![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 4 to 28 of 40. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 13, 2003, at 10:46:32
In reply to Re: warning and notice, posted by Bittersweet on March 13, 2003, at 6:04:46
> A) How was I to ASSUME you're request in someone else's post was for me as well?
The subject line said "» others", and I quoted you in the text.
> B) I did not see your post when you DID decide to reply to me directly - could that be because it had been REDIRECTED? I read you're "warnings" to others in the same topic that day, but there was nothing there referring to me.
That's a good point, you might not have followed the redirection...
> And just for clarification, what did you read into my post that deserved me getting kicked off the board? Obviously Lou didn't see it, for his response was his usual "if you could clarify..."
I quoted what I found uncivil. It's up to me, not Lou.
> Perhaps you should learn to be less vague in your terminology. Even if I HAD gone to the FAQ I would not have looked beyond the "questions" as there is nothing that *clearly* states these issues.
Sorry if it's vague, but that's the best I've been able to come up with.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
If you have any suggestions, just let me know...
Bob
Posted by Bittersweet on March 15, 2003, at 23:45:47
In reply to Re: warning and notice, posted by Dr. Bob on March 13, 2003, at 10:46:32
> > A) How was I to ASSUME you're request in someone else's post was for me as well?
>
> The subject line said "» others", and I quoted you in the text.
>
> > B) I did not see your post when you DID decide to reply to me directly - could that be because it had been REDIRECTED? I read you're "warnings" to others in the same topic that day, but there was nothing there referring to me.
>
> That's a good point, you might not have followed the redirection...
>
> > And just for clarification, what did you read into my post that deserved me getting kicked off the board? Obviously Lou didn't see it, for his response was his usual "if you could clarify..."
>
> I quoted what I found uncivil. It's up to me, not Lou.
>
> > Perhaps you should learn to be less vague in your terminology. Even if I HAD gone to the FAQ I would not have looked beyond the "questions" as there is nothing that *clearly* states these issues.
>
> Sorry if it's vague, but that's the best I've been able to come up with.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
>
> If you have any suggestions, just let me know...
>
> Bob* * * * * * *
A) I must've missed that.
B) A good point, but nevertheless I don't deserve an apology, huh?-> So the almighty one is psychic and knows all?
-> It's not rocket science.Perhaps you should give "newbies" a clear understanding that when you say "don't say anything that may make someone feel put-down", what this REALLY means is "I don't like what you said and you can take this as a warning, for if you do it again you will be banned from posting..."
I certainly did not see it coming from that so-called "warning". And the others who have suggested a person should still be able to access the Admin board have a valid point.
BTW: Lou pilder's spamming is getting on my nerves. Why is that allowed? I take offence to it, are my feelings not worth sparing??
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 16, 2003, at 6:50:33
In reply to Re: warning and notice, posted by Bittersweet on March 15, 2003, at 23:45:47
Bittersweet,
You wrote,[...Lou's spamming is getting on my nerves...why allowed?..offensive...my feelings not worth sparing?...].
Could you clarify what it is that you are referring to as [Lou's spamming]? If you could, then I could, possibly, then respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 16, 2003, at 9:52:39
In reply to Re: warning and notice, posted by Bittersweet on March 15, 2003, at 23:45:47
> Perhaps you should give "newbies" a clear understanding that when you say "don't say anything that may make someone feel put-down", what this REALLY means is "I don't like what you said and you can take this as a warning, for if you do it again you will be banned from posting..."
See:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
> And the others who have suggested a person should still be able to access the Admin board have a valid point.
People who are blocked can't post here, but they can still email me.
> BTW: Lou pilder's spamming is getting on my nerves. Why is that allowed? I take offence to it, are my feelings not worth sparing??
1. Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused.
2. Because I don't consider it uncivil. If you aren't interested in what someone has to say, you don't have to read their posts.Bob
Posted by Bittersweet on March 19, 2003, at 20:52:26
In reply to Lou's response to Bittersweet's post » Bittersweet, posted by Lou Pilder on March 16, 2003, at 6:50:33
> Could you clarify what it is that you are referring to as [Lou's spamming]? If you could, then I could, possibly, then respond accordingly.
> Lou
Trust me, you don't want me to clarify.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 20, 2003, at 15:52:43
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Bittersweet's post, posted by Bittersweet on March 19, 2003, at 20:52:26
bittersweet,
I asked you for clarificaton of what you referr to as [spamming].
You wrote,[...you do not want me to clarify...]
Could you clarify what caused you to make that comclusion that [...{I} do not want {you} to clarify...]? If you could, then I could determine if there is something that I should be aware of so that I respond to posts , or make posts, in a different manner in order to better post here.
Lou
Posted by Bittersweet on March 20, 2003, at 22:42:57
In reply to Lou's response to Bittersweet's post-2B » Bittersweet, posted by Lou Pilder on March 20, 2003, at 15:52:43
Are you seriously for real?
> bittersweet,
> I asked you for clarificaton of what you referr to as [spamming].
> You wrote,[...you do not want me to clarify...]
> Could you clarify what caused you to make that comclusion that [...{I} do not want {you} to clarify...]? If you could, then I could determine if there is something that I should be aware of so that I respond to posts , or make posts, in a different manner in order to better post here.
> Lou
>
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 21, 2003, at 7:46:42
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Bittersweet's post-2B, posted by Bittersweet on March 20, 2003, at 22:42:57
bittersweet,
I have reviewed our discussion that you initiated by writing :[...Lou's spamming...].
I responded to your post by asking:
[...could you clarify {spamming}?].
You responded with:[..you {dont want} me to clarify...].
I responded to that post by asking,[...what is it that caused you to {conclude} that I do not want you to clarify what you are referring to as{spamming}...] You see, I [really would] like you to clarify, so your conclusion that I [don't want you to clarify] could be a false conclusion , but if there was clarification by you, more light could be put on our discussion and, perhaps, we could discuss the conclusion that you made and reach a better understanding which could have the potential to have , in a sense, education and support to come out of our discussion.
You responded:[...are you seriously for real?...].
Are you saying then , by considering the whole discussion between us that :
A.You are asking if I am serious about the topics that I have been posting about here that are outside our discussion in question here?
B. You are asking if I am serious,[only], about asking for you to clarify what you are referring to as {spamming}?
C. That your use of the word,[real], in your post is asking me to declare to you whether or not I really want you to clarify, or that I am only asking you for clarification for some reason, in a sense, that is {unreal}?
D.none of the above but something else which is___
E. A combination of the above which is _____
F. none of the above
Lou
Posted by Hollygirl on March 29, 2003, at 22:37:41
In reply to Lou's response to Bittersweet's post-1C » Bittersweet, posted by Lou Pilder on March 21, 2003, at 7:46:42
Lou, you are hilarious! I needed a good laugh and your sense of humor is quite intriguing. Thanks!
ps. if you need any clarification regarding my post, don't hesitate to ask
> bittersweet,
> I have reviewed our discussion that you initiated by writing :[...Lou's spamming...].
> I responded to your post by asking:
> [...could you clarify {spamming}?].
> You responded with:[..you {dont want} me to clarify...].
> I responded to that post by asking,[...what is it that caused you to {conclude} that I do not want you to clarify what you are referring to as{spamming}...] You see, I [really would] like you to clarify, so your conclusion that I [don't want you to clarify] could be a false conclusion , but if there was clarification by you, more light could be put on our discussion and, perhaps, we could discuss the conclusion that you made and reach a better understanding which could have the potential to have , in a sense, education and support to come out of our discussion.
> You responded:[...are you seriously for real?...].
> Are you saying then , by considering the whole discussion between us that :
> A.You are asking if I am serious about the topics that I have been posting about here that are outside our discussion in question here?
> B. You are asking if I am serious,[only], about asking for you to clarify what you are referring to as {spamming}?
> C. That your use of the word,[real], in your post is asking me to declare to you whether or not I really want you to clarify, or that I am only asking you for clarification for some reason, in a sense, that is {unreal}?
> D.none of the above but something else which is___
> E. A combination of the above which is _____
> F. none of the above
> Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2003, at 6:03:29
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Bittersweet's post-1C » Lou Pilder, posted by Hollygirl on March 29, 2003, at 22:37:41
Hollygirl,
Thenk you for your interest in.[...clarification...].
You see, the reason that I ask posters for clarification is there is a principle that I believe in that says to give someone an opportunity to explain themselves. There are more than, in general, just one conclusion that one could make from what someone writes. And I believe that if we are going to benifit from our discussions here, that knowing what a poster means by what they wrote could be more theraupeutic than if clarification is not given, for ambiguity could deter perception of the meaning of the discussion. Actually, my requests are not intended to be humorous, but sometimes, they could be if the original statement that I am asking to be clarified carries humorous conotations to begin with.
Also, who are we to rush to some judgement about what a person writes? I prferr to allow a poster an opportunity to clarify before I respond so that misunderstandings could be prevented before there are responses.
Also, there are posters that could be attempting to establish ,[...facts that are not in evidence...], and in thoses cases, clarification, by me, is to squash the attempt, if that is what the intent of the poster is, and if that was not their intent, they have the opportunity to clarify what they wrote so that any misunderstanding would not ensue.
If I was a moderator of an internet board, I would ask posters, in general, to clarify before I would sanction a poster , because there could be more than one interpretation of what someone wrote, and if the poster replied in a manner that constituted being sanctioned in some way, then I would apply the appropriate sanction. But I think that people are entitled to ,[...due-process...], and that is one of the principles that I uphold.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2003, at 7:37:14
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Bittersweet's post-1C » Lou Pilder, posted by Hollygirl on March 29, 2003, at 22:37:41
HG,
Another reason that I ask for clarification is to give the poster in question an opportunity to ,[rule out] something that could be interrpreted adversly, for sometimes, in writing, it could appear that what one wrote could have an accusitve import in it, so I ask for them to clarify the comment so that they have the opportunity to deny any accusation that could be interrpreted.
If I was the moderator of an internet board, I would ask the poster in question to clarify any remark that could be interprreted as accusatory and have a stated policy that [failure to answer] would be considered to be [contempt] and deserve a sanction for not answering the [moderator's]request for clarification. I beleive that a procedure like I am describing could be of benifit to foster a respect for all parties by giving due-process to all and clarifying any possible misunderstandings.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on March 30, 2003, at 7:52:54
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Bittersweet's post-2B » Hollygirl, posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2003, at 7:37:14
Lou?
Do you ever ask for clarification when you don't think you may be offended?
I always feel kind of bad when you ask for clarification from me, because I always get the feeling it means that you suspect that I have been offensive. And since I haven't *meant* to be offensive, it upsets and scares me a bit. Because I really really hate being a bad girl. I hate the idea of being a bad girl, and it scares me, more than anything else in the whole wide world.
If I could understand that you weren't always deciding whether to be mad when you asked for clarification, it wouldn't make me as anxious when you do.
Wouldn't you like to talk to us in other ways, too, Lou? I'd like to get to know you in other ways than just that you are a person who cares about injustice. I mean, I like that about you, but it would be fun to know what kind of movies you like, and what you do for fun. The sort of things we talk about in social. I know you have a great sense of humor, and could contribute a lot. I still remember that nice conversation we had about Psalms.
Just a wistful question, Lou. And I can't clarify it any more than I have, so I hope you don't see any possibility for my intending this in an unkind way. It really wasn't meant in an unkind way. I meant very exactly what I said.
Dinah
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2003, at 8:03:00
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Bittersweet's post-2B » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on March 30, 2003, at 7:52:54
Dinah,
Welcome to this discussion concerning,[clarification].
You wrote,[...do you ever ask for clarification when you don't think you may be offended?...].
Yes, I ask for clarification ,[...so that I could have a better understanding of their post and have an opportunity to respond accordingly...].
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2003, at 8:16:10
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Bittersweet's post-2B » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on March 30, 2003, at 7:52:54
Dinah,
You wrote,[...I feel bad when you ask for clarification from me...I feel you suspect that I have been offensive...].
I am sorry that you have those feelings, but it is not my intention to do anything but ask for clarification so that the poster has the opportunuty to [rule out] any offensiveness that could be interpreted by , not only myself, but by the others, such as those that do not post but just read. Also, clarification sometimes needs to be given so that a better understanding of what was written could arise, not that the {only} conclusion is to [...suspect offensiveness...].
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2003, at 8:24:04
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Bittersweet's post-2B » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on March 30, 2003, at 7:52:54
Dinah,
You wrote,[...If I could deciede...].
I suggest that when me and you are in a discussion, that for you to make any decision based upon what you think I mean about anything that I am writing, that you could ask me for clarification for such to alleviate any anxiety that you may have wondering about why I am asking for clarification. Could you clarify if my suggestion could not be put into practice by you , and if not, could you clarify why you could not and then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly and, perhaps, explore an alternitive?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on March 30, 2003, at 8:42:44
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah's post-PS » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2003, at 8:24:04
> Dinah,
> You wrote,[...If I could deciede...].Actually, if you are meaning the sentence I think you mean, I said "If I could understand..." And trying to understand is why I'm asking now.
When you answered "...but it is not my intention to do anything but ask for clarification so that the poster has the opportunuty to [rule out] any offensiveness that could be interpreted by , not only myself, but by the others, such as those that do not post but just read. ", that makes me think I'm correct in that the main reason you ask for clarification is to rule out offensiveness.
But perhaps if you told me the other reasons you ask for clarification, I would be able to understand that it isn't always to rule out offensiveness. If I may borrow your writing style for a moment, with your understanding that I am doing so with all due respect to you, and merely because it is a style that would allow me to ask the question most directly?
1) I ask for clarification to rule out offensiveness ____% of the time.
2) I ask for clarification because I just didn't understand what was said, or the wording was confusing, and I in no way suspect that there might have been offensiveness involved _____% of the time.
3) I ask for clarification because _________________________________, but again in no way suspect that offensiveness might have been involved ______% of the time.
(And you can repeat 3 as often as you need to).
I realize that asking for percentages might prove difficult, and of course you could think of a better way to do it.
But my goal would be to be able to think to myself, when you ask for clarification, something like "Lou is asking for clarification, but that doesn't mean he's trying to rule out potential offensiveness in my post. It doesn't mean he thinks I've been a bad girl. There's only a ____% chance that he's trying to rule out offensiveness, and there's a ____% chance that he meant something else entirely. So before I get upset that I may have been a bad girl, maybe I can ask Lou whether he means to rule out offensiveness, or whether he meant one of the other reasons he has to ask for clarification.
Does that make sense to you? It's sort of a cognitive therapy task to help me feel less upset and scared when you ask for clarification.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2003, at 8:48:04
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Bittersweet's post-2B » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on March 30, 2003, at 7:52:54
D,
You wrote,[...wouldn't you like to talk to us in other way?...other than a person that cares about injustice...].
The reason for my request for clarification is to be able to talk in a way that could prevent misunderestandings and to further good discussion so that the potential for therapeutic discorse could be ficilitated. An alternitve for those that refuse, for one reason or another to clarify what they wrote, could be to withdrawal from the discussion because if the clarification requested is not given, then the person asking for clarification has to guess at what the other poster meant by what they wrote, and that could , possibly, lead to misunderstandings and , possibly, deminish the therapeutic potential of the discussion.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on March 30, 2003, at 8:53:53
In reply to Lou's response to Bittersweet's post-PT » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2003, at 8:48:04
I don't think that those who don't wish to clarify should have to withdraw from a conversation, Lou. That doesn't seem fair, given Dr. Bob's prohibition about pressure. There isn't much more pressure possible than people having to clarify or banishing them from a conversation.
Perhaps I misunderstood you?
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2003, at 9:00:30
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah's post-PS, posted by Dinah on March 30, 2003, at 8:42:44
D,
I appreciate you reply. I believe that discussion can be therapeutic by the type of reply that you just gave. I would very much like to reply and bring out the thingss that you are concerned about so that understanding could occure. However, if you are asking for me to do a statistical compilation, that could be,[...too great of a burden...] for me at this time. But there are many reasons that one could ask for clarification, as you have listed, and, perhaps, an alternative to refusing to clarify would be to request for the person to give one of the reasons as you have listed as to why they are asking for clarification. In general, my requests for clarification center around having a better understanding, and to be able to be bettter able to respond accordingly. That, in general, usually gives the poster in question the opportunity to [rule out] any possibility of their post be considered by others to contain offensive remarks, and has the potential to give me the oppportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2003, at 9:09:45
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Bittersweet's post-PT » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on March 30, 2003, at 8:53:53
D,
I wrote that,[...an {alternitive} could be to withdrawal from the discussion....].
You wrote,[...I don't think that those...should{have} to...].
What would you consider to be another alternitive?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on March 30, 2003, at 9:15:24
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Bittersweet's post-PT » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2003, at 9:09:45
Well, I guess the only alternative allowed here (given Dr. Bob's rule that people not be pressured) would be for the poster who doesn't understand completely to accept that he/she just might not be able to understand completely.
I frequently don't understand posts, especially humor, because I don't understand humor well. Sometimes I ask for an explanation, but more often I don't, and just accept that I probably won't understand.
Posted by Dinah on March 30, 2003, at 9:18:44
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah's post-PS » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2003, at 9:00:30
Well, I still don't really understand, Lou. I'll try to remember to ask you why you are asking for clarification, and if you are doing it because you want to rule out offensiveness, before I get all upset.
And maybe you could try to remember to reassure me that you don't suspect any offensiveness if you are asking me for clarification when you don't suspect I have been offensive, but are asking for some other reason.
I have to go now, but it's been nice chatting.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2003, at 9:34:09
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Bittersweet's post-PT » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on March 30, 2003, at 8:53:53
D,
You wrote,[...I don't think that people that don't wish to clarify should have to withdrawal from a conversation...].
If [I] was a moderator of an internet forum and a poster introduced vague and possibly accusatory statements, and the other poster asked for clarification, and the original poster refused, then {I} would consider the poster that refused to clarify their statement to be in [contempt] and given notice that failure to respond [to the moderator], not to the poster asking for clarification, would result in a sanction. I do not feel that discussion is furthered by those that refuse a request for clarification that involve what they wrote that could be construed to be accusatory or defaming to another poster, and that is one of the reasons that {I}, if I was a moderator of an internet forum, would have a policy that addresses those that refuse a request for clarification of statement that could be construed to be accusatory or defaming to another poster. What the moderator of this forum chooses to do with those that introduce potential accusatory or defaming statements, and refuse to respond to a request for clarification, is up to him.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 30, 2003, at 10:13:41
In reply to Lou's response to Bittersweet's post-PT » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2003, at 8:48:04
Lou,
I find it pretty offensive that you expect people to withdraw from a thread, simply because they don't wish to have to clarify their thoughts many times over.
Often I just wish to have some kind of discourse with a person, without having to go into minute detail about each sentence I have posted.
Detailing each and every post in such great detail, detracts from the social aspect of, say, PSB, and would prevent, in my opinion, natural discussion taking place.Often people are not in their clearest of minds when posting, and I do believe that people would be put off posting for support at all if they had to justify, many times, what they were saying.
I ahve noticed, in the threads that you ask for clarification on posts, the natural progression of the thread then dies, and is rarely taken back up again. The ability to discuss certian points are then taken away from us.
I hope you understand what I am saying.
Nikki
Posted by noa on March 30, 2003, at 12:23:40
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah's post-PU » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2003, at 9:34:09
Lou, please see my post to you in a later thread.
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.