![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 31 to 55 of 80. Go back in thread:
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 13, 2005, at 11:07:26
In reply to you're absolutely right, Gabbi-x-2 » sunny10, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 11, 2005, at 14:23:47
Aw geez, I guess we both goofed. So it's back to being perfect today eh? What a grind ;)
Thanks
Posted by Dinah on May 13, 2005, at 11:26:10
In reply to Re: performance adults demand of children » Dr. Bob, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 13, 2005, at 11:05:20
Please Follow Civility Guidelines, or even Please Follow Board Guidelines would be preferable to Please Be Civil. Please Be Civil implies that someone has done something objectively, globally, wrong, while Please Follow Board Guidelines merely points out a lack of adherence of behavior to the rules we agreed to obey.
(Well, sometimes I'd like to see some way stronger wording than Please Be Civil. But I digress.)
On the other hand, PBC is well esconced in board culture and PFBG wouldn't have the same ring. :)
Posted by sunny10 on May 13, 2005, at 11:55:41
In reply to That's why I actually think, posted by Dinah on May 13, 2005, at 11:26:10
never....
I don't feel good inside when I hurt others, but to stop being human???
Don't think I'm up to the task.... ;-)
(why does everyone else's "wink face" look better than mine??? Mine looks funny... what am I doing wrong?? Hmmm.. I hit submit, looked at it on Dr. Bob's board and it looks fine... wonder why it looks funny on MY computer???)
Posted by sunny10 on May 13, 2005, at 11:58:18
In reply to That's why I actually think, posted by Dinah on May 13, 2005, at 11:26:10
how 'bout we just say
"quit pickin' on your little brother/sister!"
hahahahaha.... yes, of COURSE I'm kidding... although I was the youngest... Hmmmmm.....Maybe that's why I always try to protect everyone else... nobody ever protected ME...sigh... why is it there's always new fodder for T????
Posted by Dinah on May 13, 2005, at 12:41:24
In reply to Re: That's why I actually think » Dinah, posted by sunny10 on May 13, 2005, at 11:58:18
Probably because I was the oldest. My refrain was "But didn't you see what he did to meeeee?"
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 13, 2005, at 12:45:06
In reply to Re: That's why I actually think » Dinah, posted by sunny10 on May 13, 2005, at 11:58:18
> how 'bout we just say
> "quit pickin' on your little brother/sister!"
>
>
> hahahahaha.... yes, of COURSE I'm kidding... although I was the youngest... Hmmmmm.....Giggle
Oh and BTW, that entire rant to Bob was not inspired by your one single "Please be nice" believe it or not *gasp*! I've been asked (told) that before. It's definitely a multiple baggage word with me.
> Maybe that's why I always try to protect everyone else... nobody ever protected ME...sigh... why is it there's always new fodder for T????
Posted by alexandra_k on May 13, 2005, at 21:12:56
In reply to That's why I actually think, posted by Dinah on May 13, 2005, at 11:26:10
> Please Follow Civility Guidelines, or even Please Follow Board Guidelines would be preferable to Please Be Civil.
I agree.
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 13, 2005, at 21:42:14
In reply to That's why I actually think, posted by Dinah on May 13, 2005, at 11:26:10
Dinah,
You wrote something like,[...please follow the board guidlines...] would be better than,[...please be civil...].
Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm,
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on May 13, 2005, at 21:51:53
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah's post-semsfmilar » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on May 13, 2005, at 21:42:14
Sounds more human. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 13, 2005, at 21:54:42
In reply to That's why I actually think, posted by Dinah on May 13, 2005, at 11:26:10
Dinah,
If it was,[..please abide by the guidlines for acceptability of the forum...] then we could have a PABGAF instead of PBC. But what did Billy Joel say?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 13, 2005, at 22:01:29
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dinah's post-semsfmilar, posted by Phillipa on May 13, 2005, at 21:51:53
Phillipa,
You wrote,[...sounds more humane...].
Hummmmmmmmmmmm,
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on May 13, 2005, at 22:10:46
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dinah's post-semsfmilar, posted by Phillipa on May 13, 2005, at 21:51:53
Lou, Human, not humane. HmmmmmmmmmFondly, Phillipa
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 13, 2005, at 22:31:41
In reply to Re: That's why I actually think » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on May 13, 2005, at 21:12:56
> > Please Follow Civility Guidelines, or even Please Follow Board Guidelines would be preferable to Please Be Civil.
>
> I agree.I agree too. When I first posted here being told to be civil did bug me.. because the idea here of civility is in so many cases applicable only to babble. Then later it became "babble speak" for "Please follow the rules" so it didn't get to me. I had forgotten that it once did though.
I think "Please follow the Board Guidelines" would be a huge improvement actually.
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 13, 2005, at 22:41:28
In reply to Re: That's why I actually think » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 13, 2005, at 22:31:41
Gabbix-x-2,
You wrote,[...I think that {Please follow the board guidlines} would be a huge improvement actually...].
In your opinion, does the word "civil" connotate in any way an anachronism?
Lou
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 13, 2005, at 23:59:30
In reply to That's why I actually think » Gabbi-x-2, posted by Lou Pilder on May 13, 2005, at 22:41:28
> Gabbix-x-2,
> You wrote,[...I think that {Please follow the board guidlines} would be a huge improvement actually...].
> In your opinion, does the word "civil" connotate in any way an anachronism?
> Lou
>
>
Hi Lou!
I suppose it does, but that's not why the use of it here on the board, (As in Please Be Civil)
bothers me. I'm actually rather fond of many anachronisms.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 14, 2005, at 0:13:29
In reply to Re: That's why I actually think » Lou Pilder, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 13, 2005, at 23:59:30
If you ask someone to be civil
Then you seem to be implying that they are not being civil.Imo such a remark is not abiding by civility guidelines UNLESS 'being civil' just means abiding by civility guidelines. And seeing as it does, why not be clear about that???
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 14, 2005, at 6:46:30
In reply to Re: That's why I actually think, posted by alexandra_k on May 14, 2005, at 0:13:29
> If you ask someone to be civil
> Then you seem to be implying that they are not being civil.
>
> Imo such a remark is not abiding by civility guidelines UNLESS 'being civil' just means abiding by civility guidelines. And seeing as it does, why not be clear about that???
a_k,
In what you wrote the above, are you saying that there could be a difference between a person being civil here and not abiding by the guidlines of the forum and that a person here could be a civil person and write something that is unacceptable in relation to the guidlines of the forum without being uncivil?
Lou
Posted by alexandra_k on May 14, 2005, at 18:56:25
In reply to Lou's response to alexandra_k's post » alexandra_k, posted by Lou Pilder on May 14, 2005, at 6:46:30
> > If you ask someone to be civil
> > Then you seem to be implying that they are not being civil.
> > Imo such a remark is not abiding by civility guidelines UNLESS 'being civil' just means abiding by civility guidelines. And seeing as it does, why not be clear about that???> In what you wrote the above, are you saying that there could be a difference between a person being civil here and not abiding by the guidlines of the forum and that a person here could be a civil person and write something that is unacceptable in relation to the guidlines of the forum without being uncivil?
Yup.
I was thinking that someone could breech civility guidelines here even though what they said would not be considered uncivil IRL.
In other words that the term 'civil' was ambiguous. It has a special meaning here, and a slightly different one IRL.
I also worried that saying that someone was uncivil (in the IRL sense) was itself a breech in civility guidelines.
But...
After further thought the warning isn't 'you aren't be civil - so please be civil'. It is a request to 'please be civil' so doesn't imply that they weren't being uncivil. But I do think that that is how people take it. And understandably so when parts of their post are quoted back...And especially when you get 'you have been asked to be civil before so now I'm going to block you...' later.
Hmm....Civil - adequate in courtesy and politeness... Civil - often suggests little more than the avoidance of overt rudeness...
(Miriam Webster online).So it isn't that the term is ambiguous, it is that what is considered 'adequate in courtesy and politeness' varies across different settings...
So what is considered uncivil in one context may be considered civil in another...
I don't think there is a problem with the phrasing after all...
But...
I think
'please abide by the civility guidelines of this site' would be better.
Because it makes it clearer that civility is relative to context.And wouldn't it be against the civility guidelines of the site to say
'what you said was overtly rude'???
Yet that is what uncivil behaviour is according to Miriam Webster.Better to avoid that sort of confusion.
Maybe that sort of confusion is why PBC's can upset some people.
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 14, 2005, at 19:39:02
In reply to Re: Lou's response to alexandra_k's post, posted by alexandra_k on May 14, 2005, at 18:56:25
a_k,
You wrote,[...Yup...] and, [...{please abide by the civility guidlines of this site} would be better...].
In your opinion, would the following be even better?
The moderator could write, [...you wrote,{...} which has been determined as being unacceptable in relation to the guidlines of the forum...].
With this suggested format, the {...} would have the unacceptable statement in it. I think that the phrase,[...UNacceptable in relation to the Guidlines Of the Forum..., verse, [...civil...], could go along with your thinking.
So instead of a PBC, you could hve a UNGOF. What do you think?
Lou
Posted by alexandra_k on May 14, 2005, at 20:08:29
In reply to Lou's reply to alexandra_k- » alexandra_k, posted by Lou Pilder on May 14, 2005, at 19:39:02
> You wrote,[...Yup...] and, [...{please abide by the civility guidlines of this site} would be better...].
> In your opinion, would the following be even better?
> The moderator could write, [...you wrote,{...} which has been determined as being unacceptable in relation to the guidlines of the forum...].
> With this suggested format, the {...} would have the unacceptable statement in it. I think that the phrase,[...UNacceptable in relation to the Guidlines Of the Forum..., verse, [...civil...], could go along with your thinking.
But the second way of doing it makes it sound as though it is the particular phrase that was used that was considered to be a breech of civility guidelines of the site. But I think sometimes it might be the particular phrase in the context that it occured that might be the problem. This could be the case where the phrase is ambiguous and one of the senses would be considered uncivil while another might be considered civil. Whether the phrase gets a PBC or not would be a function fo the phrase in context.
> So instead of a PBC, you could hve a UNGOF. What do you think?
He he. I think UNGOF is funny. I'd better be careful not to say anything UNGOF :-)
Perhaps people who say things determined to be UNGOF could be referred to as UNGOFFERS???But then my acronym would be pretty funny too
:)
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 14, 2005, at 20:22:09
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to alexandra_k-, posted by alexandra_k on May 14, 2005, at 20:08:29
a_k,
You wrote,[...UNGOFFERS...] Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
On another note, you wrote,[... a function of the phrase in context...].
Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
What do you think about this hypothetical example, let's say, on the writing board?
Poster A: Do you like Kippling, poster B?
Poster B: I don't know , I've never Kippled.
Now the moderator could write: [...Poster B, you wrote,[...{I don't know, I've never Kippled}...] and it has been determined as unacceptable in relation to the guidlines of the forum to reply in a sarcastic manner.
What do you think?
Lou
Posted by alexandra_k on May 14, 2005, at 20:43:59
In reply to Lou's reply to alexandra_k's reply to Lou- » alexandra_k, posted by Lou Pilder on May 14, 2005, at 20:22:09
I didn't mean to be sarcastic Lou, if that is what you are getting at.
Really.
I was attempting to share a joke with you.
Sorry.
I do have a strange sense of humour sometimes.
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 14, 2005, at 20:50:04
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to alexandra_k's reply to Lou-, posted by alexandra_k on May 14, 2005, at 20:43:59
a_k,
Sorry that you thought that I thought that you were being sarcastic, for that wasn't in my mind in the post in question. I was trying to see if we could make our plan to have a new system work by my hypothetical example which included the part of the guidline of the forum that the statement was relevant to since I thought that you thought that that needed to be included to avoid any ambiguity. I appreciate your sence of humor here...
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on May 14, 2005, at 20:55:36
In reply to Lou's reply(2) to alexandra_k's reply to Lou- » alexandra_k, posted by Lou Pilder on May 14, 2005, at 20:50:04
Lou, I though that your reply was funny! Kippled! So you do have a sense of humor! Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by alexandra_k on May 14, 2005, at 21:57:08
In reply to Lou's reply(2) to alexandra_k's reply to Lou- » alexandra_k, posted by Lou Pilder on May 14, 2005, at 20:50:04
>Sorry that you thought that I thought that you were being sarcastic, for that wasn't in my mind in the post in question.
Oh. Phew. I'm glad you didn't feel offended.
>I was trying to see if we could make our plan to have a new system work by my hypothetical example which included the part of the guidline of the forum that the statement was relevant to since I thought that you thought that that needed to be included to avoid any ambiguity.
Ah.
I don't know Lou. I'm feeling a bit confused...
A bit brain dead.>I appreciate your sence of humor here...
:-)
I guess I don't really know you well enough to tell when you might be kidding or serious.What do other people think????
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.