I joined the SPCR forum because I have a newfound interest in quiet computing. So far so good, I hope we can agree that my interest is just as authentic and valid as the interest of everybody else who find quiet computing worthwile?
This thread was about Bluefront's approach to promoting truth in advertising. As I am not an engineer I can ask technical questions but not provide technical answers. However, as I have extensive experience in sales and marketing, which is all about communication to promote a cause, a service, or a product, I did (and do) feel qualified to make a positive contribution based on my views, my knowledge, and my professional experience. I hope we can agree, that it should not be seen as offensive if I participate in the discussion based on my background in marketing and sales?
In my contribution to the discussion I presented a different approach to promoting truth in advertising. As I know that most visitors on this site are engineers who do not have experience in sales and marketing, I made an effort to explain the points I presented and the argumentation why I, from my experience in sales and marketing, view things that way I do. I hope we can agree that presenting argumenation and explanation to support a personal point of view is a reasonable approach to any discussion?
I received a couple of sceptical responses that indicated that a couple of posters did not agree, based on two central points in my argumentation. As I read their answers, to me, they indicated that I did not manage to present my point clearly enough, so I elaborated further with argumentation and explanation in my following post. I hope we can agree that a discussion is about exchanging points of view and trying to make the other party understand why we do, say, or think something different rather than a simple exchange of proclamations and drawing lines in the sand?
I know from countless discussions between salespeople and engineers that a lot of the disagreement comes from the fact that engineers have a structured world view where everything is absolute with a few exceptions while salespeople have a relative world view where everything is non-standard with a few exceptions. I presented this fact in a neutral way as I do not see another world view as wrong, just different. I hope we can agree that pointing out the fact that different people have different reference points does not assume or express that one point of reference is better than any other?
Until this point the discussion had been an exchange of points of view with argumentation and not personal attacks, but that changed when I got a response with: "Thank you for the Marketing 101 refresher course Thomas. I think most of us are familiar with the concepts involved." I hope we can agree that most people would find it offensive if somebody insinuates that the skills, experience, and knowledge that make up the core of one's profession is something that any Joe Blow can pick up by reading a book or two?
Now, instead of going ballistic I adressed the other points made, and I specifically included "If you transfer those two differing perceptions of the same thing to discussions then you have the difference between criticism and critique - one is unfavorably critical while the other is supportive and constructive." to point out that "My critique of Bluefront's approach does not mean that I do not recognize his contribution to SPCR, but was suggesting that he can more effectively promote his cause and make it easier to reach his goal." to deflect the conversation from personal attacks towards discussing an issue based on differing points of reference. I hope we can agree, that it is a better approach to try to deflect an attack instead of just responding with a counter-attack?
In the same post I gave a recap of my suggestion to, what, based on my professional experience, could be a better and more effective approach to promoting truth in advertising (a campaign based on selling and marketing a cause!). Combined with my deflection of the personal attack, I attempted to get the aggressive poster's eayes back on the ball. I hope we can agree that trying to re-focus a discussion on the issue of discussion is not agreesive?
The response I got from Bluefront indicated that he did not understand the concept of my suggestion in the way I intended him to understand my suggestion, so I tried to explain it in a different manner in my following message to him. In addition to Bluefront's message, I got two very disrespectful responses which stereotyped me and people in my profession as aggresive hustlers with no understanding of business! I hope we can agree that stereotyping somebody in a very negative way cannot be be called tolerant, respectful, or friendly?
Though my response directed at the two intollerant warriors was not exactly respectful either, I did in fact ask them to respect my area of competence (sales & marketing) just as I respect their area of competence (engineering). I also pointed out, once again, that we are looking at the issues from two different points of view without making any claims as to who is right and who is wrong! I hope we can agree that though I did not turn the other cheek second time around then it is a reasonable request to be respected as a person and as a professional?
From then on things escalated on both sides and in addition to argue for my points of view on the topic of this thread (truth in advertising) I alsa had to argue for my right to have another professional background and my competence in that profession!
At some point, qviri tried to pour oil on the wild waters and I welcomed that to end the personal attacks, but apparently that did not help one bit as there were still a couple of bigots with something to say.
I am sorry if I ruffled a few feathers, but I cannot accept if you put the blame squarely on me alone!
Now, I am not going to respond to any more personal attacks on me or my profession.