![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 277 to 301 of 412. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by zeugma on May 6, 2006, at 14:16:29
In reply to Re: effort » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on May 5, 2006, at 12:47:59
damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer.
Civility is a dangerous concept. All the more so because it denies so strenuously that it can be.
-z
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 6, 2006, at 15:47:53
In reply to Re: fact vs opinion » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on May 6, 2006, at 13:21:15
> 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 see it as a simple distinction at all. Not in practice, anyway.
> Your words tell me that five near misses (or some other threshold, whatever it is) is more or less equivalent to one clear block.
Equivalent in what way?
> You have become prejudiced against me, if there is any trend at all.
The more times someone's been reminded of the guidelines, the more familiar with them I expect them to be, that's true...
> "Guidance is always available."
>
> You don't mind if I find this humorous, do you? If only it was. If only you were.Guidance isn't only available from me...
> > Does it feel reminiscent of any other situations?
>
> That felt like a low blow. This isn't a "baggage" situation.OK, sorry about that.
> > > civility rewards effort. Civility is exemplified in things like, "Tie goes to the runner."
> >
> > what about the effort the other side makes?
>
> The effort made by what other side?The side trying to throw the runner out.
> 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.
Here, however, there's totter control.
> I should imagine all of this, before posting?
It might decrease your chances of being blocked again...
> 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?
Do I often describe passages as uncivil?
> 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.
>
> Larry HooverI care, but for now, anyway, I'm willing to accept the unintended consequences. Like I might accept the side effects of a medication that in other ways helps.
--
> A reasonable debate can discuss facts, even negative ones, and still be civil, while stating negative opinions is usually uncivil.
>
> AuntieMelIMO, stating negative facts can be uncivil, too. In general, for example, I don't think I'd consider it civil to call someone a drunk even if they've called themselves that.
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on May 6, 2006, at 17:41:51
In reply to Re: civility, posted by Dr. Bob on May 6, 2006, at 15:47:53
If I just called someone a drunk off the top of my head, you are right - that is not civil.
But if I cited something like that as backup for something else I am saying it's a bit different.
Posted by Deneb on May 6, 2006, at 17:48:58
In reply to Re: civility, posted by Dr. Bob on May 6, 2006, at 15:47:53
> I care, but for now, anyway, I'm willing to accept the unintended consequences. Like I might accept the side effects of a medication that in other ways helps.
Dr. Bob cares! Isn't that great? Wow, Dr. Bob sure wrote a write to you Larry! He really took the time to read and understand what you wrote. I didn't even read what you wrote, I just don't have the attention for it I guess, but Dr. Bob does. I wish Dr. Bob would write that much to me, but it's okay, I'm not jealous.
I think it's very significant that Dr. Bob responds to you Larry. He may not agree on some things, but at least you know he's listening.
Yikes, he's listening...LOL
Deneb*
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 6, 2006, at 20:31:59
In reply to Re: civility, posted by Dr. Bob on May 6, 2006, at 15:47:53
Dr. Bob, I'm going to ask you to do me a favour, and that is to try and work with me on taking this in another direction. I'm going to zip my lips for a while, and ask you to give some thought to finding some way for me to help you. If you have any ideas in that regard, I'd happily entertain them.
With Babblefest '06 fast approaching (where has the time gone; it feels as if I've lost six weeks, or something), it's time to focus on other matters entirely.
Strange as it may seem, I had compartmentalized my brain such that 'matters of Babble' Bob had become separated from Dr. Robert Hsiung, Psychiatrist, coming to Toronto for a professional convention.
I do look forward to meeting you, shaking your hand, and thanking you for putting up with me.
If there's anything I can do to help, just let me know.
Lar
Posted by Deneb on May 6, 2006, at 21:19:16
In reply to Re: civility » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on May 6, 2006, at 20:31:59
> Strange as it may seem, I had compartmentalized my brain such that 'matters of Babble' Bob had become separated from Dr. Robert Hsiung, Psychiatrist, coming to Toronto for a professional convention.
That is a little strange. :-) I would imagine that it might be a little confusing for Dr. Bob. I haven't separated Dr. Bob into two. To me, I'm going to meet the Dr. Bob I love. LOL (((((Dr. Bob)))) Are you going to call Dr. Bob, Robert? It will feel weird to call Dr. Bob something other than Dr. Bob. (((((Robert))))) just doesn't have the same ring to it. LOL
> I do look forward to meeting you, shaking your hand, and thanking you for putting up with me.
I'm going to ask to give Dr. Bob a small hug. I'm going to apologize for my threats. Apologizing in person might mean more.
> If there's anything I can do to help, just let me know.
Me too Dr. Bob. Is there anything I can do to help?
Deneb*
Posted by Estella on May 6, 2006, at 22:33:16
In reply to Re: Yes and no » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on May 6, 2006, at 17:41:51
> If I just called someone a drunk off the top of my head, you are right - that is not civil.
> But if I cited something like that as backup for something else I am saying it's a bit different.
Not according to Bob. Sometimes the facts are uncivil. And it doesn't matter how much evidence you have for them... Sometimes the facts are uncivil.
And there it is.
Posted by Estella on May 6, 2006, at 22:40:55
In reply to civility » Larry Hoover, posted by zeugma on May 6, 2006, at 14:16:29
> damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer.
> Civility is a dangerous concept. All the more so because it denies so strenuously that it can be.Though you can be blocked if Bob perceives you to be sarcastic...
Be careful z.
Posted by Dinah on May 7, 2006, at 3:12:56
In reply to Re: civility » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on May 6, 2006, at 20:31:59
I so regret going to the party this year, not least because it would have been a chance to meet you and your buttertarts.
I hope y'all have a great time, and I hope that one day chance will find me in your neck of the woods and we can get a chance to meet.
Posted by zeugma on May 7, 2006, at 8:20:03
In reply to Re: civility » zeugma, posted by Estella on May 6, 2006, at 22:40:55
> > damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer.
>
> > Civility is a dangerous concept. All the more so because it denies so strenuously that it can be.
>
> Though you can be blocked if Bob perceives you to be sarcastic...
>
> Be careful z.
>
>
thanks Ethis board is an experiment
a work in progress
think of those long-term trials of antidepressants against placebo which David Healy says "were not without some cost in lives"
that doesn't mean we should blame a placebo for being what it is one can hardly say sugar in those doses is fatal. the problem is elsewhere
it remains to be established that this board is as profitable in keeping people alive as amitriptyline or lithium, these drugs are not for everyone either. dilemmas of psychiatry
-z
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 7, 2006, at 10:32:01
In reply to Re: effort, posted by Dr. Bob on May 5, 2006, at 0:01:44
Just on a point of clarity, given that I embedded what I hoped would be seen as a funny comment within my last message, I wish to restate what I already did. I see my humour could have been felt as being something else, so....
I don't think I will ever understand the rules here, and I don't think Bob will ever understand why that is. No point wasting effort on those goals, then.
Effort is the part of the thread to which I returned. Effort.
Dr. Bob, I want trigger flags. I want some kind of a commitment to reconsider the blocking scheme, to make it part of a program of enhanced guidance here. How may I help?
And, if there are other volunteers, let us now speak up.
You may contact me privately, if you wish, Dr. Bob. But I'd like to receive a reply.
Lar
Posted by madeline on May 7, 2006, at 11:10:40
In reply to Re: effort » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on May 7, 2006, at 10:32:01
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 7, 2006, at 11:34:35
In reply to Re: effort » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on May 7, 2006, at 10:32:01
More succinctly, I don't learn well by osmosis. I am hoping to learn by doing. If I can help you with any task, Bob, I'll do my best.
Lar
Posted by zeugma on May 7, 2006, at 11:51:20
In reply to Re: effort, posted by Larry Hoover on May 7, 2006, at 11:34:35
my very simple piece of advice would be to remove the political board until such time as the simple posting of facts, positive or negative, is accepted.
And failing that, no politics board. Saying a Politics board must be limited to 'positive' facts does more than create a teeter without a totter, it becomes frighteningly reminescent of an Orwellian dystopia.
Which, as an American, is of particular concern to me at the moment.
-z
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 7, 2006, at 12:42:26
In reply to Re: effort » Larry Hoover, posted by zeugma on May 7, 2006, at 11:51:20
> And failing that, no politics board. Saying a Politics board must be limited to 'positive' facts does more than create a teeter without a totter, it becomes frighteningly reminescent of an Orwellian dystopia.
Indeed. The politics board is not one.
Totter control. Orwellian. No doubt.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 7, 2006, at 12:43:19
In reply to Re: effort, posted by Larry Hoover on May 7, 2006, at 11:34:35
More succinctly yet, how may I help?
Lar
Posted by alesta on May 8, 2006, at 13:02:24
In reply to Re: effort » zeugma, posted by Larry Hoover on May 7, 2006, at 12:42:26
> > And failing that, no politics board. Saying a Politics board must be limited to 'positive' facts does more than create a teeter without a totter, it becomes frighteningly reminescent of an Orwellian dystopia.
shoo...i said basically the same thing myself long ago when there was merely talk of a politics board...much good did it do, though. guess that's why i gave up investing in administrative concerns...
i agree zee!
:)
amy
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 9, 2006, at 10:26:43
In reply to Re: effort » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on May 7, 2006, at 10:32:01
> Dr. Bob, I want trigger flags. I want some kind of a commitment to reconsider the blocking scheme, to make it part of a program of enhanced guidance here. How may I help?
Thanks for asking. You can always help by supporting others. :-)
I don't think we ever decided what triggers should be flagged, it would also be progress if we could move toward some consensus regarding that...
Bob
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.