![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 33 to 57 of 89. Go back in thread:
Posted by fayeroe on January 31, 2009, at 15:30:13
In reply to Re: Please contact Dr. Bob..., posted by Dinah on January 31, 2009, at 12:11:41
Your solution to the "unhappiness" on the Politics Board worked and I can't think of another issue that caused your having to be involved there.
That episode wasn't caused by the regulars on the board. I feel that we're being punished for something that we didn't do.
Has Bob identified anymore "uncivil posts"? It would be nice if he took this off of the deputies and posted directly to the board.
What are the limitations that he has put on the board now? I'm still asking what we can do? We know what we can't do.
Thanks, Pat
Posted by Dinah on January 31, 2009, at 17:21:59
In reply to Re: Please contact Dr. Bob... » Dinah, posted by fayeroe on January 31, 2009, at 15:30:13
Dr. Bob is not going to administer that board and Faith himself. We asked many times. He would like to do it, I think. But in practice he has not had the time resources available to do it. He has, however, made himself available to supervise us, try to train us in his wishes on Politics board matters, etc. And he is also available for poster feedback about deputy decisions. The best way to reach him is by email, I'm afraid.
I've made my own position as clear as I can. Since I agreed to administrate there, I will apply Dr. Bob's civility guidelines to the best of my ability to everyone. I realize that Dr. Bob and I may not always agree on individual interpretations, and it is his board and it is his job to supervise me and inform me if I am not interpreting things the way he would prefer.
I don't feel I'll able to be any more helpful than I've already been on this topic. Perhaps one of the deputies or Dr. Bob could explain things better than I have.
Posted by Dinah on January 31, 2009, at 17:26:14
In reply to Re: Please contact Dr. Bob..., posted by Sigismund on January 31, 2009, at 14:54:02
Good point.
I don't of course *know* that Politics board posters are unhappy.
Posted by Partlycloudy on February 2, 2009, at 15:19:58
In reply to Re: Please contact Dr. Bob... » Sigismund, posted by Dinah on January 31, 2009, at 17:26:14
> Good point.
>
> I don't of course *know* that Politics board posters are unhappy.
>
>I think that the Politics board does not function in a usable manner and won't post on it. I am one of the unhappy ones.
Rose coloured glasses and all that.pc
Posted by Sigismund on February 2, 2009, at 19:38:48
In reply to Re: Please contact Dr. Bob... » Dinah, posted by Partlycloudy on February 2, 2009, at 15:19:58
>I think that the Politics board does not function in a usable manner
With our previous administrations it was easy enough.
All I had to do to make my point clear was to quote them or describe their actions accurately using only nouns and verbs.This is an abnormal way of communicating, of course.
Posted by Sigismund on February 2, 2009, at 19:39:59
In reply to Re: Please contact Dr. Bob... » Partlycloudy, posted by Sigismund on February 2, 2009, at 19:38:48
>using only nouns and verbs.
Well, there would have been a few other parts of speech in there.
Posted by Toph on February 2, 2009, at 23:16:09
In reply to Re: Please contact Dr. Bob... » Sigismund, posted by Sigismund on February 2, 2009, at 19:39:59
> >using only nouns and verbs.
>
> Well, there would have been a few other parts of speech in there.Promised WMDs.
Invaded Iraq.
Killed people.
Tortured People.
Denied rights.
Surveilled citizens.
Lost respect.
Borrowed money.
Ruined economy.
Desired change.
Posted by Deputy 10derHeart on February 3, 2009, at 12:46:36
In reply to Re: Politicspeak » Sigismund, posted by Toph on February 2, 2009, at 23:16:09
> Tortured People.
> Ruined economy.Please respect the views of others (such as supporters of previous administrations) even if you think they are wrong, by not posting things that could lead them to feel put down.
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#civilFollow ups regarding these issues should be directed to Admin, and should of course, be civil. Dr. Bob is always free to override deputy decisions. His email is on the bottom of each page. Please feel free to email him if you believe this decision was made in error.
--10derHeart, acting as deputy for Dr. Bob
Posted by Partlycloudy on February 3, 2009, at 13:33:45
In reply to Please be civil » Toph, posted by Deputy 10derHeart on February 3, 2009, at 12:46:36
This is the core of the problem: expressing an opinion (perhaps even popularly held, given the last election results) versus stating a fact. Nowhere did the poster say that they were stating a fact - it was merely their opinion; and although that works on other boards, it doesn't fly on Politics. There is no room for an individual's opinion - unless it's a positive one.
We might as well call the board Pollyanna Politics. It's not a place for discussion so much as a place for saying, "my sky is blue, what colour is yours?" (and the only possible reply would be, "well my sky is a splendid shade of green. Enjoy your blue sky.")
On the other hand, this is a mental health forum.
Posted by fayeroe on February 3, 2009, at 13:50:52
In reply to Re: Please be civil » Deputy 10derHeart, posted by Partlycloudy on February 3, 2009, at 13:33:45
Posted by SLS on February 3, 2009, at 14:22:13
In reply to Re: Please be civil » Deputy 10derHeart, posted by Partlycloudy on February 3, 2009, at 13:33:45
I pretty much stay away from the politics board because it is the nature of politics to elicit strong passions that are adversarial.
Could it be that the words "ruined" and "tortured" that are the problems? They are judgmental to some degree.
What if one were to say that the GDP declined by xx% during the Bush administration? Or. Water-boarding was a method of intelligence-gathering employed during the Bush administration.
Just curious.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on February 3, 2009, at 14:25:30
In reply to Re: Please be civil, posted by SLS on February 3, 2009, at 14:22:13
I'm sorry. Never mind. I think I'm just looking for trouble.
- Scott
> I pretty much stay away from the politics board because it is the nature of politics to elicit strong passions that are adversarial.
>
> Could it be that the words "ruined" and "tortured" that are the problems? They are judgmental to some degree.
>
> What if one were to say that the GDP declined by xx% during the Bush administration? Or. Water-boarding was a method of intelligence-gathering employed during the Bush administration.
>
> Just curious.
>
>
> - Scott
Posted by Toph on February 3, 2009, at 14:29:31
In reply to Please be civil » Toph, posted by Deputy 10derHeart on February 3, 2009, at 12:46:36
I apologize PC to supporters of torture and recession that I may have offended.
I was testing Sig's comment, but evidently using only nouns, verbs and facts does not prevent uncivil observations here.
It is interesting to me how stringing a few nouns and verbs together can be so unequivicably identifying as to which administration I may have been referring.
Posted by Deputy 10derHeart on February 3, 2009, at 19:12:35
In reply to Re: Please be civil » Deputy 10derHeart, posted by Partlycloudy on February 3, 2009, at 13:33:45
>- it was merely their opinion; and although that works on other boards, it doesn't fly on Politics. There is no room for an individual's opinion - unless it's a positive one.
I don't see that difference. I'm unsure how that "works on other boards." It's never been civil to state negative opinions *or* facts, if stating either could lead others to feel accused or put down, or be insensitive to others' feelings, as other posters may support, love, employ, utilize, champion, give money to, work for or with, have voted for (and so on) the person, group, idea, etc. posted about.
For example, it's uncivil to post, let's say on Psychology, "In my opinion, psychodynamic psychotherapy is stupid and a waste of time and money. Why do you people allow these quacks to torture you?" Or to post - on any board - "In my opinion, organized religion, especially [insert your group of choice], is dangerous, ruins minds and threatens freedom in our time." Writers of such posts may see their own statements as facts OR opinions - but it doesn't matter re: civility.
I am trying to see where others see the difference, so we might have more understanding and a productive discussion here. It's really hard for me, and that's frustrating. Considering how passionately people do feel about political views, candidates and ideologies, it seems standing by the civility guidelines there is particularly vital to Dr. Bob's wish for support and education in the whole community. It *is* difficult to balance civility and free speech - no doubt about that, but I don't think impossible.
Of course, if the objection is that civility *should* be different (more relaxed?) on the Politics Board, that some here would prefer that, that's another thing entirely.
Posted by Deputy 10derHeart on February 3, 2009, at 19:16:40
In reply to Re: Please be civil, posted by SLS on February 3, 2009, at 14:22:13
> I pretty much stay away from the politics board because it is the nature of politics to elicit strong passions that are adversarial.
Yes, I understand that. I wish it could be different, but....
> Could it be that the words "ruined" and "tortured" that are the problems? They are judgmental to some degree.
That's how I read those statements, yes.
>
> What if one were to say that the GDP declined by xx% during the Bush administration? Or. Water-boarding was a method of intelligence-gathering employed during the Bush administration.Those both sound fine to me.
> Just curious.I'm glad. And I wish you weren't sorry - you expressed the concept better than my long-winded blatherings ever do.
Posted by Deputy 10derHeart on February 3, 2009, at 19:34:39
In reply to Who was he talking about? (nm), posted by fayeroe on February 3, 2009, at 13:50:52
Well, the best thing to do is to ask Toph, for sure.
(Toph, I'm sorry to be talking about you as if you're not here - I hate that - but I did want to find a way to answer Pat's question. Please feel free to straighten me out on anything I've assumed incorrectly, etc.)
I thought it was reasonable to see Toph's post as a response to Sigismund's comments on "previous administrations," as part of that post was quoted at the start.
Most of the list of phrases posted are commonly associated with negative descriptions of the administration, or policies, of former President G.W. Bush. When I asked that those sort of comments not be posted, posters who supported him and his administration, as well as *any* other administrations before Preident Obama's, are the individuals I was thinking could feel put down.
Reasonable people can disagree and misinterpret, and that includes deputies. But, as Dinah has posted recently, we are trying to administrate regarding Politics-related posts as evenhandedly as possible, in accordance with Dr. Bob's wishes, and with an eye toward support and education.
Posted by Deputy 10derHeart on February 3, 2009, at 19:55:14
In reply to Re: Please be civil » Deputy 10derHeart, posted by Toph on February 3, 2009, at 14:29:31
> It is interesting to me how stringing a few nouns and verbs together can be so unequivicably identifying as to which administration I may have been referring.
It doesn't matter which administration you meant. I don't think I specified in my post...? I can't be 100% *sure* unless you specifically say, but that could be uncivil so I'm not recommending posting that! If another poster had mentioned (or begun a thought) "With this new (current) administration..." and you or anyone responded with similar negative phrases (perhaps in the future tense) - that would also be uncivil.
The focus of my request to be civil was avoiding negative characterizations about any administrations - to increase respect and sensitivity for differing views. That's all.
Of course, I know I am likely completely missing your point :-)
-- 10der
Posted by Toph on February 3, 2009, at 22:00:41
In reply to which administration(s) » Toph, posted by Deputy 10derHeart on February 3, 2009, at 19:55:14
I was merely trying to experiment with Sig's suggested style.
> Tortured People.
> Ruined economy.
I should have said...
Tortured Mohammed al-Qahtani.*
Oversaw collapse.*according to senior US official Susan Crawford
Posted by Sigismund on February 4, 2009, at 1:35:05
In reply to Re: which administration(s) » Deputy 10derHeart, posted by Toph on February 3, 2009, at 22:00:41
Allow me to report myself (in violation of the civility rules)
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20081212/msgs/877537.html
in which I mentioned Franck's comment that a thousand years would pass and Germany's guilt would not be erased.
Since there are no Germans on the politics board to be offended and since all rules at the margins create absurdities, I think we can say that the civility rules are working as well as can be expected.
Posted by Deputy Dinah on February 4, 2009, at 9:49:49
In reply to Re: which administration(s) » Deputy 10derHeart, posted by Toph on February 3, 2009, at 22:00:41
> Tortured Mohammed al-Qahtani.*
> *according to senior US official Susan Crawford
Please don't quote anything that is in violation of the civility guidelines, as you have already been informed this statement would be.
Scott's suggestions were good ones, and would not be deemed to be uncivil.
You have just been warned to be civil on this matter already, so I'm going to have to block you from posting for one week.
Followups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil. And should not quote material that is in violation of the civility guidelines.
Dr. Bob was available last night and has already ruled on this matter. However, should anyone wish to contact him about this or any other matter, his email is at the bottom of each page.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by fayeroe on February 4, 2009, at 11:29:02
In reply to Blocked for a week » Toph, posted by Deputy Dinah on February 4, 2009, at 9:49:49
@&%$+&%#!
Posted by Sigismund on February 4, 2009, at 16:20:32
In reply to problem words » SLS, posted by Deputy 10derHeart on February 3, 2009, at 19:16:40
I don't see why 'tortured' should be a problem.
I thought the idea was that there could be a legitimate debate about whether the use of it was OK.
Has that idea has been quietly forgotten?
Posted by Sigismund on February 4, 2009, at 16:39:15
In reply to Re: Politicspeak » Sigismund, posted by Toph on February 2, 2009, at 23:16:09
There's no problem with 'invaded'?
Would citizens of the US feel put down if their country was said to have invaded another, for reasons (or lack thereof) which may in themselves lead those citizens to feel put down?
What about 'liberated'?
Posted by gabbette on February 4, 2009, at 23:12:53
In reply to Blocked for a week?, posted by fayeroe on February 4, 2009, at 11:29:02
I'd find it far less frightening if certain topics were forbidden altogether.
Being forced to find innoffensive euphemisms for atrocities is f*cking blood chilling.
Posted by gabbette on February 4, 2009, at 23:23:31
In reply to Blocked for a week?, posted by fayeroe on February 4, 2009, at 11:29:02
While were at it, can we find less judgemental
words for child abuse? Rape?
I was raped, I guess that implies judgement.Perhaps I should say,
"He found a use for my body in a way he enjoyed but I found highly disagreeable"Or is it like "The murder of one person is a tragedy the murder of thousands is a statistic"
so it's okay in fact preferable, to not look them in the eye, (figuratively speaking) dismiss the horror, and infer by omission that they had a choice.
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.