![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 11 of 11. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 20, 2006, at 11:54:53
Okay, let's have this admin discussion, about Lar not feeling protected on Babble. Let's look at an example of it.
There are two posts in question. They are a connected pair.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060525/msgs/652427.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060525/msgs/652434.htmlHere is the entirety of their text content:
Re: guiding principles
Posted by Gabbi~G on June 3, 2006, at 15:23:14In reply to Re: guiding principles, posted by Larry Hoover on June 3, 2006, at 13:58:56
Are sophistry and overwrought prose uncivil?Can they be?
******
Just plain
Posted by Gabbi~G on June 3, 2006, at 15:50:06In reply to Re: guiding principles, posted by Gabbi~G on June 3, 2006, at 15:23:14
inexcusably rude. sorry.
So, she clearly was replying to me, but not according to Babble rules. No, she didn't put that little direction flag on it. But, there's no doubt about her intent.
Let's just look at the meaning of the word sophistry. Here's one such meaning: "An ingenious statement and arrangement of propositions devised for the purpose of misleading." Ouch! Here's another meaning: "A fallacy, whether or not intended to deceive." Here's another: "Specious reasoning."
Now, the post that was hyperlinked to hers, the one she was speaking to, was one of the most difficult posts I have ever tried to write. I believe a grave injustice was done to a good-hearted and good-intentioned person. That person was not me, this time, but I'm thinking that what happened was not fair. In the ultimate irony of life, what happened to her is proof of her premise. That's how I see it, anyway.
But it was a very difficult argument to present. It was at the edge of some very great ideas. The proposition was posed by a philosopher. That is what she is. A philosophical proposition was laid down, for consideration. And people over-reacted. They projected something onto her. It was just an idea to consider. A very respectful one, in my heart, because it does ask one to distinguish between religious rules and regulations, and the underlying faith that empowers them. They are not inseparable. She just posed her own feeling, about her own proposition. She preferred pure faith.
Now, back to that sophistry implication.
Now, I did not feel comfortable at all, having my totally *un*sophistic argument stood on its head like that. The personal implication was that I was not sincere. That I was intentionally misleading people. The new proposition, that Lar and sophistry were together in there, was not a civil inference to make. I'm just going to forget about the prose comment. Whatever, I don't even need to raise that. An intelligent experienced Babbler was not speaking about chesterfields. She didn't accidentally use the word sophistry.
Her next post melded the subject line with the body text. It reads: "Just plain inexcusably rude."
Now, what could the precedent subject be? What was rude? She could have been saying that I was inexcusably rude. But, even if not, her declaration that what she had said was rude? (Is that what she meant?)....merely states the obvious. I don't think anybody missed the rude. But think about the colloquial use of such a phrase. It can be used dismissively. To trivialize the known hurt that has just been ladled out. There is no soothing in what she said. There is no empathy, at all. But then, she added a magic five stroke key sequence. S O R R Y.
Sorry? For what? To Whom? Why? Couple that with colloquial use of the preceding phrase, and see if it feels anything like an apology. I discern no apology in there. I discern no regret. No, it is a magic keystroke sequence, here on Babble. One that an experienced and intelligent woman had figured out would allow her to walk away from what she'd said. Like flipping the bird, ya know?
Excuse me?
Excuse me for feeling like anybody can say anything they want to, to me. Not one deputy said a thing. Why am I not under that umbrella with y'all? Why is that?
Silence is not the absence of a decision. It is a conscious decision, to say nothing. And nothing was said. And all this under the confusion of the dorky weird DNP rule? WTF?
I am still staggered by the silence. I get blocked for things I never said. For thoughts that I never even entertained. Why doesn't Bob just change the text of what I said to suit him, because he's treating me as if he did that, anyway. Blocking me for a thought I never had. If I'd have meant something else, you can be bloody sure I'd have said something else. Let there be no doubt about that, a'ight?!?
But Lar just has to stand, and take it. Lar's f*cking tired of that.
Stop making rules, and start doing the right thing.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 20, 2006, at 12:04:45
In reply to Lar feeling unprotected by the Rules, posted by Larry Hoover on June 20, 2006, at 11:54:53
Block her. Triple block, intentional harm. Do the math, Bob.
And that's just one example, by the way.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 20, 2006, at 13:31:43
In reply to Re: Lar feeling unprotected by the Rules, posted by Larry Hoover on June 20, 2006, at 12:04:45
Now, paralysis.
Triple f*cking block!?! Holy sh*t!
Let's negotiate. Let's put an end to this, now.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 20, 2006, at 16:01:24
In reply to Lar feeling unprotected by the Rules, posted by Larry Hoover on June 20, 2006, at 11:54:53
Is a deputy or bob going to say something? This is f*cking ridiculous.
Lar
Posted by zazenduck on June 20, 2006, at 16:24:55
In reply to Re: Lar feeling unprotected by the Rules, posted by Larry Hoover on June 20, 2006, at 16:01:24
I'm sorry no one has addressed your posts. Please be extra careful and don't give them any excuse to block you again. Congrats on your new love too by the way!
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 20, 2006, at 16:43:39
In reply to Re: Lar feeling unprotected by the Rules » Larry Hoover, posted by zazenduck on June 20, 2006, at 16:24:55
> I'm sorry no one has addressed your posts. Please be extra careful and don't give them any excuse to block you again.
I sure hope that's not in the cards. But the way it's been, nothing would really surprise me any more. To be punished for thoughts I never had, let alone never said, is shocking enough. To have to fight to get.....whatever. Whatever.
> Congrats on your new love too by the way!
Thank you. All will be well.
Lar
Posted by Gabbi~G on June 20, 2006, at 17:03:41
In reply to Lar feeling unprotected by the Rules, posted by Larry Hoover on June 20, 2006, at 11:54:53
were not directed to Lar, but a bitter, snotty comment about the thread in general.
My apology was absolutely sincere, I mean, I don't apologize very often, so when I do, I mean it.
Posted by zazenduck on June 20, 2006, at 17:24:19
In reply to those posts, posted by Gabbi~G on June 20, 2006, at 17:03:41
so hypothetically speaking if someone makes unacceptable remarks toward one person the block is tripled.....then if the person made the same remarks toward say 10 people would the block be 30 times normal or one tenth times three which would be either 30 weeks or 2.1 days (since each individual recieved one tenth of the impact of the unacceptable remark?)
> were not directed to Lar, but a bitter, snotty comment about the thread in general.> My apology was absolutely sincere, I mean, I don't apologize very often, so when I do, I mean it.
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 20, 2006, at 20:00:39
In reply to those posts, posted by Gabbi~G on June 20, 2006, at 17:03:41
> were not directed to Lar, but a bitter, snotty comment about the thread in general.
> My apology was absolutely sincere, I mean, I don't apologize very often, so when I do, I mean it.I am still waiting for formal administrative action.
Intent is not an issue.
I do not have a feeling of sincerity. I am literally feeling incredulous.
And, my feeling towards administration here is going entirely the wrong way.
Lar
Posted by zeugma on June 22, 2006, at 14:00:44
In reply to Lar feeling unprotected by the Rules, posted by Larry Hoover on June 20, 2006, at 11:54:53
this is late in the day, metaphorically speaking.
There is intrinsically no connection (in my own idiosyncratic opinion) between sophistry and rudeness. In fact, sophistries are often the bane of a civil society. Consider ancient Athens, and other more modern examples. That is why I cannot take "rude" as an adjective that back-refers to "sophistry." (Pure sophistry to think that all sophistries, or even most, are rude, rather than the product of too much civilization.)
"Sorry" is also anything but a magic formula (if it is on babble, then so much the worse for it).
I am probably the least charitable person on babble, as that concept is philosophically defined (I have tried to have conversations on this subject with various posters who champion the notion, but sadly either my interlocutors or I are interrupted by frequent, demoralizing blocks, which is making me 'uncharitable' in a less philosophical sense, though in no way directed towards any of the posters that this thread concerns).
If "sorry" means nothing, then the poster means nothing. That assumption is required is some cases, not here; and the fact that 'rude' cannot be an adjective whose intended force is to back-refer to "sophistry" indicates that the "sorry" does not have the dismissive sense that it would if it derived its logical justification (as in, "That argument, won't work, sorry") from the preceding referent of "sophistry" (i.e., the allegedly sophistical post or posts, not reviewed by me).
considering that both posters I am commenting on are blocked, one for what I consider a grossly excessive amount of time, makes me feel rude, myself. But any sophistry here is purely my own.
The only reason I am posting this labored analysis is because both posters, now blocked, have a passion for getting things right.
without that passion, words are a magic formula, and no more. how can anyone trust anyone in that case?
-z
Posted by Gabbi~G on June 30, 2006, at 0:20:46
In reply to anaphora » Larry Hoover, posted by zeugma on June 22, 2006, at 14:00:44
I understand now.
I couldn't understand the fuss about my apology.
I now know that some interpreted it as a further criticism, with a 'sorry' added at the end.No, the rude referred to my own behaviour, and it wouldn't be a very fitting adjective for either sophistry, or "overwrought prose"
That was probably why it didn't occur to me how it could be seen, that and the fact that I've never apologized to avoid a p.B.C.
I only apologize when I feel I've been completely out of line, and feel bad for hurting someone.
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.