Snootiness

You shouldn't project your feelings upon others.
You can ignore a poster if one offends your sense of being.

I agree Holy. I'm not, however, convinced that this isn't a more general issue rather than one that is specific to surveyors. I see it everywhere that I look. A general disinclination towards common courtesy, and collegiality. Discourse in general is becoming impossible without vitriol and contempt whenever there is even the slightest potential for disagreement, and god forbid that you point this out to anybody, lest you be labeled "snowflake" or "thin-skinned". Common courtesy sadly is in steep decline.

I've heard that a certian K M is offering a course in courteous internet skills.
It's the bonhomie of real good feel good projects.
Always use the expression "best regards".
Or, as they say here in Arkansas, "I hope your dog/wife comes home" which yields differing emotional strata, depending on the mental/emotional state of those close enough to tell the gender of a skunk, from the first hint that comes over the wisp of wind.
Mr. Holy Cow, If you have noticed, even in the bovine community, when the food in the trough gets low, manners often suffer....
So, if you got us a printin machine, and made us all some duty free, interest free cash, it could be a boon to the local economy.
And, we'd all appreciate the economic assistance.
Nate

Nate The Surveyor, post: 439285, member: 291 wrote: I've heard that a certian K M is offering a course in courteous internet skills.
It's the bonhomie of real good feel good projects.
Always use the expression "best regards".
Or, as they say here in Arkansas, "I hope your...
Nate

Where's that font that says: "sarcastically serious"?

Oh yeah, history! Let's not forget that some of the posters here have a very long history of disagreement with one another on whole host of issues, a history that goes all of the way back to a certain BB started by Mark Deal and accessed by many (myself included) over our dial up modems.

RRain

Randy Rain, post: 439311, member: 35 wrote: Let's not forget that some of the posters here have a very long history

Randy, you totally forgot to add the the "Village idiot" (me) to your post. 😉

Holy Cow, post: 439277, member: 50 wrote: Is snootiness somehow

Relative to being a "jerk"? I think so, and I think it also occurs from genetics. I just ignore it. And I suspect you do too. 😎
No sense dealing with them as there is no social protocol ingrained within.

Randy Rain, post: 439311, member: 35 wrote: Oh yeah, history! Let's not forget that some of the posters here have a very long history of disagreement with one another on whole host of issues, a history that goes all of the way back to a certain BB started by Mark Deal and accessed by many (myself included) over our dial up modems.

RRain

I believe I have the unique distinction of being cited by the forum's congeniality official for "Intellectual Vagrancy". 🙂

Is snootiness somehow required to pass the survey licensure examination? What ever happened to professional congeniality?

Leroy 200 said to Leroy 120 my bearing is bigger than your bearing, so theire!

Randy Rain, post: 439283, member: 35 wrote: I agree Holy. I'm not, however, convinced that this isn't a more general issue rather than one that is specific to surveyors. I see it everywhere that I look. A general disinclination towards common courtesy, and collegiality. Discourse in general is becoming impossible without vitriol and contempt whenever there is even the slightest potential for disagreement, and god forbid that you point this out to anybody, lest you be labeled "snowflake" or "thin-skinned". Common courtesy sadly is in steep decline.

I believe this is all a result of fewer and fewer personal interactions. 2 centuries ago, when most communications were conducted face to face, you didn't insult the person you were talking to because there was always the threat of physical violence being conducted against you. Now it is possible to conduct all your business and all of your personal interactions without another person actually being in front of you. You can sit in your recliner and insult dozens of people all over the world, with little worry of any repercussions.

Gene Kooper, post: 439318, member: 9850 wrote: I believe I have the unique distinction of being cited by the forum's congeniality official for "Intellectual Vagrancy".

"Intellectual vagrancy" is a wonderful and memorable phrase. By "vagrancy", of course, what is meant is the classical definition of a vagrant as being "someone who wanders idly from place to place without lawful or visible means of support" and when "intellectual" modifies it as an adjective, the wandering and lack of support refers to habits of thought.

Upbringing has so much to do with this. If you are raised the way that I was then as my mother says "If you don't have something nice to say don't say anything at all." and perhaps more to the point as my father always said "It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." As I have come to understand it it is possible disagree without being disagreeable and it is also possible to agree to disagree and yet remain friends.

RRain

Kent McMillan, post: 439324, member: 3 wrote: "Intellectual vagrancy" is a wonderful and memorable phrase. By "vagrancy", of course, what is meant is the classical definition of a vagrant as being "someone who wanders idly from place to place without lawful or visible means of support" and when "intellectual" modifies it as an adjective, the wandering and lack of support refers to habits of thought.

Why, Kent I'm happy to read that you haven't forgotten.

BTW...did you ever do any scholarship on diversity cases to understand that just because it is a SCOTUS decision it doesn't mean that it is a precedent everywhere? Back in 2011 you struggled mightily with that. If you haven't figured it out yet, please investigate the Erie Doctrine. It explains the history of diversity cases that are moved from state courts to federal courts. The federal court, "must apply state substantive law to resolve claims under state law." For a diversity case like Clement v. Packer where the U.S. Supreme Court assumed the role of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, it means that the SCOTUS decision is a precedent only in Pennsylvania. That doesn't mean that courts outside of Pennsylvania cannot find it to be persuasive argument. They can. However, it is a precedent in only 1 state.

Cheers

Gene Kooper, post: 439334, member: 9850 wrote: did you ever do any scholarship on diversity cases to understand that just because it is a SCOTUS decision it doesn't mean that it is a precedent everywhere?

Actually, the principles laid out in the US Supreme Court's decision in Clement v. Packer have been cited in other states, referring specifically to Clement v. Packer. While I appreciate your desire to relitigate Clement v. Packer, you're wandering in more than a century late and with no visible support.

Holy Cow, post: 439277, member: 50 wrote: Collegiality is the relationship between colleagues. Colleagues are those explicitly united in a common purpose and respecting each other's abilities to work toward that purpose. A colleague is an associate in a profession or in a civil or ecclesiastical office.

In that respect I would wholeheartedly profess there are those here that in primo aspectu project an almost brusque and condescending air of superiority. And with secundum ad aspectu they apparently exude all the human grace of a warm turd in a tepid punchbowl. But then, let us allow each to pursue their own prerogative, no matter how distant the beat of that distant drummer they think they hear. And also let us all allow those to maintain their delusions of superior accomplishment within our field.

As a professional I look for common ground with my colleagues as I am intelligent enough to understand we all maintain various perspectives. And in the case of some of our more caustic members I believe the common ground of agreement that we most assuredly professionally share is a need to maintain their geographic location and stay the hell out of my geographic location.

I will cheerfully and professionally reciprocate. 😉

In Okie-speak: Those that think their poop comes prepackaged in cellophane with an air-freshener stapled to it are sorely mistaken.

Holy Cow, post: 439277, member: 50 wrote: Is snootiness somehow required to pass the survey licensure examination? What ever happened to professional congeniality?
Perhaps the best term to apply is:
Collegiality is the relationship between colleagues. Colleagues are those explicitly united in a common purpose and respecting each other's abilities to work toward that purpose. A colleague is an associate in a profession or in a civil or ecclesiastical office.

The obvious problem is that the practice of a profession presumes a certain basic knowledge of the activity for which the professional's license was issued. Pretending that any ignorant practice is somehow within the minimum standards of practice is not professional and "collegiality" becomes merely enabling substandard practices contrary to why the profession even exists in the first place.

If a profession were a social club like the Rotary Club, you might have a point, but I don't think that either the engineering or surveying professions are a club in any similar sense.

Kent McMillan, post: 439342, member: 3 wrote: ...If a profession were a social club like the Rotary Club, you might have a point, but I don't think that either the engineering or surveying professions are a club in any similar sense.

Oh Kent...quit trying to be friendly and suck up. 😉

In the distant (internet-based) past there was a label applied here by one poster on another. Who was who in the matter has been forgotten, but I believe the term used was "mental midget in the corner" and I believe said individual was being chastised for speaking up.

paden cash, post: 439343, member: 20 wrote: Oh Kent...quit trying to be friendly and suck up.

Well, to paraphrase the Sacred Bovine's complaint, what he finds objectionable is not treating every idiotic or malformed idea as if it were some alternative fact that might possibly be a great idea worthy of consideration in the context of the general discussion, which in this case is the practice of professional land surveying. What he objects to could be as easily described as "knowing better". When you know better, pretending otherwise is both dishonest and objectionable.