![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 163 to 187 of 197. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by TofuEmmy on June 28, 2005, at 18:07:58
In reply to lame, posted by ugh on June 28, 2005, at 14:35:00
Hmmm...let's see...
I feel so sad when you say I am pathetic.
I feel ticklish when you say I am the "bane of a free, healthy society".
I feel stupified when you imply I've done anything against Chemist.
I feel artistically stunted when you refer to my posts as "banal ramblings".
I feel grossed out when you wish for me to experience pain.
I don't know you, but I hope you find happiness.Emmy
Posted by gardenergirl on June 28, 2005, at 19:20:13
In reply to Re: lame » ugh, posted by TofuEmmy on June 28, 2005, at 18:07:58
Posted by jay on July 5, 2005, at 16:57:51
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen..Dr. Bob...please review.. » jay, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 14, 2005, at 16:58:40
> > > Especially when this unfair treatment comes from a man. And most especially when the man is supporting another man who repeatedly broke the rules. Women who have been abused by men in the past are particularly sensitive to unfair treatment from men. It raises the hackles on our collective necks.
> > >
> >
> > I feel quite put down in your assumption of one man being like all men. I believe it is sexist, and if I where a man saying that about woman, I would be stompped upon. Dr. Bob I am asking you to look into this, and provide a response. Thank you,
> >
> > Jay
>
> Where in that post is it insinuated or assumed that one man is like all men?
> I fail to see that. I fail to see the sexism.
> To me it's no different than a man saying "a man who was abused by his mother in the past is likely to be sensitive to any similar treatment by a women"
> I don't believe any man would be "stomped" on for making that statement.
>
>What makes the difference is the first sentence. "when this unfair treatment comes from a man." Replace man with Jew/coloured...even woman..and it smacks of generalization. No, it is not acceptable.
Jay
Posted by TofuEmmy on July 5, 2005, at 17:45:12
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen..Dr. Bob...please review.. » Gabbi-x-2, posted by jay on July 5, 2005, at 16:57:51
Jay - I can see from your perspective why that first sentence sounds bad. Let me explain a bit.
At the time, I felt that *I* was being descriminated against. Larry was ignoring my request, and Dr. Bob was ignoring my email to him. I felt like Bob and Larry had sorta ganged up against me by ignoring me. That's why I posted - I felt ignored by both men. That is difficult for me since we live in a society which favors men in salaries, power positions, etc. I felt disenfranchised. That's when I posted my diatribe.
Had Dr. Bob replied to my emailed request, this never would have happened. Had Larry either not posted to me, or indicated that he thought my request was invalid - this never would have happened.
I agree that Larry's block is too long. But to blame me for this block, IMO, is unfair. The only thing I regret is not asking a friend of his to remind him to stop posting to me. However, since he now states that he thinks my request was invalid, I don't know if he would have respected that additional request.
Jay, I too am a strong supportor of my pals, so I certainly understand your strong feelings. I think your kind support of your friend is commendable.
emmy
Posted by crushedout on July 6, 2005, at 13:52:23
In reply to Explanation » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on June 13, 2005, at 9:23:44
> To me, the difference was the use of the word "you" in the body of the post, in a context where you seemed to be addressing a comment to Emmy.
Dinah, I reread Larry's post, and I can't find where he said the word "you" anywhere. I'm confused.
Posted by All Done on July 7, 2005, at 1:08:18
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen..Dr. Bob...please review.. » jay, posted by TofuEmmy on July 5, 2005, at 17:45:12
Posted by AuntieMel on July 7, 2005, at 8:26:48
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen..Dr. Bob...please review.. » jay, posted by TofuEmmy on July 5, 2005, at 17:45:12
I just hate it when two people I have fun chatting with are on the outs. I just wish I could do something to make it better. Like kissing the boo-boo used to do.
Posted by gabbii on July 8, 2005, at 4:54:34
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen..Dr. Bob...please review.. » Gabbi-x-2, posted by jay on July 5, 2005, at 16:57:51
>
> What makes the difference is the first sentence. "when this unfair treatment comes from a man." Replace man with Jew/coloured...even woman..and it smacks of generalization. >
> JayI don't think I've ever seen you post more than you have since you boycotted the board!
I really didn't see anything new in your argument, but I'll state what I saw once again.
I would not take the one sentence out of Emmy's post because it takes the entire post to convey the message, and the reasoning for what she said about men is explained in the last sentence of what she wrote.
You mentioned replacing the word "man" with anyone of color or race in your two previous posts in order to show how offensive it is, It can easily be done without general offence unless the one sentence you have objected to is taken out of the context of the message. It's the message I'm concerned with, not one phrase.
Perhaps it could have been worded more clearly,
sorry the one sentence upset you, but the fact is, women who've been abused by men in the past are generally more sensitive to abuse "especially when this behaviour comes from a man" I have no problem with that statement>No, it is not acceptable.
No, it's not acceptable to you.
Posted by gabbii on July 8, 2005, at 4:58:50
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen..Dr. Bob...please review.. » Gabbi-x-2, posted by jay on July 5, 2005, at 16:57:51
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.