I have no idea who coined the labels:

POLLY----------------------------------------------------DOOMER

But im my opinion these labels have been extremely antagonistic and erroneous, also, I might add very unproductive.

The best example I can use (example open for debate):

When the engineers that designed the o-rings on the shuttles booster rocket determined that under certain temperatures they may be compromised and result in possible death they wanted to warn N.A.S.A. of this possibility.

Had N.A.S.A. at this point given this information to the astronauts and allowed them to make an intelligent decision on whether or not they wanted to continue or even prepare mentally for the possibilities ,it would have given the astronauts an opportunity to decide whether they wanted to go thru with the launch. At that point I am quite sure Some of the shuttle astronauts would have gone thru with the launch but some would have declined. I doubt at that point they would have looked at each other and started calling each other doomers or pollys.

It has always seemed immature to me to square off like this. Pollys have the info and dont think it will explode (y2k) they have faith. Should this faith be critized and attacked? On the other hand we the doomers have info. and think it may explode and dont want to go thru with the launch. Does that make us doomers? should this prudent position be attack? When neither individuals truly know the eventual outcome, how in the hell can there be these incredible convictions on both sides. I submit its the labels!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lets lose them quick

A solution may be a more diplomatic labeling.

Any suggestion?????

-- David Butts (dciinc@aol.com), October 09, 1999

Answers

Maybe we need to get away from the whole notion of "labeling," David. Aren't labels usually supplied by someone for someone or something else? People don't generally label themselves. How about letting people decide for themselves what they want to be referred to as? But that begs the question: what do people want to be called by others? I propose that all so-called doomers (as one myself, or one who's been labelled as one) be called "The Handsome and/or Beautiful Wise Ones of Insight and Concern." Doesn't make a good acronym at all (let's see: HBWOIC!) but this way we can make our own titles and let the Pollys make their own.

-- Kurt Ayau (Ayau@iwinet.com), October 09, 1999.

Labels are a debating device. We use them constantly because we have seen just how effective they are.

You just say that because you are a polly (doomer).

It's an easy way to dismiss an argument or fact that you don't like.

But facts are inconvient things. And logic and truth are harsh mistresses.

In about 6 months it'll all be so obvious that we'll all wonder how we missed seeing it. I'll predict now that both (labled) camps will be very suprised at how things turn out. And unlike the space shuttle it will not be an all or nothing event.

-- LM (latemarch@usa.net), October 09, 1999.

Pollys and Doomers--simplistic football of ideas--the basis for cultivating good guys and bad guys---basis for ridicule and praise-----more important to me is the USE which seems to me to be one of control of behavior by inference and accusation(instituted on a national level) . Risk assessment 1-10 can be coverted to hoarding 1-10, alarmist 1-10, danger to society 1-10 etc. with subsequent social sanctions. This is a level of discourse more appropriate to 13 year old's emotional and intellectual development and does little to address the devils in the details. I have no alternative suggestions other than to encourage a steadfast refusal to be caught in the game and focus on the rules and rule makers and the direction this all leads. Even a small child knows to point their finger away from themselves when up to mischief. An older child knows to get others to fight in order to draw away attention. Alot of what I see is bait and switch, finger pointing and fantasy spinning by all involved.

-- John Q (watched@learned.com), October 09, 1999.

Link to Michael Hyatts article"

In the above article you will see examples where lableing was used to try and silence a messenger of bad news. It was generally effective.

Nuf said.

-- LM (latemarch@usa.net), October 09, 1999.

A solution may be a more diplomatic labeling.

At least, eh? How about no labelling whatsoever? I'm not convinced that the sort of agressive use of labels seen here and at other fora is particularly a debate tool. It is rather, I suggest, poor communication and language skills, the stuff of schoolyard taunting - "hey dummy, moron, etc., did your mother have any children who lived?" It's K-8 immaturity in grown bodies, from adults with grown brains who should know better, but don't because sadly no one ever taught them something better. It is justified and rationalized away with "hey, I'm angry, so I can, so there!" What is misunderstood, however, is that feelings can be, and are to be expressed without verbal abuse. Name-calling, whether it's "idiot, moron, doomer/polly (in all their permutations and combinations), is an indicator of the central flaw in 'western' thinking and action. The central flaw, an almost pathological immaturity that has been normalized and called "human nature," which is utter nonsense.

If posters to any threads here wish to disagree with another, the mature, enlightened and intelligent way to go about that is to criticize the idea being presented, rather than make ad hominem attacks, otherwise known and labelling and name-calling. Folks who act like grade-schoolers may learn if ignored, or they may not. They may or may not learn how to communicate effectively, and eventually develop psychologically mature boundaries that enables them to dialogue with other people rather than escalate invective. They may not.

My few cents worth, Lovelies!

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 09, 1999.

Akkkkk! So much for my HTML. Let's try again.

Link to Michael Hyatts article< /a>

In the above article you will see examples where lableing was used to try and silence a messenger of bad news. It was generally effective.

Nuf said.

-- LM (latemarch@usa.net), October 09, 1999.

Don't ya just love HTML?! Closing your tag,... :-)

What is that phrase?..."for lack of 4 keystrokes the post was nearly lost." Thanks for your link LM!

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 09, 1999.

I would add to my above thoughts that there is at least one other important reason to learn mature communication skills/unlearn the other way. That is: in a paragraph loaded with labels and ad hominem type attacks it becomes impossible to understand the possibly good point the communicator is trying to make. Therefore it behooves everyone who wants to be understood to be as clear as possible when stating their ideas, and resist cluttering them up with immature sniping. One of the marks of a psychologically mature person is the ability to keep that stuff inside their head, (part of a long process which includes the ability to understand that inside one's head and outside one's head are two different things - otherwise known as 'separation and individuation').

What a challenge this human life is, eh?

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 09, 1999.