![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 40. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by coral on October 18, 2004, at 18:19:41
Free speech does not entitle one to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre. I wonder if the same principle applies here.
Posted by Jai Narayan on October 18, 2004, at 18:50:02
In reply to Accountability, posted by coral on October 18, 2004, at 18:19:41
What does that mean? Please?
Jai
Posted by Toph on October 18, 2004, at 22:56:08
In reply to Accountability, posted by coral on October 18, 2004, at 18:19:41
Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 20, 2004, at 23:07:17
In reply to Accountability, posted by coral on October 18, 2004, at 18:19:41
> Free speech does not entitle one to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre. I wonder if the same principle applies here.
Free speech guarantees in the Bill of Rights do allow a person to hand out flyers on the sidewalk outside a theater that might include information about how to contact the fire marshall, or that report how frequently the fire marshal inspects or doesn't inspect the theater, or which describe scenarios in which failures in oversight by the fire marshal or theater managers have resulted in injury or death. As a matter of fact, if there is a fire, one may indeed yell fire in a crowded theater. Theater owners are required to provide lighted, accessible exits and in most modern theaters, lighted aisles leading to exits, sufficient to accomodate whatever crowd activity might result from either a fire or a false alarm. And by golly, they are required to advise theater-goers when there is a fire.
If there were a fire in a crowded theater, or say, a high rise building, those who said the fire is no problem and who delayed evacuation could be found liable, in civil or criminal courts, for their offenses against public safety. In one recent example, building managers who reassured occupants a building was not at risk while the building complex was under attack died when their building collapsed, and were not available to answer to courts or to Congress.
Posted by Toph on October 20, 2004, at 23:48:36
In reply to Re: Accountability, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 20, 2004, at 23:07:17
Most edifying, Mary, but I'm afraid that you missed coral's point, much as your idle threats missed the mark. I think Coral was using fire as a metaphor referring to my post intitled "Suicide warning" which was also intended to be a metaphor (though admittedly a lame one). Nonetheless, it was probably insensitive of me to use that title here, so I apologized. It's a good thing to apologize to others when one needlessly alarms them.
Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 0:41:44
In reply to Re: Accountability » Mary_Bowers, posted by Toph on October 20, 2004, at 23:48:36
> Most edifying, Mary, but I'm afraid that you missed coral's point, much as your idle threats
missed the mark.I wonder if you could comment on how the statement "your idle threats" differs from other statements that are deemed to possibly make others feel to accused or put down.
>>I think Coral was using fire as a metaphor referring to my post intitled "Suicide warning" which was also intended to be a metaphor (though admittedly a lame one).
Perhaps, but I have no basis to conclude you know anything more about what Coral meant than I do. Since her post was vague, even to her own recognition, I suffer no embarassment for offering an edifying summary of related concepts. I am more interested to know your interpretation of what you wrote.
>>it was probably insensitive of me to use that title here, so I apologized.
That is interesting. I can't seem to locate that apology.
Nonetheless, I wonder if you would like to explain whose behavior you were referring to when you wrote "obnoxious behavior intended to goad others into frustration." ( http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/404336.html )You mentioned me by name in the same paragraph, which seemed to classify my effort to be supportive and educational as "Mary's kamikazee assault."
I also wonder if you care to explain your manner of speech when you referred to "such acts of terrorism" ( http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/404264.html )in a post that immediately preceeded your post in the same thread and related to the same topic that began with the phrase "Mary's kamikazee assault." Perhaps it is metaphor, but in today's political environment "terrorism" is a capital offense for which alleged perpetrators are sometimes lethally prosecuted with no recourse to due process, so I am interested to clarify whether you were speaking metaphorically or literally.
Posted by gardenergirl on October 21, 2004, at 1:36:30
In reply to Re: Accountability » Toph, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 0:41:44
Now that's a scary concept for me. Back to the left, GG or no biscuit.
gg
Posted by coral on October 21, 2004, at 7:37:07
In reply to Hey, I'm starting to lean TOWARDS tort reform??, posted by gardenergirl on October 21, 2004, at 1:36:30
I appreciate your interpretation but, no, it was not in response to your metaphor. I truly appreciate your posts, point of view, you!!!
Remember the story of the little boy who cried wolf???
Coral
Posted by coral on October 21, 2004, at 7:38:36
In reply to Re: Accountability » Toph, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 0:41:44
"...Perhaps, but I have no basis to conclude you know anything more about what Coral meant than I do. Since her post was vague, even to her own recognition, I suffer no embarassment for offering an edifying summary of related concepts."
I don't think so.
Coral
Posted by Toph on October 21, 2004, at 7:45:02
In reply to Re: Accountability » Toph, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 0:41:44
> That is interesting. I can't seem to locate that apology.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/404566.html
> ... explain..."obnoxious behavior intended to goad others into frustration."
"obnoxious" is a strong a word used out of frustration
>
You mentioned me by name in the same paragraph, which seemed to classify my effort to be supportive and educational as "Mary's kamikazee assault."Kamakazees probably felt they were supportive of their cause also.
> I also wonder if you care to explain your manner of speech when you referred to "such acts of terrorism"
Obviously this is hyperbole, another metaphor. I see some posts as like a suicide bomber, in self-destructive, inflamatory posts they may accomplish an agenda of taking many others out with them. I see you point that it might be hypocritical to use inflamatory language to make that point.
Posted by Toph on October 21, 2004, at 9:07:34
In reply to Re: to Toph!!!, posted by coral on October 21, 2004, at 7:37:07
Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 11:51:41
In reply to Re: Accountability to Mary Bowers, posted by coral on October 21, 2004, at 7:38:36
> "...Perhaps, but I have no basis to conclude you know anything more about what Coral meant than I do. Since her post was vague, even to her own recognition, I suffer no embarassment for offering an edifying summary of related concepts."
>
> I don't think so.
>
> CoralYou don't think what?
That I suffer no embarrassment? I beleive I am the authority on that subject.
That I have no basis for reaching my stated conclusion? You might suggest a basis founded in the brief statement you posted to which somebody asked what you meant and you replied that you see their point. But again, I am the authority on whether I find somebody's interpretation of your post any more instructive than anybody else's interpretation.
Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 12:04:34
In reply to MB » Mary_Bowers, posted by Toph on October 21, 2004, at 7:45:02
I could also ask whether you consider use of this sort of language "civil" but that standard as it is used here is subjective and in my opinion, not a reliable descriptor of behavior.
Oh, NOW I get it. You, not coral, are the one who replied, "I see your point". All the same, I suffer no embarassment for responding to the same post to which Jai asked what Coral was talking about. And until I accurately parsed the subject lines of the posts, I had no basis for contemplating other interpretations. I didn't immediately recognize that you understood intended nuance of the same vague message that led Jai to ask what coral meant.
What I honestly didn't understand about your metaphor is how you believed me to be taking myself out, metaphorically. Are you suggesting that failing to win the majority to my point of view is tantamount to social suicide?
Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 12:08:52
In reply to Re: to Toph!!!, posted by coral on October 21, 2004, at 7:37:07
> I appreciate your interpretation but, no, it was not in response to your metaphor. I truly appreciate your posts, point of view, you!!!
>
> Remember the story of the little boy who cried wolf???
>
> CoralBut now, reviewing this post, I again realize I had no basis to conclude Toph better understood corals post. Coral seems to be suggesting your interpretation was not accurate, and that mine is. She is suggesting that somebody cried wolf. I'm not sure what is the topic of discussion if not my earlier posting that referenced regulatory and civil venues where persons injured by participating in this site might find relief.
Posted by AuntieMel on October 21, 2004, at 12:10:46
In reply to Hey, I'm starting to lean TOWARDS tort reform??, posted by gardenergirl on October 21, 2004, at 1:36:30
The jury system still works well and unfounded lawsuits do fail.
Tort reform = BAD. Another case of the govmt protecting us from ourselves.
Posted by AdaGrace on October 21, 2004, at 12:14:07
In reply to Accountability, posted by coral on October 18, 2004, at 18:19:41
Posted by Bobby on October 21, 2004, at 12:17:36
In reply to Re: MB, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 12:04:34
..quite contrary. How does your garden grow?
Posted by Bobby on October 21, 2004, at 12:21:37
In reply to Mary, Mary..., posted by Bobby on October 21, 2004, at 12:17:36
lots and lots of fertilizer?
Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 12:21:55
In reply to Re: to Toph!!!, posted by coral on October 21, 2004, at 7:37:07
> I appreciate your interpretation but, no, it was not in response to your metaphor. I truly appreciate your posts, point of view, you!!!
>
> Remember the story of the little boy who cried wolf???
>
> Coral
Since this thread is relying heavily on metaphor, it might be instructive for me ask if my sense of what the metaphors mean is innacurate. Coral seems to be saying the "boy" should be held accountable if he cries "wolf". That is exactly how I interpreted the post after first reading it. Coral seemed to confirm at http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/405392.html that Toph's interpretation erred. The "boy" to which coral referred in this context seems to be a person who suggested legal venues where people can find releif from maltreatment at the hands of medical practitioners. The "wolf", real or imagined, would seem in the context of the metaphor to be a medical practitioner. It might be reasonable to conclude the wolf the boy saw was a very gnarly wolf-looking dog - maybe a hybrid that is somebody's pet but whom the boy observed harassing sheep. While most replies have suggested there is no wolf, others have corresponded with me and have posted here to the effect that the metaphorical dog in question has indeed been observed harrassing metaphorical sheep. And the purpose of this page is to discuss the administration of the site, which can include references to animal control authorities, to local leash laws, and to civil protections for people who are harmed by a neighbors dog.I'm not sure metaphors such as "wolf" "boy" "terrorist" or "kamikazee" are effective tools for discussing the subject at hand, but they are not my constructs and it seems appropriate to respond to the constructs used that seem to be referring to the subjects I introduced.
Posted by AdaGrace on October 21, 2004, at 12:24:19
In reply to Accountability, posted by coral on October 18, 2004, at 18:19:41
Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 12:31:16
In reply to Let me guess.., posted by Bobby on October 21, 2004, at 12:21:37
> lots and lots of fertilizer?
Perhaps I was mistaken, but my first impression was that this is a scatalogical reference. Then I considered an opposite interpretation, that my garden is very productive because of my nurturing contributions. Could you help clarify my understanding? If my first impression was correct, I wonder if you hold an opinion on how scatalogical metaphor comports with administrative expectations of participants at this site?
Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 12:36:46
In reply to MB » Mary_Bowers, posted by Toph on October 21, 2004, at 7:45:02
Mary wrote: > > That is interesting. I can't seem to locate that apology.
>
Toph wrote:> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/404566.htmlI guess I failed to accurately parse your apology because you were apologizing in the context of coral's message, which she later said you had misinterpreted ( http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/405392.html ) Seeing coral's name in the subject line of the third post in this thread I incorrectly concluded she was recognizing the point of the previous post, Jai's, which asked what she meant.
Posted by Bobby on October 21, 2004, at 12:41:18
In reply to Re: Let me guess.. » Bobby, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 12:31:16
I'm sorry Mary. I did not specify a last name. Do you have a little lamb?
Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 12:48:39
In reply to Re: That's a bit premature » gardenergirl, posted by AuntieMel on October 21, 2004, at 12:10:46
> The jury system still works well and unfounded lawsuits do fail.
>
> Tort reform = BAD. Another case of the govmt protecting us from ourselves.
During a debate with Vice President Dick Cheney, vice presidential candidate John Edwards, a reknowned medical malpractice attorney, recognized a need for tort reform. Edwards suggests a screening panel to sort frivilous lawsuits from genuinely actionable controversies.Along those lines, a more profound public understanding of actionable behavior by medical practitioners could allow clients to pressure practitioners to reform their practices before the controversy rises to an active tort. A profound understanding of actionable practices can also help injured parties style their complaint so it does not appear frivilous. Clients and patients need to understand what their doctors can or cannot do, under their license, and need to be able to confront doctors with non-frivilous descriptions of offenses they feel they might have suffered at the doctors hands, allowing the doctor an opportunity to understand the gravity of the complaint and reform his or her practice before it becomes an issue that clogs up courts and costs other patients through increased malpractice costs for the doctor.
That has been the primary purpose of my contributions here.
Posted by Bobby on October 21, 2004, at 12:52:49
In reply to I Like Bobby, Want to Play With Bobby (nm), posted by AdaGrace on October 21, 2004, at 12:24:19
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.