![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 23 to 47 of 97. Go back in thread:
Posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 5, 2003, at 12:39:10
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry, posted by wendy b. on August 5, 2003, at 9:42:57
> Dear Dr Bob, Larry (and Pax, indirectly),
>
> > If you didn't find them to be reasonable or logical, why did you join?
>
> An unkind remark, which was uttered to put Pax down. Definitely NOT following the rules, which he so strongly defends.It is apparent to me that this remark was not meant as a put-down to Pax... it was a simple, reasonable, and relevant question.
> >Mistaking their silence for lack of emotional response is to exhibit a total lack of empathy.
>
> Now he's telling Pax he's "exhibiting" no empathy. This is not just a casual observation, it is a remark made to put someone down. Again, not following Bob's rules...He didn't say Pax was exhibiting a lack of empathy. He said that the *act* of mistaking their silence for lack of emotional response is to exhibit a total lack of empathy.
> > So, employ your own standard, expressed above, and "take your leave". Bob and his assistants have the responsibility for maintaining civility, not vigilantes like you.
>
> Now Larry calls Pax a name - vigilante. That's a definite no-no. Also a bit harsh, and shows he doesn't understand the original intent of Pax's comments, but maybe if he reads Pax's post again, he will understand. So again, Larry violates another civility rule by name-calling...A vigilante is defined by Webster's as "a member of an unauthorized organization to look after the interests, threatened in some way, of a group". It's hardly a derogatory term, and in no way should be considered an abusive epithet. In fact, I'd venture to guess that Pax wouldn't at all disagree with this label.
> > >But using Dr, Bob's rule of exponential blocking,my next infringment, regardless of its level of "uncivility" will result in a block of a month. This, considering that I haven't been blocked in MANY months. So, should a brief moment of heated blood on my part lead to the removal of my possibly life-changing input to others?
> >
> > Please reassess your ego.
>
> And again, Larry replies to Pax's original post with *sarcasm*, which Bob has made very clear is not allowed, because he's PBC'd and blocked it in loads of other threads.I don't see that as sarcasm. Simply a helpful suggestion.
> > > Who suffers more in that scenario? I don't NEED to post here, I CHOOSE to post here. However, several years ago when I first found this board, I DID need the advice of those with years of experience dealing with similar issues to those I face/d. When's the last time you have seen CAM here? He used to (as a pharmacist, I believe) provide excellent insight as to the pharmacological efficacy of meds. Why does he no longer post? Driven away so that others could remain in civilty. Hand out the Haldol, and we can all share in the 1000 yard stare.
> >
> > I don't know CAM, but if he was "driven away" because of inappropriate postings resulting in blocks, then he must be a slow learner.
> >
> > Lar
>
> Now, this one I find really offensive. Read the archives, Larry, they're there for a reason. Cam is a guy who generously gave of his time and helped many people with medication questions. As a pharmacist, he spent endless hours looking up citations and posting them, advising about meds, etc., even though he himself was in a terrible amount of emotional pain. So, please, Larry, don't assess someone else's motivations or intellectual capacity (calling him a "slow learner") when you aren't familiar with the person or his posts. This is just simple politeness.Okay, this one I agree was a violation.
Posted by paxvox on August 5, 2003, at 15:56:41
In reply to Re: Hey Doc Bob, remember me... a few ??'s... » paxvox, posted by Larry Hoover on August 5, 2003, at 8:42:21
I'm sorry, did I miss something? I find YOUR comments to be extremely offensive toward me personally. I was not "speaking to you" but initially to Nikki. I cleared up my misunderstanding of her position, and apologized if I had offended her in any way. My other comments were essentially MY OPINION, to which your response so ironically stomps all over. You suggest, with some self-perceived "authority" I might add, that I am some sort of malcontent toublemaker. You personally have attacked me here, and called me egotistical. Is that not uncivil? Your retort of my post is a dichotomized mixture of insult and reprobation clearly uncalled for. What gives YOU the right to slam me for making a subjective statement of belief? I don't have the right to an opinion? Your statements that people need to be "protected" from me and that I have "stooped" to "blaming the victims" are so anathematizing to me. Where is YOUR block for uncivility? Please Dr. Bob, don't I have any rights here?
PAX
Posted by paxvox on August 5, 2003, at 16:03:08
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry, posted by wendy b. on August 5, 2003, at 9:42:57
Thank you, Wendy, for your support. I posted a reply to Larry before reading your post. Perhaps you answered him much better than I did, and now I fear that Dr. Bob will find my reply to Larry as being uncivil, although I feel it was as "civil" as I could reply. This clearly points out the duplicity that I perceive to exist in the realm of who gets blocked and who does not. I'm glad that I am not alone in this perception.
PAX
Posted by paxvox on August 5, 2003, at 16:08:05
In reply to Re: Hey Doc Bob, remember me... a few ??'s... » paxvox, posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 5, 2003, at 12:02:15
One warning for ONE type of concern, yes. But one warning about two totally unrelated issues, no. I think, unless something is CLEARLY a total insult, like Larry's post to me, that each individual instance should start with a "reminder". Then, if that doesn't get the desired response, OK, do what has to be done. But to give one warning for one offense, and then a punishment w/o warning for a totally different offense is like verbally correcting a child for not picking up his clothes and then slapping the tar out of him for forgetting to take out the trash.
PAX
Posted by paxvox on August 5, 2003, at 16:15:27
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry » wendy b., posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 5, 2003, at 12:39:10
Are you and Larry friends? Vigilante IS to ME considered an INSULT. Yes, he was attacking my EGO, an insult to me, a put down TO ME! Helpful suggestion? PLEASE! Larry doesn't know me, and has no right to proffer such "helpful suggestions" that I PERSONALLY find offensive attacks of ME. I don't believe that you are showing any objectiveness in your defense of Larry's attack on me. So do I attack you in response? No, I just point out that your defense of Larry's attack of me condones that sort of activity, and indeed, reinforces it.
PAX
Posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 5, 2003, at 16:25:58
In reply to Re: Hey Doc Bob, remember me... a few ??'s..., posted by paxvox on August 5, 2003, at 16:08:05
Shouldn't we be aware of the policies in the first place and know what it means to be civil on this board anyway? In my opinion, one PBC, regardless of what it's referring to, should be enough of a reminder to the person in question that they need to watch what they say here.
Posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 5, 2003, at 16:42:18
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry, posted by paxvox on August 5, 2003, at 16:15:27
> Are you and Larry friends? Vigilante IS to ME considered an INSULT.
Well all I can say to that is your perceived definition of the word must be incorrect. Vigilante is hardly an insult, especially considering that's the role you're playing here.
> Yes, he was attacking my EGO, an insult to me, a put down TO ME! Helpful suggestion? PLEASE! Larry doesn't know me, and has no right to proffer such "helpful suggestions" that I PERSONALLY find offensive attacks of ME.
I don't see how you could find a statement which is simply saying to you, "Please don't feel you have a leg up on anyone else on this board due simply to the fact that you haven't been blocked in months," could offend you. In context, what he said is synonomous with that--he used no offensive language and, what's more, he even said please!
> I don't believe that you are showing any objectiveness in your defense of Larry's attack on me.
I'm sure you mean apart from having read *both* posts thoughtfully, and even employing dictionary definition? Sure, my opinion on the matter was subjective (as opinions tend to be), but my approach was entirely objective. You conveniently left out the fact that I *did* say that Larry was out of line when he said, "I don't know Cam, but if he was 'driven away' because of inappropriate postings resulting in blocks, then he must be a slow learner."
> So do I attack you in response? No, I just point out that your defense of Larry's attack of me condones that sort of activity, and indeed, reinforces it.
Now that's just plain silly.
Posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 5, 2003, at 16:45:33
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry, posted by paxvox on August 5, 2003, at 16:15:27
If you've been following this board closely, you will have realized that I very highly advocate the civility policies these boards have in place. If I truly felt Larry were being uncivil toward you, just believe me--I would have said so.
Posted by stjames on August 5, 2003, at 22:24:30
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry, posted by paxvox on August 5, 2003, at 16:15:27
Yes, he was attacking my EGO, an insult to me, a put down TO ME! Helpful suggestion? PLEASE!
He asked to to simply consider your ego envolvement in this. Hmmmmm, you OTOH, reacted in anger. Hmmmm.
Posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 5, 2003, at 22:46:10
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry, posted by stjames on August 5, 2003, at 22:24:30
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 5, 2003, at 23:00:26
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry » wendy b., posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 5, 2003, at 12:39:10
> > > I don't know CAM, but if he was "driven away" because of inappropriate postings resulting in blocks, then he must be a slow learner.
> > >
> > > Lar
> >
> > Now, this one I find really offensive. Read the archives, Larry, they're there for a reason. Cam is a guy who generously gave of his time and helped many people with medication questions. As a pharmacist, he spent endless hours looking up citations and posting them, advising about meds, etc., even though he himself was in a terrible amount of emotional pain. So, please, Larry, don't assess someone else's motivations or intellectual capacity (calling him a "slow learner") when you aren't familiar with the person or his posts. This is just simple politeness.
>
> Okay, this one I agree was a violation.Unfortunately, you both have misunderstood my intent; the referent to "slow learner" wasn't meant to be Cam, or anyone in particular. In saying I didn't know Cam, I was suggesting that I could not discuss him as an example. I was emphasizing the issue I had been raising repetitively throughout my posts of this a.m., about inappropriate attribution of responsibility. You simply cannot be "driven away" from Babble. Until such time as there is a rule which can lead to a permanent ban, that will remain the case.
Repeated violations of the rules, resulting in increasing times of blockade, *without the poster coming to recognize that it is becoming harder and harder to continue posting solely because of the poster's own behaviour*, would constitute an inability to learn from the pattern. Such a person would be slow to learn that it isn't the rules that are a problem, it isn't Bob, it's the poster's failure to expend the effort to change their own posting behaviour. And, if the poster chooses to move on, that is not being driven away. It's a decision to move on. Nothing more than that.
I'm sorry that my syntax left the impression that I was labelling Cam. That was not my intent.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 5, 2003, at 23:15:32
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry, posted by wendy b. on August 5, 2003, at 9:42:57
> Dear Dr Bob, Larry (and Pax, indirectly),
>
> > If you didn't find them to be reasonable or logical, why did you join?
>
> An unkind remark, which was uttered to put Pax down. Definitely NOT following the rules, which he so strongly defends.It wasn't unkind. It was intended to draw out the other unstated reasons for his joining the community, and futhermore, choosing to remain within it. He stated that he felt the rules were unreasonable and illogical. Despite that, he remains a poster here. There *must* be more to it than he has stated, and those other issues are just as important in the debate before us.
> >Mistaking their silence for lack of emotional response is to exhibit a total lack of empathy.
>
> Now he's telling Pax he's "exhibiting" no empathy.No, I very carefully did not. I presented a statement in an "if this, then that" format. I am in no position to know if Pax has ever mistaken silence for the absence of an emotional response. Only he can answer that. But if he thinks he may have, then empathy might be an issue for him.
>This is not just a casual observation, it is a remark made to put someone down. Again, not following Bob's rules...
It was an implied question, for him to answer about himself.
> > So, employ your own standard, expressed above, and "take your leave". Bob and his assistants have the responsibility for maintaining civility, not vigilantes like you.
>
> Now Larry calls Pax a name - vigilante.He as much as gave the classic definition himself, in his description of his actions and intentions. I merely saved bandwidth using the term which fits that description.
>That's a definite no-no.
His own words.
>Also a bit harsh, and shows he doesn't understand the original intent of Pax's comments, but maybe if he reads Pax's post again, he will understand. So again, Larry violates another civility rule by name-calling...
I think I demonstrated a very clear understanding of his statements.
> > >But using Dr, Bob's rule of exponential blocking,my next infringment, regardless of its level of "uncivility" will result in a block of a month. This, considering that I haven't been blocked in MANY months. So, should a brief moment of heated blood on my part lead to the removal of my possibly life-changing input to others?
> >
> > Please reassess your ego.
>
> And again, Larry replies to Pax's original post with *sarcasm*, which Bob has made very clear is not allowed, because he's PBC'd and blocked it in loads of other threads.I wasn't being sarcastic. The rules are meant to apply to everyone equally.
> > > Who suffers more in that scenario? I don't NEED to post here, I CHOOSE to post here. However, several years ago when I first found this board, I DID need the advice of those with years of experience dealing with similar issues to those I face/d. When's the last time you have seen CAM here? He used to (as a pharmacist, I believe) provide excellent insight as to the pharmacological efficacy of meds. Why does he no longer post? Driven away so that others could remain in civilty. Hand out the Haldol, and we can all share in the 1000 yard stare.
> >
> > I don't know CAM, but if he was "driven away" because of inappropriate postings resulting in blocks, then he must be a slow learner.
> >
> > Lar
>
> Now, this one I find really offensive. Read the archives, Larry, they're there for a reason. Cam is a guy who generously gave of his time and helped many people with medication questions. As a pharmacist, he spent endless hours looking up citations and posting them, advising about meds, etc., even though he himself was in a terrible amount of emotional pain. So, please, Larry, don't assess someone else's motivations or intellectual capacity (calling him a "slow learner") when you aren't familiar with the person or his posts. This is just simple politeness.Please see the post above this one, for my detailed response.
> Larry, I don't have a problem with you personally. I just wonder why it is so important for you to so stridently defend everything Bob does as an administrator, as though he were a God Among Men.I'm defending the process, not Bob.
> He's just human, and he MAY make mistakes now and then. In fact, I'm sure he has made mistakes and errors of judgement, but that's just IMHO;
No doubt.
>I post on this board a lot less frequently because I find the atmosphere a bit stifling.
That saddens me.
> But, you have your safe haven here, Larry, and that's fine. However, the casual observer will notice you have "violated" many of the rules of conduct you at the same time *defend.* So resorting to calling names, assessing motivations, being rude, and being sarcastic are now OK because...?I don't believe I did any of those. I certainly support your right to hold a different opinion of that, however.
>It seems this site which you find so "safe," has become (through your own actions) exactly what you profess to want it not to be.
>
>
> WendyClearcut challenges to a person's philosophies are not inherently uncivil. I was defending the "silent wounded" among us, as I was once one myself.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 5, 2003, at 23:34:38
In reply to Re: Hey Doc Bob, remember me... a few ??'s..., posted by paxvox on August 5, 2003, at 15:56:41
> I'm sorry, did I miss something? I find YOUR comments to be extremely offensive toward me personally.
I pointed to hard questions arising from your stated philosophies. I meant no offense.
>I was not "speaking to you" but initially to Nikki. I cleared up my misunderstanding of her position, and apologized if I had offended her in any way. My other comments were essentially MY OPINION, to which your response so ironically stomps all over.
I challenged you on the implications of your opinions, not your opinions per se. I'm sorry if that came across as "stomping all over". You see, I find that ironic, in that you describe yourself as more or less "stomping all over" other people....a behaviour worthy of challenge, IMHO.
> You suggest, with some self-perceived "authority" I might add, that I am some sort of malcontent toublemaker.
I did nothing of the sort.
>You personally have attacked me here, and called me egotistical.
No, I did not.
>Is that not uncivil?
It would be, if I had done so.
>Your retort of my post is a dichotomized mixture of insult and reprobation clearly uncalled for.
Seemed to flow quite naturally from your own comments, and limit itself solely to those natural extrapolations, if you seek my opinion on that.
No insults. Tough questions, explicit and implied. But I provided no conclusions or judgments about you.
>What gives YOU the right to slam me for making a subjective statement of belief?
If you feel slammed, I would ask you if I may perhaps have hit a tender subject or two?
>I don't have the right to an opinion?
Certainly. But do I not have a right to express mine, in direct, point by point, contrast to yours?
>Your statements that people need to be "protected" from me
That was conditional on the validity of your own self-descriptors. If what you said about yourself was true (I don't know that), then protecting others from you would be a reasonable concern.
>and that I have "stooped" to "blaming the victims" are so anathematizing to me.
But you did suggest that people bring on the flames you provide. That's just not the case. Your own internal justifications do that. I do think the defense of one's own inappropriate actions based on descriptions of another's "babbling on" is "blaming the victim".
>Where is YOUR block for uncivility?
We shall see. I'm glad it's not up to you (or Wendy) to decide that. You both have misunderstood many of my statements.
>Please Dr. Bob, don't I have any rights here?
The same as everyone else.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 5, 2003, at 23:44:10
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry, posted by stjames on August 5, 2003, at 22:24:30
> Yes, he was attacking my EGO, an insult to me, a put down TO ME! Helpful suggestion? PLEASE!
>
> He asked to to simply consider your ego envolvement in this.Thank you. I'm glad that my intent was clear to some people.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 5, 2003, at 23:47:11
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry » wendy b., posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 5, 2003, at 12:39:10
> > Dear Dr Bob, Larry (and Pax, indirectly),
> >
> > > If you didn't find them to be reasonable or logical, why did you join?
> >
> > An unkind remark, which was uttered to put Pax down. Definitely NOT following the rules, which he so strongly defends.
>
> It is apparent to me that this remark was not meant as a put-down to Pax... it was a simple, reasonable, and relevant question.I thought so then, and I still do now. Thanks for understanding.
> > >Mistaking their silence for lack of emotional response is to exhibit a total lack of empathy.
> >
> > Now he's telling Pax he's "exhibiting" no empathy. This is not just a casual observation, it is a remark made to put someone down. Again, not following Bob's rules...
>
> He didn't say Pax was exhibiting a lack of empathy. He said that the *act* of mistaking their silence for lack of emotional response is to exhibit a total lack of empathy.Very carefully worded, by the way. Thanks for reading it clearly.
> > > So, employ your own standard, expressed above, and "take your leave". Bob and his assistants have the responsibility for maintaining civility, not vigilantes like you.
> >
> > Now Larry calls Pax a name - vigilante. That's a definite no-no. Also a bit harsh, and shows he doesn't understand the original intent of Pax's comments, but maybe if he reads Pax's post again, he will understand. So again, Larry violates another civility rule by name-calling...
>
> A vigilante is defined by Webster's as "a member of an unauthorized organization to look after the interests, threatened in some way, of a group". It's hardly a derogatory term, and in no way should be considered an abusive epithet. In fact, I'd venture to guess that Pax wouldn't at all disagree with this label.Right on.
> > > >But using Dr, Bob's rule of exponential blocking,my next infringment, regardless of its level of "uncivility" will result in a block of a month. This, considering that I haven't been blocked in MANY months. So, should a brief moment of heated blood on my part lead to the removal of my possibly life-changing input to others?
> > >
> > > Please reassess your ego.
> >
> > And again, Larry replies to Pax's original post with *sarcasm*, which Bob has made very clear is not allowed, because he's PBC'd and blocked it in loads of other threads.
>
> I don't see that as sarcasm. Simply a helpful suggestion.My intent.
Thanks for helping me to feel that I can be understood.
Lar
Posted by BekkaH on August 6, 2003, at 0:15:39
In reply to Re: blocked for 8 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Zo on August 5, 2003, at 1:04:25
Hi Zo,
I posted on PSB (the social board) to discuss cats. I just had to get your attention while I have the chance.
Bekka
Posted by zenhussy on August 6, 2003, at 2:18:25
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry » Ame Sans Vie, posted by Larry Hoover on August 5, 2003, at 23:47:11
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 6, 2003, at 7:54:08
In reply to Lar--get over yourself (nm), posted by zenhussy on August 6, 2003, at 2:18:25
That wasn't a very constructive comment. I'd be happy to hear your thoughts about my opinions.
Lar
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2003, at 11:31:25
In reply to Lar--get over yourself (nm), posted by zenhussy on August 6, 2003, at 2:18:25
> people need protection from you. Clearly, you don't understand.
>
> Blaming the victim? I am very surprised that you would stoop to that.
>
> You refuse to think about the impact of your rhetoric
>
> Please reassess your ego.
>
> Lar> My other comments were essentially MY OPINION, to which your response so ironically stomps all over... Your retort of my post is a dichotomized mixture of insult and reprobation clearly uncalled for.
>
> PAX> your perceived definition of the word must be incorrect.
>
> Now that's just plain silly.
>
> Ame Sans Vie> get over yourself
>
> zenhussyDifferent points of view are fine, and it's good to see people supporting each other, but I'd appreciate it if there weren't posts that could lead others to feel accused or put down, thanks.
Bob
Posted by zenhussy on August 6, 2003, at 11:31:51
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry, posted by stjames on August 5, 2003, at 22:24:30
> Yes, he was attacking my EGO, an insult to me, a put down TO ME! Helpful suggestion? PLEASE!
>
> He asked to to simply consider your ego envolvement in this. Hmmmmm, you OTOH, reacted in anger. Hmmmm.stjames,
Why not try the above post again using some "I" statements? Might have more impact then.
constructively,
zenhussy
Posted by zenhussy on August 6, 2003, at 11:35:55
In reply to Re: please be civil » Larry » pax » Ame » zenhussy, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2003, at 11:31:25
> Different points of view are fine, and it's good to see people supporting each other, but I'd appreciate it if there weren't posts that could lead others to feel accused or put down, thanks.
>
> BobAlright then Dr. Bob could you please point out the support in this post:
Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry
Posted by stjames on August 5, 2003, at 22:24:30In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry, posted by paxvox on August 5, 2003, at 16:15:27
Yes, he was attacking my EGO, an insult to me, a put down TO ME! Helpful suggestion? PLEASE!
He asked to to simply consider your ego envolvement in this. Hmmmmm, you OTOH, reacted in anger. Hmmmm.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030508/msgs/248435.html
If PBCs are being doled out then please take a closer look at all involved in the thread, not just the usual suspects.
Thanks.
zenhussy
Posted by stjames on August 6, 2003, at 11:49:48
In reply to Yo Saint--wanna try some I statements? » stjames, posted by zenhussy on August 6, 2003, at 11:31:51
> > Yes, he was attacking my EGO, an insult to me, a put down TO ME! Helpful suggestion? PLEASE!
> >
> > He asked to to simply consider your ego envolvement in this. Hmmmmm, you OTOH, reacted in anger. Hmmmm.
>
> stjames,
>
> Why not try the above post again using some "I" statements? Might have more impact then.
>
> constructively,
> zenhussyWhatever. Does not apply here. I was describing what another poster said, so I do not see how I can do I statements here.
Posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 6, 2003, at 11:50:28
In reply to Re: please be civil » Larry » pax » Ame » zenhussy, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2003, at 11:31:25
Posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 6, 2003, at 11:53:22
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry » Ame Sans Vie, posted by Larry Hoover on August 5, 2003, at 23:47:11
You're very welcome... I know you realize I didn't just defend you because you've been so helpful to me, but because I vehemently disagreed with Wendy's idea of civility.
Also, upon further contemplation, I realize now that your comment about Cam was not out of line -- you're right, it obviously wasn't a personal attack, because you don't know him/her.
Posted by zenhussy on August 6, 2003, at 13:30:59
In reply to Re: Yo Saint--wanna try some I statements?, posted by stjames on August 6, 2003, at 11:49:48
> > > Yes, he was attacking my EGO, an insult to me, a put down TO ME! Helpful suggestion? PLEASE!
> > >
> > > He asked to to simply consider your ego envolvement in this. Hmmmmm, you OTOH, reacted in anger. Hmmmm.
> >
> > stjames,
> >
> > Why not try the above post again using some "I" statements? Might have more impact then.
> >
> > constructively,
> > zenhussy
>
> Whatever. Does not apply here. I was describing what another poster said, so I do not see how I can do I statements here.
>
>
From: http://www.m-w.com
Main Entry: de·scribe
Pronunciation: di-'skrIb
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): de·scribed; de·scrib·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin describere, from de- + scribere to write -- more at SCRIBE
Date: 15th century
1 : to represent or give an account of in words <describe a picture>
2 : to represent by a figure, model, or picture : DELINEATE
3 obsolete : DISTRIBUTE
4 : to trace or traverse the outline of <describe a circle>
5 archaic : OBSERVE, PERCEIVEYou were giving your perceptions of another person's post? Hmmm. In the almighty FAQ it is written: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Please respect the views of others even if you think they're wrong. Please be sensitive to their feelings even if yours are hurt. Different points of view are fine, and in fact encouraged, but your freedom of speech is limited here. It can be therapeutic to express yourself, but this isn't necessarily the place.Please don't be sarcastic, joke about death or suicide, suggest that others harm, or discuss specific ways of harming, themselves or others, jump to conclusions about others, post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, harass or pressure others, use language that could offend others, exaggerate or overgeneralize -- et cetera. Even if you're quoting someone else. Also, please don't post under more than one name at a time.
Could your interpretation not be perceived as accusatory or offensive or even as an exaggeration?Just asking.
zenhussy
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.