![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 16 to 40 of 40. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2003, at 16:04:43
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 those that do not want to clarify what they wrote should be requiered to withdrawal from the discussion...]
Well,{if} I was the moderator of an internet forum, I would state that discussants would be {encouraged} to ask for clarification for many reasons. First, if the clarification does not come forth, then there could be doubt to at least the person that requests clarification, and that could hamper that person in having an opportunity to respond in the discussion, for obfuscation could be seen by the requester, which some people could consider to be just as unfair as your perception that you seem to think it is unfair to have them withdrawal from the thread for not giving the clarification requested. But I would first examine the request to see if it is deserving of an answer. Surely, I hope that you do not think that a request like, [...are you from Nova Scotia?...] should alert the moderator to requier the poster to clarify that!
The type of clarification that I would requier a poster to answer, if I was a moderator of an internet forum, would be if the statement in question could be construed to be defaming or accusitive to {someone}, not necessarily the poster that asks for the clarification, or for other just reasons. This could give the maker of the post in question an opportunity to clarify their remark so that if there is a doubt about the statement's meaning, then that could be cleared up at that point so that there is a better understanding and the discussion could continue,for at least the person that requested the clarification, in a manner that could leave out the question of whether or not the poster was making a statement that was accusatory or defaming to someone. There are other requests for clarification that if I was the modertor I would not step in to requier an answer. But if there was a refusal to my request as a moderator to respond to the other discussant's request for clarification, I would consider them to be in contempt and apply a sanction for such. I would state in my rules that saying that you can not answer the request for clarification [from the moderator], would not be acceptable because if that was accepted, then anyone could, let's say, use profanity and say that they can not stop it.
Lou
Posted by coral on March 30, 2003, at 16:42:59
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah's post-PV » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2003, at 16:04:43
There is another option: take a person's words at face value. "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2003, at 17:01:01
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah's post-PV, posted by coral on March 30, 2003, at 16:42:59
D,
You wrote, [...there is another option: take a person'e words at face value...].
That would be fine if the words did not need clarification in order to have an understanding of whether or not the statement in question could be construed to be defaming or accusatory or other unjust inferances or haveing a need for identification in order to have an opportunity to respond accordingly. I beleive that clarification has the potential to be benifitual to a discussion, for an answer to the requst becomes additional infomation that could enhance therapeutic discussions by [...shedding more light ...] on the subject.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2003, at 17:09:25
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah's post-PV (nm) » coral, posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2003, at 17:06:59
Posted by coral on March 30, 2003, at 17:16:30
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah's post-PV » coral, posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2003, at 17:01:01
And I believe that words should be taken at face value until something untoward happens.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2003, at 17:34:45
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah's post-PV, posted by coral on March 30, 2003, at 17:16:30
coral,
You wrote,[...I believe that word should be taken at face value untill something untoward happens...].
I do not know what you mean by {untoward}, but I believe that there could be preventative measures taken bofore something ,[whatever untoward means], and one preventive measure could be to ask for clarification so that something doesn't escalate into accusative or defaming statements to be entrenched into a discussion. I believe that it is better to,[...head things off...].
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2003, at 18:17:09
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Bittersweet's post-PT » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on March 30, 2003, at 10:13:41
NikkiT2,
As far as me expecting people to withdrawal from a thread,rather than give clarificaion to a request for such, that is just one alternative that I would have {if} I was the moderator of an internet forum. I would also place a halt to that person's participation in that thread, for I would state in {my} guidlines that a pposter would be in contempt if {the moderator}, not the discussant,asked for clarificationand the poster that is asked declined. I would also state in {my} guidlines that for one to say that they can not clarify what they wrote, to not be acceptable to excuse the declination. In other words. {if} I was the moderator of an internet forum, a poster {would } have to give clarification when requested or be sanctioned, which is an administrative decision and I do not consider an adminastative decision in regards to treating posters that decline to clarify a possible vague or potential defaming or accusitive atement to be {offensive}.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 30, 2003, at 18:25:19
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Bittersweet's post-PT » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2003, at 18:17:09
Lou,
thing is, you're not a moderator here, and as far as I can see it is allowed to say you won't respond to requests for clarification.
You are more than welcome, of course, to set up your own message board (www.ezboard.com is one site where this is easy and quick to set up). Then you could post what ever you liked, and no one would be able to challenge you.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2003, at 18:57:30
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Bittersweet's post-PT » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on March 30, 2003, at 18:25:19
NikkiT2,
As far as that posters here are allowed to decline a request for clarification, that is the decision that the administrator has made here and I respect administrative decisions, even if I do not agree with them. I have no want or need to construct my own internet forum, but thanks for your consideration to my feelings.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 31, 2003, at 10:47:01
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Bittersweet's post-PT » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on March 30, 2003, at 10:13:41
> I find it pretty offensive that you expect people to withdraw from a thread...
Please be sensitive to the feelings of others and don't post anything that could lead them to feel accused or put down, thanks.
Bob
Posted by Hollygirl on April 1, 2003, at 21:26:21
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
That is all very wise. I apologize for finding humor in something that perhaps wasn't meant to be humorous.
p.s. your procedure described below is a good idea. Maybe Dr. Bob will implement it> 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 Lou Pilder on April 1, 2003, at 22:10:44
In reply to Re: Holly's response to Lou's post-2B, posted by Hollygirl on April 1, 2003, at 21:26:21
Hollygirl,
You wrote,[...your reccomendation is a good idea...].
Thank you for writeing that. I believe in the fundamental principles of justice as outlined in the U.S. Constituion. One of them is the prnciple of [...due process...]. Another is the principle of,[...equal protection...].
Best regards,
Lou
This is the end of the 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.