What good does it do to criticize?

[_skippy the dead]

OK - I think I'm beginning to at least sort of start to understand your position. I don't agree that criticism of leaders is on par with living with rats and roaches, but I think I can see where you are going. Obviously we disagree, but at least I believe I understand what you mean.

Take another look at the red wine studies, by the way - it's not just the anti-oxidants that provide benefit, but also the alcohol itself provides cardiovascular benefits. I would be interested to see the Yale Medical Newsletter you mention, though, since I do partake in a glass of red wine almost daily. My quick googling of "Yale Medical Newsletter" and "red wine" indicated that up to 2 to 3 glasses of red wine is good for the heart; I haven't come across anything that tracks with what you mention.

I misquoted. It was from Yale-New Haven Hospital. Here is the link:http://www.ynhh.org/online/nutrition/advisor/red_wine.html

Thanks.

Not to derail, but the study was much more favorable to red wine than had been represented. The medical conditions that contra-indicate drinking red wine were quite limited (and, obviously, they don't advocate drinking red wine if one doesn't drink already), and the benefits are quite good (and not limited to anti-oxidant properties; again, the alcohol contributes to cardiovascular health). Their conclusion? "However, the evidence seems clear that regular, moderate consumption of red wine is beneficial to your health. So here’s a toast to your health! Cheers!"

And good news for me - Cabernet Sauvignon is the most flavonoid-y, and my preferred varietal.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming. . .

[_cinepro]

For some reason, this post got me booted from MADB :(. Since it seems to be on topic for this thread, I'll share it here...

I was recently reading an issue of "Fast Company" magazine (a magazine aimed towards entrepreneurs and executives in "tech" companies), and came across an interesting article. The authors discuss the consumer trend where people have brands that they prefer, but also have brands that they won't touch. The article discusses "brand bigots" (people who avoid a certain brand for no rational reason), and then mentions this interesting study:

A study published last year in the journal Personal Relationships on how friendships form found that mutual dislike was an important factor. "We enjoy meeting people who dislike the same people," explained Jennifer Bosson, a social psychologist and coauthor of the study, titled "Interpersonal Chemistry Through Negativity." It's easy to imagine a parallel in the brand world. Surely the consumers who cluster around Web sites that attack, say, Wal-Mart (NYSE:WMT), or Dell (NASDAQ:DELL), see themselves as having something in common. In fact, I suspect that people who refuse to set foot in a Starbucks (NASDAQ:SBUX) are far more likely to bond with one another than are the people who visit one every morning.

Just Say No

The funny thing is, I've noticed this everywhere, including at Church. Just last Sunday, our Gospel Doctrine teacher made (what some may consider) ultra-conservative political comments (including a plea that "we get a Mormon in the White House" to try and "save the country"). After class, while I was waiting in the hall for EQ, a few people standing next to me where "discussing their concern" (eg. complaining) about the teachers comments. I joined the conversation and shared my thoughts, and in the process, made a few new friends. The complaining was a great ice breaker and bonding experience.

So the next time someone starts talking about how terrible it is for people to spend their time "tearing down" the Church instead of "building up" something else, maybe I'll mention that our wards could be closer and more friendly places if we spent a little more time practicing "interpersonal chemistry through negativity" ourselves.

[_BishopRic]

Not to derail, but the study was much more favorable to red wine than had been represented. The medical conditions that contra-indicate drinking red wine were quite limited (and, obviously, they don't advocate drinking red wine if one doesn't drink already), and the benefits are quite good (and not limited to anti-oxidant properties; again, the alcohol contributes to cardiovascular health). Their conclusion? "However, the evidence seems clear that regular, moderate consumption of red wine is beneficial to your health. So here’s a toast to your health! Cheers!"

And good news for me - Cabernet Sauvignon is the most flavonoid-y, and my preferred varietal.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming. . .

Damn! I prefer Red Zin and Pinot Noir....

[_The Nehor]

For some reason, this post got me booted from MADB :(. Since it seems to be on topic for this thread, I'll share it here...

I was recently reading an issue of "Fast Company" magazine (a magazine aimed towards entrepreneurs and executives in "tech" companies), and came across an interesting article. The authors discuss the consumer trend where people have brands that they prefer, but also have brands that they won't touch. The article discusses "brand bigots" (people who avoid a certain brand for no rational reason), and then mentions this interesting study:

A study published last year in the journal Personal Relationships on how friendships form found that mutual dislike was an important factor. "We enjoy meeting people who dislike the same people," explained Jennifer Bosson, a social psychologist and coauthor of the study, titled "Interpersonal Chemistry Through Negativity." It's easy to imagine a parallel in the brand world. Surely the consumers who cluster around Web sites that attack, say, Wal-Mart (NYSE:WMT), or Dell (NASDAQ:DELL), see themselves as having something in common. In fact, I suspect that people who refuse to set foot in a Starbucks (NASDAQ:SBUX) are far more likely to bond with one another than are the people who visit one every morning.

Just Say No

The funny thing is, I've noticed this everywhere, including at Church. Just last Sunday, our Gospel Doctrine teacher made (what some may consider) ultra-conservative political comments (including a plea that "we get a Mormon in the White House" to try and "save the country"). After class, while I was waiting in the hall for EQ, a few people standing next to me where "discussing their concern" (eg. complaining) about the teachers comments. I joined the conversation and shared my thoughts, and in the process, made a few new friends. The complaining was a great ice breaker and bonding experience.

So the next time someone starts talking about how terrible it is for people to spend their time "tearing down" the Church instead of "building up" something else, maybe I'll mention that our wards could be closer and more friendly places if we spent a little more time practicing "interpersonal chemistry through negativity" ourselves.

So the way for the Church to become one is to despire critics collectively?

[_charity]

The funny thing is, I've noticed this everywhere, including at Church. Just last Sunday, our Gospel Doctrine teacher made (what some may consider) ultra-conservative political comments (including a plea that "we get a Mormon in the White House" to try and "save the country"). After class, while I was waiting in the hall for EQ, a few people standing next to me where "discussing their concern" (eg. complaining) about the teachers comments. I joined the conversation and shared my thoughts, and in the process, made a few new friends. The complaining was a great ice breaker and bonding experience.

So the next time someone starts talking about how terrible it is for people to spend their time "tearing down" the Church instead of "building up" something else, maybe I'll mention that our wards could be closer and more friendly places if we spent a little more time practicing "interpersonal chemistry through negativity" ourselves.

There are all kinds of things that happen which aren't necessarily good. Fans really bond at soccer games, too, and sometimes they end up in riots where people get killed. Sorority and frat people bond tightly because they are group which is restricted and limited. They get to feel superior to others.

These are not positive things.

[_skippy the dead]

The funny thing is, I've noticed this everywhere, including at Church. Just last Sunday, our Gospel Doctrine teacher made (what some may consider) ultra-conservative political comments (including a plea that "we get a Mormon in the White House" to try and "save the country"). After class, while I was waiting in the hall for EQ, a few people standing next to me where "discussing their concern" (eg. complaining) about the teachers comments. I joined the conversation and shared my thoughts, and in the process, made a few new friends. The complaining was a great ice breaker and bonding experience.

So the next time someone starts talking about how terrible it is for people to spend their time "tearing down" the Church instead of "building up" something else, maybe I'll mention that our wards could be closer and more friendly places if we spent a little more time practicing "interpersonal chemistry through negativity" ourselves.

There are all kinds of things that happen which aren't necessarily good. Fans really bond at soccer games, too, and sometimes they end up in riots where people get killed. Sorority and frat people bond tightly because they are group which is restricted and limited. They get to feel superior to others.

These are not positive things.

Is there any moderation in your world, charity? A little criticism is akin to binge drinking, orgies and living with rats. A little wine with dinner turns into alcoholism and disease. Camaraderie at a sporting event turns into killer riots. Your world must be fraught with danger at every corner.

by the way - I think cinepro was just having a little light-minded fun. I don't think he was really suggesting that church members bond over complaints.

[_Moniker]

I don't think we should demean those that live with cockroaches (how many current LDS missionaries are in Japan -- and they are HUGE there!) or those that are promiscuous until you give it a try. ;)

Here's my problem with this entire thread. I find no problem with criticism. Yet, when one criticizes me I'd like to take the issue on and discover if it's something that is actually something that does impact me and I can work on it. Yet, this being a lecture from Charity on how to do it just strikes me as absurd because often it is just some sort of superior morality (apparently women that have nookie with more than one men suffer from a mental disorder -- still waiting on that CFR, by the way) that is thrust down my choking throat. If it's constructive, fine. Yet, so much of it just appears vindictive and bordering on lunacy.

Now, she apparently wants others to refrain from doing precisely what she's doing. I just bristle from the double standards.

[_charity]

="charity"]

The funny thing is, I've noticed this everywhere, including at Church. Just last Sunday, our Gospel Doctrine teacher made (what some may consider) ultra-conservative political comments (including a plea that "we get a Mormon in the White House" to try and "save the country"). After class, while I was waiting in the hall for EQ, a few people standing next to me where "discussing their concern" (eg. complaining) about the teachers comments. I joined the conversation and shared my thoughts, and in the process, made a few new friends. The complaining was a great ice breaker and bonding experience.

So the next time someone starts talking about how terrible it is for people to spend their time "tearing down" the Church instead of "building up" something else, maybe I'll mention that our wards could be closer and more friendly places if we spent a little more time practicing "interpersonal chemistry through negativity" ourselves.

There are all kinds of things that happen which aren't necessarily good. Fans really bond at soccer games, too, and sometimes they end up in riots where people get killed. Sorority and frat people bond tightly because they are group which is restricted and limited. They get to feel superior to others.

These are not positive things.

Is there any moderation in your world, charity? A little criticism is akin to binge drinking, orgies and living with rats. A little wine with dinner turns into alcoholism and disease. Camaraderie at a sporting event turns into killer riots. Your world must be fraught with danger at every corner.

by the way - I think cinepro was just having a little light-minded fun. I don't think he was really suggesting that church members bond over complaints.[/quote]

Please, skippy, read my whole post. I very frequnently use cautionary words--sometimes, occasionally, some, few--which indicate I don't believe in the all or none theory.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Camaraderie at a sporting event turns into killer riots.

I see a new theory about Mountain Meadows...the Mormons were playing the Indians...it came down to penalty kicks...and the fans got a bit outta control. It's all soccer's fault!

[_skippy the dead]

Please, skippy, read my whole post. I very frequnently use cautionary words--sometimes, occasionally, some, few--which indicate I don't believe in the all or none theory.

Oh, I read the whole post. The thing that strikes me is that you are so quick to identify and caution against the absolute worst case scenario. Or when you make a comparison, you frequently find some odious extreme to make the comparison with. For me, it reduces the efficacy of your arguments.