[Summary: Where Thomas Joseph discusses an issue that changed the way he views the internet.]

This post by GR this morning really struck a chord with me. Not because I've found out that someone I knew passed away*, but it was certainly death related. The moment I'm going to refer to happened several years ago (back in 2003) when I was young(er), and dumb(er) than I currently am. It was back in the days when internet message boards (MBs) were all the rage, or at least they were all the rage for me. Discussions would often get downright nasty, and if you were intense enough about it, you'd throw down with complete strangers and say things that you wouldn't say to anyone's face -- even if they were your own worst enemy. I was that sort of jerk back in the late 90's early 00's, but it didn't last for much longer past that.

Back then I enjoyed debating. Actually, I didn't enjoy debating so much as I enjoyed winning debates. I think there is a distinct difference. If I could pummel my opponent into submission with a literary show of force, I considered it a huge success. I had my first taste of it my freshman year in college when I took an ethics class and debated the merits of deceptive practices in medicine. I won easily. It was an adrenaline rush, much like the rush I had when I would compete in XC and T&F during those same years. Back then, I hated to practice, but loved racing ... and most of all winning. My coach always had me anchor relays because he knew that if we were within 15 to 20 meters of the lead when I got the baton, the race was as good as won. Winning was the only thing I cared about, and I would be on a high for hours afterwards. I was addicted to the adrenaline. So it went with debating. In my mind, I was a debate stud. I was well-educated and well-versed in any number of issues which ranged from science, to religion, to sports. I debated on a number of sites, the local sports radio MBs, a variety of religious-issued MBs, what have you. This was not a Good Thing(TM). If pride always goes before the fall, I was bound to fall, and hard.

That fall happened in 2003.

Around that time I was on a religious website debating a charge of anti-semitism leveled against the Catholic Church. Part of that charge involved the use of a book entitled "Babylon Mystery Religion" penned by Ralph Woodrow. It relied heavily on another anti-Catholic book by Alexander Hislop entitled "The Two Babylons" which seemingly connects the Catholic Church with paganism. Both books are a piece of pooh. Neither one is worth the paper they are printed on. I thought that then, and I certainly think that now. The person I was arguing with however hung on every last word of those two books. One thing she failed to realize though is that  Mr. Woodrow, after a long time of researching the subject further believed he made a grievous error in publishing that first book. So much so that he pulled the original off the shelves and replaced it with a book entitled "Babylon Connection?" in which he refutes his previous position. On his site he describes the newest book in the following way: 

DESCRIPTION: THE BABYLON CONNECTION? shows that claims about Babylonian origins often lack connection, takes a closer look at the oft-quoted THE TWO BABYLONS by Alexander Hislop, and provides some much needed clarification on this subject. In a scholarly and understandable style, the book explains why Woodrow removed his Babylon Mystery Religion book from publication.

The person I was debating had no clue about the existance of this second book, nor did she know that the first book of Mr. Woodrow's had been pulled from the shelf. I reveled in the knowledge that I effectively cut her position out from underneath her. I gave it to her with both guns blazing on the MB, and for two days after this, she remained silent. 

My egotistical self thought it was because I had stumped her and she was off licking her wounds. I was about as far from wrong as wrong can be. Rather than being stunned by my obvious brilliance, and ashamed to even show her face on the MB because I had housed her, she was off the board because her youngest daughter had been accidentally strangled in a set of mini-blinds.

So here we had a mother grieving the death of a child, a fate which is worse than death for any parent (no parent should have to outlive their own children), and I was at home relishing a "victory" over a matter which didn't mean jack squat.  I feel ashamed to this day about it, even though I apologized about my internal thoughts (I hadn't started bragging yet on the board about how I couldn't be refuted) once I found out. I think that incident pretty much ended my days of internet debating, even though I do find a mean streak of "blast first, try to consider the POV of those you are blasting second" in my blog commentary that crops up now and again.

My mom, the most patient person I've ever met (or ever will meet), was always reminding me that I could not know the internal workings of individuals. It's true that we often compare our inside to other peoples outside. We can feel sad and lonely, and feel jealousy when others around us appear to be happy and carefree. Of course, those people could easily be putting on a brave front, and be hurting worse than we could ever imagine, for any number of reasons. I try to take that into account when I deal with people on a daily basis, both in work and outside of it. It's easy to be overly critical, to apply a scorched earth policy to people who we feel may have wronged us. It feels good for a moment, I'll give it that much, but in the longterm, what good is to come of it? Could I try to ruin a career? Sure, I guess I could, and I might even be successful at it ... but what do I gain, other than knowing that I put someone (and their family if they have one) on the street? That isn't something to be proud of, to relish in, to put on a CV or resume, is it?

When I was about to defend my science in my final departmental seminar, my adviser gave me a simple but integral bit of advice. He told me that when I put up a slide, I should take a deep breath, think about what was on the slide for a couple of seconds, and only then start to speak. Did it slow my talk down a bit? Yeah, by about a total of a minute (30 slides * 2 seconds), but what was the end result? An excellent presentation and a well-defended dissertation. I've tried carrying that bit of advice into my actions as well ... call it "meta-cognition"  if you will (thinking about what I'm thinking about). If I can calculate my responses, I can respond appropriately to a situation. If you've ever read Stephen Covey it's about being "proactive" rather than "reactive". It's also about being a sympathetic figure. I'd rather be the guy down the hall who is approachable with an issue, rather than the one who is talked about behind his back because he's such an ass. I surely hope I'm the former and not the latter ... even though I'm sure I've made mistakes which have trended me towards the latter at times.

Anywho ... what's the moral of this story? Other than debating on the internet is for idiots? Other than think before you act? Other than any of the common sense things we inherently know but often forget or wantonly ignore in the heat of the moment? Nah ... I think that about sums it up.

*This has never happened to me, but I have seen it happen to people I know. One such instance was when I was with my dad (a Vietnam vet) and we visited the Vietnam Memorial. Finding the names of people he served with, and who didn't make it home after he had left, really bothered him. It's another moment that is burned in my brain.