![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 14 to 38 of 40. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by coral on October 21, 2004, at 13:01:25
In reply to Re: to Toph!!!, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 12:21:55
Since I am the authority on what I post, I assure you that you are not the subject, veiled or otherwise, of the fire reference or of the wolf.
I hope this clears up your misunderstanding.
Coral
Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 13:06:56
In reply to Re: Let me guess.. » Mary_Bowers, posted by Bobby on October 21, 2004, at 12:41:18
> I'm sorry Mary. I did not specify a last name. Do you have a little lamb?
You seem to be mixing two nursery rhymes that were composed some 150 years apart. In the rhyme you posted, Mary's last name is Mary Tudor. In historic literature, she was first called "Bloody Mary" in the anonymously authored "History of Life and Bloody Reign and Death of Queen Mary" London, 1682.
Mary Tudor, who was the daughter of King Henry VIII, is the recognized historical subject of the rhyme you quoted:
Mary, Mary, quite contrary, How does your garden grow? With silver bells and cockleshells, And pretty maids all in a row.
The nursery rhyme "Mary Had A Little Lamb" was composed by Sarah Hale, of Boston, in 1830.
If my initial impressions were incorrect, I am perplexed what meaning you were attempting to convey by introducing a nursery rhyme about Mary Tudor in a thread in which another Mary is both a participant and a topic. Can you explain?
Posted by AdaGrace on October 21, 2004, at 13:09:16
In reply to o.k. but batteries not included (nm) » AdaGrace, posted by Bobby on October 21, 2004, at 12:52:49
Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 13:10:05
In reply to Re: to Mary Bowers, posted by coral on October 21, 2004, at 13:01:25
I understand that I am not the referenced "Wolf". Since nobody has yet articulated an interpretation of your post that you have confirmed, could you please explain who should be held accountable according to the suggestion of your original post, and who is the "boy" who cried wolf?
Posted by AdaGrace on October 21, 2004, at 13:11:04
In reply to Mary Tudor » Bobby, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 13:06:56
Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 13:52:28
In reply to Mary, Do you Have a Sense of Humor? (nm) » Mary_Bowers, posted by AdaGrace on October 21, 2004, at 13:11:04
Posted by Bobby on October 21, 2004, at 13:56:37
In reply to Mary Tudor » Bobby, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 13:06:56
to psycho meanie board.
little sphinx
Posted by partlycloudy on October 21, 2004, at 14:20:44
In reply to Please redirect » Mary_Bowers, posted by Bobby on October 21, 2004, at 13:56:37
Posted by AdaGrace on October 21, 2004, at 14:25:15
In reply to Have I not sported humor? (nm) » AdaGrace, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 13:52:28
Posted by partlycloudy on October 21, 2004, at 14:28:42
In reply to Re: Not Sure - Have Trouble Reading Your Posts (nm) » Mary_Bowers, posted by AdaGrace on October 21, 2004, at 14:25:15
Posted by Fi on October 21, 2004, at 15:14:25
In reply to Re: Accountability » Mary_Bowers, posted by Toph on October 20, 2004, at 23:48:36
I've just gone further down the page, and its clear that you are already aware of the issue of wording that I posted about in that thread.
I'm not a good one on checking thoroughly down a page/thread.
(I dont know if I am unusual in how many posts I read anyway- I must only open a small percentage of all of them.)
Fi
Posted by gardenergirl on October 21, 2004, at 15:36:42
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.Oh, I absolutely agree. I was being funny, I thought. I was just wishing for a single, special law that would eliminate Ally McBeal fans without legal training from practicing "law".
gg
Posted by Toph on October 21, 2004, at 17:01:22
In reply to Re: Accountability: sorry didnt check all posts » Toph, posted by Fi on October 21, 2004, at 15:14:25
There they are, a snap shot of my nutty thinking at that moment in time. I reget any appearance that they trivialize terrorism.
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.