![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 17 of 17. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 31, 2004, at 7:29:17
Dr. Hsiung,
I am requesting that you clarify how language that could be deemed offensive is considered here to be acceptable if one of the letters in a word that could be deemed offensive is replaced with a star,(*).
The FAQ states,[...do not use language that {could} offend others...].
In the previous examples cited, I still see the language as offensive even though one of the letters in the word that could be deemed offensive has been replaced with a star.
There is a concept in common logic that if something replaces something else, then they both are the same if they mean the same thing. Sometimes this is referrred to as,[...if A is equal to B, and B is equal to C, then A is equal to C...]. or if a=b and b=c, then a=c.
Sometimes this is referred to as [...quantities equal to the same quantity are equal to each other...].
Now looking at your idea here of allowing a word that could be deemed as {language that (could) offend others...} as per your FAQ, to be allowed if one of the letters is replaced by a star, to me, is about whether the word is still offensive or not even if the letter is replaced. My seeing of the word is in its context, so the replacing of a letter, to me, could or could not change the context and meaning of the statement that it is in.
In the examples that I have cited here previously, I believe ve that we could use a test to determine if the word could offend others even though a letter has been replaced with a star. The test used for 100s of years in common law throught the world is [..would a reasonable person still think that the word could offend others....], even if one of the letter was replaced by a star.
In one of your situations here, a poster used a moniker thast could be seen as the word, {...jewkiller..] even though the letters had some rearrangement. You responded by asking the poster to change his name used in the subject line. Now in that case, people could see that quantities equal to the same quantity are equal to each other, and so can I see that the words in question that I have previously cited to you are to me [...language that could offend others...]as per your FAQ, even though a letter has been replaced by a star.
I am requesting that that you clarify the rational that you are using to allow words that according to your FAQ, [...that could offend others..] are being allowed to be used here by replacing a letter with a star, even though after doing so, this member of the forum, at least, can still see the word as [...language that could offend others...].
Lou Pilder
Posted by SLS on October 31, 2004, at 7:55:38
In reply to LOu's request to DR. Hsiung-oflang, posted by Lou Pilder on October 31, 2004, at 7:29:17
Hi Doctor.
I would like some clarification on this issue also, just so I can post with consistency. I admit that I am sometimes offended by the use of language that is obviously profane, despite the replacement of letters with symbols. However, I understand that creating and enforcing a policy proscribing this would be problematic because of the necessity to guess at the poster's intent. I would not be averse to your allowing such character substitutions. I just would like to know you current policy regarding it.
Thanks.
- Sc*tt
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 31, 2004, at 8:38:42
In reply to LOu's request to DR. Hsiung-oflang, posted by Lou Pilder on October 31, 2004, at 7:29:17
Dr.Hsiung,
It is realised in commom law and common logic that a word , in and of itself, is not offensive, but that it is {how it is used in the context} of the statement that determines whether it [...could offend others or not...]. Surly, one's refference to an animal that is in the horse family that some use to referr to a part of anatomy, has to be deemed offensive or not in relation to the context that it is used in. Standing by itself, does not necessarrily mean that the word is offensive.
So does changing a letter in a word that[... could offend others...] also change the context? I do not see the context changed in the cases that I have previously cited when the star replaced a letter in the word in question, for the word follows the context even if a letter is changed to a star in the word.
If I wrote, M*rtin L*ther K*ing jr. was a great American, would the people reading that have any trouble seeing that the person in the context is Martin Luther King jr. and that the two are the same? Is it not the same with the word having a letter replaced by a star? Would the people reading the statement have any trouble seeing that the two were the same?
One could use a word that could be deemed offensive to others if it was used in a factual context. For instance, a person in court could be asked to tell what they read on a sign, that had an offensive word written on it, posted on a front lawn of an unpopular ethnic person in a community. They would be {stateing a fact} as to the word that they saw that they were asked to say. They would not be using the word {in a context that made the word offensive.} One could look up these words in a dictionary and see their historical usage and the word written in the dictionary is not considered to be offending anyone because it is a statement of fact.
A word that has to be used {to identify} could also be deemed to be not offensive . One could write a letter to the newspaper and say that the city is not responding to complaints that ethnic slurs painted on public buildings are being left on the buildings and actually write the offending ethnic slur word, for they are {identifying} the word, {not using it}in a {context} that could offend others.
A person could have a name that is a word thatcould offend other. That does not mean that they have to change their name.
A phrase could offend others even though no words of offense are in the phrase. I emailed one of these to you , about you, and you deleted it.
Statements {directed at another person}, even with a star repalcing a letter in a word, could be offensive.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 31, 2004, at 10:11:26
In reply to Lou's request to DR. Hsiung-oflang-context, posted by Lou Pilder on October 31, 2004, at 8:38:42
Dr. Hsiung,
One of the most reccommended sites on the internet for mental health is called,"Healthy Place.com".
In their FAQ, they write about the use of profanity. Their FAQ writes,[...we have a list of words that are going to be not allowed to be used here. They are words that could be deemed as ["talking trash"], or words that could embarrass you if your children, parents or granparents were to hear them...or "gutter language"... or acting out sexual fantasies...or slurs of sexual orientation....].
Then there is the spacific determination to prohibit the use of asterisks:
[...This includes the use of asterisks(***)to insinuate the word without actually typing it...].
Here, in that site, theowners of the site state that using the star to replace a letter in a word that could be deemed as 'profanity" is insinuating the word without actually typing it and it will not be allowed to be done on that site.
Could you expaline your mental -health reason for allowing posters here to use the asterisk to insinuate the word without actually typing it? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou Pilder
http://www.healthyplace.com/communities/alternative/site/rules2.htm
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 31, 2004, at 11:50:14
In reply to LOu's request to DR. Hsiung-oflang, posted by Lou Pilder on October 31, 2004, at 7:29:17
> I am requesting that you clarify how language that could be deemed offensive is considered here to be acceptable if one of the letters in a word that could be deemed offensive is replaced with a star,(*).
It's a compromise, people value freedom of speech, too.
> In one of your situations here, a poster used a moniker thast could be seen as [another] word ... even though the letters had some rearrangement. You responded by asking the poster to change his name used in the subject line.
That was different, stars are for specific words and phrases considered often or usually disparaging, obscene, offensive, or vulgar by Merriam-Webster OnLine:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 31, 2004, at 13:41:26
In reply to Re: LOu's request, posted by Dr. Bob on October 31, 2004, at 11:50:14
Dr. Hsiung,
I am requesting that you,(or others), examine the following entitled,[...Profanity is {not} Freedom of Speech...].
The article shows that it is not there in the Bill of Rights that one can use profanity.
Freedom of speech, according to the article, is intended to assure the future of a government "run by the people", which requiers the ability to discuss opinions {about the government}.
If you , or others could read this article, then I could have dialog with you or others concerning what is, or what is not, Freedom of Speech.
Lou PIlder
http://www.comportone.com/Connie/articles/freespch.htm
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 31, 2004, at 15:09:27
In reply to Re: LOu's request, posted by Dr. Bob on October 31, 2004, at 11:50:14
Dr. Hsiung,and others,
My apology for the tone of some parts of the article above as you wrote in your quoting of Jean Jacque Rousseau. The opinions of the author of the article are the author's only, and I would like to use the article {for discussion} as to the mental health aspect of the use of profanity.
The author and you and I all agree that profanity does not get acceptance on your forum.
But there are two things that I would like to discuss here. One is if the use of the asterisk to insinuate the word without typing it could be a justification on a mental health basis to allow this on a mental health board. I have submitted the rules for another mental helath community on the internet that spacifically prohibits it. The owners prohibit it, as they write, [this includes the use of aserisks...to insinuates the word without typing it...].
The next thing is in relation to using either form of a word that could be deemed as a word that [...could offend others...] is if it is necessary to use the word in a mental health setting such as this mental health forum. It is the author of the aticle, and my opiniion that other words could be used instead of the word that [...could offend others...].
The fact that a asterisk replaces a letter in a word that could offend others, could still offend others.
You wrote that using an asterisk to replace a letter in a word that could offend others is a compromise to allow freedom speech. But where is freedom of speech defined in any Bill of Rights to allow {unrestricted} speech. Could one defame by libel or slander and claim "Freedom of Speech"? Could one lie in court and claim "Freedom of Speech". Could one here write,[...anyone that honors any other God besides Jesus is not saved...]or, [...Jesus said, Iam the waythe truth and the life...] and claim Freedom of Speech? Are not people offended by different kinds of speech? Are not people offened by [...language that could offend others...]? Are not words that offend others just as offensive as words that have a letter replaced by an asterisk that insinuates the same word? Are not the offended allowed the same sound mental health atmosphere as those that want or need to use offending words that have a letter replaced by an asterisk? Are you saying that you can not restrict the use of words here that have a letter replaced by an asterisk that insinuate the word that is offensive because you would be taking away someones's "Freedom of Speech"? Are you saying that I, or teenagers, or mothers and fathers of children or the children reading this site can not see what the words with the asterisk mean? If a word is offensive and replacing a letter in the word with a star still allows the word to be seen as to be offensive, then an offensive word can be seen and is not still offensive? Applying your principle of allowing the offensive word by doing such leads me to ask,even though the following is somewhat different, could it be acceptable for one here to write,[...I would want to write that such-and-such is evil, but I won't write it because it is not allowed to write that here...].
Lou Pilder
Posted by jay on October 31, 2004, at 16:38:49
In reply to Lou's request to DR. Hsiung-asterisks-healthy, posted by Lou Pilder on October 31, 2004, at 10:11:26
Lou...this is *not* "Healthyplace.com"...this is Bob's site...and he will do as he desires. He owns the place, owns the space and pays for it all. He gave you an answer, so there is no need for further arguing. His rules have to be none other than *his*.
Jay
Posted by jay on October 31, 2004, at 16:44:42
In reply to Lou's response to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou- » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 31, 2004, at 15:09:27
Lou...just to give you an example. Where I live in the wonderful country of Canada, profanity is allowed on television, and if I don't want to hear it, I change the channel. I don't need someone else (like some large organization or the government) telling me what is 'rude'. 'Tis up to me...period...end of story. Is that a simple enough explanation? You and I have this lucky thing called Freewill, and should use it as much as possible.
In respect
Jay
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 31, 2004, at 16:58:03
In reply to Re: Lou's request to DR. Hsiung-asterisks-healthy » Lou Pilder, posted by jay on October 31, 2004, at 16:38:49
Jay,
You wrote,[...He gave you an answer so there is no need for further (arguing}...].
I do not see that Dr. Hsiung's administrative board prohibits dialog between him and the members of the community. In fact, from what has been the past practice here, I believe that Dr. Hsiung welcomes dialog and that this type of administrative dialog is not "arguing", but a civil discussion about administrtaive policy and ways to improve the community.
My last post to Dr. Hsiung was my response to his reply to me. I feel that if Dr. Hsiung does not want to reply to my response to his reply to me, that it could be his choice to reply to my response to his reply to me or not to reply to me.
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on October 31, 2004, at 17:04:48
In reply to Lou's reply to Jay » jay, posted by Lou Pilder on October 31, 2004, at 16:58:03
I have had some success with directly asking a poster not to use profanity in posts to me. This was a fairly extreme case, however, it did result in the person stopping using profanity...at least to me. And sais poster has since returned to Babble after a block and has made a nice home here. I was very happy to see that.
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 31, 2004, at 17:09:28
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou- » Lou Pilder, posted by jay on October 31, 2004, at 16:44:42
Jay,
You wrote,[...his rules have to be none other than *his*...].
I understand that the owner of a site can make his/her own rules. But this site invites others via the administartion board to have dialog about the rules. Sometimes, these dialogs become fruitfull. The administrtive board allows feedback.Have there not been many changes effected here via adminstrative discussions and dialog with Dr. Hsiung? You are correct about the rules being his, but I feel that he is inviting dialog with him concerning those rules so that {his} rules have {our} input in the making of them and would like that.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 31, 2004, at 18:50:19
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou- » Lou Pilder, posted by jay on October 31, 2004, at 16:44:42
Jay,
You wrote, [....where I live...profanity is allowed on television and if I do not want to hear it, I change the channal...].
Well, I do understand the concept that you are presenting here, but when we click on a post to read, we do not know at that time if there is profanity or not. Now if there was a declaration to that effect that posters knew ahead of time, then that would be one thing. I have been on sites that have a feature that allows you to declare if you want profanity to be seen or not and they have some software that blocks those words if you elect that feature.
Lou
Posted by fayeroe on October 31, 2004, at 22:14:56
In reply to Lou's reply to Jay » jay, posted by Lou Pilder on October 31, 2004, at 18:50:19
The poster can add a * to the subject line. Then those that are offended by words with a st*r in them can pass that post by.......
Posted by gardenergirl on October 31, 2004, at 22:22:05
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Jay » Lou Pilder, posted by fayeroe on October 31, 2004, at 22:14:56
That's a good idea. Kind of like the "trigger" we put in subject lines at times.
I suppose if someobody forgets, we could try to help each other out and post a subject line warning to others? Again, the way we do with triggers.
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 31, 2004, at 23:07:39
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Jay, posted by gardenergirl on October 31, 2004, at 22:22:05
gg,
In relation to putting a star in the subject line to warn of possible offensive language, do you think that it could be feasible for the discussion to be fully understood by the one that does not want to read the star post, lets say, if there were 5 or so discussants in the thread?
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on November 1, 2004, at 13:15:45
In reply to Lou's reply to gardengirl-star » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on October 31, 2004, at 23:07:39
Lou,
I think that is a choice the individual would have to make based on their interest in the discussion.gg
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.