![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 284 to 308 of 412. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by gardenergirl on May 9, 2006, at 12:42:02
In reply to Re: helping, posted by Dr. Bob on May 9, 2006, at 10:26:43
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060225/msgs/620391.html
I can't think of anything to add to the list.
gg
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 10, 2006, at 13:24:38
In reply to Was this where we left off on the topic?, posted by gardenergirl on May 9, 2006, at 12:42:02
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060225/msgs/620391.html
>
> I can't think of anything to add to the list.
>
> ggLooks like it to me.
Then there was the issue about what constituted a triggerable version of those sorts. How to phrase the difference between hypothetical and evocative language. Realistic portrayal?
To talk about e.g. self-harm as a behaviour in general is different than discussing an instance thereof.
Lar
Posted by gardenergirl on May 10, 2006, at 22:34:40
In reply to Re: Was this where we left off on the topic? » gardenergirl, posted by Larry Hoover on May 10, 2006, at 13:24:38
> Then there was the issue about what constituted a triggerable version of those sorts. How to phrase the difference between hypothetical and evocative language. Realistic portrayal?
>
> To talk about e.g. self-harm as a behaviour in general is different than discussing an instance thereof.I agree. I tend to be triggered by the highly evocative and more descriptive posts versus a post about the behavior as a concept. That does seem like a difficult line to draw. I suppose one way might be to alert others to any kind of description of an act or event versus talking about the idea in general. Providing any details at all starts one down the path of "seeing" it themselves, perhaps.
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 11, 2006, at 3:56:09
In reply to Re: Was this where we left off on the topic? » Larry Hoover, posted by gardenergirl on May 10, 2006, at 22:34:40
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 11, 2006, at 9:14:50
In reply to Re: Was this where we left off on the topic? » Larry Hoover, posted by gardenergirl on May 10, 2006, at 22:34:40
> I suppose one way might be to alert others to any kind of description of an act or event versus talking about the idea in general. Providing any details at all starts one down the path of "seeing" it themselves, perhaps.
>
> ggWhich is why I reached the conclusion that a mandatory consideration thereof would be most effective as a warning process. And I know others quaked at the thought of mandatory anything, so.....but who better, than the author?
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 11, 2006, at 11:42:19
In reply to Re: thanks for getting back to that (nm), posted by Dr. Bob on May 11, 2006, at 3:56:09
Dr. Bob, I want you to know that I stand behind your intent 100%. What separates us is not ill will. It is, I surmise, a separateness of comprehension, at its root level. Of all the things I've ever tried to understand, outside of my own existence, this construct you have called civility has occupied me more than any other thing, ever. And it's not because civility itself is incomprehensible to me. It occupies me because of the differentness itself, this separateness of comprehension. If only we could, if only I could, find a common understanding, all the rest would simply fall into place. And we could each attend to other things.
The inherent imbalance in power between us only complicates things. When posters draw attention to your power, I do hope that you appreciate the symbolic and pragmatic inequality that permeates all discourse. When people pose questions to you, replying with a question is perhaps the very worst thing you could do. Your guidance, your leadership, are inseparable from the power you wield. Clarity is what eludes me. I would not question your exercise of power, if I understood it.
Unintended consequences are neither irrelevant, nor unavoidable. However, if they were avoided, they would no longer have relevance. Placing sole responsibility on the poster is not a good exercise of leadership. There is a pattern in these unintended consequences, and changes in management also influence incidence of these consequences. An unintended consequence of your management structure is that it all falls on you.
I am sorry that I made that so very clear, Dr. Bob. I regret treating you as if you were not a person, like myself. I regret treating you as if you were nothing more than a caricature, just another Internet personna. The impending Babblefest gathering in Toronto showed me that I had two versions of you in my mind and heart. One was an illusion, a cardboard cutout to fire verbal darts towards, a blow up doll to figuratively punch. I spoke here to that illusory version. I expect to meet the real one, soon. I'm sorry that I ever forgot that they are one and the same. I'm sorry, Dr. Bob.
Humbly,
Lar
Posted by MidnightBlue on May 11, 2006, at 13:38:14
In reply to Was this where we left off on the topic?, posted by gardenergirl on May 9, 2006, at 12:42:02
Okay I have a dumb idea. I think part of the problem is that people don't realize what they are writing is a trigger. Or they are posting so quickly they don't think about it.
Would it be possible to write a computer program that would search for trigger words, then instead of automatically marking the message with a flag, ask the writer if what they are writing could be a trigger?
In other words, if I write something about suicide and I don't think (or don't care) that someone might be hurt by what I say, before it is posted, the computer would ask me if I have written something that might trigger someone else. I could still mark "no" and it would be posted, but that message might carry an invisible "flag" that Dr. Bob or the deputies could see that would suggest they might want to check it out. I could also choose to flag a message myself if I thought/knew it might be triggering.
This is what I see as one step "below" an automatic flagging system, and one step above letting the person choose to flag their own message. It builds in a step to help you think.
No, this wouldn't catch everything, but it might be a step in the right direction.
MidnightBlue
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.