Eric Paddon
Member
"Eric has not done that which shows the essential difference in our approach."
Defending one's own POV that is strongly felt does not mean I have to "respect" a particular viewpoint that I happen to believe requires some very dubious premises to be arrived at. Those are my convictions on the subject and I think any person is entitled to them so long as he is willing to defend his views through the use of well-argued factual information rather than deliberately inflammatory soundbites that ultimately invite a reaction from those who feel otherwise.
"He has been rude and impersonal throughout"
I considered your characterizations of the exhibitions rude and impersonal in slamming an entire group of people who have attended these exhibitions and found them rewarding, in the interests of promoting a false stereotype of the typical artifact exhibit visitor and then suggsting its the presence of artifact exhibitions that brings out that kind of behavior when the record is clear that it doesn't. That was the initial rudeness, combined with your words like "morbid" etc. that got my hackles raised as they always are when I hear that rhetoric. If anti-salvors want to use that rhetoric when making their points, they either have to be prepared to expect something in response or take a different approach. They can't have it both ways.
"and shown no compassion for how others feel whatsoever."
I have argued on behalf of a principle and defended it. Nothing more. This is an exchange over ideas and arguing them forcefully if need be (especially if others choose to inflame things with their rhetorical rudeness) and unlike others, it isn't the kind of thing that gives me a headache after awhile (unless a certain gent named ESP were to come back from the dead).
My defense of RMSTI is based on my gratitude for what they gave me by making my greatest dream as a Titanic enthusiast come true. When I see people who attend these exhibitions unfairly stereotyped in the manner in which you did in your initial post that got me upset, that becomes to me a decidedly uncompassionate slur on all of those like me who came away with something different, and if the stereotype is used unjustly only to single out artifact exhibitions when the evidence shows more evidence of that behavior happening elsewhere like at J. Dawson's gravesite in Halifax, then that too becomes something that I think must be objected to in strong terms. And for doing that, I'm glad that I did.
Defending one's own POV that is strongly felt does not mean I have to "respect" a particular viewpoint that I happen to believe requires some very dubious premises to be arrived at. Those are my convictions on the subject and I think any person is entitled to them so long as he is willing to defend his views through the use of well-argued factual information rather than deliberately inflammatory soundbites that ultimately invite a reaction from those who feel otherwise.
"He has been rude and impersonal throughout"
I considered your characterizations of the exhibitions rude and impersonal in slamming an entire group of people who have attended these exhibitions and found them rewarding, in the interests of promoting a false stereotype of the typical artifact exhibit visitor and then suggsting its the presence of artifact exhibitions that brings out that kind of behavior when the record is clear that it doesn't. That was the initial rudeness, combined with your words like "morbid" etc. that got my hackles raised as they always are when I hear that rhetoric. If anti-salvors want to use that rhetoric when making their points, they either have to be prepared to expect something in response or take a different approach. They can't have it both ways.
"and shown no compassion for how others feel whatsoever."
I have argued on behalf of a principle and defended it. Nothing more. This is an exchange over ideas and arguing them forcefully if need be (especially if others choose to inflame things with their rhetorical rudeness) and unlike others, it isn't the kind of thing that gives me a headache after awhile (unless a certain gent named ESP were to come back from the dead).
My defense of RMSTI is based on my gratitude for what they gave me by making my greatest dream as a Titanic enthusiast come true. When I see people who attend these exhibitions unfairly stereotyped in the manner in which you did in your initial post that got me upset, that becomes to me a decidedly uncompassionate slur on all of those like me who came away with something different, and if the stereotype is used unjustly only to single out artifact exhibitions when the evidence shows more evidence of that behavior happening elsewhere like at J. Dawson's gravesite in Halifax, then that too becomes something that I think must be objected to in strong terms. And for doing that, I'm glad that I did.
