![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 15 to 39 of 44. Go back in thread:
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:)
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 24, 2002, at 18:59:46
In reply to for Dr. Bob others - bad words..., posted by IsoM on June 24, 2002, at 14:51:43
> 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?
Maybe they're lurkers? Maybe they feel unwelcome?
> > > 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.
>
> it's that phrase "within reason" that is causing us problems. I put it in there on purpose, because our reasoning might differ.
>
> WendyI think it does. Can we agree that *some* censoring is appropriate but disagree on exactly how much?
----
> I believe if you did a study on whether or not ... 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.
>
> mistHmm, a study...
----
> 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.
> 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.
Thanks for the input. I may be wrong, but I think some people take the time to unwrap the package and some people don't. Some people can be *very* sensitive.
> Damn isn't even considered swearing in the dictionary...
>
> Dr. Bob, could you specifically print exactly what words are NOT allowed? ... Or are these words allowed but not in certain contexts like inflammatory posts only? I'm really wanting to know.The dictionary! Why didn't I think of that? :-) If you're not sure about a word, check it out at Merriam-Webster:
Still, that doesn't mean that those words are never OK -- or that other words are always OK. I'm sorry if it's frustrating, but every case is different. But if you want a simple rule: when in doubt, don't.
Bob
Posted by krazy kat on June 24, 2002, at 19:20:51
In reply to Re: bad words, posted by Dr. Bob on June 24, 2002, at 18:59:46
Dr. Bob? I just don't understand.
I personally can't stand not having very defined boundaries, and I imagine that's the case for many who deal with fluctuating moods and personality disorders.
Please consider this and reconsider posting a specific list.
Posted by IsoM on June 24, 2002, at 19:41:20
In reply to Re: bad words, posted by Dr. Bob on June 24, 2002, at 18:59:46
Thanks Bob, for the dictionary reference. Being Canadian, I prefer to use an English-based dictionary rather than American but I hope that won't be a problem for you.
As for people not willing to unwrap the package (because of some mild swear words), that can go for many other things too. Personally, I haven't been able to 'unwrap' the package of some posts due to the way they were formatted (no paragraph breaks or lack of use of capitals or punctuation) or those that were increadibly long. My brain freezes up. So the idea that some wouldn't open the package shouldn't mean blocking a poster for occasional mild swear words. You'd never consider blocking someone for poorly formatting a post or running on & on - like I do at times (I hope not anyway). :-)
For Wendy, you said:
"Can we agree that *some* censoring is appropriate but disagree on exactly how much?"
That's great! So all we're suggesting right now is not to be too ready to censor mild swear words. That's the input that you've been asking for."Maybe they're lurkers? Maybe they feel unwelcome?"
It's possible that the same amount of people might feel unwelcome for fear of being censored for using some words as much as those lurkers who feel unwelcome because they're offended by these words. We should try to hold to high standards but not to put ourselves above others - kind of like a noble middle-ground.Finally, about the use of some of the words okayed by a dictionary -
"Still, that doesn't mean that those words are never OK -- or that other words are always OK."
I can understand that easily. How about this?Acceptable: I feel so shitty since taking XXX med & just want to know what the hell is the matter with me?
Unacceptable: IMO, I think his views are pure shit. He & his ideas can go to hell.
So what's your opinion of this sort of example? Like I suggested, it's the message that's given, not the packaging only. I don't mean every sentence would be peppered with swearing - just that it can be very descriptive of how desperate, depressed people feel.
Posted by mist on June 24, 2002, at 23:27:40
In reply to Re: bad words, posted by Dr. Bob on June 24, 2002, at 18:59:46
Suggestion:
Perhaps install some sort of optional censorship feature so that those who are sensitive to language could have select words replaced by "expletive deleted" or a black rectangle covering the word. They will still be able to get the poster's meaning from the context but won't have to see the words they don't like. (Maybe each visitor could choose which words they do or don't want censored). Other posters who would rather read the original post in its entirety will be able to do so, and posters can write using whatever words suit them.
Each inidividual could choose whether or not to have this feature activiated each time they log on. You could also get an idea of the percentage of posters and lurkers likely to be offended by certain words by how many use the feature.
Of course, such a thing may not exist.
Posted by krazy kat on June 25, 2002, at 10:43:47
In reply to Suggestion, posted by mist on June 24, 2002, at 23:27:40
It is Very difficult for me not to have specified rules. I have learned to deal with it better than I used to, but never knowing if one is going to get a PBC is very stressful, imho.
It may seem trivial to some, but I would guess that I am not alone re: that a PBC at times is very bad for my ego when I thought I was writing well within Dr. Bob's boundaries. I really try to fit here and work on my tone and the way I present opinions. And then more intangible and unstructured rules are added. Think of good parenting:
You have a teenager. You tell them they have a curfew and that it's between 9:00 pm and midnight. Now, being a teenager, that kid is going to stay out until midnight. The first night you don't say anything. On the second you kind of imply they've overstepped the boundaries with a light slap on the wrist. Then, on the third night, you light into them and ground them (block them). (What was that kid doing going out everynight, anyway? ;)
IsoM's suggestion is the most sensible, imho. AND, Dr. Bob needs to do a list or an easier reference for what words are never allowed. A sick person is not going to use the dictionary to edit their posts.
Mist's suggestion is great, but it seems it's more complex.
And, remember the reason this thread started was that the poster, omega man, used the words "serious shit" in his message subject line to describe how difficult the previous poster's experience was.
I'm done, tired, and spending too long here again.
- kk
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2002, at 9:48:14
In reply to Two quickies and then I'll leave this for others.., posted by krazy kat on June 25, 2002, at 10:43:47
> Thanks Bob, for the dictionary reference. Being Canadian, I prefer to use an English-based dictionary rather than American but I hope that won't be a problem for you.
That's fine. Is there one online?
> As for people not willing to unwrap the package (because of some mild swear words), that can go for many other things too. Personally, I haven't been able to 'unwrap' the package of some posts due to the way they were formatted ... or those that were increadibly long.
OK, but finding the wrapping too difficult is different than being offended by it.
> > Can we agree that *some* censoring is appropriate but disagree on exactly how much?
>
> That's great! So all we're suggesting right now is not to be too ready to censor mild swear words.IMO, of course, I don't consider myself *too* ready to censor *mild* swear words...
> > Maybe they're lurkers? Maybe they feel unwelcome?
>
> It's possible that the same amount of people might feel unwelcome for fear of being censored for using some words as much as those lurkers who feel unwelcome because they're offended by these words.True, Mist made that same point, but if I had to choose, I'd rather have this be a safer place and have those who wanted to swear go elsewhere than have this be a more tolerant place and have those who were easily offended go elsewhere.
> Acceptable: I feel so shitty since taking XXX med & just want to know what the hell is the matter with me?
>
> Unacceptable: IMO, I think his views are pure shit. He & his ideas can go to hell.
>
> So what's your opinion of this sort of example? Like I suggested, it's the message that's given, not the packaging only. I don't mean every sentence would be peppered with swearing - just that it can be very descriptive of how desperate, depressed people feel.According to M-W, "shit" is "usually vulgar", so neither is great. But I agree, the first is more civil -- and I'd probably let it go, depending of course on the context (whether every sentence is peppered with swearing, etc.). I agree, it's one way to convey desperation, depression, etc. But I don't think it's the only way.
----
> Suggestion:
>
> Perhaps install some sort of optional censorship feature so that those who are sensitive to language could have select words replaced by "expletive deleted" or a black rectangle covering the word.I like creative suggestions :-) but what about when someone comes for the first time?
----
> It is Very difficult for me not to have specified rules. I have learned to deal with it better than I used to, but never knowing if one is going to get a PBC is very stressful, imho.
I'm glad you're learning to deal with it better. :-) I already explained how you can be sure not to get a PBC:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020510/msgs/5728.html
> Think of good parenting:
>
> You have a teenager. You tell them they have a curfew and that it's between 9:00 pm and midnight. Now, being a teenager, that kid is going to stay out until midnight. The first night you don't say anything. On the second you kind of imply they've overstepped the boundaries with a light slap on the wrist. Then, on the third night, you light into them and ground them (block them).And if they get back at 12:01? Because their car broke down?
> Dr. Bob needs to do a list or an easier reference for what words are never allowed. A sick person is not going to use the dictionary to edit their posts.
>
> - kkAnd if the teenager doesn't look at their watch?
Bob
Posted by krazy kat on June 26, 2002, at 11:28:37
In reply to Re: bad words, posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2002, at 9:48:14
>> I already explained how you can be sure not to get a PBC:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020510/msgs/5728.htmlI don't use bad language (unless it slips by by mistake, so that's actually not an issue for me - i was commenting in general, trying to make it clear that not being on sure-footing re: civility here, even though one tries, can be damaging to the psyche)
> > And if they get back at 12:01? Because their car broke down?
That rule should have been explicitedly stated from the start, and, as a new parent, I obviously was not clear. :) Any unforeseen occurences that are out of their control, of course do not count. They should have called as soon as the car broke down, however, because I would not want my daughter or son stranded on a highway with a stopped car.
>> And if the teenager doesn't look at their watch?
Curfew's 12:00 - they could have looked at their watch. That's just being irresponsible. Lock 'em up!
Again, just letting you know that getting penalized and not understanding why can be bad for a poster's already fragile ego.
- kk
Posted by IsoM on June 26, 2002, at 14:27:38
In reply to Re: bad words, posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2002, at 9:48:14
I don't use on-line dictionaries, sorry. I keep my big, thick one handy beside me at the computer. Our family is very word oriented & use a dictionary & thesarus frequently. We even like to read them. :-)
Anyway, my dictionary doesn't use taboo or vulgar for 'shit' but just defines it as excrement. It does mention that when used in the meaning of worthless or rubbish, it's then considered 'slang'. It's the way I grew up & always understood the word. In fact, poop sounds much more vulgar (to me, that is).Your comment about unwrapping a package & rather finding someone leaving off a difficult one more acceptable than a offensive one - I agree with you. But just to note, I've stopped 'unwrapping' some posts because I find them offensive even though they don't use swearing. It's my own personal concept of what I find offensive but I would never tell others not to unwrap it. Each person can choose to read what they'd like.
The example of what I used about "feeling shitty" - I feel I'm fairly articulate but many aren't. And even with my use of the English language, there's times I feel so miserable or foggy that I can't summon the brain power to find a better way of expressing myself. Sometimes people cry out for help in less than an articulate manner but need help as much as those who don't offend anyone.
On the whole, I think we do agree on what should be allowed & what shouldn't. I think our difference is that sometimes I think a little more leniency is needed.
About occasional mistakes, I'd never censor my sons for coming hime late because of something beyond their control. In fact, I'm very understanding about loosing track of time too (a major problem of mine still at my age). I'd just admonish them & remind them to be more careful. And if it happened more than once, I'd make them buy a watch with an alarm that they could set to buzz in time to get home. I try to look for new solutions if they old ones aren't working well.
Posted by Krazy Kat on June 26, 2002, at 15:19:07
In reply to Guidelines and Dictionaries » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on June 26, 2002, at 14:27:38
"I try to look for new solutions if they old ones aren't working well"
- kk :)
Posted by IsoM on June 26, 2002, at 17:09:10
In reply to i wish you had been mi mama... » IsoM, posted by Krazy Kat on June 26, 2002, at 15:19:07
So I'm probably old enough - 52; want me to adopt you? Sorry, but there won't be riches to inherit but you could probably get some of my plants. Mind you, I'm not planning on kicking the bucket. :-)
It's funny, but at work, diffeent young ones (& some of my sons's friends) have often said the same thing to me. My sons think I've done a pretty good job & love me gobs. But then I think they're absolutely wonderful too & very taklented, despite any faults, & love them all to pieces.
Posted by Krazy Kat on June 26, 2002, at 18:03:11
In reply to Re: i wish you had been mi mama... » IsoM » Krazy Kat, posted by IsoM on June 26, 2002, at 17:09:10
I believe someone else on the board awhile ago also asked you to please adopt him! :) Yes, I am 31, so that gives us ample room. Or, you could be like me older sis, 14 years apart there. And I love her much. But she's not as sensible or rational as thou.
Isn't it interesting how much pure, simple love can do? I have been at great odds with my parents in the past but their love has always been clear to me, and it has weathered me in many a storm.
- kk
Posted by mist on June 26, 2002, at 19:28:35
In reply to Re: bad words, posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2002, at 9:48:14
> > Perhaps install some sort of optional censorship feature so that those who are sensitive to language could have select words replaced by "expletive deleted" or a black rectangle covering the word.
>
> I like creative suggestions :-) but what about when someone comes for the first time?There could be something about it in the introductory text at the top of the page so visitors would know they had that option. Or a page before you get to the board where you have to click yes or no on "censorship option" or something.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2002, at 23:29:07
In reply to Re: bad words, posted by mist on June 26, 2002, at 19:28:35
> There could be something about it in the introductory text at the top of the page so visitors would know they had that option.
So they'd get to it before they scrolled down? I don't know if a warning about bad words would make such a great first impression... And what if they went directly to a post from a search engine?
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2002, at 23:43:37
In reply to Re: bad words, posted by krazy kat on June 26, 2002, at 11:28:37
> i was commenting in general, trying to make it clear that not being on sure-footing re: civility here, even though one tries, can be damaging to the psyche
I understand. But try not to take it so hard. It doesn't mean you're a bad person, it just means you can't read my mind.
> > > And if they get back at 12:01? Because their car broke down?
>
> Any unforeseen occurences that are out of their control, of course do not count.What if their car didn't break down, but still they get back at 12:01?
> > > A sick person is not going to use the dictionary to edit their posts.
>
> > And if the teenager doesn't look at their watch?
>
> That's just being irresponsible.And the sick person?
Bob
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.