Productive argument (was SC - Re: Worst Critique Ever)

[Nicholas Sasso]

This thread has headed directly to two people having a head to head 
disagreement that seems to have way more history than this thread.  While it 
amusing at times to watch people duke it out, it seems more prudent to use
our time and space to find a productive end to the issues.

The core issues I see have been that the food was perceived to be be 
unacceptable and had many problems as outlined by the critic.  The other seems
to take issue primarilt at the tone and method of criticism used.  It then degraded into
 some various comments about persons that would best be kept in the family rather
than here in this forum.

We need remember that there are far more people attending our words than
 presenting words to be attended.  I personally feel uncomfortable talking ABOUT
 the cook who prepared this food instead of TO/WITH that person.  If we are to critique her work, I believe it would be good to give her voice here or leave it lie.  In 
blunt language, it seems the two primary combantants are preferring to sling mud 
 rather than discuss the issues at hand . . . personal affronts in public forum solve 
little and are poor hopitality in Good Gunthar's playroom here.

As for the premise that one must have been the coordinator of a feast to be 
credible critic, I don't entirely agree.  I think anyone can give objective evaluation
of what they ate and sat through.  Being the head cheese at a feed will sure give
a new and different perspective and a little more credibility in terms of knowing
about what actually goes on to feed 200+ people.  It sure changed my outlook in
several ways . . . now I'm more empathetic, not less critical, just able to understand
 and feel for the person in the hot seat.  No experience like being the "Here" where
 the buck stops.

niccolo difrancesco

"quid pro quo" isn't a valid argument stragtegy