![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 259 to 283 of 412. Go back in thread:
Posted by henrietta on March 22, 2006, at 2:21:15
In reply to Re: blocks, posted by special_k on March 21, 2006, at 23:41:51
Hi, Special.
It's late, I won't make much sense. Yes, I think it's more about the borderline cases and the severity of blocks. And a lot of other stuff
I haven't the wherewithal to go into at this time of night. (I really should be asleep. Other things on my mind, real life things.) Oh, I can't think....
Just wanted to say hi since I probably won't be able to check back in for a while. I'll be away. I hope you're well, or as well as possible.
You're in my thoughts.
hen
Posted by special_k on March 22, 2006, at 3:09:58
In reply to Re: blocks » special_k, posted by henrietta on March 22, 2006, at 2:21:15
Hey. I'll catch up with you when you get back :-)
Yeah it is hard...
Posted by AuntieMel on March 22, 2006, at 8:05:47
In reply to Re: Calling something or someone uncivil » Gabbix2, posted by gardenergirl on March 21, 2006, at 18:11:28
It was a long time ago, and it wasn't Emmy
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031120/msgs/297882.html
Posted by verne on March 22, 2006, at 8:53:45
In reply to Re: Calling something or someone uncivil » gardenergirl, posted by AuntieMel on March 22, 2006, at 8:05:47
Looking back at past threads that led to blocks I usually find an escalating debate at the heart of the problem. I'm not sure a support site for mental illness is the place to argue anything anyway.
I don't care if someone says, "Water runs uphill". Why would I need to fix their wagon and prove them wrong? Rather than argue with them about what they experience, I can share my own, more ordinary, downhill water experience with them.
Who feels better after even the most successful of debates? Everyone walks away wounded. There's a place to fix the world and a place to fix ourselves.
Rather than disagree, we can compare notes. The world as I know it, where water runs downhill, won't end if someone on the planet thinks otherwise.
Verne
Posted by gardenergirl on March 22, 2006, at 9:12:31
In reply to Re: Calling something or someone uncivil » gardenergirl, posted by AuntieMel on March 22, 2006, at 8:05:47
Posted by muffled on March 22, 2006, at 11:05:57
In reply to Re: ample warnings and chances given » ClearSkies, posted by zenhussy on March 21, 2006, at 16:45:19
Posted by Tabitha on March 22, 2006, at 11:18:41
In reply to When Fixing Wagons or the World, posted by verne on March 22, 2006, at 8:53:45
> Rather than disagree, we can compare notes. The world as I know it, where water runs downhill, won't end if someone on the planet thinks otherwise.
>Thanks for that, Verne. I really need to put that into practice.
Posted by 10derHeart on March 22, 2006, at 12:36:31
In reply to When Fixing Wagons or the World, posted by verne on March 22, 2006, at 8:53:45
Verne,
This is one of the wisest, most helpful posts I've ever read, any where, any time. I can't thank you enough for articulating these ideas here.
Really.
You are the best. So glad to see you posting!
:-)
Posted by TofuEmmy on March 22, 2006, at 19:11:42
In reply to Re: Calling something or someone uncivil » gardenergirl, posted by AuntieMel on March 22, 2006, at 8:05:47
> It was a long time ago, and it wasn't Emmy
>Holy tamale. Correct. I never accused anyone of "felonious criminal behaviour" or anything markedly close to that. I am not sure who suggested it. Sure gives some insight to my fine reputation here tho! ;-)
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 22, 2006, at 20:18:08
In reply to Re: Calling something or someone uncivil, posted by TofuEmmy on March 22, 2006, at 19:11:42
I think it was my mistake.
Larry's post had mentioned a D.N.P and then that statement and I thought he was referring to *that* situation.
But I don't think he was, I'm not sure what it was in reference too.sorry Emmy.
It wasn't your reputation!
Posted by TofuEmmy on March 23, 2006, at 5:24:38
In reply to Re: Calling something or someone uncivil » TofuEmmy, posted by Gabbix2 on March 22, 2006, at 20:18:08
Thx for clarifying. Not a problem. Hope all is daffodils in your land soon. Emmy
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 23, 2006, at 17:55:08
In reply to Re: Calling something or someone uncivil » Gabbix2, posted by TofuEmmy on March 23, 2006, at 5:24:38
IT was the least I could do.
I assumed that he was talking about your situation, when I first read it, that later on, when it came up, It never occured to me to actually check. Embarrassing, but a good reminder to me.
You know what they say happens when you ASSUME..
Things are getting pretty daffodilly for me
thanks!I hope things are going well for you too.
Posted by Jakeman on March 23, 2006, at 22:52:55
In reply to Re: blocks, posted by special_k on March 21, 2006, at 23:41:51
Loosen up the reins Bob. You know long time posters like Lar aren't here to inflict pain. No one knows what the rules are anymore.
~Jake.
Posted by gardenergirl on April 6, 2006, at 16:23:59
In reply to Re: blocks, posted by Jakeman on March 23, 2006, at 22:52:55
I still like the idea of some kind of flagging system that could be done when someone makes a post. I envision this as something that could be a tool to help a poster easily identify posts they make which might contain triggers. I think having this tool/resource available would be helpful and a good start. Making a policy about it, well....that's clearly more complicated.
I don't know if adding something like that to the posting form would be feasible. But I think it would be a great tool.
And I didn't want this topic to get lost since there were many ideas and thoughts contributed.
gg
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 2, 2006, at 11:46:45
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » Larry Hoover, posted by Dr. Bob on March 21, 2006, at 3:18:38
> > she accused me of felony criminal conduct, and other uncivil things. ... She called me a criminal
>
> > her uncivil comments
>
> Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused. Sorry, but I'm going to block you from posting for 6 weeks again.A number of intelligent and experienced posters have asked you to clarify just what it is that constituted the incivility in *my* use of language that *you* use all the time. I was quoting you, truth be told. Are there words that you can use, but others may not? And where is that, in the FAQ?
One of the responsibilities you took on, when you decided that only you could determine what is ultimately civil or not, is to clarify your arguments. Yet, you consistently and repeatedly fail to explain yourself, even when directly questioned about it. That is grossly uncivil. Please be civil, Bob.
This is a prime example of the disparity between that which you envision, and the true end result of your creation. Unless, of course, your validation is in the outcome itself. Your decision to block me did nothing but silence me. I see no evidence that anybody learned anything about civility through this example, if that was your true intent. I learned nothing, as Bobjectivity remains beyond the capabilities of even your most experienced deputies to define. All the time, we observe them deferring to you. Over and over again, we have to wait until Bob comes back. And, all of the time, virtually, you fail in your duty to guide us. By retaining such power, yet not leading effectively, you are not civil to all Babblers, not just those with questions.
Shortly after I was blocked, I saw ed_uk come under ad hominem assault, from a fairly new poster. As an experienced poster, it was Ed's duty to just suck it up, right? But, well within any definition of civility I have ever seen, and in fact, in an exemplary post, Ed civilly mentioned the "unkindness" in that other's posts, and he was blocked for it.
I haven't yet been in touch with Ed about it, but I am going to stake my intuition on declaring that I saw Ed wounded by your decision. I don't think Ed has been the same, ever since. You don't consider the unintended consequences of your idiosyncratic perception of civility. Ed spoke to his hurt in the minimum way possible, while still conveying his sense of offense. That is civility, to carry that message, a criticism, while doing so in the most gentle way available. It was an exemplary post, Bob, not a blocking offense.
It is similar to other of your acts, e.g. your creation of a Politics board. Do you not understand the meaning of the word politic? It is the taking of sides, sir, amongst other older meanings. Arguments pro *and* con.
Political debate involves two things. Advancing your own position, while weakening that of the others. Metaphorical teeter-totters of argument. Let us consider civility as teeter, and incivility as totter. You are saying we've lost half our field of debate, and must make do with only teeters. It is quite absurd. Moreover, you have declared that there is, in fact, a discrimination point between teetering and tottering, and, and this the key point, you "know it when (you) see it", (from the FAQ). If only you would be so kind as to declare precisely where that point is, so that intelligent and civil posters can position themselves accordingly. If you are going to redefine the English language, then you need to say so, explicitly and precisely. Where is the guidance?
One could reasonably argue that the Politics board was created so that you might never suffer a dearth of blockable posters. The "blocking percentage" of all posts to a board must be at a maximum on that particular board. Do you thrill at the kill, Dr. Bob?
The anger I released in this thread, some weeks back, sir, was all created by your various acts in which you failed to be civil to me, or to others on these boards. Your use of the operator "could", with respect to the meanings of words and their civility, is a particular bone of contention between us. You block me because you have a vivid imagination, sir. Here's how it goes.....
I post something with a pointed message. Provocative of further discourse, I would like to imagine it to be. And, upon reading my words, you ponder a moment, and you discover a non-zero probability that I might have had an uncivil meaning in mind. You then substitute the obvious meaning I intended with your own imagined meaning, and subsequently block me for that. You're not blocking what I said. You're blocking what you imagined. That is how it feels to me, that I have been blocked because you imagined a slight to another that was not intended. The only thing I learn from such blocks is that you have a sucky imagination.
In *my* sense of what is civil, where ambiguity arises in another's words, one does one of two things: A) one seeks a clarification, a rewording perhaps; or, B) one takes the more charitable meaning as the intent. Each time it arises, not once ever. In your regime, you only get one ambiguity? One lifetime ambiguity?
Moreover, and this is a critical point, civility as I know it rewards effort. Always. One shapes behaviour towards an ideal, and one both gives and receives reward for the effort expended. Under your regime, 99.9% perfection is total failure (i.e. "Block with his head" ....errrr, you know what I mean). It could come two weeks later......whammo! Educational? Not.
I have seen many sincere and emotional posts on this board since I was last blocked. From posters who were emotionally wounded by your determinations of civility, Dr. Bob. I, and all these others are asking you to consider the unintended consequences of the implimentation of your civility regime.
As you say, sir, you don't consider intent. How is it, then, that you hide behind your intent when adverse effects of your system are made known to you?
How is it that one year after I was blocked for a rule that doesn't exist, the FAQ is still not updated? Keeping that one in reserve, to nail somebody else?
How is it that I still don't have a clear idea of what you mean when you use the word civility? I cannot find a definition, anywhere, that comes close to yours. No civil system splits hairs.
Bobjectivity. I know it when I see it. And it makes me angry.
Lar
Posted by verne on May 2, 2006, at 16:14:32
In reply to Please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on May 2, 2006, at 11:46:45
Posted by jakeman on May 2, 2006, at 21:02:55
In reply to Please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on May 2, 2006, at 11:46:45
I've observed many times that blocks stimulate a chain reaction. With the end result being the block results in more more hurt feelings and more uncivility than the original "offense." Many times it's an offense that no one even cares about. Like someone saying "unkind" or my hypothetical statments on politics. Blocks are often needed, but these judgements should be combined with some reasonability.
You have to be careful about rules and hairspliting of them. (I'd like to post a history lesson but I'll refrain). They may be needed, but when the enforcement of the rule defeats its own purpose then it's time to lighten up.
warm regards, Jake
> > > she accused me of felony criminal conduct, and other uncivil things. ... She called me a criminal
> >
> > > her uncivil comments
> >
> > Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused. Sorry, but I'm going to block you from posting for 6 weeks again.
>
> A number of intelligent and experienced posters have asked you to clarify just what it is that constituted the incivility in *my* use of language that *you* use all the time. I was quoting you, truth be told. Are there words that you can use, but others may not? And where is that, in the FAQ?
>
> One of the responsibilities you took on, when you decided that only you could determine what is ultimately civil or not, is to clarify your arguments. Yet, you consistently and repeatedly fail to explain yourself, even when directly questioned about it. That is grossly uncivil. Please be civil, Bob.
>
> This is a prime example of the disparity between that which you envision, and the true end result of your creation. Unless, of course, your validation is in the outcome itself. Your decision to block me did nothing but silence me. I see no evidence that anybody learned anything about civility through this example, if that was your true intent. I learned nothing, as Bobjectivity remains beyond the capabilities of even your most experienced deputies to define. All the time, we observe them deferring to you. Over and over again, we have to wait until Bob comes back. And, all of the time, virtually, you fail in your duty to guide us. By retaining such power, yet not leading effectively, you are not civil to all Babblers, not just those with questions.
>
> Shortly after I was blocked, I saw ed_uk come under ad hominem assault, from a fairly new poster. As an experienced poster, it was Ed's duty to just suck it up, right? But, well within any definition of civility I have ever seen, and in fact, in an exemplary post, Ed civilly mentioned the "unkindness" in that other's posts, and he was blocked for it.
>
> I haven't yet been in touch with Ed about it, but I am going to stake my intuition on declaring that I saw Ed wounded by your decision. I don't think Ed has been the same, ever since. You don't consider the unintended consequences of your idiosyncratic perception of civility. Ed spoke to his hurt in the minimum way possible, while still conveying his sense of offense. That is civility, to carry that message, a criticism, while doing so in the most gentle way available. It was an exemplary post, Bob, not a blocking offense.
>
> It is similar to other of your acts, e.g. your creation of a Politics board. Do you not understand the meaning of the word politic? It is the taking of sides, sir, amongst other older meanings. Arguments pro *and* con.
>
> Political debate involves two things. Advancing your own position, while weakening that of the others. Metaphorical teeter-totters of argument. Let us consider civility as teeter, and incivility as totter. You are saying we've lost half our field of debate, and must make do with only teeters. It is quite absurd. Moreover, you have declared that there is, in fact, a discrimination point between teetering and tottering, and, and this the key point, you "know it when (you) see it", (from the FAQ). If only you would be so kind as to declare precisely where that point is, so that intelligent and civil posters can position themselves accordingly. If you are going to redefine the English language, then you need to say so, explicitly and precisely. Where is the guidance?
>
> One could reasonably argue that the Politics board was created so that you might never suffer a dearth of blockable posters. The "blocking percentage" of all posts to a board must be at a maximum on that particular board. Do you thrill at the kill, Dr. Bob?
>
> The anger I released in this thread, some weeks back, sir, was all created by your various acts in which you failed to be civil to me, or to others on these boards. Your use of the operator "could", with respect to the meanings of words and their civility, is a particular bone of contention between us. You block me because you have a vivid imagination, sir. Here's how it goes.....
>
> I post something with a pointed message. Provocative of further discourse, I would like to imagine it to be. And, upon reading my words, you ponder a moment, and you discover a non-zero probability that I might have had an uncivil meaning in mind. You then substitute the obvious meaning I intended with your own imagined meaning, and subsequently block me for that. You're not blocking what I said. You're blocking what you imagined. That is how it feels to me, that I have been blocked because you imagined a slight to another that was not intended. The only thing I learn from such blocks is that you have a sucky imagination.
>
> In *my* sense of what is civil, where ambiguity arises in another's words, one does one of two things: A) one seeks a clarification, a rewording perhaps; or, B) one takes the more charitable meaning as the intent. Each time it arises, not once ever. In your regime, you only get one ambiguity? One lifetime ambiguity?
>
> Moreover, and this is a critical point, civility as I know it rewards effort. Always. One shapes behaviour towards an ideal, and one both gives and receives reward for the effort expended. Under your regime, 99.9% perfection is total failure (i.e. "Block with his head" ....errrr, you know what I mean). It could come two weeks later......whammo! Educational? Not.
>
> I have seen many sincere and emotional posts on this board since I was last blocked. From posters who were emotionally wounded by your determinations of civility, Dr. Bob. I, and all these others are asking you to consider the unintended consequences of the implimentation of your civility regime.
>
> As you say, sir, you don't consider intent. How is it, then, that you hide behind your intent when adverse effects of your system are made known to you?
>
> How is it that one year after I was blocked for a rule that doesn't exist, the FAQ is still not updated? Keeping that one in reserve, to nail somebody else?
>
> How is it that I still don't have a clear idea of what you mean when you use the word civility? I cannot find a definition, anywhere, that comes close to yours. No civil system splits hairs.
>
> Bobjectivity. I know it when I see it. And it makes me angry.
>
> Lar
>
>
>
>
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 3, 2006, at 12:26:57
In reply to Please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on May 2, 2006, at 11:46:45
> > > she accused me of felony criminal conduct, and other uncivil things. ... She called me a criminal
> >
> > > her uncivil comments
> >
> > Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused.
>
> A number of intelligent and experienced posters have asked you to clarify just what it is that constituted the incivility in *my* use of language that *you* use all the time.
>
> all of the time, virtually, you fail in your duty to guide us.What I considered uncivil was that she could have felt accused. Of being accusatory and of being uncivil.
Guidance is always available. For example, in this case, I think one alternative way of expressing yourself could have been:
> > While I was blocked, she posted something, and I felt accused of felony criminal conduct, and other uncivil things. That post sat there for nearly two weeks, until my block ended. It just sat there. When I replied to that post, I worded my rebuttal in such a way as to be blocked again. She posted something else, I felt accused again, and I questioned her ethics, posting that while she knew I was blocked. I got blocked again. She got nothing, again, even though I retained her comments by quoting them in my own post, and directly speaking of them.
> Do you not understand the meaning of the word politic? It is the taking of sides, sir, amongst other older meanings. Arguments pro *and* con.
>
> Political debate involves two things. Advancing your own position, while weakening that of the others. Metaphorical teeter-totters of argument. Let us consider civility as teeter, and incivility as totter. You are saying we've lost half our field of debate, and must make do with only teeters.That's one way to look at it. Think of it as "totter control".
> I post something with a pointed message. Provocative of further discourse, I would like to imagine it to be. And, upon reading my words, you ponder a moment, and you discover a non-zero probability that I might have had an uncivil meaning in mind. You then substitute the obvious meaning I intended with your own imagined meaning, and subsequently block me for that. You're not blocking what I said. You're blocking what you imagined. That is how it feels to me, that I have been blocked because you imagined a slight to another that was not intended. The only thing I learn from such blocks is that you have a sucky imagination.
The issue isn't the meaning you have in mind, it's how other people could be affected by your post. Have you learned that when messages are more pointed, my imagination is more sucky?
> How is it that one year after I was blocked for a rule that doesn't exist, the FAQ is still not updated?
Sorry, what rule is that? I know the FAQ needs revising...
> Bobjectivity. I know it when I see it. And it makes me angry.
It's OK to be angry. Just try to be civil at the same time. Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 3, 2006, at 14:35:20
In reply to Re: just what it is that constitutes incivility, posted by Dr. Bob on May 3, 2006, at 12:26:57
> > > > she accused me of felony criminal conduct, and other uncivil things. ... She called me a criminal
> > >
> > > > her uncivil comments
> > >
> > > Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused.
> >
> > A number of intelligent and experienced posters have asked you to clarify just what it is that constituted the incivility in *my* use of language that *you* use all the time.
> >
> > all of the time, virtually, you fail in your duty to guide us.
>
> What I considered uncivil was that she could have felt accused. Of being accusatory and of being uncivil.
>
> Guidance is always available. For example, in this case, I think one alternative way of expressing yourself could have been:
>
> > > While I was blocked, she posted something, and I felt accused of felony criminal conduct, and other uncivil things. That post sat there for nearly two weeks, until my block ended. It just sat there. When I replied to that post, I worded my rebuttal in such a way as to be blocked again.You are begging the question. Petitio principii.
> She posted something else, I felt accused again, and I questioned her ethics, posting that while she knew I was blocked. I got blocked again. She got nothing, again, even though I retained her comments by quoting them in my own post, and directly speaking of them.
And it took me how long, exactly, to get you to discuss this at all?
Moreover, it again evades the discussion of just what constitutes civility, or its absence. It presumes that I agree with your determination of that entity, which is called petitio principii. It is a logical fallacy to restate the same assumption as an explanation for the assumption being questioned. It doesn't clarify anything, yet. I spoke civilly, sir. A negative connotation is not inherently uncivil, or is that your premise? Please state your premises clearly, sir, as they differ from those meanings more commonly held.
>
> > Do you not understand the meaning of the word politic? It is the taking of sides, sir, amongst other older meanings. Arguments pro *and* con.
> >
> > Political debate involves two things. Advancing your own position, while weakening that of the others. Metaphorical teeter-totters of argument. Let us consider civility as teeter, and incivility as totter. You are saying we've lost half our field of debate, and must make do with only teeters.
>
> That's one way to look at it. Think of it as "totter control".The issue is not totter control, sir. It is in the placement of the boundary. It is indistinct, in the eyes of Babblers. If only we had your erudition and insight, we would understand on first pass. Where precisely is the boundary, sir?
> > I post something with a pointed message. Provocative of further discourse, I would like to imagine it to be. And, upon reading my words, you ponder a moment, and you discover a non-zero probability that I might have had an uncivil meaning in mind. You then substitute the obvious meaning I intended with your own imagined meaning, and subsequently block me for that. You're not blocking what I said. You're blocking what you imagined. That is how it feels to me, that I have been blocked because you imagined a slight to another that was not intended. The only thing I learn from such blocks is that you have a sucky imagination.
>
> The issue isn't the meaning you have in mind, it's how other people could be affected by your post."Could be". Precisely. Again, your restate your premise as if that itself is explicatory. The operator "could" does not give you license with other people's words. You have gone far, far, beyond the balance of probabilities.
You quite ignored clear evidence that one particular post was hurtful both to its poster and to its target. You reversed the decision of a deputy. I don't see you respecting "could be affected", in any way, shape, or form. I see imperial prerogative. You aren't the Wizard of Oz.
>Have you learned that when messages are more pointed, my imagination is more sucky?
No. It feels random. It feels capricious and arbitrary. It feels Bobbish. I don't mind being honestly blocked. The only time I felt I deserved it, you reversed your decision. I'm not arguing out of perverseness, sir. I argue with you because I cannot fathom your decisions. I argue because you are wrong. On those occasions where others have stood by me, they do so not because I am popular, but because they also felt you were wrong.
Have you ever seen me argue an obvious case? No, and you never shall. As I said, and you ignored, civility rewards effort. Civility is exemplified in things like, "Tie goes to the runner." Please be civil, sir, and acknowledge honest effort.
> > How is it that one year after I was blocked for a rule that doesn't exist, the FAQ is still not updated?
>
> Sorry, what rule is that?Precisely. Please be civil, and attend to things in a timely manner. I have asked you to address this no less than six separate times now, over an extended time frame, not always in this public forum.
I speak of the non-harassment version of the DNP rule. The one you imagined was changed, somehow. You blocked me for it. Don't you remember? Don't your write things down, in the FAQ? Please be civil, and ensure that you only enforce rules that are described in your FAQ.
> I know the FAQ needs revising...
And still, it remains unrevised. What is your plan? How do you expect that to be accomplished? What is your target date? Who will do this? Please be civil, and attend to all matters requiring your guidance in a timely manner.
>
> > Bobjectivity. I know it when I see it. And it makes me angry.
>
> It's OK to be angry. Just try to be civil at the same time. Thanks,
>
> BobIf only you would do so, as well, things would not get the way they are.
You did not address the example I made of Ed's thoroughly civil message which resulted in a block. Please be civil, and address all questions put to you.
Nor did you address the issue I raised about seeking clarity or rewordings on each example in which you discover ambiguity of meaning, rather than once ever. Please be civil, and answer each question put to you by your humble Babblers. Or show some true leadership, and delegate.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 3, 2006, at 15:14:14
In reply to Re: just what it is that constitutes incivility, posted by Dr. Bob on May 3, 2006, at 12:26:57
What I discovered, upon seeking some support on the issue of triggering posts, was that people felt unable to support a new initiative, given that BABBLE WAS ALREADY A MESS. Sorry for yelling.
There is too much yet undone, to even consider the addition of more......no matter how reasonable the proposal may (or may not) be. It could not be argued on its merits.
I am not being "down on Bob", with any personal intent, other than to get your attention. Attention is a whole lot, Bob. I do not mean to make you ever feel oppressed by my presence here. Yet, I have found the need to become the squeaky wheel. Hear me squeak?
I am immensely grateful for having this place to come to. I wish I could turn my energy over to positive works within this place. But instead, I find myself caught up in minutae of existence.
Babble is a huge thing. You have a full-time (and more), demanding life as a professional. You also have taken this on, and I commend you for your commitment, and your patience, both.
Your leadership would now best be expressed by delegation of your authority. It is too much for just one Bob.
I am not angry, Bob, at you. I am angry at the administrative challenges that have been created by our history. By the fluke of experience. By good intentions gone astray. By unintended consequences.
They are no one's fault, unless good (wo)men (meant to be gender inclusive) do nothing to set them right.
I see an eagerness to do just that. All we need, really, is permission.
In great respect, Bob.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 4, 2006, at 10:06:54
In reply to Addenda » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on May 3, 2006, at 15:14:14
Sorry, Bob doesn't like things posted in two places, so here's a link: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20060422/msgs/639201.html
Lar
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 5, 2006, at 0:01:44
In reply to Please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on May 3, 2006, at 14:35:20
> You quite ignored clear evidence that one particular post was hurtful both to its poster and to its target. You reversed the decision of a deputy.
What decision was that? I don't like to reverse their decisions, but sometimes I may think things may be more consistent if I do.
Whether someone's hurt is important, but isn't the only issue. A particular person could feel hurt, and I still could consider it a civil post. OTOH, a particular person could not feel hurt, and I still could consider it an uncivil post.
> >Have you learned that when messages are more pointed, my imagination is more sucky?
>
> No. It feels random. It feels capricious and arbitrary. It feels Bobbish.Does it feel reminiscent of any other situations?
> civility rewards effort. Civility is exemplified in things like, "Tie goes to the runner."
Ties may, but what if it isn't even a tie? And what about the effort the other side makes?
> > > How is it that one year after I was blocked for a rule that doesn't exist, the FAQ is still not updated?
>
> I speak of the non-harassment version of the DNP rule.Sorry, I know that's overdue. There are other DNP changes I'd like to make, so I'm planning on making them all together. Also, there are other changes that are even higher priorities.
> You did not address the example I made of Ed's thoroughly civil message which resulted in a block.
I guess we disagree here, too. I didn't think it was civil and explained why at the time.
> Nor did you address the issue I raised about seeking clarity or rewordings on each example in which you discover ambiguity of meaning, rather than once ever.
I think it's better if wordings are clearly and unambiguously civil in the first place.
Thanks for trying to understand the system and for suggesting improvements,
Bob
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 5, 2006, at 12:47:59
In reply to Re: effort, posted by Dr. Bob on May 5, 2006, at 0:01:44
> > You quite ignored clear evidence that one particular post was hurtful both to its poster and to its target. You reversed the decision of a deputy.
>
> What decision was that?How many hurtful post removals/deputy reversals have there been, sir? Do you not recall it? The wounds are still fresh from it.
> I don't like to reverse their decisions, but sometimes I may think things may be more consistent if I do.
And what if the decision to honour consistency over hurtfulness turned a belated right back into a wrong?
> Whether someone's hurt is important, but isn't the only issue. A particular person could feel hurt, and I still could consider it a civil post. OTOH, a particular person could not feel hurt, and I still could consider it an uncivil post.You have concisely described the situation. It is the first person aspects of the situation which are at issue.
I am grateful for the imposition of civility here. But where you see a simple smooth boundary line betwixt it and incivility, that specific line, the one you have chosen (the one I have called Bobjectivity), is quite jagged and irregular and fragmented, in the eyes of others. I don't mean to generalize my condition to that of others, but based on my experiences, your current process of teaching that which you think is self-evident, is about as effective as disciplining a dog three hours after he's gotten into the garbage. The dog doesn't understand what's gone wrong with his world. The garbage is still all over the room. Everything simply gets worse, for no good reason. And then, you go and leave the dog alone with the garbage, again.
An example of Bobjectivity, from your last post.
You said:
"The issue isn't the meaning you have in mind, it's how other people could be affected by your post. Have you learned that when messages are more pointed, my imagination is more sucky?"I'll come back to my statement, the one I had made to you which engendered your words, in a moment. Let's first look at your statement. Let's consider the issue of bias.
Your words tell me that five near misses (or some other threshold, whatever it is) is more or less equivalent to one clear block. However, there should be no trend whatsoever, unless you are also measuring your own shift in perceptual state. You have become prejudiced against me, if there is any trend at all. The strength of that correlation is a measure of *your bias*. And, to the extent to which you allow that bias to influence your decision-making capabilities, it no longer measures a variable under my control. As I said, you block me based on your imagination. And, re-iterating what I said earlier, the progenator phrases,
I said:
"That is how it feels to me, that I have been blocked because you imagined a slight to another that was not intended. The only thing I learn from such blocks is that you have a sucky imagination."And that is proven by your response. Not only do you allow "close call" bias to creep into your judgments, I also feel that you treat me more harshly because I am popular. I don't feel as if I get a fair hearing from you, and I am unable to disentangle these two emotional responses to your acts. When you are generous to me, you do it for the wrong reasons. In full honesty, I am indignant, with one reason for that being a little bit nobler than the other.
Another quote you made, in the last post: "Guidance is always available."
You don't mind if I find this humorous, do you? If only it was. If only you were. Timeliness is far more important than you seem to think it is. Your lack of timeliness is perhaps your most uncivil act towards us, collectively.
> > >Have you learned that when messages are more pointed, my imagination is more sucky?
> >
> > No. It feels random. It feels capricious and arbitrary. It feels Bobbish.
>
> Does it feel reminiscent of any other situations?That felt like a low blow. This isn't a "baggage" situation.
Your acts feel capricious and arbitrary to me. Period. That is not because someone else also behaved capriciously and arbitrarily around me.
> > civility rewards effort. Civility is exemplified in things like, "Tie goes to the runner."
>
> Ties may, but what if it isn't even a tie? And what about the effort the other side makes?The effort made by what other side? When you're dissecting an individual post made by me, of what relevance is another's effort? Are you saying that if another person is more skilled at Bobjectivity, that I must be blocked in consequence? I feel like I have been set up for a block, before, so your comment really shouldn't surprise me. What I cannot believe is that you think that it bolsters your position.
Civility rewards effort, but you don't. I'm asking you why that is. I'm asking you to reconcile your site definition to other commonly held meanings for the word civility.
>
> > > > How is it that one year after I was blocked for a rule that doesn't exist, the FAQ is still not updated?
> >
> > I speak of the non-harassment version of the DNP rule.
>
> Sorry, I know that's overdue. There are other DNP changes I'd like to make, so I'm planning on making them all together. Also, there are other changes that are even higher priorities.I am grateful for this update. At least I got something out of you.
You persist in "taking credit" for intending to do these things. I grow weary of the wait. Truly.
Maintenance here has been sorely lacking. I know it is a huge job, now. But it's only going to get bigger, if we don't get at it. You want your finger in every pie. I get it. It's your sandbox. <drumming fingers>
>
> > You did not address the example I made of Ed's thoroughly civil message which resulted in a block.
>
> I guess we disagree here, too. I didn't think it was civil and explained why at the time.
You restated your flawed premises. You did not explain it.There are ways to describe situations which only use descriptive language. When something varies along a continuum, we often have different words for the different ends of the scale. E.g. rich/poor or high/low. Or we may use comparators, to describe relative position on those individual continua....richer/poorer or higher/lower. There isn't any inherent inference in the use of these words. There is a simple descriptive aspect to them, which can often be, but is not necessarily, embellished with emotive content. Stripped clean, they are entirely civil. As Ed used the word, for example.
Civil discourse, at least in so far as I learned it, up in the wilds of Canada, permits simple descriptors. One is permitted to describe what one sees, provided that one remains in the descriptive realm. Your system appears to assume that the recipient of any (some value less than 50% on the continuum) descriptor is going to take it personally, as an ad hominem criticism. Your system assumes a state of mind that therapists, for example, encourage their clients to avoid. Moreover, your system then projects this flawed thinking back onto the author, presuming intent?, and embellishes the whole thing with a block. I should imagine all of this, before posting?
When I described certain passages as uncivil, six weeks back, I was quoting you. I again ask the question, is there language that only you can use here? If so, then, what is it? Let us have the list, if you will.
And, would you see to it that your FAQ carries a clear description of this novel definition for civility? Civilized Canadians are having trouble with your Bobwellian version.
> > Nor did you address the issue I raised about seeking clarity or rewordings on each example in which you discover ambiguity of meaning, rather than once ever.
>
> I think it's better if wordings are clearly and unambiguously civil in the first place.What you are saying is that you don't like having to even decide where civility is, or is not. Funny, that, but I wish you didn't have to either. I keep tripping over your ambiguities in places I never expected to find them.
> Thanks for trying to understand the system and for suggesting improvements,
>
> BobI made a number of suggestions, some weeks back. I trust you made notes. Just as you presume every poster here has memorized every post that you have ever made, I do expect the same presumption in return.
Sir, the issues I have been raising are all about unintended consequences. Your intended consequences seem reasonable enough. It's those other ones. The unintended consequences. You seem to not even care. I would like to see you seem like you do.
Thanks.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 6, 2006, at 7:23:48
In reply to Re: effort, posted by Dr. Bob on May 5, 2006, at 0:01:44
Posted by AuntieMel on May 6, 2006, at 13:21:15
In reply to Re: just what it is that constitutes incivility, posted by Dr. Bob on May 3, 2006, at 12:26:57
Cripes. I had this nearly finished and hit the wrong button and lost it.
One of the things stressed in school is the difference between fact and opinion.
Please note that all the following is my opinion.
A reasonable debate can discuss facts, even negative ones, and still be civil, while stating negative opinions is usually uncivil.
Saying "our current president was a drunk" is a fact, even one he has acknowledged himself.
Saying "our current president is hot stuff" is opinion, but not uncivil because it isn't negative.
What you are proposing as an alternate phrasing:
"While I was blocked, she posted something, and I felt accused of felony criminal conduct, and other uncivil things" actually is turning a fact into an opinion.
Her phrasing was:
I am not suprised at all that he has overstepped his bounds. Sometimes I thought he could have been sued for the claims he made about products he uses. He sometimes behaves like a pdoc....telling all what they should take and not take. I was repeatedly surprised that this was *okay*. If he decided what someone should take then he would give a dose level....well that sure looked like perscribing to me. I am amazed how he got as far as he got. I have seen people sued for less.
This is her stating her *opinion* that he broke the law. Lar's statement is, however, correct - she was actually accusing him of breaking the law.
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.