![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 23 of 23. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 28, 2007, at 15:20:27
Mr. Hsiung,
I am asking you to reinstate Phillipa immediatly untill the adjudication that you post that you would like to have as to that all can accept. So far, I see no member here that accepts your action that you have taken to ostracize the member, Phillipa. There is also no post that I can find that could tell Phillipa not to use[...more often than not...] and there are many posts in the archives that use that phrase.
I think that while others accept your invitation to discuss this, that Phillpa could be reinstated so as not just to offer her own defense of the action taken, but that I do not see that there is {probable cause} for her to be ostracised for what I see as similar statements that others have written without sanction nor do I see any potential harm to come to the community.
You write in your TOS here that you do what will be good for the community as a whole. Could you post here a post where the phrase in question is used and it was sanctioned? If not,if you are ostracizing Phillipa for the good of the community as a whole, why could it be good for the community as a whole to ostracize Phillipa if there is not any post sanctioning the use of [...more often than not...] and it has been posted many times?
I think that it would be OK to post that from now on the phrase,{more often than not}, will be considered overgenerilizing, which in my thinking is considtant with the doctrine of {fairness} as you write that you try to be in your TOS here.
Lou PIlder
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 28, 2007, at 16:10:29
In reply to Lou's request to Robert Hsiung-prbcus, posted by Lou Pilder on December 28, 2007, at 15:20:27
> Mr. Hsiung,
> I am asking you to reinstate Phillipa immediatly untill the adjudication that you post that you would like to have as to that all can accept. So far, I see no member here that accepts your action that you have taken to ostracize the member, Phillipa. There is also no post that I can find that could tell Phillipa not to use[...more often than not...] and there are many posts in the archives that use that phrase.
> I think that while others accept your invitation to discuss this, that Phillpa could be reinstated so as not just to offer her own defense of the action taken, but that I do not see that there is {probable cause} for her to be ostracised for what I see as similar statements that others have written without sanction nor do I see any potential harm to come to the community.
> You write in your TOS here that you do what will be good for the community as a whole. Could you post here a post where the phrase in question is used and it was sanctioned? If not,if you are ostracizing Phillipa for the good of the community as a whole, why could it be good for the community as a whole to ostracize Phillipa if there is not any post sanctioning the use of [...more often than not...] and it has been posted many times?
> I think that it would be OK to post that from now on the phrase,{more often than not}, will be considered overgenerilizing, which in my thinking is considtant with the doctrine of {fairness} as you write that you try to be in your TOS here.
> Lou PIlderMr. Hsiung,
The phrase,{more often than not}can be used as a {figurative} phrase rahther than a quantitative one. It could be considered like an {idiom} such as {take it with a grain of salt}.
In Phillipa's use of the phrase, there is no mention of a record kept tallying the number of uses of each blood-pressure device and the outcomes from each use. The reader knows this just as if someone said, {a stitch in time saves nine}. The numbers are figurative. The measurablity was determined not by recording events, but by a broad guess as to over the years how the two devices recoreded in her memory. Her memory may be wrong and the use of the phrase is sometimes used to shoew a guess, not an exact measurment. When I hear the phrase used, more often than not, I do not give it credance to be definitive to any conclusion because I see the phrase as a {shot in the dark}. Now you know no one took a gun at me when they used that phrse with me, do you not?
If soomeone really wanted to make a definitive measurment, they could use something like,{nine out of ten doctors prefer tylonol} or {78% of skydivers are men}. These type of statements show numbers, but a phrase like, {more often than not} could be taken with a grain of salt.
Lou PIlder
Posted by star008 on December 28, 2007, at 21:46:31
In reply to Lou's request to Robert Hsiung-idim, posted by Lou Pilder on December 28, 2007, at 16:10:29
This was only Phillipa's opinion of blood pressure cuffs. She was giving an opinion based on her years of experience at work..Surely, that counts for something. I can't see who she could have insulted. I too work at a hospital and have seen many times where a manual cuff was used when an automatic one couldn't pick up a pressure. It is like saying a manual thermomter is better than an automatic one..Am I not getting this?? Who cares?? We are speaking of objects here. Not people. IMHO this call was not right and I feel very sorry for Phillipa..She must feel terrible for getting blocked for writng something that she had no idea was wrong.
Posted by star008 on December 28, 2007, at 22:55:23
In reply to feeling sorry for phillipa, posted by star008 on December 28, 2007, at 21:46:31
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 29, 2007, at 10:42:42
In reply to feeling sorry for phillipa, posted by star008 on December 28, 2007, at 21:46:31
> This was only Phillipa's opinion of blood pressure cuffs. She was giving an opinion based on her years of experience at work..Surely, that counts for something. I can't see who she could have insulted. I too work at a hospital and have seen many times where a manual cuff was used when an automatic one couldn't pick up a pressure. It is like saying a manual thermomter is better than an automatic one..Am I not getting this?? Who cares?? We are speaking of objects here. Not people. IMHO this call was not right and I feel very sorry for Phillipa..She must feel terrible for getting blocked for writng something that she had no idea was wrong.
Friends,
It is written here,[...I can't see who...who cares...I feel very sorry...writing something that she had no idea was...].
You see the crux of this issue here. You see, I can not find any sanction to the use of the phrase, {more often than not}here. It has been used here over and over without sanction.
Does this not bring up a question as to why there is a sanction to Phillipa and not to those previous that used the same phrase?
I feel sorry for Phillipa also, and there is much more to this because there are issues IMO that could involve all the members here from the action that Robert Hsiung has taken toward Phillipa here.
First, if there has not been sanction to the phrase untill when Phillipa posted it, then is it not something that Phillipa and others could have thought that it was acceptable to write the phrase here? This leads to questions that I could have in regards to the concept of:
A. entrapment
B. ex-post facto
C. questions as to the TOS here
D. why Phillipa?
E. what it means to do what will be good for the communnity as a whole
F. what Robert Hsiung's thinking is concerning that he tries to be fair here.
G. other issues to be defined
Lou
Posted by star008 on December 29, 2007, at 14:49:29
In reply to Lou's response to post by star008-emohrm, posted by Lou Pilder on December 29, 2007, at 10:42:42
What troubles me here is that many people have supported Phillipa..Some have expressed outrage, some have expressed sorrow, the feelings of injustice and more but it doesn't seem to matter what our opinions are.. I of course, may be wrong but this is the way it seems to me.
Posted by seldomseen on December 29, 2007, at 19:16:07
In reply to Re: Lou's response to post by star008-emohrm » Lou Pilder, posted by star008 on December 29, 2007, at 14:49:29
Star,
I say give it some time. I've noticed that Dr. Bob doesn't always act in the time frame that we want him to - but he may yet.Seldom.
Posted by star008 on December 30, 2007, at 7:25:09
In reply to Re: Lou's response to post by star008-emohrm » star008, posted by seldomseen on December 29, 2007, at 19:16:07
Hi Seldom..
Well maybe I don't know the whole story>> I don't know.. amd it probably isn't any of my business anyway.. But i feel bad for Phillipa..
HOpe tings are okay with you and you had a decent holiday.. I am glad it is over;)
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 30, 2007, at 7:42:39
In reply to Re: Lou's response to post by star008-emohrm » seldomseen, posted by star008 on December 30, 2007, at 7:25:09
> Hi Seldom..
>
> Well maybe I don't know the whole story>> I don't know.. amd it probably isn't any of my business anyway.. But i feel bad for Phillipa..
>
> HOpe tings are okay with you and you had a decent holiday.. I am glad it is over;)
>
Friends,
It is written here,,[...I feel bad for Phillipa...]
I would like for those interested in this to consider the following post in this discussion.
The post is about a member seeking advice about psychotropic drugs and visits web sites that focus on people's experiances. The poster writes, about his/her observation as to if the people posting on those other sites are better off or not after taking the drugs and writes here,[...not well {more often thsn not}...].
I ask:
A. How did the member posting that arrive at that observation?
B. How does that member's observation differ, if it does, with Phillipa's obervation about BP cuffs?
C. If there is some type of harm that could come to another after reading the post about drugs in question here, what could that harm be?
D. If there could be some type of harm comming to someone that reads Phillip's comment on her experiance with BP cuffs, what could that harm, if there could be, be?
E. Could a reasonable person after reading the post in question about psychotropic drugs, go on to post the phrase,{more often than not} here thinking that it is an acceptable phrase to use? If not, could you post here why not?
F. other good and just reasons concerning Robert Hsiung's action that he has taken toward Phillipa
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20041211/427691.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 30, 2007, at 8:03:46
In reply to Lou's response to post by star008-BryMnlo, posted by Lou Pilder on December 30, 2007, at 7:42:39
> > Hi Seldom..
> >
> > Well maybe I don't know the whole story>> I don't know.. amd it probably isn't any of my business anyway.. But i feel bad for Phillipa..
> >
> > HOpe tings are okay with you and you had a decent holiday.. I am glad it is over;)
> >
> Friends,
> It is written here,,[...I feel bad for Phillipa...]
> I would like for those interested in this to consider the following post in this discussion.
> The post is about a member seeking advice about psychotropic drugs and visits web sites that focus on people's experiances. The poster writes, about his/her observation as to if the people posting on those other sites are better off or not after taking the drugs and writes here,[...not well {more often thsn not}...].
> I ask:
> A. How did the member posting that arrive at that observation?
> B. How does that member's observation differ, if it does, with Phillipa's obervation about BP cuffs?
> C. If there is some type of harm that could come to another after reading the post about drugs in question here, what could that harm be?
> D. If there could be some type of harm comming to someone that reads Phillip's comment on her experiance with BP cuffs, what could that harm, if there could be, be?
> E. Could a reasonable person after reading the post in question about psychotropic drugs, go on to post the phrase,{more often than not} here thinking that it is an acceptable phrase to use? If not, could you post here why not?
> F. other good and just reasons concerning Robert Hsiung's action that he has taken toward Phillipa
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20041211/427691.htmlThe corrected link is;
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20041211/msgs/427691.html
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 30, 2007, at 8:35:39
In reply to Lou's request to Robert Hsiung-idim, posted by Lou Pilder on December 28, 2007, at 16:10:29
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > I am asking you to reinstate Phillipa immediatly untill the adjudication that you post that you would like to have as to that all can accept. So far, I see no member here that accepts your action that you have taken to ostracize the member, Phillipa. There is also no post that I can find that could tell Phillipa not to use[...more often than not...] and there are many posts in the archives that use that phrase.
> > I think that while others accept your invitation to discuss this, that Phillpa could be reinstated so as not just to offer her own defense of the action taken, but that I do not see that there is {probable cause} for her to be ostracised for what I see as similar statements that others have written without sanction nor do I see any potential harm to come to the community.
> > You write in your TOS here that you do what will be good for the community as a whole. Could you post here a post where the phrase in question is used and it was sanctioned? If not,if you are ostracizing Phillipa for the good of the community as a whole, why could it be good for the community as a whole to ostracize Phillipa if there is not any post sanctioning the use of [...more often than not...] and it has been posted many times?
> > I think that it would be OK to post that from now on the phrase,{more often than not}, will be considered overgenerilizing, which in my thinking is considtant with the doctrine of {fairness} as you write that you try to be in your TOS here.
> > Lou PIlder
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> The phrase,{more often than not}can be used as a {figurative} phrase rahther than a quantitative one. It could be considered like an {idiom} such as {take it with a grain of salt}.
> In Phillipa's use of the phrase, there is no mention of a record kept tallying the number of uses of each blood-pressure device and the outcomes from each use. The reader knows this just as if someone said, {a stitch in time saves nine}. The numbers are figurative. The measurablity was determined not by recording events, but by a broad guess as to over the years how the two devices recoreded in her memory. Her memory may be wrong and the use of the phrase is sometimes used to shoew a guess, not an exact measurment. When I hear the phrase used, more often than not, I do not give it credance to be definitive to any conclusion because I see the phrase as a {shot in the dark}. Now you know no one took a gun at me when they used that phrse with me, do you not?
> If soomeone really wanted to make a definitive measurment, they could use something like,{nine out of ten doctors prefer tylonol} or {78% of skydivers are men}. These type of statements show numbers, but a phrase like, {more often than not} could be taken with a grain of salt.
> Lou PIlder
>Friends,
In this discussion, I would like for discussants to examine the following links;
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020503/msgs/105019.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/write/20060125/msgs/609503.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20070726/msgs/773896.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20040627/msgs/360990.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20041108/msgs/415564.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20040624/msgs/362502.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20021010/msgs/31262.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20030807/msgs/250066.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20030802/msgs/248602.html
Posted by Dinah on December 31, 2007, at 9:18:29
In reply to Lou's requestto Robert Hsiung and discussants-dcvr, posted by Lou Pilder on December 30, 2007, at 8:35:39
Lou, I appreciate your support of Phillipa.
But I hate to see you putting so much work into finding old examples of generalizations. Rules at Babble evolve over the years in response to what Dr. Bob sees as issues that need to be addressed, just as they do in any other area of life.
I do think it would be helpful for Dr. Bob to be more explicit in these evolutions of interpretation, and perhaps incorporate them into the FAQ - even though the underlying rule is already in the FAQ.
Posted by Toph on January 4, 2008, at 14:34:58
In reply to Re: Lou's requestto Robert Hsiung and discussants- » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on December 31, 2007, at 9:18:29
>
> Rules at Babble evolve over the years in response to what Dr. Bob sees as issues that need to be addressed, just as they do in any other area of life.
>
I don't want to speak for Lou, but I think his point is that this rule has not evolved for the better, just as they often does not in other areas of life.
Posted by Dinah on January 4, 2008, at 16:58:58
In reply to Re: Lou's requestto Robert Hsiung and discussants- » Dinah, posted by Toph on January 4, 2008, at 14:34:58
I think it would be great for posters to weigh in with alternatives for Dr. Bob.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20071106/msgs/804160.html
Posted by Toph on January 4, 2008, at 20:45:46
In reply to Re: Lou's requestto Robert Hsiung and discussants- » Toph, posted by Dinah on January 4, 2008, at 16:58:58
> I think it would be great for posters to weigh in with alternatives for Dr. Bob.
>My alternative Dinah would be common sense. US Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart perhaps described it best when he characterized defining obscenity as difficult, "but I know it when I see it." If Phillipa making a generalization based on her experience that automatic BP machines are less accurate than manual cuffs is deemed uncivil then it seriously draws into question the judgement of the administrator or anyone who would support such an assessment in my opinion. But I suppose I generalize uncivilly here based on precedent.
Posted by Dinah on January 4, 2008, at 21:41:36
In reply to Re: » Dinah, posted by Toph on January 4, 2008, at 20:45:46
Well, the thing is that while that may or may not be true, I'm reasonably sure Dr. Bob won't change course upon hearing it. Based on precedent.
I'm more interested in course change.
However, judging from the lack of interest in my proposal to suggest alternatives, I suppose I'm alone in that.
Posted by Dinah on January 4, 2008, at 21:45:05
In reply to Re: » Toph, posted by Dinah on January 4, 2008, at 21:41:36
Ugh. Sorry.
I was just disappointed is all.
Posted by Toph on January 5, 2008, at 16:45:35
In reply to Re:, posted by Dinah on January 4, 2008, at 21:45:05
Sorry I didn't read well your request to avoid referencing individuals - that was good advice. I also apologize for being frequently redundant as I often jump into the fray without reading all of the posts. But one suggestion offered by more than one poster is that there ought to be a different treatment for generalizations about people or groups than for possibly offending generalizations about inanimate objects. This is the kind of judgment needed when definitions and rules fail.
Also I think it bears repeating that I respect you Dinah for endeavoring to keep PB a safe place for us all.
Posted by ClearSkies on January 5, 2008, at 17:08:44
In reply to Re: generalizations » Dinah, posted by Toph on January 5, 2008, at 16:45:35
>
>
> Also I think it bears repeating that I respect you Dinah for endeavoring to keep PB a safe place for us all.
>Hear, hear. (Bangs fists on virtual desk.)
It's a tough job. It's about all I can do to encourage the discussion among other folks, and not really participate in it myself. Not much on walking tightropes lately.
CS
Posted by muffled on January 5, 2008, at 19:55:39
In reply to Re: generalizations, posted by ClearSkies on January 5, 2008, at 17:08:44
Sigh. I used to participate.
Just burned out myself.
Sucks OK.
M
Posted by Dinah on January 6, 2008, at 14:10:12
In reply to Re: generalizations » Dinah, posted by Toph on January 5, 2008, at 16:45:35
Thank you, Toph. I appreciate that.
I'm sorry if I sounded a bit short. It wasn't you. I just keep promising myself to stay out of the admin discussions since for some reason my input since I've become a deputy seems to be rather less helpful than I (perhaps mistakenly) remember it being before. I'm not altogether sure why, and perhaps don't wish to be enlightened. :)
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 8, 2008, at 14:27:19
In reply to Re: Lou's requestto Robert Hsiung and discussants- » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on December 31, 2007, at 9:18:29
> Lou, I appreciate your support of Phillipa.
>
> But I hate to see you putting so much work into finding old examples of generalizations. Rules at Babble evolve over the years in response to what Dr. Bob sees as issues that need to be addressed, just as they do in any other area of life.
>
> I do think it would be helpful for Dr. Bob to be more explicit in these evolutions of interpretation, and perhaps incorporate them into the FAQ - even though the underlying rule is already in the FAQ.Dinah,
You wrote,[...but I hate to see you putting so much work into...rules evolve...in any other...].
I am putting this work of mine here for others that have emailed me that may feel defenseless, that may feel hurting, that may feel brokenhearted or feel as a captive to guilt or shame where they think that no guilt or shame is deserved.
As about rules evolving, my understanding of an evolutionary change is that it is a developing process over a long period of time with many steps in between the innitial starting point to the end point, be it Darwin's theory or political or social development over a long period of time. As to that you wrote,[...just as they do in any other area of life...], could you post here an example, let's say, a country's use of an evolving process in a law of that country? If you could, then we could examine to see if they are equivalent processes to the concept of evolution here in regards to steps and time in this particular case in question and discuss such accordingly.
If you are agreeing with me in my understanding of what it means to evolve, is the phrase in question,{more often than not}, the end point in the evolution that you are referring to? If so, could you identify the starting point? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to see if there were steps in between them and respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on January 8, 2008, at 16:23:26
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah-evo » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on January 8, 2008, at 14:27:19
I didn't mean anything particularly deep by it, Lou. I was just trying to save you some work.
I don't really think I have anything to add to what I said.
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.