![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 44. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 21, 2002, at 10:10:48
[Posted by krazy kat on June 20, 2002, at 18:25:04
In reply to http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020527/msgs/190.html]
> seems sometimes it's o.k. to use it, sometimes not.
>
> in this case, omega man is being supportive, recognizing the seriousness of the issue.
>
> just curious.
>
> - kk
Posted by wendy b. on June 21, 2002, at 10:57:36
In reply to what is the rule for language? « krazy kat, posted by Dr. Bob on June 21, 2002, at 10:10:48
> [Posted by krazy kat on June 20, 2002, at 18:25:04
>
> In reply to http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020527/msgs/190.html]
>
> > seems sometimes it's o.k. to use it, sometimes not.
> >
> > in this case, omega man is being supportive, recognizing the seriousness of the issue.
> >
> > just curious.
> >
> > - kk
I agree with Kat about OmegaMan's post, he's not being unsupportive, and if people can't deal with the word shit, they should reassess their tolerance levels. It's pretty much common parlance, IMO.Wendy
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 22, 2002, at 11:29:08
In reply to Re: what is the rule for language? « krazy kat » Dr. Bob, posted by wendy b. on June 21, 2002, at 10:57:36
> > > in this case, omega man is being supportive, recognizing the seriousness of the issue.
> > > - kkI agree. I didn't say he wasn't being supportive. My issue was with the language. Which was compounded by being in the subject line.
> if people can't deal with the word shit, they should reassess their tolerance levels. It's pretty much common parlance, IMO.
>
> WendyThat's not a very, um, supportive attitude... Just because something's common doesn't mean it's a good thing.
Bob
Posted by krazy kat on June 22, 2002, at 15:06:06
In reply to Re: the rule for language, posted by Dr. Bob on June 22, 2002, at 11:29:08
is all "bad" language unacceptable? is it o.k. in the message but not the subject line? if so, why? it would be helpful to have these guidelines.
- kk
Posted by krazy kat on June 22, 2002, at 15:09:58
In reply to Re: the rule for language, posted by Dr. Bob on June 22, 2002, at 11:29:08
"> if people can't deal with the word shit, they should reassess their tolerance levels. It's pretty much common parlance, IMO.
>
> WendyThat's not a very, um, supportive attitude... Just because something's common doesn't mean it's a good thing."
-- What's unsupportive here? It is clearly stated as an opinion. If people can't handle being told they need to seek professional help on this site, I would say that they should reconsider their view, imo. same thing.
And, again, my question was not answered. what is the rule for "bad" language?
You seem to prefer to answer questions with questions still, Dr. B.
- kk
Posted by katekite on June 22, 2002, at 15:45:33
In reply to i still don't understand the rule..., posted by krazy kat on June 22, 2002, at 15:06:06
It's my understanding common 'bad' words are not allowed in the subject line or in the message itself, at all. I'm sure in the past a few messages have slipped through.
I think I may have seen 'crap' used without rebuke, although honestly it barely counts as having four letters, ought to be spelled 'crappe' for all the oomph it has as a word...
I'm curious on 'BS', since this sometimes I edit it out before hitting submit and wonder if I had to do it or not. There must be a list somewhere.
kate
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 22, 2002, at 18:23:43
In reply to i still don't understand the rule..., posted by krazy kat on June 22, 2002, at 15:06:06
> is all "bad" language unacceptable?
Yes. There, a simple rule. :-)
Bob
Posted by wendy b. on June 22, 2002, at 21:56:21
In reply to Re: i still don't understand the rule..., posted by Dr. Bob on June 22, 2002, at 18:23:43
> > is all "bad" language unacceptable?
>
> Yes. There, a simple rule. :-)
>
> BobBob,
I think that this is just silly. Your calling me unsupportive, of a concept, not a person (read the thread again), is really off-base. Loads of people would tell you that I am at least as supportive of others as anybody else, in real life and on this Board... I am trying hard not to take your remarks as a put-down.
What you think of as "bad" words, and what I think of as offensive language (cuz I usually don't label much speech as "bad"), are different. Obviously. It takes a lot to offend me. Because I am SO TOLERANT, I guess. I wish you could be tolerant, too, of reasonable expression.
I prefer the old days, where the use of such words wasn't as "policed" as it is now. If they're used as epithets or in name-calling, that's clearly unacceptable on any forum. But I really can't understand why you are actively choosing to stifle expression. The books of creative literature you're reading on the Book Club forum are written by authors who use those awful "bad" words judiciously. Not all the time, but not never, either.
And does the fact that I don't happen to agree with someone (like you, in this rare instance) mean that I'm not being supportive of him? This is something I don't get either.
And I know I can take my bad words and use somebody else's web site. But I'd rather be able to express myself (within reason) without censoring myself, and be able to play with the other kiddies in this sandbox.
What about Dreamer's sex-escapades?* Isn't that as offensive as swearing? Why don't you censor discussions of/about sex, like the one we had about "Good Sex for Moms, " and women who were having a hard time getting turned on? We got pretty graphic, of necessity. The differences seem to be a little tricky to discern.
Still respectfully,
Wendy
* I think they're great, this is just an example.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 23, 2002, at 0:56:23
In reply to Re: I still don't understand the rule, either » Dr. Bob, posted by wendy b. on June 22, 2002, at 21:56:21
> I think that this is just silly. Your calling me unsupportive, of a concept, not a person (read the thread again), is really off-base.
Here's what you said again:
> > if people can't deal with the word shit, they should reassess their tolerance levels.
I took that as not so supportive of people would can't deal with the word. Are you saying it's just unsupportive of the concept of not being able to deal with the word? Or of a group of people rather than a particular person?
> Loads of people would tell you that I am at least as supportive of others as anybody else, in real life and on this Board... I am trying hard not to take your remarks as a put-down.
I was referring *only* to that one statement. I didn't mean anything more than that, I apologize if I came across that way.
> It takes a lot to offend me. Because I am SO TOLERANT, I guess. I wish you could be tolerant, too, of reasonable expression.
OK, it takes a lot to offend you. In fact, I think it takes a lot to offend me, too. The thing is, it's not just us two here.
> I really can't understand why you are actively choosing to stifle expression. The books of creative literature you're reading on the Book Club forum are written by authors who use those awful "bad" words judiciously. Not all the time, but not never, either.
I'm choosing to stifle certain forms of expression because I want people to feel welcome here. Those books have a different goal than this site.
> And does the fact that I don't happen to agree with someone (like you, in this rare instance) mean that I'm not being supportive of him? This is something I don't get either.
I suppose in a way it's not supportive, but the other main goal is education, so different points of view are fine, and in fact encouraged.
> And I know I can take my bad words and use somebody else's web site. But I'd rather be able to express myself (within reason) without censoring myself
Expressing oneself within reason means sometimes censoring oneself.
> What about Dreamer's sex-escapades?* Isn't that as offensive as swearing? Why don't you censor discussions of/about sex, like the one we had about "Good Sex for Moms, " and women who were having a hard time getting turned on? We got pretty graphic, of necessity. The differences seem to be a little tricky to discern.
The difference there is between *topics* that might offend others and *language* that might.
Bob
Posted by Ctrlalt n del on June 23, 2002, at 1:21:37
In reply to Re: I still don't understand the rule, either » Dr. Bob, posted by wendy b. on June 22, 2002, at 21:56:21
What escapades?
Naughty Dr Beamer , my celibacy is known universally .
Posted by Shar on June 23, 2002, at 5:55:03
In reply to what is the rule for language? « krazy kat, posted by Dr. Bob on June 21, 2002, at 10:10:48
I like the idea of being allowed to use real language in our posts, including the occasional 'swear' word. As grownups, I think we can handle the milder ones ok, and for George Carlin's "7 words" that can't be said on tv (or stronger ones) asterisks should suffice.
Part of what I find special about this particular site is that people seem to write as they might speak, that's partly responsible imho for how close knit the group has been at times. I'd really hate to see that change.
It appears to me with the addition of PBC's for offenses not previously addressed, we are approaching a standard of expression allowed in about the jr. year of high school. I don't think this is a good thing IF one of the goals of the Psychos is to allow people to be 'real' or as real as possible.
Plus, I hope you are tracking implementation of these newly designated infractions so you can include them in any research papers that may cover this time period. There could be a change in the depth of what people express, if it needs to be 'formal' or devoid of that energy that leads to the use of 'bad' words while telling about anger, disappointment, hurt, grief, frustration, etc.
OTOH, I completely understand the appeal of a simple rule.
Shar
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 23, 2002, at 9:44:58
In reply to In favor of real language, posted by Shar on June 23, 2002, at 5:55:03
> Part of what I find special about this particular site is that people seem to write as they might speak, that's partly responsible imho for how close knit the group has been at times.
As they *might* speak, yes, I agree.
> It appears to me with the addition of PBC's for offenses not previously addressed, we are approaching a standard of expression allowed in about the jr. year of high school. I don't think this is a good thing IF one of the goals of the Psychos is to allow people to be 'real' or as real as possible.
"Language that might offend others" is not a new "offense".
Are you saying that my not allowing certain forms of expression makes you feel like you're in high school? I certainly do *not* mean to make you feel like you're a kid or something. But the primary goals here are support and education. Being "real" is not a primary goal. It can be therapeutic to express yourself, but this isn't necessarily the place.
This isn't always easy, and I know I'm not perfect. I want to be open to feedback, but if you could also please try to accept what I decide and to trust that I'm doing my best to be fair and to do what I think will be good for this community as a whole, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks.
Bob
Posted by krazy kat on June 23, 2002, at 10:12:51
In reply to bad words, posted by katekite on June 22, 2002, at 15:45:33
words? I grew up with hell, damn, and goddamn. i would really like to be able to use those...
Posted by krazy kat on June 23, 2002, at 10:18:31
In reply to Re: Opposed to language that might offend, posted by Dr. Bob on June 23, 2002, at 9:44:58
the addition of this end phrase:
"This isn't always easy, and I know I'm not perfect. I want to be open to feedback, but if you could also please try to accept what I decide and to trust that I'm doing my best to be fair and to do what I think will be good for this community as a whole, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks."
It really makes it sound as if you don't care one bit about what's really going on. How does this signature comment help? Are we supposed to be "appeased" by it? I think those of us who hang around are a little more intelligent than that. Especially when we've seen it several times.
Please just ditch it. I, at least, find it condescending.
- kk
Posted by krazy kat on June 23, 2002, at 21:31:07
In reply to I cannot STAND... » Dr. Bob, posted by krazy kat on June 23, 2002, at 10:18:31
is this what is sticking in your craw, Dr. B? Can I use the word "craw"? :)
Posted by krazy kat on June 23, 2002, at 21:37:35
In reply to just in case i get a block... » krazy kat , posted by krazy kat on June 23, 2002, at 21:31:07
Posted by shar on June 23, 2002, at 22:47:08
In reply to Re: Opposed to language that might offend, posted by Dr. Bob on June 23, 2002, at 9:44:58
> Are you saying that my not allowing certain forms of expression makes you feel like you're in high school?
Yes, more prohibitions on even mild "adult" language remind me of that.
>Being "real" is not a primary goal.
This is good information; it sets easy to understand limits on what is wanted here.....such as input being important, but only in a certain format. Function follows form. (I'm not hassling you here. It is fine with me if these are the rules, and it is excellent to have them in clear language.)
> This isn't always easy, and I know I'm not perfect. I want to be open to feedback, but if you could also please try to accept what I decide and to trust that I'm doing my best to be fair and to do what I think will be good for this community as a whole, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks.
I couldn't possibly ignore a request that so appeals to my sense of balance and fair play. And I'd hate to think that my 'weighing in' on one side of a policy or the other generates some sense that I am attacking you or not trusting your judgment. I hope I am expressing my opinion in a nonaggressive manner, even if I have a different take on the topic from yours.
Shar
Posted by Ctrlalt n del on June 23, 2002, at 22:57:35
In reply to just in case i get a block... » krazy kat , posted by krazy kat on June 23, 2002, at 21:31:07
Maybe......
KK's posting should be restricted just to spooky tele-psycho babble with the tumbleweeds and cobwebs : )
The ghost aisle of rancid groceries :odr eamer
Posted by wendy b. on June 24, 2002, at 8:17:27
In reply to Re: I protest ! » wendy b., posted by Ctrlalt n del on June 23, 2002, at 1:21:37
>
> What escapades?
> Naughty Dr Beamer , my celibacy is known universally .
"Dreamer's Sex-capades..."No, no, no. I'm not talking about whether you're celibate or not, not making a dig at you at all, just part of an argument about language.
Trying to make a point to Dr Bob about topics of discussion, which could very well be just as "offensive" to people as the occasional swear word. Your descriptions of certain aspects of your sexual life (I know you don't describe sexual acts!) were what I was talking about. Your candid appraisal of the state of your "itch," as I think you've called it. Among other things. And I have certainly been fairly descriptive in some of my posts on the subject, too...Dr Eamer, this was in no way a slight at you or your posts... Bob is not seeing that our discussions might be offensive (not to me, but to some others), and so then the question is: why not ban discussions of a highly-specific sexual nature,for example, if just particular BAD WORDS (not even discussions) are too hot to handle for some folk? It's kinda upside-downland...
W.
Posted by krazy kat on June 24, 2002, at 8:56:53
In reply to Re: ....Dr bob... » krazy kat , posted by Ctrlalt n del on June 23, 2002, at 22:57:35
stay up too late and i start to be silly, and i'm sure "offensive". my apologies to Dr. Bob.
but my general arguments still stand.
- kkkkkkkkkkkkkkk...........zzzzzzzzzzzzzz........
Posted by krazy kat on June 24, 2002, at 8:58:39
In reply to Re: I protest ! (uh, oh, trouble in Dream Land) » Ctrlalt n del, posted by wendy b. on June 24, 2002, at 8:17:27
wendy, i made a similar argument before. i'll see if i can find it. basically dr. bob's response was "should i start patrolling those topics now as well?" i just dropped it because the last thing i want is more patrolling... ug.
good point though.
Posted by wendy b. on June 24, 2002, at 9:11:56
In reply to Re: I still don't understand the rule, either, posted by Dr. Bob on June 23, 2002, at 0:56:23
Dear Bob,
I think Shar's post sums it up beautifully, and I can't do any better than that. But I will answer some of your questions/comments...
> > I think that this is just silly. Your calling me unsupportive, of a concept, not a person (read the thread again), is really off-base.
>
> Here's what you said again:
>
> > > if people can't deal with the word shit, they should reassess their tolerance levels.
>
> I took that as not so supportive of people would can't deal with the word. Are you saying it's just unsupportive of the concept of not being able to deal with the word? Or of a group of people rather than a particular person?
>Bob, this doesn't mean I'm being unsupportive at all, and I challenge your assessment of it as that. I meant the conceit - "people-who-can't-deal-with-the-word-shit" - which isn't a particular group of people. It's an imagined group, not real people. If I had said, "Gee, MaryLou, you really ought to assess your tolerance levels," cuz she had written in to protest swearing, then that's not supportive. But no one did that.
It's a suggestion that the language we use on a day-to-day basis will often include some "potentially" offensive stuff to SOMEONE. So MAYBE there is someone on this board who might be offended, but MAYBE not. And anyway, why haven't they spoken up here? If they did, and then we went ahead and wrote (spoke) like that anyway, I could see a problem... But why create a problem where the possibility exists (strongly) that it's a non-issue?
Many religious people can't deal with "using the lord's name in vain," for example. But the exclamation "Oh my God!" peppers our daily conversations, and it would be impossible to ban it from common parlance. I hear elementary-school children say it in my classrooms every day. Should I chastize them for it? No, it's acceptable speech at schools. Maybe not a Catholic school, but then I'd make another decision based on the specific environment we were in.
Now, on the other hand, if my schoolchildren said "Shit!" when they couldn't get the Elmer's glue out of the bottle because the caps were plugged up, then I'd say something. Cuz they're kids, and the setting isn't appropriate. But Bob, we're adults here...
> > Loads of people would tell you that I am at least as supportive of others as anybody else, in real life and on this Board... I am trying hard not to take your remarks as a put-down.
>
> I was referring *only* to that one statement. I didn't mean anything more than that, I apologize if I came across that way.Well, yes it did, that's why I said that.
> > It takes a lot to offend me. Because I am SO TOLERANT, I guess. I wish you could be tolerant, too, of reasonable expression.
>
> OK, it takes a lot to offend you. In fact, I think it takes a lot to offend me, too. The thing is, it's not just us two here.I realize that. The other people who have taken the time to post on this thread somehow agree with me, though, and they're other people besides us two. And as I said above, if there ARE people who have been offended, why don't they speak up? Bob, have you ever seen a post (I haven't but you may have) that protests the use of the word shit, or the f-word, etc.? I'm curious.
> > I really can't understand why you are actively choosing to stifle expression. The books of creative literature you're reading on the Book Club forum are written by authors who use those awful "bad" words judiciously. Not all the time, but not never, either.
>
> I'm choosing to stifle certain forms of expression because I want people to feel welcome here. Those books have a different goal than this site.But in the literature example, I'm talking about a reflection in cultural expression of the real language that real people use. Of course I'm not saying the purposes of fiction and the purposes of this board are the same. But if "bad" language is valorized in one setting on this very site, and then barred from use on another setting, I don't see how that makes sense.
>
> > And does the fact that I don't happen to agree with someone (like you, in this rare instance) mean that I'm not being supportive of him? This is something I don't get either.
>
> I suppose in a way it's not supportive, but the other main goal is education, so different points of view are fine, and in fact encouraged.OK, that's good. Because I don't want it to seem like I'm not supportive of you, even if I strongly disagree with you.
> > And I know I can take my bad words and use somebody else's web site. But I'd rather be able to express myself (within reason) without censoring myself
>
> Expressing oneself within reason means sometimes censoring oneself.Well, Bob, it's that phrase "within reason" that is causing us problems. I put it in there on purpose, because our reasoning might differ. I believe I can express myself within reason by saying: "Oh, that's shitty" to someone who lost their job and posted it to PSB, for example. But I don't believe it's within reason to use the word shit in an epithet or in name-calling...
> > What about Dreamer's sex-escapades?* Isn't that as offensive as swearing? Why don't you censor discussions of/about sex, like the one we had about "Good Sex for Moms, " and women who were having a hard time getting turned on? We got pretty graphic, of necessity. The differences seem to be a little tricky to discern.
>
> The difference there is between *topics* that might offend others and *language* that might.Yes, I agree, but as I stated to Dreamer in the post above: logically speaking, an offensive TOPIC is probably MORE (not less) offensive to this supposed Someone-Who-Might-Be-Offended, than the occasional well-placed swear word would ever be. Imagine a Newcomer-Who-Might-Be-Offended who came to the site and saw the thread "Great Sex for Moms" or "Having trouble Getting Off." If they WERE to be offended, wouldn't a "racey" topic turn them off to the site more than a single word?
Anyway, food for thought...
Wendy
Posted by mist on June 24, 2002, at 13:00:49
In reply to Re: I still don't understand the rule, either » Dr. Bob, posted by wendy b. on June 24, 2002, at 9:11:56
There probably is a subset of the general population that would be mortally offended by "bad" words but I doubt they are the type that would be drawn to this board. Based simply on observation, instinct, intuition, I believe if you did a study on whether or not the *vast* majority (if not all) of the people inclined to participate in this site feel more uncomfortable (less supported) as a result of 1) language restrictions on commonly used words, or 2) the ocassional four letter word in some posts, it would be the former.
Posted by IsoM on June 24, 2002, at 14:51:43
In reply to language-squeamish people don't post here, posted by mist on June 24, 2002, at 13:00:49
I'm not a person given to using swear words but I hear them lots. I don't necessarily like them but it doesn't stop me listening to a person except if every third word is one. Then it's not the swearing that stops me but the fact that they're so inarticulate they have little to say really.
So take me as an example of one of those who don't like swear words - one of the people that Dr. Bob would like to protect from being offended. Am I offended when I read swear words in this forum? Not really. It's not the words but the intentions behind them. Some posters are so angry & crude that they would offend me even without swearing, but those are the few that Dr. Bob blocks & everyone appreciates it.
Like I said, I don't swear but I do use the occasional 'shit', 'damn', 'bloody' & 'hell'. None of those words are in themselves swear words.
Shit is feces, an old English peasant term for dung. Also found in Old Norse & Middle Dutch for excrement. Faeces is just a Latin form. What about poop? Or crap? What is the term used in proper company? The whole point is when someone says they feel shitty - it means they feel miserable, low, worthless... definitely not wonderful. The word fits - pure & simple.
Damn isn't even considered swearing in the dictionary but is just slang. Same with bloody & hell - all giving the idea of bad connotations in how one feels.
Dr. Bob, I truly believe that few of us - even the 'proper', sensitive ones, are offended by mild swearing or even the occasional stronger ones. I know I'm not. It's the content of the message, not the packaging it comes in.
Dr. Bob, could you specifically print exactly what words are NOT allowed? Some are obvious to me, but what about words like bloody, hell, shit(ty), damn, bullshit? Or are these words allowed but not in certain contexts like inflammatory posts only? I'm really wanting to know.
Posted by Ctrlalt n del on June 24, 2002, at 15:12:12
In reply to Re: I protest ! (uh, oh, trouble in Dream Land) » Ctrlalt n del, posted by wendy b. on June 24, 2002, at 8:17:27
Yeh the itch--getting worse lately--
...my post wasn't to be taken seriously .So there:)
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.