![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 15 to 39 of 64. Go back in thread:
Posted by 10derHeart on May 24, 2005, at 23:58:18
In reply to scope » so, posted by crushedout on May 24, 2005, at 21:30:17
Thanks for helping clarify that, crushed. The title of that part of the FAQs *is* a little misleading, until you read down through the entire thing.
(so nice to see you back babbling a little...give us a visit at PBP, too, okay?)
Posted by crushedout on May 25, 2005, at 8:58:56
In reply to Re: scope, posted by so on May 24, 2005, at 23:47:14
Posted by so on May 25, 2005, at 11:44:01
In reply to nope. (nm) » so, posted by crushedout on May 25, 2005, at 8:58:56
then I wonder whose interests were served by you addressing to me a post about your interests.
Posted by crushedout on May 25, 2005, at 11:58:11
In reply to whose interests then..., posted by so on May 25, 2005, at 11:44:01
I definitely am feeling harassed. The irony is amazing.
Posted by crushedout on May 25, 2005, at 12:01:06
In reply to Re: scope » crushedout, posted by 10derHeart on May 24, 2005, at 23:58:18
> (so nice to see you back babbling a little...give us a visit at PBP, too, okay?)I don't wander far. I lurk more than I post. :)
Posted by 10derHeart on May 25, 2005, at 12:12:06
In reply to Re: scope, posted by crushedout on May 25, 2005, at 12:01:06
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 25, 2005, at 13:19:58
In reply to Re: scope » crushedout, posted by so on May 24, 2005, at 22:30:35
> Frankly, I would rather no one reply to me and I would rather I and everyone else write to the topic and never to a person, but I am influenced by local culture.
>Good to know. I find what much of you write to be incredibly interesting, and I have a wry admiration for your directness. My automatic response to posts I find informative/interesting is to say "Thanks!" or add a comment. In your case I shall refrain. Starting now, obviously.
Posted by so on May 25, 2005, at 14:06:41
In reply to Re: scope » so, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 25, 2005, at 13:19:58
> > Frankly, I would rather no one reply to me and I would rather I and everyone else write to the topic and never to a person, but I am influenced by local culture.
> >
>
> Good to know. I find what much of you write to be incredibly interesting, and I have a wry admiration for your directness. My automatic response to posts I find informative/interesting is to say "Thanks!" or add a comment. In your case I shall refrain. Starting now, obviously.
Comments are useful. I hope they continue. I'm not commenting on the contribution of comments, but rather on the voice in which they are submitted. To clarify, saying "thanks" is a comment to me about my involvement and that could be useful to me, because sometimes it is difficult to tell why people are responding. One could as well say "I appreciate what So writes," though the second-person voice might more specifically encourage me to write more. I probably can't say whether I am more gratified by second-person compliments or by third-person compliments about my work. It might not matter, unless I were trying to promote my work.But a second-person acknowledgement of a person's contribution doesn't seem as limiting, in the way I read, as does a second-person presentation of opinions about other matters. At least in keeping with the way I have learned to write my best material comments written for a broad audience are most effective in third person. I might be influenced my lack of appreciation for use of second-person statements by broadcasters who attempt to personalize their product by phrasing news, weather and sports in the second-person to whomever happens to be listening. I'm like, "Who, me?" A personal approach might better engage otherwise undifferentiated listeners to a broadcast service, but third person voice can make it easier for a broad audience to internalize messages written in a particular context that might otherwise be perceived as a one-to-one conversation.
To go a step further, in trying to discern which voice to use to promote the goals developed by the administrator of this site, one might say "thanks" if they enjoy the post, but if they just don't care about someone else's opinion on a particular matter, a third-person voice (i.e. "I just don't care what some people think about my opinion.") might be less likely to encourage a reply than second-person statement. In either case, though, if one doesn't want a particular person involved at all in a conversation they start, it might be best to start the conversation in a more private venue. This particular context can be complicated, for sure, because it tends to address uniquely personal matters, including conversational style.
To review, this post uses first-person and third-person voice. But people who care about the topic might internalize it just as well as, if not better than if the entire post were written in the second-person voice to someone in particular.
Of course, the order of the thread -- in which the Perl script tagged this response as in response to a particular post, and the inclusion of a citation from a particular person's post, helps clarify the context in which the third-person statements are presented. Selecting "add name of previous" can help to further specify the intended primary audience for an entry otherwise written in the third-person voice to be read by anyone with Internet access.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 26, 2005, at 2:45:49
In reply to Re: don't post to me anymore requests, posted by so on May 24, 2005, at 17:47:39
> My understanding is the don't post to me option implies nothing more than a desire to disengage
I think wanting to disengage would be a reasonable way of generalizing that policy:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#harassed
> his lack of commentary about someone's post that "... you must be too dumb to understand" suggests his reading in the past 48 hours might not have included every post
Sorry, I either missed that or haven't gotten to it yet. Busy lately, plus technical problems... :-(
Bob
Posted by crushedout on May 26, 2005, at 2:54:01
In reply to Re: don't post to me anymore requests, posted by Dr. Bob on May 26, 2005, at 2:45:49
anytime you want to disengage for *any* reason, dr. bob, you can request that a poster not post to you???wow, that seems new. very good to know though. i may be using that option a lot more frequently in that case. :)
> I think wanting to disengage would be a reasonable way of generalizing that policy:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#harrassed
>
> > his lack of commentary about someone's post that "... you must be too dumb to understand" suggests his reading in the past 48 hours might not have included every post
>
> Sorry, I either missed that or haven't gotten to it yet. Busy lately, plus technical problems... :-(
>
> Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 26, 2005, at 3:10:40
In reply to disengage? » Dr. Bob, posted by crushedout on May 26, 2005, at 2:54:01
> anytime you want to disengage for *any* reason, dr. bob, you can request that a poster not post to you???
You don't think that's such a great idea? What kinds of reasons do you have in mind?
Bob
Posted by crushedout on May 26, 2005, at 4:33:48
In reply to Re: disengage?, posted by Dr. Bob on May 26, 2005, at 3:10:40
I'm okay with the idea. It's just that in the past you've said that you wanted to restrict people's ability to use it (I asked you on Admin many moons ago when I could use it and you said only when I felt harassed) because you thought it should be used sparingly. And in the FAQ you reiterate that principle, on the basis that open communication is the best scenario. I think that sounds like a wise principle to operate under, but I'm most interested in the rules being applied consistently.
Posted by AuntieMel on May 26, 2005, at 9:20:02
In reply to Re: disengage? » Dr. Bob, posted by crushedout on May 26, 2005, at 4:33:48
I see a couple of possible problems with using it to disengage.
The 'do not post' request lasts forever - or until the requestor rescinds it. If a poster is using it to disengage he/she needs to remember to rescind it when feeling strong enough to re-engage. And hope the other poster sees it.
And it's possible that a 'do not post' might cause some hurt feelings, where a simple 'let's just agree to disagree' wouldn't.
So - my understanding is that it *can* be used for this purpose, but some serious thought is strongly recommended before using it.
Posted by crushedout on May 26, 2005, at 9:52:22
In reply to Re: disengagement » crushedout, posted by AuntieMel on May 26, 2005, at 9:20:02
these are good thoughts.> I see a couple of possible problems with using it to disengage.
>
> The 'do not post' request lasts forever - or until the requestor rescinds it. If a poster is using it to disengage he/she needs to remember to rescind it when feeling strong enough to re-engage. And hope the other poster sees it.
>
> And it's possible that a 'do not post' might cause some hurt feelings, where a simple 'let's just agree to disagree' wouldn't.
>
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 28, 2005, at 11:57:13
In reply to Re: disengage? » Dr. Bob, posted by crushedout on May 26, 2005, at 4:33:48
> I'm okay with the idea. It's just that in the past you've said that you wanted to restrict people's ability to use it (I asked you on Admin many moons ago when I could use it and you said only when I felt harassed) because you thought it should be used sparingly.
I'd still like it to be used sparingly, but think this might be a reasonable extension. Hmm, if the goal is disengagement, and A asks B not to post to him or her, maybe A shouldn't post to B, either?
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on May 28, 2005, at 12:50:20
In reply to Re: disengage?, posted by Dr. Bob on May 28, 2005, at 11:57:13
Isn't that the rule now? If A asked B not to post, A can't post to B, unless they are wiling to rescind the do not post.
gg
Posted by crushedout on May 28, 2005, at 14:02:28
In reply to Re: disengage? » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on May 28, 2005, at 12:50:20
yes, that's what i thought too.dr. bob, if you want it used sparingly, you have to have a bright line rule and just wanting to disengage does not meet that standard at all. i don't think it's going to work to say you want it used sparingly but then have a rule that is so subjective and unclear. my 2 cents. as i said, i don't care what the rule is as long as it's applied consistently and fairly.
Posted by 10derHeart on May 28, 2005, at 17:26:01
In reply to Re: disengage? » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on May 28, 2005, at 12:50:20
....and it seems Dr. Bob is technically accurate in his post above.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#harassed
There is nothing banning A from posting to B, even after A has requested B not post to A.However, as you said, B is then allowed to reply without having committed any sort of infraction. But, I think I took this to mean B can reply to ONLY that post. But then, what if A replies to B's reply....can B keep on replying? Does it rescind the DNP forever the first time A posts to B?
To me, the wording almost suggests it's not only fine, but encouraged for A to post to B after a DNP request to B, as this would lead to a possibility of an affirmative rescinding of the DNP, which seems to be the desired outcome.
The rules are hard for me to understand.
I'm not stupid.
And I'm really trying.
:-(
Posted by alexandra_k on May 28, 2005, at 17:30:52
In reply to Actually, reread the FAQ... » gardenergirl, posted by 10derHeart on May 28, 2005, at 17:26:01
> There is nothing banning A from posting to B, even after A has requested B not post to A.
Yup.
> However, as you said, B is then allowed to reply without having committed any sort of infraction. But, I think I took this to mean B can reply to ONLY that post.Yup. If A does direct a post B's way then B has a right of response to that post (but only that post).
>But then, what if A replies to B's reply....can B keep on replying?
I think B has a right of response (maybe only 1 response??) to each post that A directs B's way.
>Does it rescind the DNP forever the first time A posts to B?
I don't think so.
I think that to rescind it A actually has to post something saying that it is rescinded.
> To me, the wording almost suggests it's not only fine, but encouraged for A to post to B after a DNP request to B, as this would lead to a possibility of an affirmative rescinding of the DNP, which seems to be the desired outcome.Yeah. Thats happened with me before.
At least...
Thats just my understanding.
I'm a little unclear on precisely what counts as a response that it directed to B.
Still, I suppose B just has to try and be as 'vague' about 'replying' as A was about 'adressing' their post...But maybe I have things a bit wrong...
Posted by gardenergirl on May 28, 2005, at 22:24:09
In reply to Re: Actually, reread the FAQ... » 10derHeart, posted by alexandra_k on May 28, 2005, at 17:30:52
Wow, I never interpreted it that A posting to B after a DNP request allowed a reply ONLY to that post. I interpreted it as the DNP being rescinded.
So if y'all are right and I am wrong, then A could "toy with" B all A wants by posting to B whenever A feels like a dialog, but otherwise B is prevented from posting to A. That seems rude to me.
gg
Posted by 10derHeart on May 28, 2005, at 23:39:31
In reply to Re: Actually, reread the FAQ..., posted by gardenergirl on May 28, 2005, at 22:24:09
>>Wow, I never interpreted it that A posting to B after a DNP request allowed a reply ONLY to that post. I interpreted it as the DNP being rescinded.
Yeah. That's kind of why I tried to write it out here - to see how others were "reading between the lines." I'd rather interpret it your way. Seems like that would just make sense, and tend to prevent the "stringing along" one-sided thing you mentioned.
I dunno.One reason I think A would have to post something explicit, e.g., "it's okay to post to me now," or "I wish to rescind my DNP to me request," like alex said, is because of the way in the FAQ, it immediately states that your request stays in effect until you change your mind.
No need to even say that if by A posting anything to B, your request was automatically rescinded, right?
I'm wondering if this part of the FAQ needs some refining, as I shouldn't have to resort to quite so much reading between the lines and interpretation, maybe...?
But that's just me.
Logic and precise meaning of words I enjoy, but
They often are a bit of a stretch and an effort
As I operate out of intuition and feeling my way
So much more naturally
Not very balanced of an approach IRL, though....
So, thanks for allowing me to try to reason this simple concept out with you guys
Usually I'm far too intimidated to join even the simplest thread like this.
Dumb way to feel, I suppose.
Even though I still swear I'm not stupid ;-)
Posted by 10derHeart on May 28, 2005, at 23:45:30
In reply to Re: Actually, reread the FAQ... » 10derHeart, posted by alexandra_k on May 28, 2005, at 17:30:52
Hey, thanks for going through that.
I feel better once your sharp mind has been applied to something.
>> I'm a little unclear on precisely what counts as a response that it directed to B.
Still, I suppose B just has to try and be as 'vague' about 'replying' as A was about 'adressing' their post...<<I know. Me, too. That last paragraph in the FAQ could induce quite a headache if you ask yourself too many questions.
>>But maybe I have things a bit wrong...<<
Well, I don't know about wrong.
I'm sure Dr. B intended to keep it simple, but..
Seems it isn't, really.Any suggestions to make it better?
Posted by crushedout on May 29, 2005, at 0:46:53
In reply to Re: Actually, reread the FAQ..., posted by gardenergirl on May 28, 2005, at 22:24:09
I never read it that way, either. It can't possibly mean that, because it would make no sense, and be completely unfair.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 29, 2005, at 0:59:28
In reply to Re: Actually, reread the FAQ... » gardenergirl, posted by crushedout on May 29, 2005, at 0:46:53
>
> I never read it that way, either. It can't possibly mean that, because it would make no sense, and be completely unfair.I'm sure it doesn't mean that. There have been clarifications from Dr. Bob about it before, and once A has posted directly to B the block is rescinded. It does have to be a direct reply and not simply a response to "B"'s post or thread though, and that could be pretty vague I think.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 29, 2005, at 5:30:10
In reply to Re: Actually, reread the FAQ... » alexandra_k, posted by 10derHeart on May 28, 2005, at 23:45:30
> I feel better once your sharp mind has been applied to something.
Oh dear...
I don't think you should...
Sometimes I create much more difficulty than there was in the first place..
:-)I did think that A could still post to B if A liked.
Hope ya don't mind Dinah,
But this reminds me of when Dinah requested I not post to her.
She directed something my way..
I got the chance to respond..
Then we had a bit of a chat that way..
And then the DNP request was rescinded.I think it can work quite nicely like that to sort the situation out.
But it can feel a bit frustrating if someone can post to you whenever but you aren't allowed to post to them.
Even more frustrating when it is hard to tell if it counts as being addressed to you or not...
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.