![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 28. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by crushedout on November 4, 2004, at 19:46:11
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20041026/msgs/411415.html
Posted by Dinah on November 4, 2004, at 19:55:28
In reply to i think this guy needs a pbc, posted by crushedout on November 4, 2004, at 19:46:11
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/411625.html
Posted by crushedout on November 4, 2004, at 19:58:16
In reply to Re: i think this guy needs a pbc » crushedout, posted by Dinah on November 4, 2004, at 19:55:28
oh, thanks, d. i guess i should have known.
Posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 7:42:37
In reply to i think this guy needs a pbc, posted by crushedout on November 4, 2004, at 19:46:11
Hi, I'm new here
What is a pbc and what is wrong with that guys posting?
Posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 8:09:51
In reply to Re: i think this guy needs a pbc » crushedout, posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 7:42:37
as far as I can see he is disagreeing, not accusing?
Posted by lauram on November 5, 2004, at 13:25:07
In reply to oh, sorry, please be civil of course, but, posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 8:09:51
Posted by crushedout on November 5, 2004, at 13:30:32
In reply to I agree with Sad Sara. (nm) » Sad Sara, posted by lauram on November 5, 2004, at 13:25:07
Well, it's a moot point since the guy got blocked (apparently for something else) but the rule is not to post anything that could lead others to feel accused *or put down*. I think the subject of the post ("I think you are missing my point") would tend to make me feel put down if he were writing that to me. Also, this line: "I think you got more upset with defending something I don't understand than really reading my post," I would take as a put-down if it were directed at me. But a lot of what I'm responding to is tone and reasonable people can clearly differ on this.
Posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 15:24:32
In reply to Re: I agree with Sad Sara. » lauram, posted by crushedout on November 5, 2004, at 13:30:32
I have a problem seeing why "I think you are missing my point" could hurt you, could you please explain me why that would be difficult for you so I wont do a similar mistake. I mean, to make a mistake about someone elses point in a post is quite normal I would feel, and someone shouldn't feel put down if they are told that they might have missed the point? Or do you feel that "missing a point" is a negative way of phrasing it and how come? I'm just trying to understand here, and not to be sarcastic. I have read the posts, and I got the impression that mandinka (?) interpreted a meaning from this guys posting that the guy did not mean to imply. Thereby the guy is correcting with explaining that it was not what he meant to say and not what he wanted to discuss, thereby "missing my point", But I might be wrong?
I do think the last sentence you refer to is badly phrased, but I think it is a bit much to say that it is meant to put someone down. I actually agree with the poster after reading all the posts, that mandinka interpreted the guys post as having opinions it did not really have... but as far as I can see the guy (crazy charlie?) and mandinka sorted this out between themselves without any bad feelings, and then I actually think PBC is a bit beyond the point....
Posted by crushedout on November 5, 2004, at 15:39:25
In reply to Re: I agree with Sad Sara., posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 15:24:32
the rule doesn't say you have to *intend* to accuse or put someone down -- i think it says something like "could lead" others to *feel* put down. it's actually a rather subjective standard.
saying "i think you are missing my point" would make me feel insulted, that i was stupid or not careful or whatever. i'm not dr. bob and dr. bob did not pbc the guy for this, but i personally would be offended by the post if i were mandinka. whether or not he deserves a pbc as a technical matter is purely a question for dr. bob. if i were running the site, i obviously would have given him one.
but you shouldn't structure what you do based on my opinions, unless your concern is being offensive to *me*. if that is your concern, i suggest not telling me i'm missing your point. i think there are much more diplomatic ways to get that same idea across. (e.g., "maybe i didn't make clear in my last post, but my point is...." some people may think this sounds like b.s., but phrasing stuff like that can make a big difference to recipients of messages. i'm actually not the most diplomatic person on these boards so i bet other people could explain this a lot better. :)
Posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 16:13:00
In reply to Re: I agree with Sad Sara. » Sad Sara, posted by crushedout on November 5, 2004, at 15:39:25
> the rule doesn't say you have to *intend* to accuse or put someone down -- i think it says something like "could lead" others to *feel* put down. it's actually a rather subjective standard.
>
> saying "i think you are missing my point" would make me feel insulted, that i was stupid or not careful or whatever. i'm not dr. bob and dr. bob did not pbc the guy for this, but i personally would be offended by the post if i were mandinka. whether or not he deserves a pbc as a technical matter is purely a question for dr. bob. if i were running the site, i obviously would have given him one.
>
> but you shouldn't structure what you do based on my opinions, unless your concern is being offensive to *me*. if that is your concern, i suggest not telling me i'm missing your point. i think there are much more diplomatic ways to get that same idea across. (e.g., "maybe i didn't make clear in my last post, but my point is...." some people may think this sounds like b.s., but phrasing stuff like that can make a big difference to recipients of messages. i'm actually not the most diplomatic person on these boards so i bet other people could explain this a lot better. :)
>
>I don't think you talk BS, but for me your suggestion ("maybe i didn't make clear in my last post, but my point is...." ) and what the guy (I think you are missing my point) wrote has exactly the same meaning, maybe charlie thinks the same? I understand that intention is not viewed as really important, but I can't help thinking it is very important... if we get hurt even when people don't have the tinyest bit of intention in hurting, sarcasm, or otherwise offensiveness, but just has a bad way of phrasing him or herself... wouldn't we then either spend a lot of time in explaining the same over and over again, OR excluding a lot of people that COULD be a potential valuable contribution?
The reason I still have problems understanding why those two comments don't really wary in meaning is that I can't see "I think you are missing my point" as an attack on that person, no mor ethan I can see that medinkas misinterpretation of what that guy meant is an attack on that person....
Posted by gardenergirl on November 5, 2004, at 16:48:19
In reply to Re: I agree with Sad Sara., posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 16:13:00
>
> I don't think you talk BS, but for me your suggestion ("maybe i didn't make clear in my last post, but my point is...." ) and what the guy (I think you are missing my point) wrote has exactly the same meaning, maybe charlie thinks the same?My guess is that the first sentence places the action on the reader...YOU are missing my point; whereas the second phrase places the action on the writer...*I* did not make myself clear.
The object of action is a subtle yet important difference, as the reader may feel put down or accused or perhaps blamed for not understanding in the first post since the action is "theirs". In the second post, the reader does not hold the action, the writer does. There's no sense of fault or blaming the reader.
Of course neither sentence may *intend* to lay blame anywhere, the first sentence could be interpreted as doing so to the reader.
gg
Posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 17:04:55
In reply to My 2 cents » Sad Sara, posted by gardenergirl on November 5, 2004, at 16:48:19
Say, there might be a lot of people who simply don't see or understand the difference in this since the thought of insulting is not in their mind at all, is it then fair to be called uncivil? Would you actually say that that person is uncivil at all?
Now I might completely be out of line here, but after reading the posts another again (all under this discussion) it really seem sto me that crazy charlie is asking whether some rumour he has heard is true, while medinka think the way charlie writes imply that he thinks the quality of therapy depends on how many years of education you have...
I do not see how "I did not explain myself clearly" is more correct in terms of meaning than "I don't think you got my point" even though it might be a "nicer" way of saying it since the reaction on the qestion did not have anything to do with the question in the first place. Strictly speaking I would fin dit just as likely that charlie get insulted from medinkas reply, since he could feel that she is implying that he is arrogant, and that he has opinions that he does not have....
Maybe it would be best that people instead of being very sensitive to whether a poster is refering to "you" try to be a bit more accepting in peoples different way of expressing themselvs?
Posted by gardenergirl on November 6, 2004, at 0:37:31
In reply to Re: My 2 cents, posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 17:04:55
I think that would be nice too, but we also have to play by Dr. Bob's rules.
gg
Posted by crushedout on November 6, 2004, at 0:43:57
In reply to Re: My 2 cents » Sad Sara, posted by gardenergirl on November 6, 2004, at 0:37:31
There's still plenty of ways to make people feel bad on this site -- you just have to be subtle and passive aggressive about it.
Posted by gardenergirl on November 6, 2004, at 1:07:40
In reply to P.S. Sara, posted by crushedout on November 6, 2004, at 0:43:57
Posted by verne on November 6, 2004, at 1:24:40
In reply to P.S. Sara, posted by crushedout on November 6, 2004, at 0:43:57
Excellent observation. Passive aggression often goes undetected, sidestepping the rules.
Like Wittgenstein said, perhaps didn't say or maybe I'm paraphrasing or just making this up: "language can only go so far". Someone, maybe Wittgenstein, said civility rules and codes are made to be broken.
I think we became top dogs on this planet because we seek the weak spot in any system, the game, the rules, the law, science and theology of all we encounter, and "break the bank".
verne
Posted by Sad Sara on November 6, 2004, at 5:19:45
In reply to Re: P.S. Sara » crushedout, posted by verne on November 6, 2004, at 1:24:40
Yes, and because of that I find PBC to be a tiny bit OFF, it is not logical to hit down on people that is not good enough in expressing themselves to be passive aggressive in their words. To read someones passive aggressive respons to you might make you just as hurt, but since it is written "political" correct, you can only assume that it is something wrong with your own emotions if you are not able to see a bit beyond that.
I think that when someone write something that COULD be interpreted as offending (as: I think you missed my point), it should be possible amongst grown up people to say "when you put it like that I feel hurt" and then talk it through like that.
It's different if someone is constantly noted for not following the rules or intentionally hurting other poeple.... but going so much into detail as this makes me think this board has a kindergarden philosophy! A kind of image of the perfect grown up world?
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 6, 2004, at 8:24:50
In reply to i think this guy needs a pbc, posted by crushedout on November 4, 2004, at 19:46:11
I haven't read every post about this individual's style, but I just want to make sure this is said.
Charlie is Norwegian. English is not the first language used by Charlie. I think it was heavy-handed to sanction this person when it is clear that there are problems with syntax and structure, let alone the more subtle aspects of language.
I think Babble could have been more accomodating.
Lar
Posted by Sad Sara on November 6, 2004, at 10:17:27
In reply to Re: i think this guy needs language guidance, posted by Larry Hoover on November 6, 2004, at 8:24:50
I think that is a very good point, but I also think that goes for people with English as their first language... it is a different level among people on the internet on how good you actually are expressing yourself, and pciking on details on structure in the grammar for it to be as polite as possible is sometimes going beyond the point... well, thats in any case my opinion...
But yeah, I would guess that both when it comes to rules about politeness and how to formulate yourself, it would be a big difference between Americans and Norwegians too, and one should be open towards the fact that other cultures differs from ones own in this :-)
Posted by crushedout on November 6, 2004, at 10:58:35
In reply to Re: P.S. Sara » verne, posted by Sad Sara on November 6, 2004, at 5:19:45
Sara,
I may not always agree with the way Dr. Bob enforces the rules, and I certainly agree with verne that no system of rules will actually prevent all that it is intended to prevent, but there is no doubt that some kind of rules are needed in order for this forum to work in the way it is meant to: as a safe, supportive environment. There may be other forums that are centered on debating issues where such rules would not be appropriate. I don't this was meant to be a forum for debate so much as a forum for "sharing feelings" (as sappy as that sounds). And (although it's hard to believe I'm saying this) I for one am glad to have the forum the way it is.
I'm sorry you don't like it. Maybe if you stick around you'll see what I'm talking about and might even appreciate the small protection the rules afford us.
Posted by crushedout on November 6, 2004, at 11:02:19
In reply to Re: P.S. Sara » Sad Sara, posted by crushedout on November 6, 2004, at 10:58:35
the internet, because it is so anonymous and a breeding ground for "trolls," etc. (can someone offer a link on this for Sara et al.?), is a place where such rules are that much more needed, because people tend to not be restricted as much by the usual social norms that prevent people from being rude to and hurting each other. in other words, people are often meaner and less sensitive on the internet than they are in real life.
ok, i'm done. i'm really tired of talking about this. it's not normal for me to be in the position of defending dr. bob and his rules. :)
Posted by verne on November 6, 2004, at 11:03:34
In reply to Re: i think this guy needs language guidance » Larry Hoover, posted by Sad Sara on November 6, 2004, at 10:17:27
Good points Larry and Sara.
For the one poster, English is a second language. For others, there are so many "dialects" of English, misunderstandings are likely. Then, in addition to all that, Babblespeak is yet another second language to be learned.
Some excel at Babblespeak better than others, carefully avoiding uncivility and inherit a "home court" advantage. "Visitors" become more and more frustrated, unable to respond to subtle attacks without being admonished.
I'm wondering whether the experiment here is really about learning a new language. I'm wondering whether yet another "third" language could evolve the way Cockney developed as a kind of underworld code to outwit the police.
In the same way, a code language, a dialect of Babblespeak, could flourish that on the surface satisfies all the civility guidelines, yet conveys hidden meanings that might otherwise be prohibited.
those are just some hung-over reflections from the hip.
verne
Posted by Sad Sara on November 6, 2004, at 11:31:08
In reply to Re: P.S. Sara » Sad Sara, posted by crushedout on November 6, 2004, at 10:58:35
> Sara,
>
> I may not always agree with the way Dr. Bob enforces the rules, and I certainly agree with verne that no system of rules will actually prevent all that it is intended to prevent, but there is no doubt that some kind of rules are needed in order for this forum to work in the way it is meant to: as a safe, supportive environment. There may be other forums that are centered on debating issues where such rules would not be appropriate. I don't this was meant to be a forum for debate so much as a forum for "sharing feelings" (as sappy as that sounds). And (although it's hard to believe I'm saying this) I for one am glad to have the forum the way it is.
>
> I'm sorry you don't like it. Maybe if you stick around you'll see what I'm talking about and might even appreciate the small protection the rules afford us.Crushedout
I agree that u need rules, but I don't think many and very detailed rules are a help for the weakest that need support. Its then getting confusing. I think it's important is to be more interested in what a person is saying than how he or she says it. I just think it's better to consentrate on content than structure, to put it like that.It is not possible to have board that is open for everyone without anyone ever getting hurt. To have that you would have to pick out an elite from a board lik ethis and say that hey, you have never expressed yourself in this or that way, you can proceed to elite group.
I don't mean to pick on your rules, my impression so far from the few days I have been here is that there is quite a few regular users of this board that dows not feel comfortable with this, that is worried about that people will be mor einterested in their grammar than their story, people that say they gain from being here in total... but still, is it then good witha system of rules that makes it so complicated?
Of course rules for protection of the individual is good, but is overprotection good?
Posted by Sad Sara on November 6, 2004, at 11:37:45
In reply to one last point and then i'm done with this thread, posted by crushedout on November 6, 2004, at 11:02:19
> the internet, because it is so anonymous and a breeding ground for "trolls," etc. (can someone offer a link on this for Sara et al.?), is a place where such rules are that much more needed, because people tend to not be restricted as much by the usual social norms that prevent people from being rude to and hurting each other. in other words, people are often meaner and less sensitive on the internet than they are in real life.
>
> ok, i'm done. i'm really tired of talking about this. it's not normal for me to be in the position of defending dr. bob and his rules. :)
Yes I agree, but sometimes I feel the level that is required for politeness on this board is way beyond what you expect from people in the "outside" world. And politeness does not give a protections about people being rude. You can be as mean as you want to within social acceptable norms, it's just more difficult to catch you on it, and it often requires discussions back and forth whether it was rude or not.By not takin into consideration for exampl eof what INTENTION the poster has, we might end up punishing someone with good intentions but a bad way of expressing her or himself, while one with bad intention that at some point can make really damage will be overseen because of his or hers social acceptable behaviour,
Is that good?
Posted by TofuEmmy on November 6, 2004, at 13:47:13
In reply to Re: i think this guy needs language guidance, posted by Larry Hoover on November 6, 2004, at 8:24:50
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.