, for example, the number of books and articles that Mary has written which are not based in primary source evidence vs. those that are. The fact is that many people are interested in topics that stimulate the imagination. And in the large category of ideas and theories outside of primary evidenced facts, there is a broad range of what it reasonable or plausible.
I hope that everyone can get together and move beyond the territorial boundaries that seem disconnect people here and figure out a way to make this work. Look, there's obviously a lot that people can learn from this forum. The problem is that people don't want to attend a class where the instructor has a reputation of berating those who ask “stupid questions”. A little tolleration goes a long way.
1) People who post ideas in a forum are not looking to simply make a statement and not expect others to respond. If that was the case, they'd set up a blog where they could just expound or pontificate their own ideas. Most people, including myself, welcome critical feedback from others. In fact, I am grateful to those who have found errors in my initial draft and allowed me to make corrections in the pre-publication phase of my book. But when responses are sent with extreme prejudice, inflammatory or derisive remarks, the conversation becomes degraded and looses its value.
Let's say that you, as a parent, have a child that did something wrong. So you take out your belt-strap and give him a good whopping. A friend of yours hears about this and tells you, out of concern, that perhaps this was unnecessary or inappropriate. So you reply, “ Oh, so you want to just allow kids to grow up without any discipline at all, do you?”
The point is (and I think I'm speaking for some of the other members) that it's not the idea that critique is not needed or wanted in these discussions, it's just the counterproductive manner that some people use to “discipline” those who err in the arena of theoretical debate that bothers me. And, unfortuantely, it only takes a few individuals to spoil it for the rest.
Some members have noticed that there seems to be a few people in the history section who choose to diminish the otherwise professional quality of the forum, and have made a request that it should be handled somehow. Is that really such an unreasonable request? I would think that this could be handled most appropriately by the moderators. (By the way, it would be interesting to know why the previous moderators quit.)
2) As far as the appropriateness of what should get posted in the history section, or whether you need a new section for those who want to discuss issues which are not fully supported by primary source evidence, it might be a good idea if either a) a list of prerequisites or expectations were present so people could understand them prior to posting, or b) the moderators would jump in as soon as it became evident that the thread be better suited in another area.
In my case, for example, we went on for quite some time before the discussion turned to whether I should have posted the thread in the history section or not.
3) The posting of an idea which has no additional information to follow up with will soon end on it's own. There is nothing left to do, and nothing to fear. The fact that some ideas cause others to respond is evidence of interest. If anyone is questioning what level of interest exists in ideas that are not entirely based on historical fact, just take, for example, the number of books and articles that Mary has written which are not based in primary source evidence vs. those that are. The fact is that many people are interested in topics that stimulate the imagination. And in the large category of ideas and theories outside of primary evidenced facts, there is a broad range of what it reasonable or plausible.
I hope that everyone can get together and move beyond the territorial boundaries that seem disconnect people here and figure out a way to make this work. Look, there's obviously a lot that people can learn from this forum. The problem is that people don't want to attend a class where the instructor has a reputation of berating those who ask “stupid questions”. A little tolleration goes a long way.