![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 97 to 121 of 133. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 20:12:45
In reply to Re: Ok,, posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 20:00:22
> > So what changes could be done that would satisfy your interests without turning the site against mine?
> >
> > To make it personal.
>
> Would any other professional administrator's involvement in addition to that of Robert Hsiung be a step in turning the site against you?It might. It would depend a whole lot on the other administrator. I told you I don't trust easily and I meant it. Dr. Bob has gone through hell and back to earn my trust, figuratively speaking.
Plus, I really do like the consistency that comes from having one moderator. But should Dr. Bob decide that it would be best to have more than one moderator, and chose one I could learn to trust, I wouldn't object.
He, and we, have also made various proposals along the way that would make moderating the boards easier for him. I think he's considering them.
>
> Would defining the terms of service as terms of service turn the site against you?
>
>
I've suggested that before. Not terms of service. I wouldn't like that because it would be totally incomprehensible to me. But I like "site guidelines". I'm nostalgic about PBC's. I'm a PBC virgin you know. And PDVSG (Please Don't Violate Site Guidelines) virgin doesn't have the same ring. But I'd be willing to put aside nostalgia to use wording that people who get upset at being told to be civil would find less upsetting.Salmon, yummm...
I appreciate your putting your time into this conversation.
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 20:16:13
In reply to Re: Ok,, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 20:12:45
I like Please Abide By Site Guidelines better. It's phrased as a positive. (Can you tell I'm a mom?)
Hmmm... PABSG...
Still nostalgic.
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 20:22:36
In reply to Actually, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 20:16:13
So you are a virgin mother and the administrator is like a god?
I'm sorry, full-belly intoxication caught up with me. I'll enclose my serious reply in another post.
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 20:24:06
In reply to Re: Actually -- silliness inside » Dinah, posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 20:22:36
Posted by gardenergirl on May 23, 2005, at 20:26:19
In reply to Re: Ok,, posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 20:03:40
EEEEPPPP!
I'm afraid I have not been acting very zenesque, Thus, I am going to let this go. I get confused about who I am and what I'm about when I stray from the path. And I don't like feeling as if I am not being authentic, since that is something I value.
I really dislike inauthenticity.
gg
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 20:31:38
In reply to Re: Ok,, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 20:12:45
I would be less put off by instructions to please follow site guidelines than to please be civil. The former would send me looking for site guidelines, whereas the later sends me looking into my personal experiences regarding what is civil.
While there might be risk for you to learn to trust another person, I might ask whether the benefits you realized from developing trust for one person couldn't be expanded by developing trust for another?For that matter, if you benefited from learning to trust a person, could you potentially realize a similar benefit from learning to trust concepts that grew from one person's intitiative then were refined by others?
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 20:35:49
In reply to LOL. I think I like you when you're silly. (nm) » so, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 20:24:06
Posted by partlycloudy on May 23, 2005, at 20:37:34
In reply to Ommmmm, posted by gardenergirl on May 23, 2005, at 20:26:19
You said that very authentically... (joke)
and I have the greatest of empathy with your feelings. (not joke)
pc
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 20:42:03
In reply to Re: Ok, » Dinah, posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 20:31:38
But what if I didn't?
You asked if my interests would be in jeopardy. I don't like or trust all mental health professionals, by a long shot.
Nor do I have good experiences in trusting that people I like and trust will put their faith in other people I like and trust.
Apart from someone else having to endure the same trials that poor Dr. Bob had to endure. (oooh, i need a smiley)
There would be a more than reasonable chance that a second, never even mind third or fourth, moderator would be not liked or trusted by me, which would be against my interests, unless all had to answer to Dr. Bob, who I trust. But I think that would be against your interest.
And we only have to look at the laws of this land to know that no matter how much codification and reams of documentation are included in laws, there will always be inconsistency in applying it between individual (in the case of the law, judges) moderators. I still prefer the consistency of having the law of the site interpreted by one moderator.
Dr. Bob has proposed a system that I believe was intended in part to lessen his administrative burden. It would allow posters to have a system of reporting posts to him, so that he didn't have to review all posts. Wouldn't that achieve the same end, but retain the greater consistency that comes from having a single moderator?
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 20:50:54
In reply to only then? (nm) » Dinah, posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 20:35:49
To employ Alexandra's test of logic.
I think I like you when you're silly implies only that I think I do not dislike you when you are silly.
It can't be discerned from the statement that I like or dislike you in other than silly states.
Because all of the following could be true.
I think I like you when you're silly.
I think I like you when you're serious.I think I like you when you're silly.
I think I don't like you when you're serious.I think I like you when you're silly.
I think I like you sometimes when you're serious, but sometimes I don't.I think I like you when you're silly.
I have no opinion about you when you're not.And various and sundry other permutations of all sorts of states not limited to silly or serious.
The truth is that I don't know you all that well. Unless I actually do, and don't know it. Because this is the internet and there's no way of telling that, is there? So going on the assumption that this is the third name you've ever posted on on Babble, which is all you've said you've posted on, I don't know you very well.
I'm making an effort to know you better.
I don't think you appear to be the sort of person who would appreciate statements of affection from someone who doesn't know you very well.
Have I at least correctly deduced that about you?
Because of course, I could be wrong. I don't know you very well.
Posted by gardenergirl on May 23, 2005, at 20:58:26
In reply to Re: Ommmmm » gardenergirl, posted by partlycloudy on May 23, 2005, at 20:37:34
Posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 21:07:08
In reply to Re: Ok, » Dinah, posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 20:31:38
> >Please cite one instance of Dr Bob asserting that the behaviour was uncivil.
>I have stated in this thread that demanding that people be civil is seen by some people as in implication that they are not being civil -- hence "uncivil".
Yes. Though the trouble is that 'implication' is an objective matter. Asking someone to be civil does not imply that they are not being civil. Not unless you have your own 'private meanings' going on in which case we really aren't going to be able to get communication of this issue up of the ground...
>If you did not read that, or if you don't agree that is one way of seeing things,
Of course it is one way of seeing things
Which is just to say that some people do in fact see it that way.>or that some reasonable people see it that way, there may be little I can write that would help expand your understanding.
Hmm.
I think we are only going to continue to talk past each other....
Good luck with whatever it is that you are trying to do...
I give up.
I don't understand you
And you don't understand me
And there it is.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 21:08:14
In reply to Thanks (nm) » partlycloudy, posted by gardenergirl on May 23, 2005, at 20:58:26
We wuv you gg.
I'm all confused myself.Shall we go be silly somewhere else???
;-)
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 21:20:58
In reply to Re: Ok, » so, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 20:42:03
I snipped the first part, for the sake of tidyness -- I agree codification has had its merits and deficits and indeed it has destroyed the spirit of the law in some cultures. The worlds best selling book seems to tell such a story. But then a system of codification let a nation of white male landholding citizens mature into a nation of multicultural, multiethnic, multigender, sometimes landless citizens who elect a congress largely made up of white male landholders.
Wait. that was supposed to go somehwere else.
Anyway.
Well, that would tend to address some of your concerns, though. More inclusion of other people wouldn't necessarily mean the end of Hsiung's unique methods -- such as public sanctions for the "good" of the group, or an obligation to own ones own emotions and those of others. It just might require that he better explain why he prefers those methods.
>
> Dr. Bob has proposed a system that I believe was intended in part to lessen his administrative burden. It would allow posters to have a system of reporting posts to him, so that he didn't have to review all posts. Wouldn't that achieve the same end, but retain the greater consistency that comes from having a single moderator?
It could resolve one concern of mine, which is his unprovoked defense of the theoretical feelings of hypothetical people. Of course, concerned citizens interested in consistency could still bring matters to him that could potentially offend hypothetical people.For the most part, I don't see that as a system I would immediately find faulty. It is a standard feature of many bulliten board softwares, and many administrators choose to enable the feature.
i can't really say where my "set-point" would be for accepting his administrative style modified to resolve my concerns. That might make it difficult to use my concerns as part of a guide for what to improve if I don't present a stationary target, but it would be reasonable to seek to resolve concerns I present without seeking my ultimate approval. After all, support in the group is provided by members for members, not by members for the administration. If I represent members who are particularly hard to please, vote for me, I'll represent you well, maybe.
We might agree, you and I, on part of the "more involvement" thing. I would rather see less administrative smileys, and more suggestions on how to comply with his personal preference short of sanctions for people who don't meet his standard. That could be where other administrators expand the overall administrative capacity, if they were hands on admins, and not just aides in developing policy. I think you might try as member who happens to be a deputy, but your suggestions sometimes have just not been consistent with his requirements, no matter how you try. i think it might have more to do with what side of the bed he gets up on, how generally bothersome a particular poster is, and a posters reputation or group standing, no matter how he tries in his own mind to be consistent.
Eliza has proven it possible to develop strict algorithms for dealing with some kinds of language. he or his peers could pay a bit more attention to conjugating what people write -- not to reopen the case, but the one that I got hung on was his assertion that "To me" does not preface an "i-statement." I felt he was generally tired of my tone and found a flimsy peg on which to hang an inevitable PBC -- maybe because he just didn't have the time to give it any more effort. And I just don't grasp the implicity requirement that I statements can only embody feelings but not perceptions, whether he as acknowledged that requirement or not. Anyway, lets not go further into that if I'm not prone to better understand even after all this effort.
What I mean to say, of substance, is that even if he were training professional subordinates to do his job, the questions that come up of how to deal with particular statements could lead to better understanding on his part of the limits some members encounter understanding his perspective -- maybe it would make him a bit less trustworthy to embody those less desirable traits you said you trust him to demonstrate. He might be more flexible in resolving questions with peers in the privacy of his office than he is on line in a durable database. Maybe.
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 21:34:52
In reply to Now is a time » so, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 20:50:54
> To employ Alexandra's test of logic.
>
> I think I like you when you're silly implies only that I think I do not dislike you when you are silly.
>
Well, no, you could potentially both like me and dislike me while I am being silly."I like you when you're silly", formally, only conveys meaning only about what you like, and exposes nothing about what you dislike when I'm silly or at any other time. So I asked about other times. That doesn't necessarily imply I think you don't like me at other times, it only means I provided an opportunity for you to further reveal you likes or dislikes.
But logic is not the only tool available for examining rhetoric. Metaphor or allegory are not logical but they are useful rhetorical devices. Likewise, a demand to perform a certain behavior, if consistently said only in one context, can expose some implications.
What about a "whites only" sign? it doesnt' say anything is wrong with anyone else, not by logical analysis. And golly gee, black folks used to have their very own drinking fountains, restroom, restaraunts, parts of town and more. What could possibly be wrong with that? Most of us know what was wrong.
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 21:43:41
In reply to Re: Ok, » so, posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 21:07:08
> Yes. Though the trouble is that 'implication' is an objective matter.
I thought perceptions of implications tended to be subjective.
>Asking someone to be civil does not imply that they are not being civil.The person could repeat exactly what they wrote to which he said "please be civil" because it was not uncivil at all?
-----
>some people do in fact see it that way.I'm glad you recognize that.
>> I think we are only going to continue to talk past each other....
Quite possibly. Or not talk or talk about something else. It doesn't mean I don't like you.
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 21:47:01
In reply to Re: Ok, » Dinah, posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 21:20:58
Oooh. I've gotten confused again. I think I understand your shorter posts best. (Gee, maybe that's why I like Dr. Bob's style.) I'm sorry. But I'll give it a try, and if I've messed up, I hope you forgive me.
> Well, that would tend to address some of your concerns, though. More inclusion of other people wouldn't necessarily mean the end of Hsiung's unique methods -- such as public sanctions for the "good" of the group, or an obligation to own ones own emotions and those of others. It just might require that he better explain why he prefers those methods.
>
But why can't he give that? Or others who understand? Not that I don't see outside input as helpful at times. I really like it when he has Kali Munro as a guest expert. She once managed to explain something to him that I just couldn't manage to put in the right words.
>
> It could resolve one concern of mine, which is his unprovoked defense of the theoretical feelings of hypothetical people. Of course, concerned citizens interested in consistency could still bring matters to him that could potentially offend hypothetical people.
>
I don't actually mind protecting hypothetical people. For example, members of some minority groups may not be posting on Babble at any given moment, but I would still wish to have their concerns given consideration.> For the most part, I don't see that as a system I would immediately find faulty. It is a standard feature of many bulliten board softwares, and many administrators choose to enable the feature.
I'm all for making Dr. Bob's job easier.
>
> i can't really say where my "set-point" would be for accepting his administrative style modified to resolve my concerns. That might make it difficult to use my concerns as part of a guide for what to improve if I don't present a stationary target, but it would be reasonable to seek to resolve concerns I present without seeking my ultimate approval.Yes, certainly. In fact none of us will be given ultimate approval. Or a guarantee that our concerns will be resolved. If we want that, I imagine we have to start our own board.
> After all, support in the group is provided by members for members, not by members for the administration.
Exactly!!! And not by the administration for members!!!
> If I represent members who are particularly hard to please, vote for me, I'll represent you well, maybe.
I didn't quite understand that sentence as a whole. But was that perchance a quomma? My husband has a book of grammar humor that includes quomma humor.
>
> We might agree, you and I, on part of the "more involvement" thing. I would rather see less administrative smileys, and more suggestions on how to comply with his personal preference short of sanctions for people who don't meet his standard.Actually, we're in agreement there. I've long lobbied for more use of the Please Rephrase, and explanations of what the Please Rephrase might entail on the part of Dr. Bob's expectations. And Dr. Bob has listened to that concern of mine (and others of course) and has given both explicit and informal Please Rephrases with alternate suggestions.
> That could be where other administrators expand the overall administrative capacity, if they were hands on admins, and not just aides in developing policy. I think you might try as member who happens to be a deputy, but your suggestions sometimes have just not been consistent with his requirements, no matter how you try.
Hmmm... I don't see that I'm out of step with Dr. Bob all that often. You may have seen it once or twice, especially on Faith Board matters. But if it happens often, I'd appreciate your pointing it out. Because I'd like to know if my belief that I have a reasonably good grasp on the civility rules, their application, Dr. Bob's habits, and sundry related issues is a delusion on my part. I don't *think* so, because Dr. Bob often validates my perceptions. Admin issues are something of an avocation of mine. But sadly I find that my attempts to help in this area often fall flat, and I am not infrequently seen as a know it all busybody who should leave the matters to Dr. Bob. Not that anyone says so, of course. But trying to help often leads to more grief on the part of myself and the posters than it leads to good outcomes. I don't often act as deputy, in keeping with the very strict deputy escalation clause.
> i think it might have more to do with what side of the bed he gets up on, how generally bothersome a particular poster is, and a posters reputation or group standing, no matter how he tries in his own mind to be consistent.
I appreciate your willingness over the course of this discussion to ascribe better motives to Dr. Bob. I think Dr. Bob is actually not particularly likely to block a poster for being objectively disruptive, often to the dismay of fellow posters. Only for violating board guidelines. He has received more flack for that than he has for blocking popular posters, I think. It's one of the reasons that I trust, respect and admire him.
>
> Eliza has proven it possible to develop strict algorithms for dealing with some kinds of language.I can't say, having just "conversed" with Eliza, that I would recommend that Dr. Bob be more like it.
I won't get into your PBC, other than to say I didn't find it incompatible with board guidelines. I'm sorry if my explanation of "I" statements left you flat, but I think it more or less accurately represents Dr. Bob's viewpoint.
But shall we agree that I won't get into your PBC if you don't critique my writing?
> What I mean to say, of substance, is that even if he were training professional subordinates to do his job, the questions that come up of how to deal with particular statements could lead to better understanding on his part of the limits some members encounter understanding his perspective -- maybe it would make him a bit less trustworthy to embody those less desirable traits you said you trust him to demonstrate. He might be more flexible in resolving questions with peers in the privacy of his office than he is on line in a durable database. Maybe.
>
>
Maybe, maybe not. Maybe this is his characteristic style. But... wouldn't it be just as good to tell him that people don't always understand the civility guidelines, to ask him to use more Please Rephrases with explanations, and to ask fellow posters who do understand (and there are many) to help out where they can.In fact, he really does seem to be doing that more often.
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 21:56:03
In reply to Re: Now is a time .. » Dinah, posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 21:34:52
I *always* have trouble with rhetoric. And formal debating methods. Hmmm... I had this discussion with someone else once. I think it might have been Rod. I have no training in debate. I don't even understand what rhetoric is.
I can talk to you openly and honestly. And I can be playful on occasion. I'm good at metaphor only in weaving stories, and only if it comes naturally. I draw a blank if I try on purpose.
I tend to be very concrete and literal most of the time. Not so literal as to compare Dr. Bob with God of course.
To be honest, I would prefer to get to know you better before making statements about likes and dislikes. I just don't know you well enough. I thought since you read hypocrisy into emoticons, you would also read hypocrisy into premature professions of likes and dislikes.
I will say that I like you better now than I did last time you were here, or before I began conversing with you. (I hope Dr. Bob applies the rules of logic to that statement, since I could also say I love my husband more now than when we married.) I appreciate your considering that Dr. Bob's motives might not be bad. And that's as authentic as you can get.
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 22:11:08
In reply to Ahhh, maybe I see » so, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 21:56:03
> To be honest, I would prefer to get to know you better before making statements about likes and dislikes.Well you were the one that started it. I'm not that worried about whether you like me or not, the question was just a way of stretching the humor.
> I love my husband more now than when we married.
I'm glad things are going better for you and your husband than when you were first married.
Or are you saying you're not married to your husband anymore?
I hope you can parse that as humor without an emoticon.
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 23:10:35
In reply to Re: Ok, » so, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 21:47:01
> I think I understand your shorter posts best.
Well of course. Easier to shovel a wheelbarrow full than a truckful.
> >
> But why can't he give that?Communication is a multi-party affair. People here are somewhat articulate, but his peers might be best at explaining perspectives here to him in terms he understands. Sort of like the difference in having a native-born speaker or an English-as-second-language guide in a foreign land - the native English speaker might more readily speak in terms you will understand. And you make the same point well enough in the next sentence...
> Or others who understand? Not that I don't see outside input as helpful at times. I really like it when he has Kali Munro as a guest expert. She once managed to explain something to him that I just couldn't manage to put in the right words.
>> I don't actually mind protecting hypothetical people. For example, members of some minority groups may not be posting on Babble at any given moment, but I would still wish to have their concerns given consideration.
There is some merit to it. But sometimes it seems quite extreme to me. Overall, I think the most cocnern among writers to the board does center on his views on the faith board. I would have to ask if he is too close to the matter, perhaps because of some faith he holds, so that maybe he is trying extra carefully to avoid imposing or challenging faith systems. That's another place he might benefit from a peer with a somewhat different perspective.
A lot of the tension there might also arise from people holding him to things he's said in the past that don't hold up when applied to new situations.>If we want that, I imagine we have to start our own board.
Hmmm-de-hmm-hmmm. Whistle. Nice weather we're having, huh? Business is sure slow today. I mean at the grocery store.
> > If I represent members who are particularly hard to please, vote for me, I'll represent you well, maybe.
>
> I didn't quite understand that sentence as a whole. But was that perchance a quomma? My husband has a book of grammar humor that includes quomma humor.That almost gave me stretch marks? on my vocabulary. The word isn't even listed? in two dictionaries I checked. And there is no HTML character entity for it either. Closest is ¿.
> Hmmm... I don't see that I'm out of step with Dr. Bob all that often. You may have seen it once or twice, especially on Faith Board matters.
I claim to read the archives, but really my understanding is shaped by more recent posts. I think he would run into some real challenges in justifying some of his assertions regarding language in an English department, while your essay and his on certain matters would be seen as reaching divergent conclusions, regardless your intent to explain his point of view.
>But if it happens often, I'd appreciate your pointing it out.
I hope you would eventually appreciated it. It might be bit turbulant during the take-off roll-out and climb, though.> Because I'd like to know if my belief that I have a reasonably good grasp on the civility rules, their application, Dr. Bob's habits, and sundry related issues is a delusion on my part. I don't *think* so, because Dr. Bob often validates my perceptions.
His validation on some matters doesn't confirm your coherence to his views on others. A reasonably good grasp leaves lots of room for divergent views, most likely to be expressed in longer conversations or around more contentious matters.
> Admin issues are something of an avocation of mine. But sadly I find that my attempts to help in this area often fall flat, and I am not infrequently seen as a know it all busybody who should leave the matters to Dr. Bob.
and or his peers, if I am among those by whom you are seen.
>Not that anyone says so, of course.
But YOU are somebody, and you said so.
> > i think it might have more to do with what side of the bed he gets up on, how generally bothersome a particular poster is, and a posters reputation or group standing, no matter how he tries in his own mind to be consistent.
>
> I appreciate your willingness over the course of this discussion to ascribe better motives to Dr. Bob. I think Dr. Bob is actually not particularly likely to block a poster for being objectively disruptive, often to the dismay of fellow posters. Only for violating board guidelines. He has received more flack for that than he has for blocking popular posters, I think. It's one of the reasons that I trust, respect and admire him.yeh, you mentioned that you trust him once before. Regardless his motives, if his condition -- i.e. got up on which side of the bed -- sometimes affects his performance, he might sometimes resolve that by sharing the load with peers. Then they could all justify their worst performances.
Oh, that's supposed to be your line.
> > Eliza has proven it possible to develop strict algorithms for dealing with some kinds of language.
>
> I can't say, having just "conversed" with Eliza, that I would recommend that Dr. Bob be more like it.The exercise of writing alogrythms for that software can help people classify things they might have thought they had adequately grouped, but for which they were instead relying on instinct for guidance. And this is only a few years into the study. Give it five or ten times that long. If we don't nuke ourselves, cook ourselves or otherwise loose our place here, as a species, we're about to wake up to some dramatic understandings. Probably one day after it's too late.
> But shall we agree that I won't get into your PBC if you don't critique my writing?
Er, how abou we each ask what we want of the other without making it a bargain. That leaves room for gift-giving.
> But... wouldn't it be just as good to tell him that people don't always understand the civility guidelines, to ask him to use more Please Rephrases with explanations, and to ask fellow posters who do understand (and there are many) to help out where they can.Not if part of it has to do with what side of the bed he got up on. And if it's good for posters to tell and ask those things, what harm could there be in him having peers that could share with him the same concerns?
> In fact, he really does seem to be doing that more often.
I've considered in the past month writing a protocol for measuring interventions in various health-related boards, but its just not that important to me compared to other things on my plate.
We really could slow this discusison down, if not for my 100wpm error-ridden type-talking. Does your husband know where to find you?
Posted by Dinah on May 24, 2005, at 1:10:30
In reply to Re: Ok, » Dinah, posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 23:10:35
My husband found me just fine. He's asleep now, and I'm off to finish my work. Did I give the impression that he thought I was lost?
I do indeed frequently have trouble recognizing humor. But if someone points it out, I can generally see it. You did, and I did.
Funny thing is that I think with minor help from our diplomatic staff, I think we could have an agreement in principle.
You and I both believe that Please Abide By Board Guidelines is more civil than Please Be Civil.
You and I both believe that a Please Rephrase with examples of appropriate rephrasings are appropriate on those occasions when it is clear that the poster was not intentionally flouting board guidelines.
I have a greater concern for hypothetical persons.
You believe that my knowledge of board guidelines is not as broad or deep as I believe it is. Oh well, we all have our small conceits. I think I'll leave it up to Dr. Bob to disabuse me.
I have no problem, in principal, with Dr. Bob using other professionals as consultants or co-workers as long as he maintains control for the sake of consistency in interpretation and application of board guidelines. Not to mention the not so small matter of earned trust. If that's what he wishes to do.
I see far more consistency in his actions than you do, and I don't think I could identify a day that Dr. Bob got out of the wrong side of the bed. No doubt due to the benefits of asynchronous communication, he always seems steady and reliably Dr. Bob. I also trust him more, but I've known him longer, I presume.
You even agree with me on a subject dear to my heart, the small board, and the vast preferability of keeping the viewing of conversations limited to those who can join in.
Am I correct this time?
Not that it matters all that much, except insofar as charity between two posters go. It's Dr. Bob's board.
> Communication is a multi-party affair. People here are somewhat articulate, but his peers might be best at explaining perspectives here to him in terms he understands. Sort of like the difference in having a native-born speaker or an English-as-second-language guide in a foreign land - the native English speaker might more readily speak in terms you will understand. And you make the same point well enough in the next sentence...Except that... If the difference is that his peers speak the same language, wouldn't they also find the same difficulty in understanding what we posters were trying to say?
> Overall, I think the most cocnern among writers to the board does center on his views on the faith board. I would have to ask if he is too close to the matter, perhaps because of some faith he holds, so that maybe he is trying extra carefully to avoid imposing or challenging faith systems.
Funny, my assumption is that Dr. Bob isn't a person of religion. And that is where some of the problems lie. But you must confess, religion and politics are tricky. Some sites outlaw them outright. He's got posters or lurkers potentially of every faith and ardent atheists and he's trying to walk a fine line there. I don't envy him. Since you may have seen the recent numbers of atheism among mental health professionals, I'm not sure other mental health professionals would help much there.
> That almost gave me stretch marks? on my vocabulary. The word isn't even listed? in two dictionaries I checked. And there is no HTML character entity for it either. Closest is ¿.
>
The quomma is a smudge which may or may not be a comma, placed deliberately to allow for multiple interpretations of a sentence. The classic example from the book, and one that my husband and I enjoy, is the two sentences "She will do nothing which will displease you." vs. "She will do nothing, which will displease you."It's been a pleasure getting to know you. I hope to see you out and around the board.
Posted by so on May 24, 2005, at 2:19:18
In reply to Re: Ok, » so, posted by Dinah on May 24, 2005, at 1:10:30
> My husband found me just fine. He's asleep now, and I'm off to finish my work. Did I give the impression that he thought I was lost?
Never mind. I just sometimes encourage people to value their real lives more than virtual interactions. I'm sure you have it under control.
> Funny thing is that I think with minor help from our diplomatic staff, I think we could have an agreement in principle.Several agreements, actually. That and a dollar might get one of us a cup of coffee. I don't see our agreements on principles as having much likelihood of affecting the way one administrator manages a board the touches the lives of hundreds of people over the course of a year.
> Except that... If the difference is that his peers speak the same language, wouldn't they also find the same difficulty in understanding what we posters were trying to say?
I would like to think discourse among them would lead to new insights, but from what I am seeing in physicians, once one declares something others can observe evidence starkly to the contrary yet say they respect their peer's opinion and refuse to challenge them by acknowledging the facts evident in test results. That might be part of why I take such offense at an effort by a physician to repress discourse that challenges ideas in favor of protecting the sensitivities of others that hold those ideas.
Nonetheless, I'm not dissuaded of my conviction. Organizational oversight has value. Maybe it's the liberal in me, who says collective power can protect people from the shortcomings of powerful individuals.
> Since you may have seen the recent numbers of atheism among mental health professionals, I'm not sure other mental health professionals would help much there.
My having seen the numbers probably wouldn't make much difference in whether other professionals would help improve operation of this board. Again, I think the processes native to an organization might require better articulation of the reasons for the fine lines he chooses to draw. It seems such a contradiction, to me, sanctioning people for writing something one intends to publish nonetheless, in perpetuity. Such gratitude. Enforcing those measures on the faith board, where he has set such a fine line for writers he has invited, just doesn't embody the kinds of compassion I would hope to see in a faith community, whatever his personal beliefs.
> The quomma is a smudge which may or may not be a comma, placed deliberately to allow for multiple interpretations of a sentence. The classic example from the book, and one that my husband and I enjoy, is the two sentences "She will do nothing which will displease you." vs. "She will do nothing, which will displease you."
Actually, I have information that the quomma is a proposed new punctuation mark that comprises a comma instead of period under a question mark, to be used in a sentence internally punctuated as a question, but not ending at the punctuation. The mark, similar in form to a semicolon, was proposed by Owen Maresh of the .... drum roll ... University of Chicago, in 2000. But then Thornton's Lexgon of Intentoinaly Ambigus Recomedations was copyrighted in 1998. I wonder if he will touch on administrative policies of asynchrounous open networks in a future publication.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 24, 2005, at 2:25:47
In reply to Re: team effort » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 20:48:32
> I think you might be underestimating how much your training etc helps you make informed decisions about what is most likely to benefit the forum...
>
> I think Babble would be a LOT different if it became consumer run. Consumers tend to have mental health issues which impact on some of their decisions / perspectives. There are a lot of consumer run boards out there and IMO they lack consistency with respect to decision making and have a tendancy to vanish when moderators / members encounter personal crisis...Those are good points, but: (1) A lot of decisions have already been made. (2) I think a team that's been together a while would be a lot different than an individual consumer. (3) I wouldn't just vanish myself. :-)
> I still think other professionals would be a good idea...
>
> Is it that it is hard to get people interested...
> Or that you like this being your site???Some professionals are already here... In my experience, it's hard to get others interested. They're busy, they have their own projects... But if you know any, send them on!
Bob
Posted by Nikkit2 on May 24, 2005, at 4:20:09
In reply to Re: Ok, » so, posted by Dinah on May 24, 2005, at 1:10:30
I've got a bit lost through all of this.. so could you help me understand (its lack of time on my part to keep up I'm afraid)
Is it being suggested, and accepted by Dr Bob, that he is going to let others run this place instead of him?
Oh heavens.. maybe I've been around the net too long, but I can see that going terribly wrong.
Why can't people just accept this is Dr Bobs place.. he pays for the online space etc.. Its not somewhere for treatment, its just somewhere for MUCH needed peer support.
Have others not come across the theory of peer support? Its something we're keen on promoting very much at work (and I am *quite* sure the people I work with have more mental health training that anyone on this board, other than possibly Dr Bob (but then, I strongly believe some I work with have alot more, and wider, experience than dr Bob also)..
Dr Bob - if you are to hand over the reins of this place, please could you do me the favour of removing ANY trace of me from your servers. I trust you implicitly, I do not trust someone else to come in and give me the level of safety that you do. (and yes, safety is *incredibly* important to me here..)
Nikki
Posted by gardenergirl on May 24, 2005, at 5:45:48
In reply to Re: (((gg))), posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 21:08:14
Awwww, right back atcha, sweetie.
Yes we should definitely go be silly together somewhere. But first I must go to work, darn it. Silly will have to wait just a bit.
But I will keep smiling in anticipation. :)
gg
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.