![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 3 to 27 of 27. Go back in thread:
Posted by Sigismund on May 9, 2009, at 7:11:34
In reply to Re: blocked for week, posted by alexandra_k on May 9, 2009, at 2:44:39
Well, it's not as bad as that homeless man from Bath who was blocked for being different.
I'm not even particularly against it.
Except that it's not very nice to throw the homeless out.
If people prefer to express themselves with words that bear a slanted resemblance to their meaning, who am I to complain?
Except that it's not straightforward.
Posted by Dinah on May 9, 2009, at 7:30:16
In reply to Re: blocked for week » alexandra_k, posted by Sigismund on May 9, 2009, at 7:11:34
> If people prefer to express themselves with words that bear a slanted resemblance to their meaning, who am I to complain?
>
> Except that it's not straightforward.I don't see those as the only two alternatives. I believe it is also possible to post in a straightforward and direct manner with civility and respect for fellow posters and their beliefs.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 9, 2009, at 9:43:26
In reply to Straightforward » Sigismund, posted by Dinah on May 9, 2009, at 7:30:16
Then why doesn't Bob say straightforwardly why he really blocked Manic?
Posted by alexandra_k on May 9, 2009, at 9:44:24
In reply to Re: Straightforward, posted by alexandra_k on May 9, 2009, at 9:43:26
And Zeugma
And Zen
And MuffledAnd so on
Posted by Dinah on May 9, 2009, at 10:43:42
In reply to Re: Straightforward, posted by alexandra_k on May 9, 2009, at 9:43:26
Manic wasn't the subject of this block.
However, I don't see that he wasn't straightforward. Dr. Bob long ago decided that jokes based on ethnicity were not conducive to the supportive and educational environment he wanted at Babble, so considered them against site guidelines. He considers jokes about accents to fall into the same category, I would guess. He has also apparently decided fairly recently that jokes with explicit sexual content are against site guidelines, similar to cursing without an asterisk, and for the same reason I'd guess.
But the reason people are blocked is the same reason people are always blocked. If Dr. Bob tells someone that something they are doing is against site guidelines, and they understand what he is asking them, and they continue to do it, the only recourse he has is to block that person. If they wish to object to the rule, they can come to Admin and try to change Dr. Bob's mind.
I don't perceive Dr. Bob as being less than straightforward in this.
Posted by Phillipa on May 9, 2009, at 11:50:13
In reply to Re: Straightforward » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on May 9, 2009, at 10:43:42
Not trying or wanting to be argumentive here as that is not civil so I guess a quess is more in line. Is there a Faq or rule about jokes? I don't think I've ever seen one? But then haven't been looking. I think the two posters in question are both new and may not be aware. So maybe pointing out the rule could help. Just my thought? Thanks Phillipa
Posted by alexandra_k on May 9, 2009, at 15:05:49
In reply to Re: Straightforward » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on May 9, 2009, at 10:43:42
> But the reason people are blocked is the same reason people are always blocked. If Dr. Bob tells someone that something they are doing is against site guidelines, and they understand what he is asking them, and they continue to do it, the only recourse he has is to block that person.Of course. Laws of nature make it so.
There were laws against corrupting the young, too.
And laws about certain people being on the back of the bus.
They can flee the state or not use public transport, I guess.
Posted by Dinah on May 9, 2009, at 16:54:08
In reply to Re: Straightforward, posted by alexandra_k on May 9, 2009, at 15:05:49
I don't really understand, Alex.
There are guidelines, or rules or laws, everywhere, not just the ones you mention.
I don't see these as particularly unfair. But I accept that you do. So if I understand you correctly, you think Babble guidelines should allow jokes that concern ethnicity or explicit sexuality? That can certainly be argued.
Posted by Sigismund on May 9, 2009, at 18:54:40
In reply to Straightforward » Sigismund, posted by Dinah on May 9, 2009, at 7:30:16
I'm not sure if you can expect Administration to give reasons which are credible, because the process is too difficult.
I mean, they could have said to manic and myco. 'Look, you've been having too many risque jokes. Enough's enough.'
(Which they did with a PBC, I think)
and then
'You've been blocked because we think those kinds of jokes lower the tone on Babble.'That's what I meant by straightforward.
Posted by Phillipa on May 9, 2009, at 20:04:31
In reply to Re: Straightforward, posted by Sigismund on May 9, 2009, at 18:54:40
Question again what about all the utubes some with explicit language also. Is the poster responsible for the utube? This seems to be something new for babble. Curious. Phillipa
Posted by Dinah on May 9, 2009, at 20:21:26
In reply to Re: Straightforward, posted by Sigismund on May 9, 2009, at 18:54:40
I understand that to be your perception of what happened. But wouldn't the standard for straightforward for Dr. Bob be based on his perception rather than yours?
If Dr. Bob perceives things the same way you do, it might be considered straightforward of him to say what you just said. But if he doesn't perceive things the same way you do, he'd be less than honest if he said what you just said.
Posted by Sigismund on May 9, 2009, at 21:31:51
In reply to Re: Straightforward » Sigismund, posted by Dinah on May 9, 2009, at 20:21:26
There being no Japanese people on Babble (though I recall one from Beijing) is no doubt beside the point.
I'll bet if I'd done a phonetics of my accent there would have been no block.
It was that erection that did it.
All of my own opinion, of course.
Additionally, what is considered uncivil in some cultures is not in others and so on. What feels civil to Americans for example can feel insincere to Australians. What it's like when there are real cultural differences I have no idea. Certainly from an Iraqi or Afghani perspective, being able to discuss Democratic to Republican and everything in between may not seem like such a broad option.
I come from a country that has participated in every war going since the trouble in Sudan. Every year we celebrate our military failure on Turkish soil at Gallipoli, making no connection with that and the Armenian massacre. I don't know how well Australians would take it if the Japanese wanted to celebrate the failure of the bombing of Darwin every year in Darwin. But then they (like the US, I think) do not celebrate failure.
Posted by Dinah on May 9, 2009, at 22:05:23
In reply to Re: Straightforward, posted by Sigismund on May 9, 2009, at 21:31:51
But...
If Dr. Bob is being sincere, then he's being sincere. Sincerity is self referential isn't it?
For example, what X considers "civil" Y might consider anything from quaint to stupid to wise. But if X considers something civil, and says so, then X is being sincere. If Y thinks X's ideas of civility are quaint and says so, then Y is being sincere. But if Y says that X is being insincere, when X is truthfully reporting X's beliefs, then Y is mistaken about X's sincerity.
My take on it is that Dr. Bob is perfectly sincere and straightforward. Any given poster may have any given range of feelings about Dr. Bob's view of civility. But unless what he says disagrees with his internal convictions, he is being both sincere and straightforward.
I don't know for certain that my perception of Dr. Bob's sincerity is any more correct than yours is, of course. I see his actions as evidence of my point of view. But I can't know, unless I'm in his brain. Which thankfully I'm not. I can barely figure out my own brain.
Also, while I do not know Dr. Bob's thought processes in choosing statements to quote, he is able to choose whatever he wishes. I can't imagine why he would choose a different quote than he means. Since he considers his administrative actions to illustrate Babble civility guidelines, I can't imagine that he would deliberately choose the wrong statement to quote.
All this is intended as general remarks and not specific to this situation.
Posted by Bobby on May 9, 2009, at 23:14:21
In reply to Re: blocked for week » Dr. Bob, posted by Sigismund on May 9, 2009, at 7:11:33
he was a wechid wascal..be vewwy vewwy quite!
Posted by Sigismund on May 11, 2009, at 2:23:37
In reply to Re: Straightforward » Sigismund, posted by Dinah on May 9, 2009, at 22:05:23
>My take on it is that Dr. Bob is perfectly sincere and straightforward.
Well, that's it.
And mine is that he is not, in this case.
Just my 2 bob's worth.
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 11, 2009, at 19:45:06
In reply to Re: Straightforward » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on May 9, 2009, at 10:43:42
> Manic wasn't the subject of this block.
>
> However, I don't see that he wasn't straightforward. Dr. Bob long ago decided that jokes based on ethnicity were not conducive to the supportive and educational environment he wanted at Babble, so considered them against site guidelines. He considers jokes about accents to fall into the same category, I would guess. He has also apparently decided fairly recently that jokes with explicit sexual content are against site guidelines, similar to cursing without an asterisk, and for the same reason I'd guess.
>
> But the reason people are blocked is the same reason people are always blocked. If Dr. Bob tells someone that something they are doing is against site guidelines, and they understand what he is asking them, and they continue to do it, the only recourse he has is to block that person. If they wish to object to the rule, they can come to Admin and try to change Dr. Bob's mind.
>
> I don't perceive Dr. Bob as being less than straightforward in this.Dinah,
You wrote,[...He considers...I would guess...I'd guess...]
I am unsure as to what then your rule entails in relation to the rule that says that one can not post what their opinion is about what Mr. Hsiung thinks, or it could be for all people as to that one can not post here their opinion of what another thinks. This brings up what I am unsure about so if you could post answers to the following, then I could respond accordingly.
A. Is in your thinking, is it the same to write here that {my opinion} about what another thinks, is the same as writing {I Guess} that another thinks such and such?
B. If not , what could be your rationale for separating one to be acceptable and the other to be not?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 11, 2009, at 19:55:05
In reply to Re: Straightforward » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on May 9, 2009, at 10:43:42
> Manic wasn't the subject of this block.
>
> However, I don't see that he wasn't straightforward. Dr. Bob long ago decided that jokes based on ethnicity were not conducive to the supportive and educational environment he wanted at Babble, so considered them against site guidelines. He considers jokes about accents to fall into the same category, I would guess. He has also apparently decided fairly recently that jokes with explicit sexual content are against site guidelines, similar to cursing without an asterisk, and for the same reason I'd guess.
>
> But the reason people are blocked is the same reason people are always blocked. If Dr. Bob tells someone that something they are doing is against site guidelines, and they understand what he is asking them, and they continue to do it, the only recourse he has is to block that person. If they wish to object to the rule, they can come to Admin and try to change Dr. Bob's mind.
>
> I don't perceive Dr. Bob as being less than straightforward in this.Dinah,
You wrote,[...the only recourse he has is to block that person...].
I aam unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A.What do you base that on?
B. In your reply, if you take into consideration the past practice here, have there been instances where, let's say, members have been told more than once to be civil and were not blocked?
C. If you do not know of any instance of the above,could I post some of them here in this thread or would I need to use email?
Lou
D.
Posted by Dinah on May 11, 2009, at 20:08:08
In reply to Lou's request for clarification-owelleh » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on May 11, 2009, at 19:55:05
My statements were general, so I'd rather not get into specifics.
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 11, 2009, at 20:25:05
In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification-owelleh » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on May 11, 2009, at 20:08:08
Friends,
I would like to share with you by email some what in my opinion could be important infomation that I think could give you a better understnding which I believe could be helpfull, if you are considering being a discussant here, and be good for your mental health also.
Lou
Posted by 64bowtie on May 11, 2009, at 20:57:21
In reply to Lou's request for clarification- » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on May 11, 2009, at 19:45:06
Lou,
Try asking how I (someone) feels about a topic instead of voicing an opinion about how I/they (apparently) feel about the topic... Do you see how that might work better than diving in toooo quickly picking sides about something as abstract as my/their testimonials??? I honestly can't find any sufficient clarification, personally... An "open hand" qestioning approach will keep us closer to all concerned, when our opinions might drive a wedge between ourselves and the others we are concerned with...
Rod
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 11, 2009, at 21:07:36
In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification-» Dinah, posted by 64bowtie on May 11, 2009, at 20:57:21
> Lou,
>
> Try asking how I (someone) feels about a topic instead of voicing an opinion about how I/they (apparently) feel about the topic... Do you see how that might work better than diving in toooo quickly picking sides about something as abstract as my/their testimonials??? I honestly can't find any sufficient clarification, personally... An "open hand" qestioning approach will keep us closer to all concerned, when our opinions might drive a wedge between ourselves and the others we are concerned with...
>
> RodRod,
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here.
If you could elaborate with more infomation, then I could have the opportunjity to respond accordingly. In particular , but not limited to:
A.What is a "open hand" questioning approach?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 11, 2009, at 22:13:38
In reply to Lou's request for clarification- » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on May 11, 2009, at 19:45:06
> > Manic wasn't the subject of this block.
> >
> > However, I don't see that he wasn't straightforward. Dr. Bob long ago decided that jokes based on ethnicity were not conducive to the supportive and educational environment he wanted at Babble, so considered them against site guidelines. He considers jokes about accents to fall into the same category, I would guess. He has also apparently decided fairly recently that jokes with explicit sexual content are against site guidelines, similar to cursing without an asterisk, and for the same reason I'd guess.
> >
> > But the reason people are blocked is the same reason people are always blocked. If Dr. Bob tells someone that something they are doing is against site guidelines, and they understand what he is asking them, and they continue to do it, the only recourse he has is to block that person. If they wish to object to the rule, they can come to Admin and try to change Dr. Bob's mind.
> >
> > I don't perceive Dr. Bob as being less than straightforward in this.
>
> Dinah,
> You wrote,[...He considers...I would guess...I'd guess...]
> I am unsure as to what then your rule entails in relation to the rule that says that one can not post what their opinion is about what Mr. Hsiung thinks, or it could be for all people as to that one can not post here their opinion of what another thinks. This brings up what I am unsure about so if you could post answers to the following, then I could respond accordingly.
> A. Is in your thinking, is it the same to write here that {my opinion} about what another thinks, is the same as writing {I Guess} that another thinks such and such?
> B. If not , what could be your rationale for separating one to be acceptable and the other to be not?
> LouDinah,
I am withdrawing my request for clarification. After reviewing the issues and thinking through the situation, I have found an answer to my request.
Please disregard the request.
Lou
Posted by verne on May 12, 2009, at 20:07:23
In reply to Re: Straightforward, posted by alexandra_k on May 9, 2009, at 15:05:49
Alex,
I'm trying to get on board with your idea. I've always sort of scratched my head when you brought up the back of the bus to illustrate your point.
I know what you're getting at but the unwritten law prohibited certain people from sitting in "front" of the bus. There was no law, written or unwritten, that sent people to the "back" of the bus.
Your argument might be more effective (unless it went over my head, which is very possible) if you talked about the front of the bus. The unwritten law of the Old South (which I don't subscribe to) was that no one of color could take a seat in front of a white man. I grew up with this racism and know that riding in the backseat of any car was described as "riding n*gger".
If the bus were mostly empty the placement didn't matter, yet when crowded anyone not white was expected to give up their seats in the front of the bus to the white folk who just got on and move towards the back. There was no law preventing them from riding up front - unless enough white riders pushed them to the back.
Perhaps, I'm mincing words but I think your metaphor loses strength by emphasizing the back of the bus. Why not emphasize the front of the bus? No law, written or unwritten said blacks couldn't sit upfront. They only had to move to the back when a white person boarded. So the law wasn't so much about the back of the bus, but the "front" of the bus.
Verily,
Verne
Posted by verne on May 12, 2009, at 20:29:01
In reply to Back of the Bus Metahphor, posted by verne on May 12, 2009, at 20:07:23
Ignore me Alex,
I agree with you and, in a lucid moment, don't even understand my last response. I mean, I had to reread my own post three times, and still don't know what I was getting at.
back, front, what difference does it make? I really had a problem with the way you couched your argument with the "back of the bus" metaphor but my alternative was gibberish. Sorry, I could get a headache if I try to read my post again.
Geez, I'm smashed, and out of control again. Back, front of the bus. Any perspective makes the point.
Please try to ignore a passing drunk, sad sack.
verne
Posted by alexandra_k on May 14, 2009, at 14:37:48
In reply to Back of the Bus Metahphor, posted by verne on May 12, 2009, at 20:07:23
lol. I don't know the actual facts so I'll defer to you on those.
I wasn't the first to raise the analogy.
I think fallen4myT was.
I hadn't even heard of Rosa Parks until fallen posted about it.
(Though I'm sure my misunderstandings are mine rather than fallen's)
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.