We have some very dysfunctional posting criticizing Bisbee politics, its residents and past residents in our forums. It isn’t the opinions, personal politics, or age of the poster that is responsible, it is the poster’s absolute intransigence and ability to hold civil discourse. They no longer query or discuss, they speak in absolutes. Though intelligent enough to know and use multi-syllabic words their personal intransigence and name calling makes it almost impossible for them to be eloquent. Why? Eloquence is the writer’s ability to persuade through
written discourse; but these otherwise creative writers are no longer persuasive. In order to be persuasive one must be willing to listen to and respect others. These posters have deserted that ability and have replaced eloquence with riposte and wit with sarcasm. As to the talent sometimes evident in their writing, this combination of a strong skill in one area and a shortcoming in another isn’t uncommon; the idiot savant is an extreme example and also suffers from a similar if more severe lack of communication skills. A healthy personality approaches discourse as the give and take of opposing views, rarely
as a personal affront; but too often these posters give or respond to an alternative view not with interest or appreciation but abuse and scorn. They go out of their way to alienate fellow posters then decry the eventual results. A casual forum reader may have noticed a preoccupation by some with a poster’s identity and
felt ambivalent on the issue. On most forums the true identity of a poster is a closely guarded secret meant to
prevent discourse from devolving into personal wars. Only in Bisbee is that anonymity decried and posters encouraged to post under their own identities. Does a name affixed to an opinion truly increase understanding of a post or simply offer the potential to excoriate the poster? Simply watching the number and intensity of personal
remarks which increased on the forums should answer that question. Beyond the presentation of expert testimony or external source, when has an opinion ever needed a
pedigree? Identity waxes important when discourse wanes and the goal is no longer the elevation of ideas but the ability to employ ad hominem attacks. Discourse isn’t important to diatribe. The vitriolic nature that replaces discourse in this manner stems not from genius but from a lack of it. Those who feel the need to defend their positions with personal attacks do not grow in appreciation they shrink into an isolation that requires an ever more aggressive stance. Forums populated by the young frequently have such problems but rarely where the population is over thirty. The result isn’t only a reduction in the quality of posts it is the backlash that comes from the reader’s opinion of it. Personal attacks evoke strong emotions in all of us. If anyone needs an answer to the question why certain people were not elected to public office, look no further than the content of their posts and the personal attacks those posters employed on these
forums; familiarity with their attitudes toward others influenced those results.

We also have some dysfunctional local posters in reflexive lockstep with the local establishment. Those people are no less likely to engage in disparaging attack and tainted argument, but do seem more likely to use truly savage tactics.

Let us face some facts here: The odds are that we can all identify the offenders of whom the original post speaks, as well as those referenced in this post. Just as did the original poster, I will call out no names; there is neither need nor reason to do so.

Speaking for myself alone, I can only say that in the absence of vicious attacks and off-topic demeaning and distracting posts, I will not avoid nor shrink from discourse with even those I think are most reprehensible. The caveat here is that the discourse needs to remain issue-centered, with a commitment to exchange of information, ideas, and relevant opinion. (I will cite here the exchange which took place only yesterday concerning taxation and tax policy on another forum.)

I have tried to live up to that approach. I've too often failed, as have we all. We are humans, with our own strongly-held ideas of what is right and proper. I would really like civility -- but cannot allow myself to be vilified and attacked. And on a related note: attack on and disparagement of political figures is not the same phenomenon; those who place themselves in that position -- those who actively seek public position and responsibility -- should realize that the entire history of politics virtually insures attack. It's an old and established fact and tradition, engaged in historically by all.

Au contraire, mon frere. I took the topic back to the topic of the thread (at the same time I 'bumped' the Obama thread, so that both sides could get equal attention / ridicule). The tax conversation, while civil and informative, was off-topic. Besides, the subject is important and complicated enough to deserve its own thread.
I just looked, and can see nothing in the nature of personal attack in subsequent posts except for one by one of the trolls who will always be with us. I see some posts which call attention to the same kind of effort put forth here by "Travesty", and which are (as his) humorous to a greater or lesser extent.

Come to think of it, Jack, YOU did exactly that, as a newbie.

As I recall, you set out to find out "the truth" and a few people (who quite possibly might have had some self-serving interests,) were more than eager to tell you "everything there was to know" about me. And you took a side based on that, and you even joined the attacks with gusto.

By and though your actions, you have even encouraged an atmosphere of the feeding frenzy.

There's a hell of a lot more to a person than what his or her enemies on an internet forum have to say about them. I bet they don't even know what high school I went to, but they claim to know everything about me that matters?