Ping: JohnH and Reggie
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
JimH wrote:
Let's get back to talking boats? How about it?


I think that is an excellent idea. Discussing personal issues is always
a can of worms let unopened.

--
Reggie

That's my story and I am sticking to it!


"It is fatal in psychological operations, just as in ordinary public
relations, to indulge in insult, contempt or scorn. A boorish put-down
might give the boor a feeling of satisfaction, but it is the ultimate
No-No in psyops because no matter who you are, or what circumstances
you are in, a direct insult is an adrenalin booster that makes you hate
the person who insulted you. And not only the person, but what he or
she stands for."

(From:
http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.c...16&p aper=479)
attribution only- not intended or suggested as fodder for discussion
in this group

Chuck,
Can you translate that into English? grin

I am interested what you typed into the search engine to find that quote.

--
Reggie

That's my story and I am sticking to it!

It was something I remembered reading in an analysis of an OT foreign
policy issue.

Insulting speech and behavior has complicated that particular exercise
of foreign policy, and hampered the effectiveness of at least some of
the parties involved.

Much of the "conversation" between traditional adversaries in this
group isn't entirely dissimilar to psy-ops (just as many of the OT
arguments advanced here are nearly word-for-word regurgitations of the
popular propandists of the hour), so I thought that the observations
that insults, etc, are counter-productive in an adversarial environment
(unless ones goal is to increase hatred and hostility) might be of
interest to some people following this thread.

I lobbed it in here tagged to one of your responses because I was
fairly certain you wouldn't interpret it as a personal remark- and I'm
glad to see that you did not.

We would be better off remaining on topic, even if that excludes a few
NG regulars who almost never post on-topic but almost never fail to act
badly in the OT conversations. If we can't remain on topic, we should
at least avoid personal attack and insult. Those who will not avoid
personal attack and insult merely because it is proper to do so might
be so motivated if they realize that
the personal attacks and insults damage *their own* credibility far
more than the intended victim's.