"He who angers you conquers you"---Sister Elizabeth Kenny

[Atticus]

Some who post here lately have been conquered before they even touched the keyboard. This would be bad enough if it was someone's message that so angered them. In many cases, though, it seems that the message is secondary: the identity of the poster is enough to cause some to immediately compose an ad hominem rant that only tangentially involves the subject of the post.

There are some who post on DU with whom I almost always agree.

There are some with whom I agree on some issues; disagree on others.

And, I am still waiting for some of you to write something with which I agree.

But, I will READ the posts of anyone and consider each on its own merits. I am always pleased and often surprised to find common ground with someone with whom I have strongly disagreed in the past.

Knee-jerk unrecs and ad hominem spews clutter up the board and make DU less than the classy, informative, and intelligent source it used to be.

[stopbush]

1. Disagree. More often than not, he who angers you motivates you.

Frankly, the idea that we shouldn't allow thing to anger us pisses me off...especially as the good sister herself went after Dr. Raphael Cilento pretty fiercely after he criticized her nursing work in Australia (as did many others, BTW).

Pot, meet kettle.

[Atticus]

5. I guess that quotation and my post were a little too general.

I agree that when anger motivates us to achieve something worthwhile or resist something harmful it is good. That is anger that we were able to manage or channel into something constructive.

The anger that I meant to criticize is that which we allow to control us. This is the "blind" anger that simply responds by lashing out at anyone thought to be responsible for a perceived attack or slight. Those who look no further than my moniker to decide that they disagree with whatever it is that I've posted aren't controlling their anger; it's controlling them.

Sorry for the lack of clarity. Thanks for your response.

[Th1onein]

2. I just put two people on ignore. I agree with you.

There are some people here who just want to start trouble. It's best not to waste time arguing with them. They are getting what they want when they engage you in their bullshit arguments, that fly from topic to topic. It's like trying to catch jello in your fist. Completely useless.

[mmonk]

3. Without anger, change is never made.

[Atticus]

6. Anger can bring about change, but it is not always necessary.

While I'm sure that Gandhi, Lincoln and Dr. King got angry, their legacies are based in large measure upon their ability to respond to provocation with calm, deliberate, reasoned opposition. Perhaps that was very well-managed anger. I think of it as passion which defeated anger.

[stopbush]

7. And all were felled by assassin's bullets.

Perhaps the lesson is to remain calm but wear a bullet proof vest.

[thotzRthingz]

4. my personal viewpoint? it's not so much as to what or who might

anger us. It is what we do with, how we channel such anger.

Case in point: (and IMO)... America as a whole was fairly angry with the BUSH administration (and they deserved our anger). But we did not rise up and over-throw the government. Instead, we channeled that anger (to a great degree) at the ballot box. In 2006 we took CONGRESS away from the rubber-stamping republiCONs. In 2008 we added to the DEM majority in both houses of Congress, and we put a relatively unknown, freshman Senator, in the White House.

In short; I think it is ok to get angry, but I do not think it ok to act-out in like manner. I personally am very upset about the way health care reform is unfolding... in fact, one might say that I am damned angry about it. I have channeled said anger, and have re-doubled my effort to CHANGE IT (i.e., writing and calling our elected representatives... and especially asking SIXTY members in the HOUSE to stand firm on their PLEDGE to have a public option be signed into law). Will they do that? I think there's a good chance they will. But if they don't, I will work even harder to see that ANYONE WHO OPPOSED a strong PUBLIC OPTION is not re-elected.

As for DU itself:

I used to post here under a different name (which doesn't really matter). I was not then, and am not now, a "1000+ post" type. I do read here a lot, and only occasionally post. But I agree with the OP... this place is not what it used to be.

I have silently, until NOW (in this very post), used my own method for dealing with what I deem to be a "troll and/or disruptor". I now invite each of you to do likewise: simply put them on IGNORE (and you'll not see their comments any longer). I do occasionally engage in debate, but I keep it civil... never attacking the PERSON, but instead meeting what I deem to be "misinformation" with FACT. I see no point in wasting my time or energy in a non-productive manner.

My thanks go to Atticus for raising this issue, in a most civilized manner.