Funniest Practical Joke ............

[Arctickat]

You show your ignorance even more so with this statement for two reasons. First, I can get 30 soldiers signed up as new member is the next three hours that will tell you to pack your bags...you challenge is ridiculously easy.

Agreed, that was an ignorant challenge because I would have assumed you would be honourable regarding the challenge and not have to pad your numbers with new recruits to the city to win my challenge. I had assumed you would select city regulars who actually care about this site. I guess my assumptions are wrong. Clearly, your posts continue to be irrelevant and ineffective, I may take time to be bothered to read what you think of me in the future, but don't expect me to respond any further to your schoolyard bullying.

For the record, the warning I got regarding ERDoc was that if I crossed him he would chew me up, spit me out and use my shattered bones to clean his teeth, you were the only one I was warned was an asshole.

[Just Plain Ruff]

be nice everyone or admin is gonna lock this thread.

If you can't play nice in the schoolyard then go to your separate classrooms and have a 5 minute time out.

[Arctickat]

No Worries Ruff, I'm done letting them egg me on.

[spenac]

For the record, the warning I got regarding ERDoc was that if I crossed him he would chew me up, spit me out and use my shattered bones to clean his teeth, you were the only one I was warned was an asshole.

In defense of Dwayne he is capable of some very good posts so don't ignore him. In fact me and him have had some very rude knockdown arguments. But in the end we have so far been able to walk away still friends.

[spenac]

be nice everyone or admin is gonna lock this thread.

If you can't play nice in the schoolyard then go to your separate classrooms and have a 5 minute time out.

Yes sir.

[Kaisu]

Kaisu, what exactly "doesn't follow" from what? Please specify where my posts on this thread have been in error or unclear or deficient in some other way. Unless of course your response is a practical joke.

What I was specifically referring to was your post defining three words in such a way as to appear to prove your point - being that practical jokes are always unprofessional and detrimental to the profession and our patients. Here.. let me demonstrate

Note - definition from Merriem-Webster

Practical joke - a joke involving something that is done rather than said; especially : a trick played on a person

Now your definition of practical joke was 1. Something done for amusement to the detriment of someone else.

This begs the question.. as the definition you selected assumes the position you take. It is the detriment portion that we are debating. That is the flaw in your argument.

Respectfully

Kaisu

[Michael]

What I was specifically referring to was your post defining three words in such a way as to appear to prove your point - being that practical jokes are always unprofessional and detrimental to the profession and our patients.

Excuse me, but please show me exactly where I said anything like "practical jokes are always unprofessional and detrimental to the profession and our patients," since I don't recall it in the post of mine to which you took exception. I don't recall it even in my posts that followed, but we can debate that, if you wish, separately, as soon as you quote my saying "practical jokes are always unprofessional and detrimental to the profession and our patients." Maybe you've confused my posts with someone else's.

Rather, in the post to which you took exception, I displayed without comment a lengthy article headed by a brief abstract. When someone asked in jest whether he had to read the whole thing, you spared him the trouble by quoting its topic as "the prevalence and long-term consequences of physical and psychological aggression in the form of nasty teasing and violence and/or threats of violence and short-term consequences of bullying at work including physiological stress response in victims," and you added that the article "specifically defines psychological aggression as something that has an 'intent to do harm.'" But then, to my surprise, you wrote that you "miss the relevance of this article to the discussion at hand," so I did the only thing I could think of doing, which was to show you that among the common accepted usages of the very few terms you yourself indicated in your accurate compression of the article were some (I thought) self-evident definitions.

As for the definition you prefer, having discarded mine as tendentious and irrelevant (though I think they are neither), I'm content to accept it. Here, pick the definition of "trick" (from the definition of "practical joke" you favor) that makes sense in the context of practical jokes, and find me the Golden Rule at work.

Finally, you explain as "the flaw in [my] argument" that "It is the detriment portion that we are debating," but I don't see a flaw and I don't see that I was arguing at all when I posted the article to which you took exception; rather, I presented testimony to speak for itself. If my selection was so baldly off-topic, that too would have spoken for itself, and everyone would have been wondering "What does that article have to do with the topic?" Around here such bemusement would be posted rapidly and in choir.

Over the course of your comments on my post you've by now chided me for sophistry - ie, bad faith - as well as for incompetence in attempting to deceive you in pursuit of some agenda you ascribe to me but that haven't bothered to make explicit. If that's writing "Respectfully," as you claim in your valediction, I'd hate to see what you call disrespect.

In responding to you from my repeated perplexity to your complaints about my contributions here, I've made an effort to be courteous and put the best constructions I could imagine on your motives, whether or not I thought I understood what you were saying. I've made an effort to be faithful to your words and what I believed you meant by them. When I don't know what you mean, I ask, and when I don't recognize your reflection of my efforts, I also ask.

Your messages to me on this thread, in content but mostly in tone, have diminished the confidence with which until now I had looked forward to reading your thoughts whenever I saw you had posted something on any topic. I'm here to learn, and among the things I've learned is when to begin screening out certain types of expression. I'd be disappointed to start to feel like doing that with yours.

[Kaisu]

[

I'm here to learn, and among the things I've learned is when to begin screening out certain types of expression. I'd be disappointed to start to feel like doing that with yours.

Likewise I'm sure.

[Just Plain Ruff]

play nice guys or I'll skip Bubba the schoolyard bully on ya

[mark]

I don't know why I come to this site anymore. I guess it's because I want to learn something or discuss work-related topics with like-minded people, but it seems like most threads with any potential end up turning into this "He said, she said, I'm right, you're wrong" crap. It's discouraging really. I understand there will be differences in opinion, but for the sake of the site, it would be nice if all the bullshit could be minimized to allow whichever thread it is to continue on in the direction it was meant to go. If you feel strongly about a particular post or must confront someone else's opinion, Private Messages are an effective way to convey your feelings. If you feel strongly about a thread in general, would it be possible to start another thread debating the professionalism and/or quality of that topic? It would provide a good avenue to express your feelings, and allow others who aren't interested in the validity of the topic a way to avoid sifting through all the drivel that accompanies these little disputes. All in all, I think it would be a more effective and organized way to get everyone's points across without forcing them on people who aren't as concerned about with whatever disputes there may be.

This posting is not a reference to any particular thread, but instead a comment on a pattern that has been emerging on this site for quite some time. I find myself visiting the site less and less, mainly because it takes so long to sift through all the arguments and back-and-forth one-upping that getting any useful information out of a thread isn't worth the time it takes to get it. I've said my peace. Do with it what you will.