![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 12 to 36 of 50. Go back in thread:
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on May 18, 2005, at 13:40:38
In reply to Re: Was I deceived? » so, posted by Nikkit2 on May 18, 2005, at 5:37:48
Nikki,
Thank you for posting that! I am apparently stupid enough NOT to know how to clear my history and have been trying to figure out how. I appreciate your advice.
Posted by Shy_Girl on May 18, 2005, at 14:10:20
In reply to Was I deceived?, posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 0:04:20
Posted by AuntieMel on May 18, 2005, at 14:10:26
In reply to Was I deceived?, posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 0:04:20
You say that your participation was "not at all helpful and has probably been harmful."
I'm not doubting your perception - babble isn't one-size-fits-all - nor am I doubting your feelings about your experience.
So why is it important to you to be unblocked?
Posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 15:31:18
In reply to Re: I am so curious » so, posted by AuntieMel on May 18, 2005, at 14:10:26
> So why is it important to you to be unblocked?Did I say it was important? My concern centers more around trying to discover if any senior-level healthcare-giver anywhere uses words to lay people for any reason other than to momentarily acheive a desired effect. I seem to suffer under a delusion that trained professionals will be as specific and accurate in dialogue with me as they are among their peers.
Apparently, I am willing to suffer further harm to resolve my curiosity.
Posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 15:46:02
In reply to Re: Was I deceived? » so, posted by Nikkit2 on May 18, 2005, at 5:37:48
I didn't recognize your post as an attempt to help, which is why I couched me reply as an "I-statement" about my perception as something that might not represent your actual motives. To me, the post seemed like a XXX XXXX, or XXXXXXX, which I might not enjoy enough preference from the administrator to be allowed to complain about.
The irony in your advice, to me, was that you suggested I erase memories of this site by remembering to include the name of the site as an exclusion string each time I conducted a search for topics that might return links to this site. Hence, you seem to recommend that I avoid a triggered memory by reinforcing a recalled memory. Ironic advice is sometimes seen as XXXXXXX.
Posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 15:54:10
In reply to Re: Was I deceived? » Nikkit2, posted by Miss Honeychurch on May 18, 2005, at 13:40:38
> Nikki,
>
> Thank you for posting that! I am apparently stupid enough NOT to know how to clear my history and have been trying to figure out how. I appreciate your advice.A person doesn't have to be stupid not to know how to clear history lists. Unless you delete the index.dat files in Internet Explorer, your history is erased only from view by those lacking the technical savy to explore the .dat file. Erasure of the .dat files can only be done from the command line or with a utility software. That is why your visited links still appear in the visited link color in IE, even after you have deleted history, cookies and temporary internet files.
Posted by NikkiT2 on May 18, 2005, at 15:59:13
In reply to Re: Was I deceived? » Nikkit2, posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 15:46:02
I'm sorry. I was, truly, trying to help.
I posted to Dinah on social that I find "fluffy" words hard to come by.. I said it is much ezsier for me to give practical advice, but I was worried that people would misconstrue this as me not caring. If I didn't care, believe me, I wouldn't have posted at all.
I didn't post about index.dat as its not the sort of the thing the average pay person wants to mess about with, even knows exists, and isn't going to accidently come across to be triggered by.
I work in IT support, and that kind of answer is one I can give, and one that comes naturally.But it seems my thoughts on how my offers for help might be perceived were correct. I guess thats that experiment over.
Do not worry, I won't post to you again, and I ask that you also not post to me again.
Posted by Dinah on May 18, 2005, at 18:38:09
In reply to Re: Was I deceived? » so, posted by NikkiT2 on May 18, 2005, at 15:59:13
Nikki, don't you dare conclude your experiment!
Try it on a few others. Several people on this thread alone (and you can add me to it) have stated that they appreciate your input.
Posted by TofuEmmy on May 18, 2005, at 19:14:50
In reply to Re: I am so curious, posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 15:31:18
I understand now that I cannot offer you any support because I don't know your life well enough. Okey doke. I won't do that again. So I guess you didn't come to Babble for support or help from posters? OK. So you are here again in order to...what? I keep reading this:
"trying to discover if any senior-level healthcare-giver anywhere uses words to lay people for any reason other than to momentarily acheive a desired effect. I seem to suffer under a delusion that trained professionals will be as specific and accurate in dialogue with me as they are among their peers."
and I can NOT understand what you are saying. Could you please try to explain in some way which Dumb Emmy can understand?
You are calling Dr Bob a senior level healthcare giver...because he's a pdoc at a college clinic? and it bothers you that he is not specific enough in his posts to us? do I have that right? so this is about admin rules being vague in your opinion? is that accurate?
That's your sole purpose for being here? To get clarification from Dr Bob on admin rules? But if you don't care to get any support from Babblers, why do you care about the rules??
Are you here to save us from ourselves? (I ask cuz we've had this happen before.....)
emmy
Posted by 10derHeart on May 18, 2005, at 23:10:38
In reply to Re: Was I deceived? » NikkiT2, posted by Dinah on May 18, 2005, at 18:38:09
...I'd be honored to have you "experiment" on me in that way!
Keep the IT stuff coming - it's great!
Posted by Phillipa on May 18, 2005, at 23:36:24
In reply to Hey Nikki, me, too...., posted by 10derHeart on May 18, 2005, at 23:10:38
So, Why are you here? I personally appreciate everything and everybody on this and the other Boards. If we disagree at times that's okay. i think we usually try and work it out amongst ourselves. If that doesn't happen we take it to the Administrator of this site Dr. Bob whom I have the utter most respect. There have to be "rules" or life would be a "free for all". And what was wrong with the hippies. I consider myself a "Flower Child" even though I was married and had 2 children at the time. John Lennon was an inspiration to me. I didn't use illegal drugs or march in rallies. And our generation is running the World now. Maybe not to everyone's liking but then noone is perfect. Just my 2 cents. Phillipa
Posted by 10derHeart on May 19, 2005, at 0:24:47
In reply to Re: Hey Nikki, me, too...., posted by Phillipa on May 18, 2005, at 23:36:24
Posted by Phillipa on May 19, 2005, at 0:30:33
In reply to Re: Hey Nikki, me, too...., posted by Phillipa on May 18, 2005, at 23:36:24
Sorry I didn't! I never look at the subject line. I guess I should. My deepest apologies. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 1:41:08
In reply to Re: I am so curious » so, posted by TofuEmmy on May 18, 2005, at 19:14:50
> and I can NOT understand what you are saying. Could you please try to explain in some way which Dumb Emmy can understand?I believe you that you don't understand what you read, but I wouldn't necessarily agree that you "can't" understand.
I'm saying that I would hope doctors during a decade of post-secondary academic training would develop the ability to communicate clearly and consistently, and in such a way that their words conform with their actions.
I'm saying I'm trying to sort out whether, when a doctor speaks to me, he or she is trying to convey useful information upon which I can make an informed decision or instead is trying to get me to perform a certain action.
> You are calling Dr Bob a senior level healthcare giver...because he's a pdoc at a college clinic?I'm saying a medical license is about the highest tier in the medical profession, short of public health positions such as surgeon general. I am clasifying all licensed physicians as senior level health care givers, as opposed to the majority of care givers who are PA's, nurses, technicians, aides and orderlies.
> and it bothers you that he is not specific enough in his posts to us?Specifically, it concerned me that his statement that he would block a username for two or three weeks did not cohere with his behavior, which apparently was to block a username indefinately.
> do I have that right? so this is about admin rules being vague in your opinion? is that accurate?
This is a specific incident that seems to reflect a pattern, at least in as much as my perception has discerned, in which physicians don't especially care whether their discourse with less prestigious individuals is coherent. The pattern seems to involve both this particular doctor and his peers. In the context of that pattern, this particular doctor administers a set of self-styled rules he will tell us about some time in the future, in addition to those he has already made up. It was running afoul of those ill-defined rules that led to my interest in his concern for performing as he stated he would. i.e. systematically unblocking people when he said.
>
> That's your sole purpose for being here? To get clarification from Dr Bob on admin rules? But if you don't care to get any support from Babblers, why do you care about the rules??The purpose of the site is support and uh .... uhm ... education? Is it okay that I better educate myself regarding the coherence of dialogue offered by medical professionals?
> Are you here to save us from ourselves? (I ask cuz we've had this happen before.....)
>
> emmyCan I presume "us" and "ourselves" describes the subset of this group that doesn't share my concern about coherence of professional discourse?
Posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 2:02:38
In reply to Re: Hey Nikki, me, too...., posted by Phillipa on May 18, 2005, at 23:36:24
> So, Why are you here?
I was invited. I was honest and I was sanctioned for my honesty. Now I am inquiring about the coherence of the stated sanction. Other dialogue in this thread developed secondarily to my inquiry about why a username is still blocked six weeks after a stated two or three week sanction. The admin said he might have forgotten, or might have intentionally left a username blocked regardless his published statement to the contrary. In response to his request that I resend an e-mail asking him to do what he said he would do, I invited him to better explain here what is his reasoning.
>I personally appreciate everything and everybody on this and the other Boards.Including me?
>There have to be "rules" or life would be a "free for all".
I have not carved out a position in opposition to rules. I am inquiring why the administrator rules one way (two or three week block) then acts otherwise. Like a poorly placed stop-light or any other capricious law, vague or inconsistently enforced rules can tend to erode confidence in authority.
> And what was wrong with the hippies.
I presume you are referencing my comment that holding a medical license is not consistent with the hippie lifestyle. The hippies around which a cultural mythology was constructed sacrificed. Let me say that again ... on it's own line.
THEY SACRIFICED.
They gave up stable homes, rewarding careers and substantion incomes in an to attempt to establish a less harmful way of life. They attempted to establish communities, with prevention-based healthcare systems. And for their efforts, a bunch of people got rich selling songs about their movement, while those who were really trying to establish a better way of life suffered ridicule and local persecution until for the most part, their alternative communities eroded. I often visit some of the crumbling homesites, now 20 or 30 years later. I look at the left-behind bedframes and child's toys. I talk to the toothless old survivors. I didn't say anything was wrong with the hippies. I said people who work in offices are not hippies.
>I consider myself a "Flower Child" even though I was married and had 2 children at the time. John Lennon was an inspiration to me. I didn't use illegal drugs or march in rallies. And our generation is running the World now. Maybe not to everyone's liking but then noone is perfect. Just my 2 cents. Phillipa
Once Capitol Records got hold of the movement, anyone with enough coins to buy the Woodstock album was a flower child. It might have been nobody's conscious intention, but the movement was diverted and coopted. As Steven Stills said in the '90's - the wooden ships were just a hippie dream. For the most part, we only pretended we were leaving -- we stayed behind even though "you don't need us" apparently because we needed them -- them being the capitalists. We did not get back to the land and we did not set our souls free anymore than any generation before or after. But we could have.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 19, 2005, at 4:26:31
In reply to Re: failed to unblock, posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 3:28:08
> > I left that name blocked for another reason.
>
> A reason you declined to disclose here on the forum?Right.
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on May 19, 2005, at 5:39:40
In reply to Re: Hey Nikki, me, too.... » Phillipa, posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 2:02:38
> >
> THEY SACRIFICED.Sounds to me like they merely had different values.
And um, would you please answer my question involving whether this is your third screen name on Babble? One of the administrative rules here is that posters announce here on the admin. board that they are using a new screen ID. You of course do not have to tell us who you used to be, but the rules state that a poster does have to report that he or she used to be someone other than the current iteration.
And to clarify another comment you made...this is personal research on your part? I suppose including Dr. Bob in your sample is cheaper than visiting "senior healthcare providers" in person to assess their communication skills. But of course you lose a percentage communication in this medium via the loss of all the non-verbal material in messages. Welll, and Emmy already pointed out the role conflict with viewing a webmaster as holding the same role as a practicing psychiatrist. How are you planning to parse out what role is responsible for which message in the communication?
It also seems to me that deciding to trust an individual is based more on the characteristics of that individual and our own level of risk tolerance. If one uses a scientific approach; however, one must take the risk of basing the decision whether to trust on a sample and then generalizing to all members of a population. That's potentially a risky, expensive, and time consuming approach. But then again, I suppose like we all have our own set of values, we also have our own risk tolerance and ability to judge another individual's trust-worthiness.
Good luck with your study! (emoticon would normally go here)
gg
Posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 8:50:33
In reply to Requesting clarification » so, posted by gardenergirl on May 19, 2005, at 5:39:40
> > >
> > THEY SACRIFICED.
>
> Sounds to me like they merely had different values."Mere" is a subjective term. Many chose to forego privilage, wealth and comfort to actualize their values, only to become icons emmulated everywhere from the Hollywood comedies to corporate costume parties.
>
> And um, would you please answer my question involving whether this is your third screen name on Babble?A. I answered the question in my second post under this name and ...
B. Please do not pressure me to comply with your requests.
>
> And to clarify another comment you made...this is personal research on your part?
I'm having a difficult time parsing this as something other than a rhetorical question. It seems plain I am talking about my personal experiences. I referred to educating myself -- not about conducting research for formal publication. Were I to conclude personal findings that informed a publishable study, the first step of publication would be a literature review to report what is already known about the high error rate among healthcare professionals. It is extremely unlikely I would publish any original scientific research on the topic.
>I suppose including Dr. Bob in your sample is cheaper than visiting "senior healthcare providers" in person to assess their communication skills.It might be one of the less costly sources of information. Perhaps I seek information here after having exhausted resources elsewhere.
> and Emmy already pointed out the role conflict with viewing a webmaster as holding the same role as a practicing psychiatrist. How are you planning to parse out what role is responsible for which message in the communication?
If phsycians were found to be particularly prone to bluffing at card games because of the implicit trust others place in them, would that not be informative about how they tend to use the trust they earn?
> I suppose like we all have our own set of values, we also have our own risk tolerance and ability to judge another individual's trust-worthiness.So my effort to learn what fits in my personal standards is worthwhile.
> Good luck with your study! (emoticon would normally go here)
>
I don't understand emoticons -- at least not in terms others always confirm. I tend to read them as (which is to say "To me they sometimes seem to mean") "just kidding".
Posted by gardenergirl on May 19, 2005, at 10:08:36
In reply to Re: Requesting clarification » gardenergirl, posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 8:50:33
> > > >
> > > THEY SACRIFICED.
> >
> > Sounds to me like they merely had different values.
>
> "Mere" is a subjective term.Hence the "to me".
>Many chose to forego privilage, wealth and comfort to actualize their values, only to become icons emmulated everywhere from the Hollywood comedies to corporate costume parties.
Exactly. Different values. What does emulation have to do with it?
>
>
> A. I answered the question in my second post under this name and ...
> B. Please do not pressure me to comply with your requests.Just following up. I do not see a post which states how many screen names you have used before. Would you please provide a link?
>
>
> >
> > And to clarify another comment you made...this is personal research on your part?
>
>
> I'm having a difficult time parsing this as something other than a rhetorical question.Hmmm, I was sincerely interested in your answer to that clarification.
>It seems plain I am talking about my personal experiences. I referred to educating myself -- not about conducting research for formal publication.
Hence the "personal" of the "personal research".
>
>
>
> If phsycians were found to be particularly prone to bluffing at card games because of the implicit trust others place in them, would that not be informative about how they tend to use the trust they earn?How many physicians?
>
>
> > Good luck with your study! (emoticon would normally go here)
> >
>
>
> I don't understand emoticons -- at least not in terms others always confirm. I tend to read them as (which is to say "To me they sometimes seem to mean") "just kidding".Hmmm, that would be a winking emoticon. There are many others just as there are many words in a language.
gg
Posted by AuntieMel on May 19, 2005, at 14:38:00
In reply to Re: Requesting clarification » gardenergirl, posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 8:50:33
Just a guess.
From references to a past "altercation" and the phraseology and now the bits about emoticons my guess is ....
drumroll .....
so used to be used2b
Am I right?
Posted by 10derHeart on May 19, 2005, at 16:01:20
In reply to Re: Aha! my guess is ....., posted by AuntieMel on May 19, 2005, at 14:38:00
Hi Mel,
Just to interject for a moment...as gg stated (and I'm pretty sure she's correct) *so* does not have to say what screen names he/she has used before.
So....perhaps we shouldn't press the question here on the board?
Trying to keep it fair for all. Hope I wasn't rude. Not intended.
Posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 18:53:59
In reply to Re: Requesting clarification » so, posted by gardenergirl on May 19, 2005, at 10:08:36
> > > > >
> > > > THEY SACRIFICED.
> > >
> > > Sounds to me like they merely had different values.
> >
> > "Mere" is a subjective term.
>
> Hence the "to me".
I once thought "to me" clearly refered to a personal perception, and typically predicated an "I-statement" but I have since been informed that in the syntax of this site "to me" is a noun phrase that can be recognized as a declaration of fact, regardless the intent of the writer or usual interpretations of the meaning of the phrase. Though I disagree, exposure to the unique meaning has undermined my confidence in the meaning of the phrase, at least in the context of this site.
> >Many chose to forego privilage, wealth and comfort to actualize their values, only to become icons emmulated everywhere from the Hollywood comedies to corporate costume parties.
>
> Exactly. Different values. What does emulation have to do with it?Holding values is different from actualizing values. Emmulation can be a means of vicariously affiliating with a value without any obligation to either hold the value or to actualize the value. With practice, populations can learn to articulate a value though they have no practical intent to ever actualize the value. Emmulation can be a means of practicing such suppression of a value.
> A. I answered the question in my second post under this name and ...
> > B. Please do not pressure me to comply with your requests.
>
> Just following up. I do not see a post which states how many screen names you have used before. Would you please provide a link?
> >No. It's easy to find. Please don't continue asking.
> >
> > > And to clarify another comment you made...this is personal research on your part?
> >
> >
> > I'm having a difficult time parsing this as something other than a rhetorical question.
>
> Hmmm, I was sincerely interested in your answer to that clarification.
Why were you interested?
> > If phsycians were found to be particularly prone to bluffing at card games because of the implicit trust others place in them, would that not be informative about how they tend to use the trust they earn?
>
> How many physicians?If a majority of the physicians one had encountered in a lifetime demonstrated a trait, would it be reasonable for that person to explore to what extent other physicians, not already identified, present a similar trait?
>
> > > Good luck with your study! (emoticon would normally go here)
> > >
> >
> >
> > I don't understand emoticons -- at least not in terms others always confirm. I tend to read them as (which is to say "To me they sometimes seem to mean") "just kidding".
>
> Hmmm, that would be a winking emoticon. There are many others just as there are many words in a language.
>
> gg
I don't understand how a "winking-just-kidding" emoticon is not sometimes a symbol of sarcastic intent. Oddly, my read of the rules is that it is okay to talk at length about what we do not understand, but we are prohibited from explaining what we do understand, if the sole administrator abitrarilly concludes based entirely on his personal judgement, that somebody somewhere might theoretically feel offended by the understanding. So, I proably can't tell you what I understand winking emoticons to represent in some circumstances. Nor can I complain about what I might perceive to be put-downs, because I beleive I am assigned in this context to a social teir that suffers from a more strict interpretation of rules than other posters who, for example, are allowed to cast all the meat eaters in the world as akin to rapists.
I can say that animals, humans included, sometimes demonstrate a major emotion while masking contrary emotions. Social pressure is especially effective at provoking suppression of contrary emotions. The contrary emotion is often identifiable through physical cues, nonetheless. I think the concept is sometimes called "leakage".
Posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 18:57:51
In reply to Re: Aha! my guess is ..... » AuntieMel, posted by 10derHeart on May 19, 2005, at 16:01:20
Thank you, tenderly. If the administrator had unblocked a user name when he said he would, maybe people would not feel so inclined to guess.
Posted by gardenergirl on May 20, 2005, at 11:57:24
In reply to Re: Requesting clarification » gardenergirl, posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 18:53:59
> Holding values is different from actualizing values. Emmulation can be a means of vicariously affiliating with a value without any obligation to either hold the value or to actualize the value. With practice, populations can learn to articulate a value though they have no practical intent to ever actualize the value. Emmulation can be a means of practicing such suppression of a value.
Uh huh. So people who follow a trend that stemmed from behavior that could be intrepreted as values being actualized are, um? I'm not sure what you are saying about them.
> > Just following up. I do not see a post which states how many screen names you have used before. Would you please provide a link?
> > >
>
> No. It's easy to find. Please don't continue asking.Well I did say please, and if it were easy for me to find, I would not ask for assistance. Perhaps I am not inferring from your words the meaning you imply in said post, because I have not yet found a post that explicitly answers what I have asked.
>
>
> Why were you interested?In order to learn the answer. I can be a curious cat.
> > > If phsycians were found to be particularly prone to bluffing at card games because of the implicit trust others place in them, would that not be informative about how they tend to use the trust they earn?
> >
> > How many physicians?
>
> If a majority of the physicians one had encountered in a lifetime demonstrated a trait, would it be reasonable for that person to explore to what extent other physicians, not already identified, present a similar trait?Reasonable? I have no objection to your quest. I was inquiring about your methods.
>
> > Hmmm, that would be a winking emoticon. There are many others just as there are many words in a language.
> >
> > gg
>
>
> I don't understand how a "winking-just-kidding" emoticon is not sometimes a symbol of sarcastic intent.It actually does sometimes transmit a message of sarcastic or joking intent.
>Oddly, my read of the rules is that it is okay to talk at length about what we do not understand, but we are prohibited from explaining what we do understand, if the sole administrator abitrarilly concludes based entirely on his personal judgement, that somebody somewhere might theoretically feel offended by the understanding.
That is not my understanding of the rules. My own experience here is that we are free to discourse about any number of topics understood or not. However, there are ways to express one's ideas, thoughts, and feelings in ways that are less likely to offend someone. This may take more effort depending on the perceived degree of potential offense in the message.
>So, I proably can't tell you what I understand winking emoticons to represent in some circumstances.
Well, not knowing what your understanding is, I cannot refute this. But my guess is that there likely would be a way to express this within the guidelines of the board. Some posters use "civility buddies" for assistance.
> Nor can I complain about what I might perceive to be put-downs, because I beleive I am assigned in this context to a social teir that suffers from a more strict interpretation of rules than other posters who, for example, are allowed to cast all the meat eaters in the world as akin to rapists.
I have not experienced any hierarchy of posters receiving different treatment on this site. I do note differing skill levels in expressing oneself within the guidelines. There appears to be a learning curve for developing this skill. And having read the post you are implicitly referencing, I viewed said comparison as the content in an exercise in logical reasoning versus a statement of belief or fact.
>
> I can say that animals, humans included, sometimes demonstrate a major emotion while masking contrary emotions. Social pressure is especially effective at provoking suppression of contrary emotions. The contrary emotion is often identifiable through physical cues, nonetheless. I think the concept is sometimes called "leakage".Yes, we do lose all nonverbal cues in expression that we otherwise could observe in face to face communication. I believe that is how emoticons developed. They are rough attempts to portray a face, afterall.
>
>gg
Posted by so on May 20, 2005, at 14:27:35
In reply to Re: Requesting clarification, posted by gardenergirl on May 20, 2005, at 11:57:24
If I could figure out whether elements of this exchange are political, faith-oriented, social, alternative or what, I would move it there.
> > Holding values is different from actualizing values. Emmulation can be a means of vicariously affiliating with a value without any obligation to either hold the value or to actualize the value. With practice, populations can learn to articulate a value though they have no practical intent to ever actualize the value. Emmulation can be a means of practicing such suppression of a value.
>
> Uh huh. So people who follow a trend that stemmed from behavior that could be intrepreted as values being actualized are, um? I'm not sure what you are saying about them.
>I'm not sure we're supposed to cite any material on this page that could be construed as religious, but there is a line in a particularly old text that says something about "having an appearance of righteousness but lacking the power thereof."
A theoretical person described above would perhaps have wanted to be a hippie, but recognized the social risks of actually attempting to live a rural agrarian lifestyle in an egalitarian community. So they get a good job, maybe with some liberal implications, buy an SUV so they can go hiking and mountain biking in the national forest, decorate their home and work environment with hippie symbols, then buy a home on a conventional mortgage where proceeds from their interest support war-industries. Soon, anyone who has a Grateful Dead sticker, or maybe "Save Tibet" and "No War" sticker on their SUV is described as a hippie, while people who really tried to be hippies are seen as transients and social failures, scorned and disadvantaged for lacking even the basic modern symbol of personal responsibility and freedom -- an automobile.
This sort of cooptation is sometimes more evident in oppression of established cultures. Read Ward Churchhill's "Indians 'R Us" if you want to learn more about cooptation. "Dream Catchers" hanging from auto mirrors around the US are seen as offensive by some Native Americans, who know the real meaning and purpose of those once-in-a-lifetime talismans. School children are asked to cut feathers from construction paper to learn about Indians respect for nature otherwise embodied in deep respect for feathers of the American Bald-Eagle that requires everything to come to a complete stop if a ceremonial feather falls to the ground, while the school football team is named "Redskins" and attended by a mascot who dresses as a Native American and mimicks native dances, then parking his fake-feather regalia on the ground between performances. Some native leaders say this sort of behavior coopts their youth, creating an environment where they would rather reject their native identity than to be the object of imitation.
> > > Just following up. I do not see a post which states how many screen names you have used before. Would you please provide a link?
> > > >
> >
> > No. It's easy to find. Please don't continue asking.there is a green new flag on my first post. I said it was my second post. Now, please...
> >
> > Why were you interested?
>
> In order to learn the answer. I can be a curious cat.
>Why do you want to know the answer? Cats are curious about mice and bugs, but we know where that goes...
> > > > If phsycians were found to be particularly prone to bluffing at card games because of the implicit trust others place in them, would that not be informative about how they tend to use the trust they earn?
> > >
> > > How many physicians?
> >
> > If a majority of the physicians one had encountered in a lifetime demonstrated a trait, would it be reasonable for that person to explore to what extent other physicians, not already identified, present a similar trait?
>
> Reasonable? I have no objection to your quest. I was inquiring about your methods.But can you affirm the legitimacy of my experience, out of which my methods developed?
> >
> > > Hmmm, that would be a winking emoticon. There are many others just as there are many words in a language.
> > >
> > > gg
> >
> >
> > I don't understand how a "winking-just-kidding" emoticon is not sometimes a symbol of sarcastic intent.
>
> It actually does sometimes transmit a message of sarcastic or joking intent.Isn't sarcasm forbidden in this forum? Are emoticons sometimes a way of flying sarcastic missions under the radar?
> >Oddly, my read of the rules is that it is okay to talk at length about what we do not understand, but we are prohibited from explaining what we do understand, if the sole administrator abitrarilly concludes based entirely on his personal judgement, that somebody somewhere might theoretically feel offended by the understanding.
>
> That is not my understanding of the rules. My own experience here is that we are free to discourse about any number of topics understood or not. However, there are ways to express one's ideas, thoughts, and feelings in ways that are less likely to offend someone. This may take more effort depending on the perceived degree of potential offense in the message.
>
> >So, I proably can't tell you what I understand winking emoticons to represent in some circumstances.
>
> Well, not knowing what your understanding is, I cannot refute this. But my guess is that there likely would be a way to express this within the guidelines of the board. Some posters use "civility buddies" for assistance.That is along the lines of what I recomend for administration of this board. If I were convinced it is a worthwhile endeavor to go to great lengths to comply with a lone administrators notion of what is civil, I might invest the effort. Convinced that part of the problem lies on the other side of the server, I'm focusing my investment there. Except for narrow, debatable infractions, and severe, theatrical offenses staged as protest, I seem to be able to fly with the weather regardless contentious responses to my offerings. As it is, I already invest an inordinate amount of time in each post to assure it will conform with the tedious demands labeled civility that are unlike any I have seen in any venue, except perhaps at an upper-class social gathering where deference to power and privilage are a community code.
>
> > Nor can I complain about what I might perceive to be put-downs, because I beleive I am assigned in this context to a social teir that suffers from a more strict interpretation of rules than other posters who, for example, are allowed to cast all the meat eaters in the world as akin to rapists.
>
> I have not experienced any hierarchy of posters receiving different treatment on this site. I do note differing skill levels in expressing oneself within the guidelines. There appears to be a learning curve for developing this skill. And having read the post you are implicitly referencing, I viewed said comparison as the content in an exercise in logical reasoning versus a statement of belief or fact.
>Logical reasoning is an excercise in stating facts. My experience seems to be different than yours. More often, I see stark logical comparisons met by demands to "rephrase that as an I-statement".
> > I can say that animals, humans included, sometimes demonstrate a major emotion while masking contrary emotions. Social pressure is especially effective at provoking suppression of contrary emotions. The contrary emotion is often identifiable through physical cues, nonetheless. I think the concept is sometimes called "leakage".
>
> Yes, we do lose all nonverbal cues in expression that we otherwise could observe in face to face communication. I believe that is how emoticons developed. They are rough attempts to portray a face, afterall.Sometimes we might overly focus on what is lost and lose site of what inflection is retained. I beleive you said emoticons are sometimes a rough attempt to portray sarcasm, which might otherwise be repressed because overt sarcasm is forbidden at this forum. If logical comparisons are okay, I could suggest that is similar to a dog cowering when he snarls at or approaches food dominated by a senior member of the pack, thereby both expressing due deference and irrepressable but forbidden aggression at the same time.
> >
> >
>
> gg
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.