I think David Zane Mason said it well with our communications here on this forum ought to be focused on one of the following: either supporting one another on the raw journey, or sharing our successes with raw foods.

I've removed communitybuilder for a month from this forum because of his refusal to quit the debate. I would prefer that there were not others that also need to be removed, but if it is required for the debates to cease, I will do it.

What do I need to say or do to make it clear that debate and contention are to be eliminated from these forums?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2009 03:27PM by Bryan.

Bryan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think David Zane Mason said it well with our
> communications here on this forum ought to be
> focused on one of the following: either supporting
> one another on the raw journey, or sharing our
> successes with raw foods.
>

Bryan,

Thank you for letting us know that we are no longer allowed to debate. I understand your reasoning and will comply, but could you please clarify the above statement so I understand fully what you want us to do. As I read this... non-raw vegan related topics are no longer welcome.

Does this mean that we are no longer allowed to post any topic not relating to raw food lifestyle?

Do you want us to not post on the non-raw related threads, so they fade away in favor of only raw topic threads?

Can we still share our photos or stories with the community if they are not raw related, or must they be strictly raw vegan oriented?

also:

If someone giving advice, posts information that we believe in incorrect, what should we do to be supportive?

If someone links a web site or article that we know to contain incorrect information, what is the best way to try help someone in their raw journey?

This is not meant as a challange, or debate..I'm just asking for clarification on what you want. :~)

Thanks in advance!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2009 03:48PM by Bryan.

Swimmer,

For this Off Topics forum, topics need not be only about raw veganism (though vegan in nature is still required). For now, only Politics and Economics are not permitted, but I am tempted to also exclude Religion.

I am trying to reduce the hostility that comes from debating. Or to be more precise, having posts that try to prove the other person wrong, and oneself to have the "real truth". This style of debate and contention does not support anybody, is just a play of ego, and creates a lot of bad feelings for everybody.

When you disagree with someone, rather than sharing why you think they are wrong, share your experience of what works or doesn't work for you. This way, people don't feel that they need to defend themselves against an attack (and telling someone they are wrong can be viewed as an attack), but rather they hear about the experience of others.

So to answer your questions: No. No. Yes. Share your experience. Share your experience.

By the way, sharing your experience is not the same as sharing what you know (or read about). I am talking about sharing personal experience and what you did and how things worked out. Sharing knowledge is less useful, because at best that is second hand information, but it may even be further removed from the truth. If you have things that work for you, please share this experience. But sharing what you know about is not useful, and subject to debate. And it's this debate and the bad feeling that arise from it that I want to eliminate from the forums.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2009 03:48PM by Bryan.

Bryan--

Religion, or spirituality too? Raw foodists are often by nature very spiritually oriented. I would hate to see spiritual topics become off-limits altogether.

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2009 03:49PM by Bryan.

kwan,

I wanted to see Politics work out here. But our experience showed that people could not resist debate and contention. The Religious/Spiritual also seems to draw debate and contention rather than support. It currently isn't off limits, and what will keep it that way is a lack of debate and contention on religious and spiritual posts.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2009 03:49PM by Bryan.

In my view there will always be just one or two people in any group who insist on being contentious. It seems to me it would make more sense to reason with, mediate, or ban the few who create the problems, if needed, rather than punish the whole group by disallowing more and more subjects. I'm pretty sure that even if spirituality and religion are banished from the 'OT' forum, we will continue to see contentions arise on various subjects related to raw vegan diet on the main forum, at which point would Raw Food Diet talk be banned and the board shut down?

In all honesty, I'm not sure this board can survive the removal of more subjects without becoming 'The Bored.' Raw foodists are multi-dimensional beings, after all. We have a wide range of interests that we have a need to share with one another.

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2009 03:50PM by Bryan.

kwan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In my view there will always be just one or two
> people in any group who insist on being
> contentious. It seems to me it would make more
> sense to reason with, mediate, or ban the few who
> create the problems, if needed, rather than punish
> the whole group by disallowing more and more
> subjects. I'm pretty sure that even if
> spirituality and religion are banished from the
> 'OT' forum, we will continue to see contentions
> arise on various subjects related to raw vegan
> diet on the main forum, at which point would Raw
> Food Diet talk be banned and the board shut down?
>
>
> In all honesty, I'm not sure this board can
> survive the removal of more subjects without
> becoming 'The Bored.' Raw foodists are
> multi-dimensional beings, after all. We have a
> wide range of interests that we have a need to
> share with one another.

I share Swimmer's and Kwan's concerns.

I agreed with John's decision to remove the politics forum, since nearly every post on that forum was contentious. There may still be contention, but nothing like what was on the politics forum.

Rather than ban all debate, how about:

1. Give a warning first to some contentious individual and remove the offensive post(s).

2. After a pre-determined number of posts have been removed, suspend the person for a month.

3. After a pre-determined number of suspensions, then the person has to go.

To be fair, the same system could apply to everyone. I think a lot of people would lighten up just after having a post or two removed. Why go the extra length if it's not necessary?

Sometimes, people aren't even aware when they're being potentially offensive. Removing their post as a first step, gives them a chance to clarify or apologize. That helps create good feeling all around.

But banning all debate completely could create much more work for the moderator, because it seems impossible to draw a defineable line on prohibitive debate that everyone can understand.

Placing a ban on all posts that provide information rather than personal experience seems unnecessarily restrictive. And the moderator's role could become unusually subjective.

For instance, would this mean that we can no longer provide information from a nutrition website like fitday.com or nutritiondata.com?

Suppose someone posts a topic: "What's a good raw source for iron?" And someone else responds with a link claiming that just one apple a day will provide all the iron that anyone could possibly need. That's misinformation, since an apple provides 0% DV for iron (nutritiondata.com). Suppose the person who posted the topic is dangerously anemic, and relies on the misinformation because no one wants to debate it in fear of being removed from the forum?

People don't need to include personal attacks in their posts, that's all.

When it happens, their posts can be removed and a warning issued, etc.

Just a suggestion.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2009 03:50PM by Bryan.

Bryan, aside from my concerns above, I'm not sure exactly what this all means.

In addition to considering a ban on religious discussion, are you considering a ban on all debate? Or are you just making a suggestion?

Whatever the case, how about starting a new thread to allow discussion of possible alternatives, or at least to impart awareness to more people than just those who are posting here on this thread?

(Just read Swimmer's post more thoroughly. I like the idea of allowing discussion of food-related politics. We have a huge community. If enough people here are aware of pending food-related legislation, we could help make a difference)



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2009 03:50PM by Bryan.

I Share Swimmer and Kwans concerns. relax nothing going on that needs to be censored.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2009 03:50PM by Bryan.

Since we don't have any experience with this forum as a supportive only forum, rather than the current contentious forum, how can we say that what we have had in the past is going to be better than what I am proposing.

Lets try it my way for a while and see how it feels. If we all decide that we don't like it this, only getting support from one another and not getting people who are trying to prove you wrong is not what the whole group really likes, we can always revert to the old way. But lets speak from a place of experience of having a supportive forum, not from a place of theoretical supposition.

In the meantime, I will be doing more of what I did with Narz with people who are contentious. I feel I don't need to warn anybody about their impending time-off from the forum, as I have often stated that this forum is not a place for debate and contention.

Again, I am asking people share their experience of what works and doesn't work for them. Not to tell other what is right or wrong. Is this so hard and so restrictive? Who is it that needs to be right, and have others be wrong?

I'd like to second Suncloud's suggestions, which I think make good sense.

Okay, I have another suggestion:

Webmaster John has had a plan in the works for awhile now to make me Moderator #2, and has recently written to say that when he returns from his vacation he will make the appropriate changes to my account to make it happen. As a co-moderator, I would be MORE than happy to help Bryan by keeping my eye on debates and arguments on the board, and putting into practice the mediation, negotiation and persuasion skills I have learned in my job as a sound monitor of street music groups (who can be a lot more abrasive at times than anybody on this board!) ;-p, and in moderating three web forums in the recent past, to keep the board discourse flowing smoothly, unimpeded by contention. My tactic would be to a) tactfully suggest a different mode of conversation, b) then give a warning, and c) only then, ban the individual creating the disturbance.

Bryan--
Oops... I posted this before your most recent post came up. Obviously my plan will not work, so I am withdrawing it. Sorry.

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2009 03:26PM by kwan.

I think that Bryan's new approach is highly unrealistic and quasi-dictatorial, as it seems to be an attempt to intimidate people into expressing themselves in accordance with Bryan's personal philosophy, rather than him actually moderating the discussion. I completely agree with the other posters who have expressed concerns.

Saying that "no debate or contention" will be tolerated is IMO the equivalent of a moderator saying, "I don't want to do my job." The job of a moderator is to regulate debate and contention -- not to eliminate them!

It sounds like Bryan doesn't actually understand this role or want to do his job, and if that's the case, then perhaps the job isn't a good fit for him.

If you disagree with the new approach that Bryan has laid out as strongly as I do, I suggest PM'ing the owner of this site, John Kohler, at admin, to let him know how you feel.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/14/2009 05:50AM by Bryan.

Bryan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think David Zane Mason said it well with our
> communications here on this forum ought to be
> focused on one of the following: either supporting
> one another on the raw journey, or sharing our
> successes with raw foods.

David Mason's suggestion of support was for the IDEAL -- in a world where everyone is on an ideal wavelength of consciousness. However, people of varying wavelengths all come to these message boards, and trying to fit their square pegs into a preset round hole is not realistic.

To use a raw food analogy, it would be like David Mason saying that the strict, fruit-only diet that he follows is ideal and of the highest vibration, and Bryan then declaring that only discussion of a fruit diet would from now on be allowed, because it is the only truly "positive" diet. Even if that is true, that rigidity would be stifling and would greatly reduce participation on the boards.

Well said, Omega.

As the incoming new co-moderator, (per the recent directive of John Kohler) I want everyone on this board to know that if I am given permission to do so by the wbmaster, I personally am MORE THAN WILLING to allow civil discourse and debate, and I will mediate, discuss, persuade, and then warn or ban individuals or temporarily suspend their accounts, only if necessary (hopefully rarely), rather than banning debate altogether or eliminating specific topics from discussion, which I fear would paralyze the board and make it a less lively and creative space for us to interact with each other and share a wide range of experience and subject matter. I have a lot of previous experience as a forum moderator, and I am willing to get my hands dirty and be actively involved in moderating the flow of conversation on the board-- only when really necessary-- so that things don't get too wild and wooly.

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]

Has anyone here even looked up what a fascist is? It literally translates as, "people who obviously have our best interest at heart." Now submit to the fascists already so we can all go back to being friends again

Thats been my experiance



FREE CB's Freedom of speach now!
Arrr!

Bryan,

I just don't believe you have thought this through enough yet. I strongly suggest you spend more time developing any policy changes before you implement it.

What I feel you need to recognize is that sharing knowledge IS being supportive. There are at least a half a dozen questions posted on the main topic board this week where the best way to be supportive is to answer the questions. Those questions are science based. Here is just one example: [www.rawfoodsupport.com] that did not turn into a fight, and supported the person asking the question.

Why do you equate sharing knowledge with fighting, or proving each other wrong? I've seen many good debates on this board that did not turn into a fight, but a lot of good stuff was learned. Throughout history science, health, medicine, philosophy, religion, politics, and many, many other subjects have been advanced through the use of friendly debate. Certainly, understanding of the Tao has been advanced through discussion and debate. Don't you agree?

Please reconsider, think it through, and take the feedback you have been given into consideration.

This is good, I think kwan and Bryan would be a great, well balanced team of moderators.

I highly suggest everyone breathe, and take your time before responding emotionally on this thread or any other. A little time away from a computer may put a different perspective on what you read in any post.

This is a great community, and can still be one!

i would rather see threads locked rather then deleted. I think as more and more topics become unable to be discussed , someone will always find a way to be contentious and spark debate about something or another. individuals that are complained about should be dealt with. as far as politics and economics go i feel we should be able to discuss stuff relavent to our rawfoods and farming and relevant things

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist

Omega Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> David Mason's suggestion of support was for the
> IDEAL -- in a world where everyone is on an ideal
> wavelength of consciousness. However, people of
> varying wavelengths all come to these message
> boards, and trying to fit their square pegs into a
> preset round hole is not realistic.

I want to clarify that I AGREE with David Mason that success and support posts are best, but I don't think that that forms a realistic basis for a board policy.


swimmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As far as banning topics goes. Look at the one
> example we have: Politics got out of hand, but
> that was due to one or two individuals who needed
> to be stopped.

Exactly right.

This is a place of lightness, and unfortunately there are people who will come here and try to spread darkness. That means conflict.

There MUST be pushback against that darkness or it can overtake a board (as the political forum demonstrated).

A moderator has two basic choices on how to handle such a situation:

1) Not allowing those individuals to stay.

2) Allowing those individuals to stay and moderating the resultant conflict.

Any other solution is IMO dealing with symptoms, not causes.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2009 06:24PM by Omega.

>A moderator has two basic choices on how to handle such a situation:

1) Not allowing those individuals to stay.

2) Allowing those individuals to stay and moderating the resultant conflict.

Any other solution is IMO dealing with symptoms, not causes.<

Any other solution also tends to penalize all forum members, limiting their freedom of expression.

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]

Bryan and everyone else

I support what you are wishing to achieve and I think that there will always be debatable, discretionary calls to be made in the act of managing a group, it is the nature of the diversity life for everyone to view things differently. Obviously if a service like this is open and accessible to everyone, yet has a specified adgenda, then it will require guidelines in order to achieve this.

Short of having a "council of the wise" on hand in order to maintain the peace, I think that having a loving moderator or two is the next best thing. I had all but left these forums in the days of the political spam, and was happy to rejoin them when it ended. In saying all that though, I don't think that the topic of discussion should be moderated at all, only the tone and nature that it is presented and expressed ( even vegan ).

I trust this arbitration to the persons responcible for bringing a community such as this one together by virtue of our mutual health interests and goals, and accept my right to leave when ever the conditions do not suit my liking. This is all I realy think one needs to concern themselves with.

First, congratulations to Sharrhan for her new role as second moderator! I hope something can be worked out that is satisfactory to everyone.

I very much appreciate Bryan for putting this up to open discussion. THANK YOU SO MUCH Bryan! I think this shows that Bryan has everyone's interests in mind. I sense that Bryan really doesn't want to have to clamp down, but is becoming increasingly frustrated with some of the continuing contention on the forum.

Bryan wrote: "What do I need to say or do to make it clear that debate and contention are to be eliminated from these forums?"

IMO, I really think we need to separate our response to "debate" from our response to "contention". It's true that some people have a hard time accepting points of view in opposition to their own. That can lead to a personal attack in response, and in return, another personal attack back, and so on.

But it's also true that people often quite easily handle the fact that other people disagree with them. They don't take it personally, and they don't issue a personal attack in response.

Such positive behavior should be encouraged and reinforced - by ALL of us - whenever we see it, so that we're able to collectively work toward a greater range of thought and information expressed within a positive environment on the forum. I don't do that often enough myself, but from now on, when I see an apology, or an obvious attempt by one or more posters to discuss opposing views pleasantly, I'll try to post something supportive of their efforts.

To further acknowledge a separation between debate and contention, I think it's fair to say that some people can issue a personal attack for no obvious reason whatsoever, even in the absence of debate. When that happens, I think it's up to all of us who see it to notify the moderator, and it's up to the moderator to respond in some way that can be observed by everyone, so that such personal attacks may be discouraged in the future.

I remember taking a course on behavioral science for my bachelor's degree in education. We learned that behavioral studies have verified that CONSISTENT disciplinary consequences helped to eliminate unwanted behavior. And ALSO, very interestingly, INconsistent disciplinary consequences reinforced UNwanted behavior, even MORE than ABSENCE of disciplinary consequences!

Of course, the moderator can't read every post on this forum to know when people within a thread are having a tiff. But the moderator CAN be consistent in responding to every COMPLAINT to the moderator about a personal attack, and in the disciplinary sequence of events utilized in the moderator's response.

People learn to respect their limits when a disciplinary sequence of events is established IN ADVANCE, when the disciplinary sequence of events include a warning EACH TIME, and when the disciplinary sequence of events are adhered to CONSISTENTLY.

Then, when disciplinary action is taken, the person who suffers the consequence is more willing to feel personal responsibility for the consequence and try harder to change their ways.

When disciplinary action is taken INconsistently, WITHOUT a predetermined sequence of events, and without a warning concerning the SPECIFIC circumstance, the person who suffers the consequence is more likely to resent the consequence, and feel it was unfair.

Also, if there is a consistent disciplinary sequence of events, other people are more likely to conclude that the disciplinary sequence will apply to themselves as well; and therefore, those observing a disciplinary action are more likely to be influenced toward good behavior.

On the other hand, when the discipline is inconsistent and only occurs when a lot of people complain at once and there's a big huhu over something, it's more difficult for the parent/teacher/moderator to act without bad feeling all around, and it's more difficult to establish an environment where the limits are respected.

Whatever, it's a learning experience for all of us, and I hope we may all benefit!





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2009 08:45PM by suncloud.

I think banning any subjects, rather than banning bad behavior, was a mistake from the beginning.

I used to hang around another mom who would put a toy in "time out" when her kids were fighting over it, rather than dealing with the bad behavior of the children. Her children never got along no matter how many toys went to "time out." I soon stopped hanging out with them...heh.

I quit posting so much on this board because of Bryan's way of running it, not because of the arguing, which I could ignore. I wasn't attracted as much to this place any longer because he decided to punish us all for one person's bad behavior, all in the name of saving time. Well, from my view I think Bryan is fooling himself for some reason. I believe he likes spending time on this sort of thing. Rather than nipping the issue in the bud months ago, he is still spending much time reading and writing about it. His actions have kept the issue from going away. That has been his choice, which leads me to believe he is filling some personal need from it. If he were to only follow the rules that this board set, that we all agreed to, this would not be an issue. Instead of monitoring the few troublemakers, he is controlling and threatening the entire community, again.

I have great respect for Bryan. He is a great teacher. But......when what you are doing isn't working, perhaps trying another approach is in order.


I think all topics should be allowed here, especially raw food related topics, political or otherwise. We all know a higher awareness comes with the raw lifestyle and with this, a need to learn and grow can seem insatiable. This community is the only place some of us have to fill that 'enlightened' communal need, especially those of us who are in rural Louisiana . I needed this forum desperately two years ago, other topics and all! I can leave the drama though, and the drama has been perpetuated here instead of controlled.

Hey pakd4fun, nice to see ya!

I'd just like to repeat my support for swimmer's suggestion of allowing political discussions having to do with food, and especially food legislation issues.

I would go for bringing back the entire political forum, except for my concern that contention on a political forum seems so difficult to moderate without appearing to take sides on a political issue. For instance, is it OK to say that some politician is a racist? Sounds terrible and invites contention; but maybe it's true, maybe it's pertinent to a discussion, and important as a factor in determining whether or not to support the politician. Just SO hard to moderate. MAYbe it could be done, but........?

If we brought back the political forum, I would like to see an enforced limit to the number of threads started by a single person during a single day, so as to prevent attempts by any one person to take over the forum as a platform for their political party or candidate. And it also might be helpful to try to minimize deliberately offensive and/or inaccurate subject lines that everybody who goes there has to read, whether they access that particular thread or not.

Venting..............



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2009 10:01PM by suncloud.

I'd REALLY like to see people be able to once again post health-related political threads, perhaps on the 'Health-Related Off Topic' Forum. That's high on my wish list.

I am on the fence about the non-health-related political forum at the moment. I miss it, but I don't miss all the contention that can arise from partisan politics. Maybe it could be dealt with somehow, though. A moderator should be able to sift through threads and analyze things from a neutral standpoint-- not for political correctness, which is a matter of opinion, but for hurtful attacks against others, hate rhetoric, racism, childish fights, etc. Not an easy job, but if enough people want the politics forum brought back, I think it would be worth the effort.

Suncloud-- I agree with your comments and suggestions re. the political forum.

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]

Hey there Suncloud!! Thanks. I like it here.

I am sure someone can become O.C.D. about any subject, but politics does seem to attract that sort of behavior. My feeling is I would not want to go to a political forum because it could not offer me the enlightened opinions of raw foodists, I have no interest in discussing politics with meat eaters.

I really don't see the confusion in discerning between debate and contention.

Some of my favorite reads were between Jose and Suncloud. Where else would you be able to witness such interesting debate between two people from completely different worlds? .....one in Hawaii, one in the UK, and discussing a politician from Texas. I learned so much from them. Debating with Kwan about politics changed the way I viewed so many things. If moderating would have been efficient back then, we could still be enjoying those conversations. And what do you know, politics is gone and the issue is still here.

The problem isn't politics, religion or debates. The problem is poor moderating.

I hope this is not taken in a personal manner. I am hoping to help this board be a better place and only offering my honest opinion for changing what can achieve that.

>Some of my favorite reads were between Jose and Suncloud. Where else would you be able to witness such interesting debate between two people from completely different worlds? .....one in Hawaii, one in the UK, and discussing a politician from Texas. I learned so much from them. Debating with Kwan about politics changed the way I viewed so many things. If moderating would have been efficient back then, we could still be enjoying those conversations. And what do you know, politics is gone and the issue is still here.<

Awww, pack4fun, now you've gone and done it: you're making me remember all the things I truly loved about the political forum, in its heyday before it things got really wild. Yes, I think that's worth bringing back again.

I don't think we can ever learn, grow and bond together in the sterile atmosphere of 'a lovely day in Mr. Rawgers' Neighborhood in which not a discouraging word is heard' the way we have in some of our open-minded adventures in which we examine our belief systems and challenge ourselves and each other to pursue truth rather than the status quo. I will even venture that knowledge in the raw food movement has evolved considerably because of open-mindedness on our forum and others like it, wherever free exchange of ideas is not squelched.

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]

I just want to pitch in that I think Bryan is doing the best he can and that I'm daily reminded that I don't envy what must be the Herculean task he has of sifting through the threads and precisely discerning not just the matter of a post, but the tone. Thank goodness he'll have help now from the always temperate Kwan!

Perhaps retreating so much from the way things are being done now will allow the moderators to finally decide what degree of censorship[I use this in a nonpolitical sense] is too repressive and what degree is too lenient, and establish a good medium somewhere between those two. Although I believe that limiting the boards to "sharing personal experiences," though well-meant, may conceivably lead to lackluster posts or worse, to greater egotism and consequently to greater contention, I could be wrong. So perhaps Bryan's request that we try it his way for a while, and limit our discourse to personal results and to helpful suggestions, with maybe a bit of scientific data debate[I use this in the forensic sense]to satisfy those of us that like disinterested info, is worth a try.

It is disconcerting to me that the original post in this thread, which was meant to inform rather than threaten, is becoming, surprise! contentious. Maybe we just can't help ourselves . . .

Hm,...well, I'm open to whatever is ultimately decided.

Pakd4fun, thanks for what you said about the debates between Jose and me. Means a lot!

I hope it will be possible for Kwan, Bryan, and John to come together on a coherent and effective moderation strategy that is fair to all of us, AND consistently enforced.

BRYAN, would you be willing to wait until John returns and the three of you are able to come together for discussion, before any new rules are set? Only seems fair, given that Kwan will now be moderator also.

I personally don't see how a consistent line could be drawn to prohibit all debate. Where will discussion end and debate begin? IMO, leaving that totally up to the moderator would result in complete confusion and a feeling that the moderator is acting subjectively - rather than objectively - in removing posts/threads/people from the forum.

On the other hand, it's much easier to recognize a personal attack, and delete it.

"Nip it in the bud". (Somebody else said that. I forgot who)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2009 11:23PM by suncloud.

"It is disconcerting to me that the original post in this thread, which was meant to inform rather than threaten, is becoming, surprise! contentious. Maybe we just can't help ourselves . . ."

I would like someone to point out where this thread became contentious, because I don't see it.

We need to be able to be honest without people taking things personally. We need to think twice before accusing others of being something other than positive. If we say there is contention where there is not, than we are creating an environment for it. We don't need added drama.