![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 154 to 178 of 197. Go back in thread:
Posted by Ron Hill on June 24, 2005, at 0:31:24
In reply to Re: reconsideration, posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2005, at 13:18:48
> > You are being asked to reconsider the length of the block because, as Dinah has said, he misunderstood the application of the DNP rule.
>
> Right, I didn't mean to oversimplify, and I understand the above may be another factor. I'm working on sorting it out. Thanks for your patience,
>
> Bob
------------Dr. Bob,
It's been more that nine days since Larry was blocked. Have you finished sorting it out yet? If yes, what was your decision? If not, how soon do you anticipant making your decision and notifying us?
-- Ron
Posted by AMD on June 26, 2005, at 17:28:25
In reply to Re: blocked for week » AMD, posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2005, at 23:41:13
I don't know, Dr. Bob. I think you are beginning to get hypocritical in your blocking. Correct me if I am wrong.
For example, the comment that caused me to get blocked was: "The fact that this forum is run as a dictatorship ... is disgusting."
You claimed this would make people feel "accused." Then you turned around in the very next paragraph and said "freedom of speech is limited here," which is consistent with the dictionary definition of "dictatorship":
a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)
(Is that not how you run this board, Dr. Bob?)
So, by simply reiterating something you've said time and time again, you banned me. How is that not hypocritical?
That's like you saying, "You have no right to say what you want here, but you /can/ express an opinion," and my replying "I don't like the fact I can't say what I want" (which is an opinion) and your turning around and banning me because I did something you have personally said was O.K. many, many times (that is, expression an opinion). In fact, what else is the purpose for this board if not to express opinion on the administration of this board.
(Come to think of it, banning based on a post in the administration section itself is questionable.)
Well, that's my defense of my ban. Unfortunately, I suspect this will fall on deaf ears.
amd
Posted by Deneb on June 26, 2005, at 19:14:20
In reply to Re: blocked for week, posted by AMD on June 26, 2005, at 17:28:25
> For example, the comment that caused me to get blocked was: "The fact that this forum is run as a dictatorship ... is disgusting."
>
> You claimed this would make people feel "accused." Then you turned around in the very next paragraph and said "freedom of speech is limited here," which is consistent with the dictionary definition of "dictatorship":Maybe it was not the use of the word "dictatorship" which was the issue, but the use of the word "disgusting" to describe it. I don't think all opinions are ok to express. Opinions that put others down are not ok to express here. If someone called you or your behaviour "disgusting", you would probably feel put down.
> Unfortunately, I suspect this will fall on deaf ears.
Maybe Dr. Bob just doesn't know how to reply sometimes without making the situation worst. Everyone responds differently so maybe not responding is the safest thing to do when people are upset.
I was pretty upset when I got blocked...I kind of got a little crazy and any response would have been interpreted as an attack on me. I'm guessing that blocking made you upset as well? I personally don't like blocks, but there are rules to follow here and we must not break them. I guess blocks are the current answer for enforcing those rules. It doesn't matter why or who breaks them, but Dr. Bob is only human and makes mistakes sometimes. He can never be 100% consistent.
Deneb
Posted by 10derHeart on June 26, 2005, at 19:56:16
In reply to Re: blocked for week » AMD, posted by Deneb on June 26, 2005, at 19:14:20
I agree with Deneb's theory. Perhaps if you had kept the comment quite similar, but without the "disgusting" portion, Dr. Bob would have been willing to engage in dialog about what a dictatorship *looks like* to you - as far as here at Babble, I mean. (I know the dictionary defintion, but I imagine there might still be issues worth discussing..)
Of course, I could be completely wrong and Dr. Bob was objecting to the comment as a whole. I can only go by what might bother me, and I wouldn't care for what appears to be crossing a line into name-calling, by labeling behavior "disgusting."
It can be a powerful word. - Regards - 10derHeart
Posted by AMD on June 26, 2005, at 20:42:03
In reply to Re: blocked for week » AMD, posted by Deneb on June 26, 2005, at 19:14:20
So by that token, the terms "unappealing to me" would have been better? Please. Is there a dictionary of acceptable words now? Can you please tell me whether I can use the word "disgusting," or "troublesome," or "unfair," or "rude"? Give me a break, Deneb. That is totally unreasonable. "Disgusting" is a perfectly valid adjective.
Of course being blocked bothers me. It doesn't make me go crazy or anything, but it's frustrating as it's applied so unevenly.
There's another word appropriate here, for me, at this point: "whatever."
:)
amd
Posted by 10derHeart on June 26, 2005, at 21:14:39
In reply to Re: blocked for week, posted by AMD on June 26, 2005, at 20:42:03
> So by that token, the terms "unappealing to me" would have been better? Please. Is there a dictionary of acceptable words now? Can you please tell me whether I can use the word "disgusting," or "troublesome," or "unfair," or "rude"? Give me a break, Deneb. That is totally unreasonable. "Disgusting" is a perfectly valid adjective.<<
AMD -
IMO, this post comes awfully close to being uncivil. It sounds sarcastic toward Deneb. Also, I might feel somewhat put down if a poster asked me to "give [them] a break" and called me unreasonable. Could you have posted your disagreement with her take on things, yet left those comments out?
I thought Deneb's post was an attempt to suggest another way of looking at an issue in a reasonable, respectful way.
I don't mean to be offensive myself, even though I'll say the tone of your response toward Deneb did upset me. This is meant as a friendly "please be careful/civil" (of each other's feelings?) from another Babbler.
BTW, "disgusting" may be a perfectly valid adjective. But it's not perfectly okay, under forum guidelines, to *aim* it, or other similar words with negative connotations, directly at another poster.
Even when that poster is Dr. Bob :-) (IMO)
Respectfully,
-10derHeart
Posted by Deneb on June 26, 2005, at 21:26:49
In reply to Re: blocked for week, posted by AMD on June 26, 2005, at 20:42:03
> So by that token, the terms "unappealing to me" would have been better? Please. Is there a dictionary of acceptable words now? Can you please tell me whether I can use the word "disgusting," or "troublesome," or "unfair," or "rude"?
No, I don't think there is a list of unacceptable non-vulgar words out there. I think it has more to do with how you use them. If I say that all slugs are disgusting to me, no one here will be hurt by that to a great degree. If however I say that all people who are x are disgusting to me, that will probably be unacceptable.
It is a little tricky here, much more so than IRL I think. People can get upset easily here, even if that was not your intent.
The comment:
>Give me a break, Deneb. That is totally unreasonable. "Disgusting" is a perfectly valid adjective.upset me.
People need to show a certain amount of restraint and empathy to stay here. I disagree with blocks because of how I believe they hurt people, but not everyone is hurt by them. It's a balancing act and Babble is not the right place for everyone. I still believe that it might be useful to warn people about possible unintended side effects of blocks when they first register here.
> Of course being blocked bothers me.
It bothers me too. I hope you feel better soon.
> There's another word appropriate here, for me, at this point: "whatever."
>
> :):o)
Deneb
Posted by gardenergirl on June 26, 2005, at 21:44:36
In reply to Re: blocked for week, posted by AMD on June 26, 2005, at 20:42:03
The point is that an adjective describes a subject, and that subject might feel hurt or put down having that adjective attached to them or to their behavior, beliefs, or words.
You are perfectly entitled, at least as far as I can determine, to feel disgusted, although I believe that is a slippery slope due to the "charge" of the word. But at any rate, that is a feeling, and it is not attached to another object. It stays within you. And that makes it more civil than describing someone else's behavior, thoughts, feelings, etc.
See the difference?
gg
Posted by gabbii on June 26, 2005, at 22:26:22
In reply to Re: blocked for week » AMD, posted by gardenergirl on June 26, 2005, at 21:44:36
There were a few statements within your posts that flouted the civility requirements. Dr. Bob does not necessarily define them all when he blocks a poster.
Posted by AMD on June 26, 2005, at 23:00:00
In reply to Friendly suggestion... » AMD, posted by 10derHeart on June 26, 2005, at 21:14:39
> IMO, this post comes awfully close to being uncivil. It sounds sarcastic toward Deneb. Also,
*** This is a good example of what I'm talking about. What are we supposed to be on here, a bunch of drones? People have opinions about things, and one way of expressing the strength of those opinions is by choice of words. So "give me a break" was not "uncivil," it was indicitive that I think the difference between "disgusting" and "dislike" is of valid degree. I don't "dislike" the censorship. I think it's "disgusting." Two very different levels of opinion. Notice I don't think that personal attacks shouldn't be banned. It's criticism of ideas that upsets me, and Dr. Bob, frankly, proved my point by banning me based on said criticism.
If I had been calling /someone/ disgusting, aside from some policy (and let's not confuse the two), that might be different. However, these words exist in our vocabular for a reason, and unless we are to list a series of acceptable vocabulary words a priori, I think choosing one or the other should not be such an issue of concern. Keep in mind, too, that we are all human, and sometimes our word choices are imperfect. ***
I might feel somewhat put down if a poster asked me to "give [them] a break" and called me unreasonable.
*** Aha! That is the key point. I didn't call anyone unreasonable. I said the /notion/ was unreasonable (and obviously that's an opinion). This is where your argument (and others') is flawed. You seem to be confusing criticism of an idea with criticism of a person. They are not the same thing. (If they were, I suspect former Presidents Clinton and Bush wouldn't be yamming it out in public forums.) ***
Could you have posted your disagreement with her take on things, yet left those comments out?
*** No. That would have made the same statement without inbuing it with the seriousness with which I take it. Perhaps I could have been less sarcastic and more literal, but it would have served the same end. ***
> BTW, "disgusting" may be a perfectly valid adjective. But it's not perfectly okay, under*** You're making the same mistake here you made above, confusing criticism of an idea, rule, concept, notion with criticism of a person. ***
I hope this clarifies my point.
amd
Posted by AMD on June 26, 2005, at 23:11:52
In reply to Re: blocked for week » AMD, posted by gardenergirl on June 26, 2005, at 21:44:36
Perhaps you don't see the difference? You seem to be confusing criticism of an idea with criticism of a person. Is that not true?
"Charge" of the word, eh? Care to elaborate? So it's OK to say, for example, that my kitchen (something rather benign) is disgusting, but to say it of something much more weighty (freedom of speech) is a no-no? Is this what you're saying? So of the latter I should say only something like "not fair," or "not good," or "a disappointing aspect of the site"?
One thing I should have done was contribute a positive idea, which might have been, for example, an argument as to why freedom of speech could /benefit/ the board. I think I did so indirectly, in that people get banned who are very beneficial (social utility) to more folks on the board than are the persons who caused them to get banned. Larry is a good case in point: we're all sorely missing him. The overall utility of the bored decreaed with his ban, not increased. Unfortunately, Dr. Bob's blanket policy I think throws out of the sheet with the bath water, so to speak. But that's the price for a single, overriding policy.
Anyhow, I don't want to belabor this point. I posted /following/ my ban to express my opinion was to why it was unfair. I think that point has been expressed now multiple times, so I'll stop here and let you all have at it. :-)
amd
Posted by AMD on June 26, 2005, at 23:14:04
In reply to Re: blocked for week, posted by 10derHeart on June 26, 2005, at 19:56:16
Actually, the ban seemed more to be to be a 'fine-you-asked-for-it' from Dr. Bob more than any official violation by me of the civility policy. That is what's most, *cough*, (searching through dictionary for most benign adjective), "disappointing" about it.
amd
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2005, at 23:32:25
In reply to Re: reconsideration » Dr. Bob, posted by Ron Hill on June 24, 2005, at 0:31:24
> > > You are being asked to reconsider the length of the block because, as Dinah has said, he misunderstood the application of the DNP rule.
Sorry to take so long to reply. I think Emmy was within her rights to ask Larry not to post to her and if someone asks that, they shouldn't be posted to -- even if it's to apologize. Also, the block is already shorter than it could've been.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2005, at 23:32:30
In reply to Re: blocked for week, posted by AMD on June 26, 2005, at 20:42:03
> So by that token, the terms "unappealing to me" would have been better? Please. Is there a dictionary of acceptable words now? Can you please tell me whether I can use the word "disgusting," or "troublesome," or "unfair," or "rude"?
Another way to look at this is that it would've been better as an I-statement:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/320097.html> Of course being blocked bothers me. It doesn't make me go crazy or anything, but it's frustrating as it's applied so unevenly.
I'm sorry it's frustrating. Posting here is a skill that can take time to develop. Keep working at it?
Bob
Posted by AMD on June 27, 2005, at 15:43:51
In reply to Re: I-statements, posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2005, at 23:32:30
Deal. Thanks for not blocking me again for my venting my frustrations. Sometimes I get, um, vocal. :-)
It's easy to get caught up in the administration and forget what a wonderful resource this is. Thanks for the site, Dr. Bob.
amd
Posted by AMD on June 27, 2005, at 15:50:40
In reply to Re: I-statements, posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2005, at 23:32:30
> Another way to look at this is that it would've been better as an I-statement:
Just a note about this. I was always taught that using "I" in a statement was redundant, particularly when it's an opinion.
e.g., in the statement:
"The movie is offensive."
The "I think" part that could prefix it is implied.
In my writing (and following the Elements of Style guidelines), I try to be succinct. Instead of
"I think the movie is offensive. To me this is a bad piece of film making. In my opinion it was ruined by MRAA censorship," etc., is just as well (if not better) expressed "The movie is offensive, a bad piece of film making -- it would have been better left uncut."
So, it sounds like the general guideline is "err on the side of political correctness" (because, afterall, what is this type of roundabout writing but politically correctness?). That's fine. But again, IN MY OPINION, misinterpretation of sentences like the above as DIRECTED AT SOMEONE (as opposed to a PERSONAL OPINION) is a result of the ignorance and illiteracy of the reader more than incorrect semantics by the writer.
Of course, this is just my opinion. :-)
amd
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 27, 2005, at 16:05:45
In reply to Re: I-statements » Dr. Bob, posted by AMD on June 27, 2005, at 15:43:51
Posted by 10derHeart on June 27, 2005, at 16:54:08
In reply to Re: I-statements, posted by AMD on June 27, 2005, at 15:50:40
>> is a result of the ignorance and illiteracy of the reader more than incorrect semantics by the writer.
Thanks - appreciate that description. I shall try not to misinterpret any more of your writing, or display my ignorance and illiteracy here. It must be a disgusting concept for you to have to deal with.
I just don't know what to do about the fact I find choosing words like "disgusting", "ignorant" and "illiterate" which are highly "charged," as gg said before, to often be uncivil -yes, in and of themselves - when applied to ANY posters' behaviors, opinions or attitudes.
Perhaps I'd best stay off this board. I'm very confused now. I hereby PBC myself for being sarcastic.
Posted by gardenergirl on June 27, 2005, at 17:43:51
In reply to Re: I-statements » AMD, posted by 10derHeart on June 27, 2005, at 16:54:08
Posted by AMD on June 27, 2005, at 20:03:32
In reply to Re: I-statements » AMD, posted by 10derHeart on June 27, 2005, at 16:54:08
> >> is a result of the ignorance and illiteracy of the reader more than incorrect semantics by the writer.
>
> Thanks - appreciate that description. I shall try not to misinterpret any more of your writing, or display my ignorance and illiteracy here. It must be a disgusting concept for you to have to deal with.
**********In my opinion, this is an example of what I'm talking about: in my opinion, you just pulled this inference out of thin air, that somehow I was talking about you (I don't even know who you are, actually). In my opinion you are mistaking my response to a particular statement (that being, why it's redundant, in my opinion, to include the letter "I" in every statement) as a personal attack on you, which was clearly not my intention. Are you denying that there are people in the world who don't understand that the statement, for example, "this is ridiculous" is obviously an opinion? I don't see, personally, how it could not be. We speak: we /are/ "I".
> I just don't know what to do about the fact I find choosing words like "disgusting", "ignorant" and "illiterate" which are highly "charged," as gg said before, to often be uncivil -yes, in and of themselves - when applied to ANY posters'
And guess what: that's /your/ opinion! And I respect it. Don't use "disgusting." Don't use "illiterate." Don't use "ignorant." But don't deny these are perfectly valid adjectives, nor deny /me/ the choice to use the word "disgusting" if that's what the statement calls for.
Seriously -- what's more offensive? Someone saying "disgusting" about something (NOT someone), or someone telling someone in particular (me) to basically shut up and to then choose words for him.
I don't like you telling me what I can or can't say. That's offensive.
Do I think you should be blocked? No. I doubt I'd ever ask Dr. Bob to block anyone, for any reason.
(See, "That's offensive" would have been perfectly reasonable here. No need to say "In my opinion," or "I think it's," etc.)
amd
Posted by 10derHeart on June 27, 2005, at 22:57:25
In reply to Re: I-statements » 10derHeart, posted by AMD on June 27, 2005, at 20:03:32
>> I don't like you telling me what I can or can't say. That's offensive.
I apologize for offending you. I didn't think I was telling you what you can or can't say, but if that's how it came across, I am sorry. I wouldn't like that either.
Thanks for not wanting me blocked. I don't want you blocked, either.
I shouldn't have posted any of this, despite my good intentions. It's proving too stressful for me.
My best to you, AMD.
Posted by 10derHeart on June 27, 2005, at 22:59:34
In reply to ((((((10derheart))))) (nm) » 10derHeart, posted by gardenergirl on June 27, 2005, at 17:43:51
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2005, at 10:08:05
In reply to Re: I-statements » 10derHeart, posted by AMD on June 27, 2005, at 20:03:32
> you just pulled this inference out of thin air
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. The last time you were blocked it was for 1 week, and I'm making this for another week.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
> I was always taught that using "I" in a statement was redundant, particularly when it's an opinion.
>
> e.g., in the statement:
>
> "The movie is offensive."
>
> The "I think" part that could prefix it is implied.Even if you consider it implied, it's still not really an I-statement:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/320097.html
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by ugh on June 28, 2005, at 14:35:00
In reply to Re: blocked for week » AMD, posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2005, at 10:08:05
that is so f*cked up, dr. bob.
have the courage of your convictions. tofuemmy, dinah, and your touchy-feel-y approach to dialogue. it's lame. you must really have no self-esteem in that you need to bring down others because you can't handle anything too strongly worded. you are pathetic. people like you are the bane of a free, healthy society. i'm sure you're happy you've shut down numerous people multiple times: larry, chemist, others. well, you know what? their posts are infinitely more useful than yours have ever been, and if there were really any justice, you'd be the ones banned from the site, for hindering the useful dialogue of the actually insightful (as opposed to your banal ramblings, which consist, mainly, of complaining about words like "disgusting" or lack of the word "I" in every sentence) for nothing more than a few strong words. i hope you get the pain you're inflicting on others by preventning those actually helpful from communicating with the ones in need.
Posted by Dinah on June 28, 2005, at 16:51:27
In reply to lame, posted by ugh on June 28, 2005, at 14:35:00
Dinah here, acting as deputy for Dr. Bob.
I've blocked this posting name, and Dr. Bob will sort it out when he comes.
If you have any concerns about this block, please email them to Dr. Bob. His email address is at the bottom of each page.
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.