The way things can be taken PLEASE READ THIS!

Some good guidelines Movedalot.

Done. Does that let me out of the bloody doghouse?

So far this thread seems to be mainly about the way posts are received but I would like to talk about the way people post. IMO it would be helpful if posters could bear the following in mind:

1 Use IMO or I think rather than stating your opinion as a fact.
2 Think whether you would like to read this post if it was an opposing view to your own.
3 Question whether your post could be considered patronising
4 Ask yourself if you would say this in a face to face conversation with a friend
5 Think whether what you say could be considered personal
6 Ask yourself if you could have said it in a kinder way
7 Should you bear in mind that this is a new poster
8 Are you just saying this so you can prove you are superior to someone and is that a good idea?

I do not subscribe to the opinion that people should toughen up as will be obvious from my suggestions. I do not think there is anything clever/superior about knowingly hurting someone. I have said things like this before and been shot down so I expect it to happen again but I will retain my belief that kindness counts.

I was going to suggest Absent that you could perhaps ask GNHQ to delete your post as a gesture of good will? I would certainly take it as such.

Thanks for the responses, especially kali and petallus. What you say makes sense. It is a fairly simplistic idea, but possibly helpful. Possibly not. One thing this thread has proved to me is that however hard one tries to talk about certain subjects in a detached way, in order to try and resolve repeating issues, someone somewhere will find something to be offended at. Hey ho. I tried. Someone with greater skill than I would have succeeded, I expect.

Kali At the risk of raising you ire even closer to boiling point, whoever you are trying to avoid could not possibly mistake the ferocity and tenacity you employ to counter posts with which you disagree whatever name you used. There was nothing especially careful and tactful about the comments on whatever the thread was where Gransnetters were pointed to your post.

Lots of grannies went to check? Did they? How do you know this, absent? . Anyway, surely the fact that a member changes their name should imply that they had good reason to do so - revealing their former identity for all to see is hardly tactful.

Yes, pointed it out and discussed it in a careful and tactful way, so nothing was obvious. I left the clue so regular GNetters would pick up on it, and they did, subtly and carefully. I had been 'outed' as J0 put it.

Kali I had no idea you were hiding from someone. However, shortly after you changed your name, someone else pointed out your post on the weight loss thread where you indicated who you had previously been. Lots of grannies went to check. I can't remember what thread it was on.

I have too much grief in my life already to get involved in these unending threads.
But Petallus has spoken more coherent common sense in the last two sentences of her last post than I have read in all of them.
It's no good even hoping all this sniping will end. Nobody will give up the last word

Kali it does make sense to me. Perhaps we are "talking" about two different things - philosophical debate / people discussing their feelings, hopes and fears. I enjoy philosophical debate but don't think self esteem etc is part of philosophy - more of psychology. Enough. Going out now and won't be adding any more. Shouldn't have got involved.

I strongly agree with Kali.

Bags your post was interesting but I find your ideas somewhat simplistic.

Some people have complex and sensitive personalities. They are very much in tune with the feelings of others and their own.

Others may not be so emotionally aware, either because that is the way they are 'made' or because they are living defensively.

Self esteem does not equate to these two positions in the way you suggest in my opinion.

But even if it did, I am quite baffled by the regularly expressed view that if people are offended it is up to them to toughen up or clear off.

I agree that we are responsible for our own emotions but also think that we are responsible for the way we behave towards others and the affect it has on them.

kali your last post directed at me isn't worthy of a response.

Somehow I think that this thread has developed just the way the OP would NOT have wanted. Why take up these adversarial positions?

wisewoman I think this is heading down the path that...
being sensitive to your own feelings or the feelings of others = low self esteem = weak
while those insensitive to others feelings or indeed lacking feeling themselves = high self esteem = strong person
I know that's an oversimplification and possibly not exactly what bags said, or hopefully meant. But unless you've been tested in a really terrible situation, then and only then, do you know if you are strong or weak. And people can and do surprise you under testing conditions. I have actually found that it if often the most sensitive people who show the most empathy and are there for you when the going gets tough. Indeed often the 'tough' get going....away and out of sight!
Does any of this make sense or am I rambling?

Or, tomput it yet another way, wisewoman's post shows just how easy it is for some people to feel patronised. This is not someone else's fault. It may not be the patronised person's fault either, but it certainly isn't mine or another person's who is simply thinking aloud inoffensively.

Or, to put my second para in "street speak" (my perception of that anyhow): it isn't about you (whoever that you may be who is reading this); it's about an idea. If it's patronising to try and spell out an idea, so be it, but that has never been my understanding of patronising.

Hello jane back again I see!! I see you echo Absent's sentiments exactly

Just popped back to add that I think people's place on the scale will change according to circumstances. We all have times in our lives when we are more upsettable than at others.

wisewoman, your post shows how easy it is for someone to find something patronising when nothing patronising was intended at all. I did not intend to imply criticism of people with low self esteem. I cannot know why, or even if, any individual whom I don't know has a low self esteem. However, it does seem obvious, in the light of your post that people with low self esteem will feel patronised more easily than those with high self esteem. This, in my view, is not the fault of 'outsiders' (me, for instance) who simply want to discusss an issue philosophically.

wisewoman I don't think bags post is patronising. It's an attempt to explain why some people are more sensitive than others, that's all, and one that sounds quite plausible to me.
We do need to be careful that, in taking other posters' possible feelings into account, we don't stifle debate completely.
What gives me the willies is when people hark back to previous slights and insults.
It's water under the bridge for heaven's sake - let's get over it and move on

Thanks Absent for revealing that to the person who I was trying to avoid. That says something doesn't it? I have reported it to GNHQ hoping it can be deleted before more damage is done.

Bags I think this is the kind of post that other people do find patronising. We don't all have a robust sense of self respect unfortunately and, given that some people don't, telling them that it is their problem (which they very well know!) isn't very helpful. Surely it is possible to put over strong views without talking down to people who don't have a strong sense of self esteem. I don't often say much in these threads but I do understand why some people are reluctant to join in debates.

I agree that feelings are valid just because they are felt. However, my feelings are my responsibility, not someone else's. I think that sensitivity of feelings, to hurt and offence, may work on a sliding scale, a bit like pain thresholds (some people feel physical pain more than others, or find certain pain 'intolerable', which someone else might not mind too much). I think it's worth thinking about where one might lie on such a scale, to find out whether one is someone who feels hurt/offended very easily or someone who can let quite a lot pass over as not really mattering in the big scheme of things. I say this because I think it could be useful to know. If one is easily upset, it might help one to recognise that, while one's feelings are certainly valid, recognising that certain sensitivities might not be universal could be useful.

This just an idea of mine, which I think it would be interesting to discuss.

I don't think being less easily upset is the same as being thick-skinned (though it may be). I also think that one can learn to be less easily offendable. In my head it is related to self-respect; someone who has a robust sense of self-respect can probably shrug off a great deal that others might struggle with. I may be chuntering along the wrong road here, but that's 'where I'm at' now. I'd be interested to hear other people's thoughts on this.

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.