Extract of DK fail thread.

[Misery's Fried Dough]

I'm going to confess that I'm not blown away by the BiP metaphor. I think it's useful for people who have just started thinking critically, but that once you're past that point it's too limiting to serve for very much further development. It's basically just what it seems intended to be; good for the jailbreak. Once you've started breaking down your jail and are ready to begin rearranging the pieces, it's probably time to move on to other metaphors, or to simply ditch metaphors altogether for a while.

Metaphors are most useful to get people to think of things in new ways. It's not a very good idea to get stuck in them, whether from the inside trying to hold on to one you've outgrown, or from the outside trying to analyze one that doesn't work for you.

I agree with you as far as the utility of the metaphor.  I think perhaps, it may be more useful to think of the BIP metaphor in a different manner.  In my work with substance abuse prevention, all of the prevention programs we deal with all stem from a logic model.  The logic model basically serves as the basic outline of the philosophy behind why a program is doing what it is doing.  It doesn't seek to explain or compartmentalize the Universe of the Program, just, how it works and why it works.  

This is how I tend to view the BIP metaphor, as a logic model.  And logic models do need to be altered from time to time as you make new breakthroughs and discoveries related to the subject matter.  So yeah, the BIP should be a spring board for discussions and the development of other materials and ideas.  

[LMNO, PhD (life continues)]

And you seem so incredibly dense that you can't understand a simple concept called "Research".

More insults, more defensiveness.  You're not convincing me to do research, you're convincing me that your ideas are crap and you know it, hence the anger.

If you were truly interested in understanding our concept, you are smart enough to realize the obvious answer is to read more about it.

...or to ask questions.

Clearly, your only interest is in tearing down our model, not trying to understand it first.

Tearing down models is part of how I come to understand them.

Naw.  We tried explaining, you refused to listen and goaded us.



So yeah, go suck a dick.

[Misery's Fried Dough]

And you seem so incredibly dense that you can't understand a simple concept called "Research".

More insults, more defensiveness.  You're not convincing me to do research, you're convincing me that your ideas are crap and you know it, hence the anger.

I'm not angry.  I'm just coming to the conclusions based upon the evidence you are supplying.  You are demonstrating yourself to be someone who is intellectually lazy.  And I'm not the only one who has made that observation.  Now, if you were to try to find and post some personal information as you attempted with TGRR, then, yes, I would be angry.  So spare me your BS nobility. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

...  models do need to be altered from time to time as you make new breakthroughs and discoveries related to the subject matter.  So yeah, the BIP should be a spring board for discussions and the development of other materials and ideas.  

I think that if this were the initial response to commentaries on the BiP, things might go off with less aggravation and wasted diskspace

[Misery's Fried Dough]

...  models do need to be altered from time to time as you make new breakthroughs and discoveries related to the subject matter.  So yeah, the BIP should be a spring board for discussions and the development of other materials and ideas.  

I think that if this were the initial response to commentaries on the BiP, things might go off with less aggravation and wasted diskspace

I don't think I've ever adamantly declared that no changes or alterations should be made to the BIP model.  That of course is different from scrapping the whole thing and starting over.  I would, however, want someone to have a good familiarity of where we have been before they make recommendations as to where we should go.  Whenever you alter a logic model, you have to use the present logic model as a reference or else you end up going nowhere. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

...  models do need to be altered from time to time as you make new breakthroughs and discoveries related to the subject matter.  So yeah, the BIP should be a spring board for discussions and the development of other materials and ideas.  

I think that if this were the initial response to commentaries on the BiP, things might go off with less aggravation and wasted diskspace

I don't think I've ever adamantly declared that no changes or alterations should be made to the BIP model.  That of course is different from scrapping the whole thing and starting over.  I would, however, want someone to have a good familiarity of where we have been before they make recommendations as to where we should go.  Whenever you alter a logic model, you have to use the present logic model as a reference or else you end up going nowhere. 

All of this seems very useful... but it does appear to me (and it may be entirely my perception), that critisisms about the BiP often get met first and foremost by comments more like "It's not dark, you just don't understand" rather than "Meh, it was a first stab at some ideas we're working on."

Of course, YMMV and I obviously have opinions on the general topic that I'm sure color my judgment.

[Dead Kennedy]

Naw.  We tried explaining, you refused to listen and goaded us.

What are you talking about?  When did this happen?

I don't remember anyone making any attempt to explain.  Except one guy whose post count was under 50, probably wasn't speaking for you, and really did not seem to get it at all.

[Cainad]

Naw.  We tried explaining, you refused to listen and goaded us.

What are you talking about?  When did this happen?

You aren't really that thick.

[fomenter]

Naw.  We tried explaining, you refused to listen and goaded us.

What are you talking about?  When did this happen?

You aren't really that thick.

YES HE IS

[Misery's Fried Dough]

...  models do need to be altered from time to time as you make new breakthroughs and discoveries related to the subject matter.  So yeah, the BIP should be a spring board for discussions and the development of other materials and ideas.  

I think that if this were the initial response to commentaries on the BiP, things might go off with less aggravation and wasted diskspace

I don't think I've ever adamantly declared that no changes or alterations should be made to the BIP model.  That of course is different from scrapping the whole thing and starting over.  I would, however, want someone to have a good familiarity of where we have been before they make recommendations as to where we should go.  Whenever you alter a logic model, you have to use the present logic model as a reference or else you end up going nowhere. 

All of this seems very useful... but it does appear to me (and it may be entirely my perception), that critisisms about the BiP often get met first and foremost by comments more like "It's not dark, you just don't understand" rather than "Meh, it was a first stab at some ideas we're working on."

Of course, YMMV and I obviously have opinions on the general topic that I'm sure color my judgment.

Well, I would tend to think that if someone's criticism was focused on the darkness of the thing, it would suggest that they reviewed the pamphlet from a surface level.  Kinda like in the PD you have the tagline "If you think this was just a ha ha, read it again."  The corrollary to the BIP would be, "If you think this is too dark and depressing, suck it up and go read it again."  It certainly was a strong collection of writings, but when one reads carefully, they will find hope in pretty much every piece.  

[Dead Kennedy]

I'm not angry.  I'm just coming to the conclusions based upon the evidence you are supplying.  You are demonstrating yourself to be someone who is intellectually lazy.  And I'm not the only one who has made that observation.

 

I find it interesting that the primary utility of accusing me of intellectual laziness is to justify not answering a simple question.

But hey, let's not talk about the ideas, let's keep talking about me.

Now, if you were to try to find and post some personal information as you attempted with TGRR, then, yes, I would be angry.  So spare me your BS nobility.

I never tried to post personal information about TGRR.  Dirtytime edited my post (which was just another -ocracy gag) and changed it, then accused me of trying to post personal information about TGRR.

It was a frame-up.  You didn't actually fall for it, did you?

[LMNO, PhD (life continues)]

Naw.  We tried explaining, you refused to listen and goaded us.

What are you talking about?  When did this happen?

I don't remember anyone making any attempt to explain.  Except one guy whose post count was under 50, probably wasn't speaking for you, and really did not seem to get it at all.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I never tried to post personal information about TGRR.  Dirtytime edited my post (which was just another -ocracy gag) and changed it, then accused me of trying to post personal information about TGRR.

It was a frame-up.  You didn't actually fall for it, did you?

That's a pretty huge claim. Are you stating that you did not put someone's personal information in that post and claim it tied to TGRR?

[Thurnez Isa]

It was a frame-up.  You didn't actually fall for it, did you?

I know it was frame up
you weren`t posting rogers info
you were posting Roger Effingham`s of course
 

[Dead Kennedy]

Naw.  We tried explaining, you refused to listen and goaded us.

What are you talking about?  When did this happen?

You aren't really that thick.

I might be.  You should be able to easily humiliate me by showing me the link.