![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 20 of 20. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by TofuEmmy on November 2, 2004, at 22:13:07
Is this a new and undocumented rule? Is it ok to block people for new and undocumented rules? Or did I miss a new rule? The No Negativity Rule? Interesting one for a mental health site. It's certainly possible to miss a new rule around there, tho!! Let me know, OK?
Especially, since it's possible for "after the elction" to mean after counts and re-counts...ya never know. Maybe Bob's political preference is showing??
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20041026/msgs/410808.html
emmy
Posted by gardenergirl on November 3, 2004, at 2:03:46
In reply to Jai's Block, posted by TofuEmmy on November 2, 2004, at 22:13:07
Good questions, Emmy. It's not like any vote can be influenced at this point. The outcome has been determined, 'cept for the counting and legallin'.
sigh
gg
Posted by All Done on November 3, 2004, at 2:30:57
In reply to Jai's Block, posted by TofuEmmy on November 2, 2004, at 22:13:07
Dr. Bob,
Has anything been officially decided on the use of please don't be negative? I believe you may have asked for thoughts on it in another thread on Admin. (Forgive me if that isn't the case.)
Or does please don't be negative only apply to the election thread? Are there other things we can't be negative about? If so, could you provide some examples? What if I say, "the White Sox are not a very good baseball team"? That's a negative statement and others may disagree. Could start a big argument, I suppose. (Probably need a new rule to cover that possibility?) I guess I'm just asking for some explaination of how this will be used.
Thanks,
Laurie
Posted by All Done on November 3, 2004, at 8:04:45
In reply to Re: Please don't be negative, posted by All Done on November 3, 2004, at 2:30:57
> Could start a big argument, I suppose. (Probably need a new rule to cover that possibility?)
Dr. Bob,I would have been able to ask my questions without these comments. Sorry for the tone of my post.
Is adding an edit button to our posts on your list of things to do? ;)
Laurie
Posted by Atticus on November 3, 2004, at 22:18:08
In reply to Jai's Block, posted by TofuEmmy on November 2, 2004, at 22:13:07
If I were to say, "I am POSITIVE that Dr. Bob is a sociopathic control freak, I am POSITIVE that what this entire site really amounts to is one gigantic monument to his own bloated ego, and that I am POSITIVE that his illusory power would dissipate in a cybersecond if everyone here didn't live in fear of the (shudder) PBC and block that Bobby wields like pepper spray and a truncheon," would that be considered NEGATIVE? Just wondering what would happen if I WERE to say such a thing, Bobby. However, I have grammatically phrased this question in the subjunctive case. So in grammatical terms, it is all a supposition rather than an actual statement. A "What if," if you will. Technically all I've just offered is a hypothetical scenario. Can I be blocked for offering a grammatically hypothetical scenario as opposed to a straight-out grammatical statement? Eagerly awaiting the creation of a new rule to deal with hypothetical propositions in posts. Please work something about a three-post limit into it if you possibly can. Oh, and something about daffodils. I've always really liked daffodils. Joyous yet unpretentious flowers. Atticus ;)
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 4, 2004, at 5:57:29
In reply to Re: Jai's Block, posted by Atticus on November 3, 2004, at 22:18:08
> "I am POSITIVE that Dr. Bob is a sociopathic control freak...
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused. The last time you were blocked it was for 1 week, so this time it's for 3.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 4, 2004, at 6:05:03
In reply to Re: Please don't be negative, posted by All Done on November 3, 2004, at 2:30:57
> Is this a new and undocumented rule? ... Or did I miss a new rule?
>
> emmyYou missed it:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20041026/msgs/409020.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20041026/msgs/409425.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20041026/msgs/409325.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20041026/msgs/410634.html> Has anything been officially decided on the use of please don't be negative?
>
> Or does please don't be negative only apply to the election thread?
>
> LaurieIt was just for the election. It's probably too restrictive to apply generally. But I did just post "please respect the views of others and be sensitive to their feelings" on a number of threads... Maybe politics should be treated like faith?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on November 4, 2004, at 7:47:08
In reply to Re: only applied to the election, posted by Dr. Bob on November 4, 2004, at 6:05:03
> Maybe politics should be treated like faith?
> Bob
Perhaps it should.
Discussion of feelings regarding the election may be therapeutic, but it can also lead to feelings of hurt and alienation that may well influence involvement in Babble as a whole and supportive feelings toward individuals. It's kind of hard to feel positively toward those who express extremely *insert civil descriptor here* opinions toward you and the things that you hold dear. And I'm not talking Bush here.
Certainly Babble is not representative of America as a whole, and since that is true, you might wish to allow the therapeutic expressing of opinions, since not that many people will be distressed and many will feel empowered.
I find myself not caring all that much, and that makes me sad.
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 4, 2004, at 8:12:03
In reply to Re: only applied to the election » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on November 4, 2004, at 7:47:08
> > Maybe politics should be treated like faith?
>
> > Bob
>
>
>
> Perhaps it should.I was taught there were three things to avoid discussing in polite company, e.g. at a dinner party. Those were sex (to avoid embarassment), politics and religion. The latter two because they provoke passionate reponses, but also because they are matters of conviction. You're not going to convince someone to change their mind in the time-frame of a conversation, and even if you could, that is neither the time nor the place. Talk of politics or religion is divisive. Polarizing.
That said, politics and religion can have an impact on the psyche (especially someone else's politics and someone else's religion). I like Bob's guideline that you should be restrained to positive or supportive expressions. Otherwise, it just becomes a dumping ground, or an argument, without any clear benefit.
I also see a distinction between e.g. faith and religion. Faith is sometimes all one has to work past a crisis. Arguing the specific religion which affords one with that faith is an arbitrary restriction on the means of invocation of faith itself; we all know what faith is, but how we get there is not necessarily relevant. I note the name of the board is Faith, not Religion.
In my opinion, talk of politics ought to be avoided altogether. In place of that, discussions of philosophies could be illuminating. A political conviction is based on philosophical positions. You need not identify as a Dem or Bushite or Christian or whatever, to discuss the merits or weaknesses of a policy or practise. And, you can still be both supportive and civil when discussing both merits and weaknesses.
Just my 2¢.
Lar
Posted by gardenergirl on November 4, 2004, at 19:18:11
In reply to Re: blocked for 3 weeks » Atticus, posted by Dr. Bob on November 4, 2004, at 5:57:29
How do we go from one week to three now? I've seen this more than once... I thought blocks doubled.
Is Babble now brought to us by the number 3?
gg
Posted by zeugma on November 4, 2004, at 21:17:40
In reply to Re: Please don't be negative, posted by All Done on November 3, 2004, at 2:30:57
> Dr. Bob,
>
> Has anything been officially decided on the use of please don't be negative? I believe you may have asked for thoughts on it in another thread on Admin. (Forgive me if that isn't the case.)
>
> Or does please don't be negative only apply to the election thread? Are there other things we can't be negative about? If so, could you provide some examples? What if I say, "the White Sox are not a very good baseball team"? That's a negative statement and others may disagree. Could start a big argument, I suppose. (Probably need a new rule to cover that possibility?) I guess I'm just asking for some explaination of how this will be used.
>
> Thanks,
> Laurieeven though politics influences pills, and vice versa.
That seems to be it in a nutshell.
-z
Posted by TofuEmmy on November 4, 2004, at 21:24:58
In reply to Re: blocked for 3 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on November 4, 2004, at 19:18:11
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 4, 2004, at 22:45:32
In reply to Re: blocked for 3 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on November 4, 2004, at 19:18:11
> How do we go from one week to three now? I've seen this more than once... I thought blocks doubled.
See:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on November 5, 2004, at 1:50:27
In reply to Re: brought to us by the number 3, posted by Dr. Bob on November 4, 2004, at 22:45:32
Posted by crushedout on November 9, 2004, at 1:27:24
In reply to Re: blocked for 3 weeks » Atticus, posted by Dr. Bob on November 4, 2004, at 5:57:29
Dr. Bob,You took this out of context! It was, as Atticus said, in the subjunctive. Even if you reasonably suspect he was trying to provoke you, it seems not entirely kosher.
What's your rule on the subjunctive?
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 9, 2004, at 9:06:59
In reply to Re: blocked for 3 weeks -- subjunctive tense » Dr. Bob, posted by crushedout on November 9, 2004, at 1:27:24
>
> Dr. Bob,
>
> You took this out of context! It was, as Atticus said, in the subjunctive. Even if you reasonably suspect he was trying to provoke you, it seems not entirely kosher.
>
> What's your rule on the subjunctive?crushedout,
You wrote, [...{it} seems not entirerly kosher...].
Are you saying that Dr. Hsiung's determination is what is {...not entirely kosher...} or are you saying that what the poster wrote was [...not entirely kosher...]? If you could clarify this, I could have a better understanding of what you wrote and respond accordingly.
Best regards,
Lou
>
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 9, 2004, at 9:57:24
In reply to Lou's response to yoshimi-dbl » crushedout, posted by Lou Pilder on November 9, 2004, at 9:06:59
> >
> > Dr. Bob,
> >
> > You took this out of context! It was, as Atticus said, in the subjunctive. Even if you reasonably suspect he was trying to provoke you, it seems not entirely kosher.
> >
> > What's your rule on the subjunctive?
>
> crushedout,
> You wrote, [...{it} seems not entirerly kosher...].
> Are you saying that Dr. Hsiung's determination is what is {...not entirely kosher...} or are you saying that what the poster wrote was [...not entirely kosher...]? If you could clarify this, I could have a better understanding of what you wrote and respond accordingly.
> Best regards,
> LouFriends, The subject line corrected is:
Lou's response to crushedout.
Lou
>
> >
> >
>
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 9, 2004, at 10:03:09
In reply to Lou's response to yoshimi-dbl, posted by Lou Pilder on November 9, 2004, at 9:57:24
Friends,
The subject line should be [Lou's response to cruchedout]. I am having some problem with my system since I switched over to another system. I am correcting this situation.
Thanks ,
Lou
Posted by shortelise on November 12, 2004, at 13:32:08
In reply to Re: Jai's Block, posted by Atticus on November 3, 2004, at 22:18:08
Atticus,
The obvious answer to your question is "Yes".
My husband calls them laugh-o-dills, because they are so happy to look at.
ShortE
Posted by malthus on November 13, 2004, at 12:51:00
In reply to Lou's response to yoshimi-dbl » crushedout, posted by Lou Pilder on November 9, 2004, at 9:06:59
<crushedout,
You wrote, [...{it} seems not entirerly kosher...].
Are you saying that Dr. Hsiung's determination is what is {...not entirely kosher...} or are you saying that what the poster wrote was [...not entirely kosher...]? If you could clarify this, I could have a better understanding of what you wrote and respond accordingly.>Lou Pilder:
Why do you need clarification of a post that is not written to you, but to Dr. Bob? And why do you need to "respond accordingly" to a post that is not written to you, but to Dr. Bob?
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.