![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 55 to 79 of 89. Go back in thread:
Posted by Sigismund on February 4, 2009, at 16:39:15
In reply to Re: Politicspeak » Sigismund, posted by Toph on February 2, 2009, at 23:16:09
There's no problem with 'invaded'?
Would citizens of the US feel put down if their country was said to have invaded another, for reasons (or lack thereof) which may in themselves lead those citizens to feel put down?
What about 'liberated'?
Posted by gabbette on February 4, 2009, at 23:12:53
In reply to Blocked for a week?, posted by fayeroe on February 4, 2009, at 11:29:02
I'd find it far less frightening if certain topics were forbidden altogether.
Being forced to find innoffensive euphemisms for atrocities is f*cking blood chilling.
Posted by gabbette on February 4, 2009, at 23:23:31
In reply to Blocked for a week?, posted by fayeroe on February 4, 2009, at 11:29:02
While were at it, can we find less judgemental
words for child abuse? Rape?
I was raped, I guess that implies judgement.Perhaps I should say,
"He found a use for my body in a way he enjoyed but I found highly disagreeable"Or is it like "The murder of one person is a tragedy the murder of thousands is a statistic"
so it's okay in fact preferable, to not look them in the eye, (figuratively speaking) dismiss the horror, and infer by omission that they had a choice.
Posted by Dinah on February 4, 2009, at 23:24:48
In reply to Re: Blocked for a week?, posted by gabbette on February 4, 2009, at 23:12:53
I remind Dr. Bob that many sites just don't allow religion or politics as topics.
But he prefers to allow posters to discuss them, under the same civility guidelines that apply everywhere else.
Posted by gabbette on February 5, 2009, at 0:54:06
In reply to I'd find it preferable too » gabbette, posted by Dinah on February 4, 2009, at 23:24:48
Hallo Dinah
I realize the deputies are enforcing his guidelines whether or not they are always agreed with. (That was a badly formed sentence)
No daggers aimed your way.
I'd much rather have you here as deputy for all the good you do, than have you turn in your badge because of a difference in preference in one area.btw.
I tell people who are important to me "They don't have to call back" too.
That made me chuckle.
Posted by Dinah on February 5, 2009, at 7:56:22
In reply to Re: I'd find it preferable too » Dinah, posted by gabbette on February 5, 2009, at 0:54:06
Thanks Gabbi.
I don't disagree with Dr. Bob's application of the civility guidelines to all boards. But I do think the current situation causes a fair amount of confusion and distress.
Not that it's that much different than any other board. On every board there are difficulties in balancing what a poster might wish to say with what a poster is allowed to say. I am no doubt not alone when I decide not to say anything at all, if I don't think I can say it within the civility guidelines within the energy level I have to expend on the matter.
But I think it's a special challenge on the topics of Religion and Politics.
The things we do to protect ourselves... Mind you, my therapist agrees that I should probably keep protecting myself that way by telling him he doesn't need to call. So maybe in his case, it's the smart thing to do. :)
Posted by fayeroe on February 5, 2009, at 9:26:42
In reply to Re: I'd find it preferable too » gabbette, posted by Dinah on February 5, 2009, at 7:56:22
> Thanks Gabbi.
>
> I don't disagree with Dr. Bob's application of the civility guidelines to all boards. But I do think the current situation causes a fair amount of confusion and distress.Dinah, please tell me what the current situation is?
How did this start?
Who is confused?Who is in distress? (I'm not talking about Topher being blocked..that is another subject altogether)
>
> Not that it's that much different than any other board. On every board there are difficulties in balancing what a poster might wish to say with what a poster is allowed to say. I am no doubt not alone when I decide not to say anything at all, if I don't think I can say it within the civility guidelines within the energy level I have to expend on the matter.
>
> But I think it's a special challenge on the topics of Religion and Politics.The challenge on the Politics board was a few months ago. I'm only aware of this latest discussion being here on administration.
Did someone get blocked from Politics, recently, due to uncivil behavior?
>
> The things we do to protect ourselves... Mind you, my therapist agrees that I should probably keep protecting myself that way by telling him he doesn't need to call. So maybe in his case, it's the smart thing to do. :)Thank you.
Pat
Posted by Dinah on February 5, 2009, at 9:33:15
In reply to Re: I'd find it preferable too » Dinah, posted by fayeroe on February 5, 2009, at 9:26:42
Posted by fayeroe on February 5, 2009, at 11:23:19
In reply to Re: I'd find it preferable too » gabbette, posted by Dinah on February 5, 2009, at 7:56:22
Dinah..."But I do think the current situation causes a fair amount of confusion and distress."
I thought "current" meant right now. Ongoing.
I'll have to look in the dictionary.
"
Posting "a fair amount of confusion and distress" could cause some posters to wonder if you are talking about them. I've certainly been reminded time and again to not post anything that might be confusing to other posters.If I had posted it, would I have gotten a PBC?
Posted by Dinah on February 5, 2009, at 11:44:53
In reply to Re: I'd find it preferable too, posted by fayeroe on February 5, 2009, at 11:23:19
I meant the arrangement of allowing political posts while limiting the content. A situation that is current in the sense that it is the rule at this moment. This sentence referred to my previous sentence about my personally finding it preferable that the topics just be disallowed as it is on so many boards of all types.
A general statement that I have made, in one form or another, for years.
I was talking about the rules, not the posters.
And this is just my personal opinion about what the rules should be. Obviously Dr. Bob is not in agreement with me, and my opinion is not at all relevant. I was just agreeing with Gabbi.
Posted by sdb on February 6, 2009, at 9:47:37
In reply to unethical use of civ. guidelines by deputies} bob, posted by sdb on January 26, 2009, at 6:12:27
hello, I love you all, especially Dinah!
Dr. Bob claims high standards in ethical issues but he seems not to care about it. That is somewhat, I must say, disappointing.
I have concerns about the deputy punishing system that is based on not clear rules that allows a lot of arbitrariness.
Punishing people can damage people.
Posted by fayeroe on February 6, 2009, at 10:00:13
In reply to Re:, posted by sdb on February 6, 2009, at 9:47:37
~~~I have concerns about the deputy punishing system that is based on not clear rules that allows a lot of arbitrariness.
Punishing people can damage people.~~~I cannot imagine how a poster feels when Babble is their only 'safe' place and they get kicked in the head. If a poster is in a "free world" situation where family and friends aren't supportive, it has to hurt like hell to be kicked out here. I prefer "kicked" over blocked.
I've been there and because my investment here is so small, I go my merry way. However I think that so many posters view Babble as family. And most of us already know what rejection/ punishment feels. It sucks.
I say "what goes 'round, comes 'round" However when there is so much denial going on that I question whether or not the lesson will be learned. I am not talking about posters, I am talking about administration.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 6, 2009, at 10:11:26
In reply to Re:, posted by sdb on February 6, 2009, at 9:47:37
> hello, I love you all, especially Dinah!
>
> Dr. Bob claims high standards in ethical issues but he seems not to care about it. That is somewhat, I must say, disappointing.
>
> I have concerns about the deputy punishing system that is based on not clear rules that allows a lot of arbitrariness.
> Punishing people can damage people.sdb,
You wrote,[...love..all...especially Dinah...(Mr. Hsiung) claims high standards...I have concerns...].
I am interested in more of what your perception could be concerning what you wrote and have the following questions;
A. redacted by me
B. What are the high standards that you are referring to in relation to, let's say, if they concern statements that could lead another to feel put down/accused, or something else, and could you post here some examples of those that you are concerned about as being disappointing?
C. Is there disappointment to you in the aspect of doing what could be good for the community as a whole that Mr. Hsiung writes in his TOS to trust him about? If so, could you post here some examples?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 6, 2009, at 13:29:32
In reply to Re: » sdb, posted by fayeroe on February 6, 2009, at 10:00:13
> ~~~I have concerns about the deputy punishing system that is based on not clear rules that allows a lot of arbitrariness.
> Punishing people can damage people.~~~
>
> I cannot imagine how a poster feels when Babble is their only 'safe' place and they get kicked in the head. If a poster is in a "free world" situation where family and friends aren't supportive, it has to hurt like hell to be kicked out here. I prefer "kicked" over blocked.
>
> I've been there and because my investment here is so small, I go my merry way. However I think that so many posters view Babble as family. And most of us already know what rejection/ punishment feels. It sucks.
>
> I say "what goes 'round, comes 'round" However when there is so much denial going on that I question whether or not the lesson will be learned. I am not talking about posters, I am talking about administration.fayeroe,
You wrote,[...denial...]
Could you list some examples of the denial that you are referring to? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to examine any examples that you post here and see what could arise out of those situations, concerning how the denial could or could not have the potential, if any, to cause harm to the mental health of any members here.
Posted by sdb on February 12, 2009, at 13:22:22
In reply to Re: » sdb, posted by fayeroe on February 6, 2009, at 10:00:13
> ~~~I have concerns about the deputy punishing system that is based on not clear rules that allows a lot of arbitrariness.
> Punishing people can damage people.~~~
>
> I cannot imagine how a poster feels when Babble is their only 'safe' place and they get kicked in the head. If a poster is in a "free world" situation where family and friends aren't supportive, it has to hurt like hell to be kicked out here. I prefer "kicked" over blocked.
>
> I've been there and because my investment here is so small, I go my merry way. However I think that so many posters view Babble as family. And most of us already know what rejection/ punishment feels. It sucks.
>
> I say "what goes 'round, comes 'round" However when there is so much denial going on that I question whether or not the lesson will be learned. I am not talking about posters, I am talking about administration.I also make mistakes. I really do not think that mentioning the similarity in history was a mistake. But after a warning (to be against the rules, whatever that means) maybe to post the content again instead to make a link to it was false.
Posted by Deputy Dinah on February 12, 2009, at 13:31:14
In reply to Re: also my mistake, posted by sdb on February 12, 2009, at 13:22:22
Just to clarify, Dr. Bob considers links to materials that would be considered uncivil also to be uncivil.
Posted by sdb on February 12, 2009, at 14:44:02
In reply to Re: also my mistake » sdb, posted by Deputy Dinah on February 12, 2009, at 13:31:14
> Just to clarify, Dr. Bob considers links to materials that would be considered uncivil also to be uncivil.
can you please show me where it is written that 'links to materials that would be...' ? I think that it is of importance that people can read first what is allowed or not before they get punished and harmed.
thank you.
Posted by Deputy Dinah on February 12, 2009, at 16:42:43
In reply to Dr. Bob considers links to materials... }} Dinah, posted by sdb on February 12, 2009, at 14:44:02
Not everything is included in the FAQ. Deputies act on the site guidelines as applied and interpreted by Dr. Bob in the past. Or if there is no precedent, we ask him. This has been Dr. Bob's stance on the matter of links for some time.
Posted by fayeroe on February 12, 2009, at 16:48:56
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob considers links to materials... }} Dinah » sdb, posted by Deputy Dinah on February 12, 2009, at 16:42:43
> Not everything is included in the FAQ. Deputies act on the site guidelines as applied and interpreted by Dr. Bob in the past. Or if there is no precedent, we ask him. This has been Dr. Bob's stance on the matter of links for some time.
I had a history professor in college that gave multiple choice tests. The catch was that all four answers were right, we just had to pick the one that he liked most.Sound familiar?
>
Posted by Dinah on February 12, 2009, at 16:53:49
In reply to shaking head.. }} Dinah, posted by fayeroe on February 12, 2009, at 16:48:56
Posted by BayLeaf on February 12, 2009, at 19:31:24
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob considers links to materials... }} Dinah » sdb, posted by Deputy Dinah on February 12, 2009, at 16:42:43
How are new people supposed to know about the undocumented mystery rules? Could someone type them for his approval, then he could just update the FAQ? Is he willing to do that?
It doesn't seem kind to new people to be slapped on the wrist for not knowing things its impossible to know. ya know?
Bay
Posted by Dinah on February 12, 2009, at 20:06:08
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob considers links to materials... }} Dinah » Deputy Dinah, posted by BayLeaf on February 12, 2009, at 19:31:24
I don't think that Dr. Bob considers interpretations of the rules to be new rules. The rules state not to post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. He considers posting "links" to be posting "anything".
I have no objections to adding that to the FAQ. But there will always be interpretations that aren't codified. Which is another reason why PBC's should be seen more as information or a reminder than a slap on the wrist.
Posted by fayeroe on February 13, 2009, at 8:56:16
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob considers links to materials... }} Dinah » BayLeaf, posted by Dinah on February 12, 2009, at 20:06:08
> I don't think that Dr. Bob considers interpretations of the rules to be new rules. The rules state not to post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. He considers posting "links" to be posting "anything".
>
> I have no objections to adding that to the FAQ. But there will always be interpretations that aren't codified. Which is another reason why PBC's should be seen more as information or a reminder than a slap on the wrist.Are these "teaching reminders" taken into consideration when a block is issued?
Posted by Dinah on February 13, 2009, at 9:19:01
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob considers links to materials... }} Dinah, posted by fayeroe on February 13, 2009, at 8:56:16
Blocks are given when behavior continues after a PBC. This doesn't mean the same day or the same thread. But we don't like to block, and don't do it unless we think a poster has been warned about the rules, or is familiar with the rules.
I suppose that, like interpretations, does depend on judgment. But Dr. Bob is aware of what we do, and he can always overrule deputy decisions, and offers us a lot of feedback as well.
Posted by sdb on February 14, 2009, at 15:06:03
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob considers links to materials... }} Dinah » fayeroe, posted by Dinah on February 13, 2009, at 9:19:01
I remember chapter 4 of 'human zoo' by desmond morris. Myself I have not the view of a politician but the view of somebody who tries to understand nature.
'question: what is the difference between black natives slicing up a white missionary, and a white mob lynching a helpless Negro? Answer: very little - and, for the victims, none at all. Whatever the reasons, whatever the excuses, whatever the motives, the basic behavior mechanism is the same. They are both cases of members of the in-group attacking members of the out-group.....The reason is obvious enough: we are, each one of us, a member of some particular in-group and it is difficult for us to view the problems of inter-group conflict without, however unconsciously, taking sides. Somehow, until I have finished writing and you have finished reading this chapter, we must try to step outside our groups and gaze down on the battlefields of the human animal with the unbiased eyes of a hovering Martian. It is not going to be easy, and I must make it clear at the outset that nothing I say should be construed as implying that I am favoring one group as against another, or suggesting that one group is inevitably superior to another....
...I have already discussed these conditions, but it will help to summarize them briefly. They are:
1. The development of fixed human territories.
2. The swelling of tribes into over-crowded super-tribes
3. The invention of weapons that kill at a distance
4. The removal of leaders from the front line of battle
5. The creation of a specialized class of professional killers
6. The growth of technological inequalities between the groups
7. The increase of frustrated status aggression within the groups
8. The demands of the inter-group status rivalries of the leaders
9. The loss of social identity within the super-tribes
10. The exploitation of the co-operative urge to aid friends under attack.
The one condition I have deliberately omitted from this list is the development of differing ideologies. As a zoologist, viewing man as an animal, I find it hard to take such differences seriously in the present context. If one assesses the inter-group situation in terms of actual behavior, rather than verbalized theorizing, differences in ideology fade into insignificance alongside the more basic conditions. They are merely the excuses, desperately sought for to provide reasons highsounding enough to justify the destruction of thousand of human lives.'I am sorry if you think that this does not apply to Hitler, Bush and historically irrelevant persons like me and you.
When theres no mutation or a gen therapy man will be at war with man.
I post this here for educational purpose. I am no longer participant in the politics forum because it is unethical.
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.