![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 15 to 39 of 104. Go back in thread:
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 22, 2005, at 19:31:53
In reply to Re: OK, I’m going to try this again » Minnie-Haha, posted by Phillipa on April 22, 2005, at 18:07:09
> I try and ignore the Posts and quit responding because I'm afraid I will get in trouble. I'm not sure this is fair as we do work our own things out on pbabble with an apology or a babblemail .
To me it's not the same as working things out.
Lou makes it clear when he feels personally offended, and that's quite rare. The rest of the time they are non - personal questions about the rules of the board, and once they are answered that's the end of it.
Posted by Phillipa on April 22, 2005, at 19:43:51
In reply to Re: OK, I’m going to try this again » Phillipa, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 22, 2005, at 19:31:53
To me a disagreement is usually between two people. When I have a fight with my husband I don't go to a marriage counsellor to help solve the problem. We discuss it. And I'm not refering to any particlar poster, just that at times i feel intimidated and choose to ignore and stop posting on that thread. I don't feel I should have to be on my toes all the time if I'm speaking about something I feel strongly about, or am in a lot of distress. Just my opinion. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 22, 2005, at 20:15:38
In reply to Re: OK, I’m going to try this again (long) » Minnie-Haha, posted by AuntieMel on April 22, 2005, at 13:04:01
It is written in this thread,[...it is not meant to be a knock against any person's ...faith...].
As to what the poster meant, that is not my concern here. My concern is that since the poster writes also that the statement is directed at no one in particular, then IMO there are many that the statement in question could encompass. It could encompass all those that have the faith that have only one God such as mine, which is the Jewish faith, and other faiths that have only one God. The statement in question is,[..."Someone said that there is only one God: Is that OK?"...].
Now if a reader saw that statement, there could be IMO a concern about the different parts of the statement because of its grammatical structure. One part in particular, is the part,[...Is that {OK}?...].
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 22, 2005, at 20:25:50
In reply to Lou's response top an aspect of this thread-, posted by Lou Pilder on April 22, 2005, at 20:15:38
It is written in thids thread that the scene in the statement in question is a supposed party. Looking at the statement in question,[..."Someone said there is only one God: Is that OK?"...].
Now the statment in question was said to the host and the post states,[...some of the guests ignore that person's remarks...but other guests are uncomfortable...]. Could they be uncomfortable because someone questioned if it is OK to say that they have only one God?
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on April 22, 2005, at 20:42:39
In reply to Lou's response top an aspect of this thread-2B, posted by Lou Pilder on April 22, 2005, at 20:25:50
Lou, I don't know you but I'd like to. I hear you're a great guy! I just get confused by your posts. Maybe I'm not as intelligent, I don't know. But I would love to get to know you. I'm open in Babblemail. Why not let's be friends! Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 22, 2005, at 20:44:25
In reply to Lou's response top an aspect of this thread-2B, posted by Lou Pilder on April 22, 2005, at 20:25:50
> It is written in thids thread that the scene in the statement in question is a supposed party. Looking at the statement in question,[..."Someone said there is only one God: Is that OK?"...].
> Now the statment in question was said to the host and the post states,[...some of the guests ignore that person's remarks...but other guests are uncomfortable...]. Could they be uncomfortable because someone questioned if it is OK to say that they have only one God?
LouLooking at the statement in question in the above, could the grammatical structure of the statement be seen as someone being uncomfortable because there is, lets say, a Jew at the party that said that they believe in one God and they were some of the ones that the poster wrote left the party?
Lou
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 22, 2005, at 20:50:22
In reply to Re: OK, I’m going to try this again » Gabbi-x-2, posted by Phillipa on April 22, 2005, at 19:43:51
> To me a disagreement is usually between two people. When I have a fight with my husband I don't go to a marriage counsellor to help solve the problem. We discuss it. And I'm not refering to any particlar poster, just that at times i feel intimidated and choose to ignore and stop posting on that thread.
I know, and I know many people feel that way, so I won't make another post on this. What I tried to say, and I guess I didn't make clear, and what I think Auntie Mel was saying, is that they aren't personal, they are a way of getting things straight. If Lou does find something offensive, he says so, but that's fairly rare.
I do know, that people do find it hurtful regardless. On that note, I suppose it would be a fair option to have the requests e-mailed to Dr. Bob privately.
I'm somewhat biased though, I have learned much from Lou's insight, especially on one particular post mentioning the holocaust, and another on a joke I didn't consider racist, though, I at first thought it was nit-picky. I wouldn't want to lose that. I also have deep respect for the fact that no matter how cruel the things are that have been said to him, he never responds in kind.
But I don't like people hurting, or being made to feel out of place either.. sigh
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 22, 2005, at 20:51:47
In reply to Lou's response top an aspect of this thread-C, posted by Lou Pilder on April 22, 2005, at 20:44:25
The analogy of a party is used in the post in question. But what if it was not a party, but a disco?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 23, 2005, at 7:07:01
In reply to Lou's response top an aspect of this thread-D, posted by Lou Pilder on April 22, 2005, at 20:51:47
The analogy of a party was used in the post in question . But is an internet mental-health forum the same as a party, or a disco?
I think that the disco would be an extreme end of the spectrum in this case. I can not think of what the other end could be.
In this forum, with approximatly 1000 members, and I do not know how many readers that do not participate in posting, I think that there is a different purpose here than in a party or a disco. I believe that there is a more serious purpose that the participants have verses the party or disco. Now I think that that{...seriousness of purpose...]makes my requests here for clarification and acceptability appropriate in relation to the goals of the forum, which is support and education. I do not think that those goals are the same as in a party, or a disco.
But what is support? Could not support be more clarification of the guidlines for the forum? Could not support be more well-defined guidlines for the forum?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 23, 2005, at 8:04:34
In reply to Re: OK, I’m going to try this again » Phillipa, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 22, 2005, at 20:50:22
> > To me a disagreement is usually between two people. When I have a fight with my husband I don't go to a marriage counsellor to help solve the problem. We discuss it. And I'm not refering to any particlar poster, just that at times i feel intimidated and choose to ignore and stop posting on that thread.
>
> I know, and I know many people feel that way, so I won't make another post on this. What I tried to say, and I guess I didn't make clear, and what I think Auntie Mel was saying, is that they aren't personal, they are a way of getting things straight. If Lou does find something offensive, he says so, but that's fairly rare.
> I do know, that people do find it hurtful regardless. On that note, I suppose it would be a fair option to have the requests e-mailed to Dr. Bob privately.
> I'm somewhat biased though, I have learned much from Lou's insight, especially on one particular post mentioning the holocaust, and another on a joke I didn't consider racist, though, I at first thought it was nit-picky. I wouldn't want to lose that. I also have deep respect for the fact that no matter how cruel the things are that have been said to him, he never responds in kind.
> But I don't like people hurting, or being made to feel out of place either.. sigh
Friends,
In the post above ,Gabbi-X-2 writes,[...option to email Dr. Hsiung...].
That is an option, but is this forum moderated 24/7 ? If not, an email to the moderator could go unresponded to for some period of time.
BTW, I usually email my requests to DR. Hsiung before I post them.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 23, 2005, at 9:10:16
In reply to Lou's response to Gabbi-x-2's post » Gabbi-x-2, posted by Lou Pilder on April 23, 2005, at 8:04:34
In relation to the option to email Dr. Hsiung, I have 23 emails to Dr. Hsiung from April 5th of 2005.
The point that I am trying to make here is that I do attempt generally to email the administration at times before I post.
I also attempt to email the deputy, Dinah, in special requests to intercede. I also use the inter-forum mail feature,(babblemail) in discussions concerning whether others might see that there is something that could be addressed here.'
The point here is that I do attempt at times to use other means than to post my requests to DR. Hsiung.
But sometimes I think that a general discussion of my requests could benifit the members of the forum without emailing the administration first. Gabbi-X-2 wrote,[... I have learned much from Lou's insight...]and [...I have a deep respect...].
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on April 23, 2005, at 9:53:41
In reply to Lou's response to Gabbi-x-2's post-B, posted by Lou Pilder on April 23, 2005, at 9:10:16
Lou,
With regards the emailing to Dr Bob.
I agree that there are people who learn from your posts, but it is also true that there are people here who suffer great hurt from your posts.
I guess you need to weigh up which is more important to you.
I no longer post here when in pain, or troubled, or in need of support, through the fear of them being bought to admin and the wording of them being discected. The hurt that I have felt in the past has caused that fear. I know I am not alone in this.
Just something to think about..
Nikki
Posted by Minnie-Haha on April 23, 2005, at 17:19:31
In reply to Re: OK, I’m going to try this again (long) » AuntieMel, posted by Minnie-Haha on April 22, 2005, at 14:05:58
In case there is any misunderstanding about the reason for my initial post, or my description of the hypothetical situation, I did *not* set it up to debate whether or not *what* someone says is civil. We already have guidelines about that.
The hypothetical situation could have been posed in many ways and still have followed with the same question. The location could have been a small dinner party, a business meeting, or a group therapy session. The questions could have been different. For instance, the third question could have been preceded by the remarks "Someone said there are many gods" or "Someone said there is no god." As I said, my question is not so much about what is said, but about the behavior: persistent questioning about whether or not what others are doing or saying is OK.
As an aside, I believe every individual has a right to their own faith, whether it is Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Muslim, or whatever. (I do not mean to slight any faith that I did not list.) For that matter, we have the right to be agnostic or even atheist, if we so choose.
SO BACK TO THE MAIN QUESTION: Is the *behavior* we're discussing civil? Is it civil to habitually remark on or question whethor or not what someone else has done or said is civil?
Posted by Minnie-Haha on April 23, 2005, at 17:35:10
In reply to Re: OK, I’m going to try this again, posted by Minnie-Haha on April 23, 2005, at 17:19:31
> ... For that matter, IMO, we have the right to be agnostic or even atheist, if we so choose...
:)
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 23, 2005, at 17:40:04
In reply to Re: OK, I’m going to try this again, posted by Minnie-Haha on April 23, 2005, at 17:19:31
It is written in this thread,[...is it civil to habitually remark on or question whether or not what someone else has done or said is civil?...].
The subject line initiating this thread is,[...OK,I'm going to try this {again}...]. I think that the subject line has the potential for one to think that this is about the previous thread involving my requests to Dr. Hsiung for a determination or clarification and such.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2005, at 18:40:48
In reply to Re: OK, I’m going to try this again (long) » AuntieMel, posted by Minnie-Haha on April 22, 2005, at 14:05:58
> Does habitually questioning whether or not others’ posts are civil break any of these guidelines? Might this possibly even be considered troll-like behavior?
>
> I think Campbell’s advice to ignore a troll is often the best advice.So try to ignore that behavior?
> Suppose we are at a party. The guests are discussing this and that, sometimes disagreeing, but generally working things out civilly. However, throughout the evening, Minnie goes to the host and asks (within earshot of others), "Someone interrupted somebody else: Is that OK?" ... And so on and so forth. Some of the guests know Minnie and either ignore her remarks or take them with good humor. But other guests are uncomfortable. Some have already left.
Well, it's only kind of "within earshot" here. And I'm sorry some guests have left and others feel uncomfortable, or inhibited. But it's hard to know sometimes how to have a party like this one.
> I am sincerely trying to address an issue that is stressful to me.
What about it is stressful to you? Sharing something about your own issues and their possible role in your reaction might be an interesting exercise and might help others to respond...
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2005, at 18:41:10
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung, posted by Lou Pilder on April 22, 2005, at 16:51:43
> I am requesting that an exception be made so that I be allowed to respond to this post in more than 3 consecutive posts.
Sorry, but I'd rather you didn't. Thanks for asking,
Bob
Posted by Minnie-Haha on April 23, 2005, at 20:35:50
In reply to Re: OK, I’m going to try this again, posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2005, at 18:40:48
> > Does habitually questioning whether or not others’ posts are civil break any of these guidelines? Might this possibly even be considered troll-like behavior?
> >
> > I think Campbell’s advice to ignore a troll is often the best advice.
>
> So try to ignore that behavior?I'll defer to your advice for now, but can I please, most respectfully, get an answer to my question? PB civility rules remind us (among other things) not to be sarcastic, not to jump to conclusions about others, not to post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, not to harass or pressure others, or use language that could offend others, and not to exaggerate or over-generalize. I've tried to present my case as politely as I can. My question is: Is there any way that habitually questioning whether or not others’ posts are civil breaks any of the civility guidelines?
> > ... I am sincerely trying to address an issue that is stressful to me.
>
> What about it is stressful to you? Sharing something about your own issues and their possible role in your reaction might be an interesting exercise and might help others to respond...I thought I'd done that in previous posts, but OK.
1. One of my own posts was scrutinized in February by someone who had not contributed to the thread it was on in about 18 months. And I wasn't asked, on that thread, to explain what I meant by the figure of speech I used, but rather my post was brought up before the Admin board, questioning whether it broke any civility rules. (This person offered one of several meanings for the term I used as proof that it might be offensive.) I've noticed that this has also been done to many other Babblers' posts. That seems to me possibly like jumping to conclusions about others, or posting something that could lead others to feel accused or put down, or harassing others, or exaggerating or over-generalizing.
2. I like to come to the Admin board from time to time to see what others are discussing about what they like about the board (or dislike), or offering suggestions, etc. But when I have to pick through dozens and dozens of someone's requests and reflections on whether or not my fellow Babblers are using civilized language, that stresses me out. It is rather hard to ignore such a flood of posts.
3. Uncivil behavior stresses me out. I can forgive the occasional slip-up (I've done it myself), but when it's repeated over and over again, I find that stressful. And I don't think it matters how nice the person doing it is or *why* the behavior is repeated. If after the first warning it's repeated, it seems to me like willfully breaking the rules. What I have described seems to me like uncivil behavior. I just wanted to know if anyone else (especially you) thinks what I'm talking about is uncivil.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on April 23, 2005, at 20:38:05
In reply to Re: OK, I’m going to try this again, posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2005, at 18:40:48
> > I think Campbell’s advice to ignore a troll is often the best advice.
>
> So try to ignore that behavior?Respectfully, I did say often, not always. :)
Posted by Dinah on April 23, 2005, at 20:55:13
In reply to Re: OK, but may I please have an answer » Dr. Bob, posted by Minnie-Haha on April 23, 2005, at 20:35:50
I think it can be assumed that if a behavior has been brought to Dr. Bob's attention and he has not done anything administratively about it, that it can be assumed, in fact there is a very strong presumption to the point of certainty, that he does not in fact consider the behavior uncivil under Babble guidelines.
At that point the only recourse is to try to convince him to change the guidelines.
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 23, 2005, at 21:12:00
In reply to Re: OK, but may I please have an answer » Dr. Bob, posted by Minnie-Haha on April 23, 2005, at 20:35:50
It has been written in this thread that I requested that Dr. Hsiung write a determination as to the acceptability or not in relation to the guidlines of the forum as to the use of the idiom in,[...please take anything that dancingstar says with a grain of salt...].
I requested the determination because I was wondering if it is acceptable on this forum for one poster to tell another to please take {anything} that another poster says with a grain of salt.
Now if we replace dancingstar with , lets say, Dr. Hsiung, we would have the following:
[...please take anything that Dr. Hsiung says with a grain of salt...]. Now if the statement was,[...please take what Dr. Hsiung says about skydiving with a grain of salt...], then I could not be interested in if that could be an acceptable statement here or not because Dr. Hsiung is not a recognised expert, as far as I know, on skydiving. But when the {anything} is used, then I feel that that is different.
So when the idiom was used in the post in question, the {anything} was used. So if the post read, [...please take what dancingstar says about The History of the Art and Architechture of the Near East and Mesopotamia with a grain of salt, I do not know if dancingstar is an expert in that field so that is different.
Now if the statement was, [...please take anything that Lou says with a grain of salt...], then that wording, IMO, could have the potential to defame me. So my request to DR. Hsiung was because if it is acceptable here to write that about dancingstar, then could it also be acceptable to write that here about me?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 23, 2005, at 21:47:37
In reply to Re: OK, but may I please have an answer » Dr. Bob, posted by Minnie-Haha on April 23, 2005, at 20:35:50
It has been written that [...it has been done to ...other... posts...].
I request from Dr. Hsiung a determination as to the acceptability or not from any post that IMO has the potential to not be in the best interests of the posters here in a mental -health forum.
My requests to Dr. Hsiung are to him but others are free to comment in the thread that arrises out of my request to him.
In the request by me, others have written positivly about my posts.
I received a message recently that told me that it was good as to my requests here for the forum. And is not the policy here that we do what will be good for the forum as a whole?
Now those that do not want my requests about their posts to be posted, but to use email to Dr. Hsiung, Dr. Hsiung has made a rule about only useing 3 posts by a poster. And I try to email DR. Hsiung before I post. I also try to put myself in the place of the other poster that I am requesting a determination about, like with dancingstar.
The goals of the forum are to have others have their share of support and education. But if one is defamed here, can they have their share of laughter?
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on April 23, 2005, at 21:52:30
In reply to Lou's response top an aspect of this thread-, posted by Lou Pilder on April 23, 2005, at 21:47:37
No one should be able to laugh at the feelings of another poster. That would be most unkind. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Phillipa on April 23, 2005, at 21:58:28
In reply to Lou's response top an aspect of this thread-nacl, posted by Lou Pilder on April 23, 2005, at 21:12:00
Dr. Bob, I hope you haven't taken up sky diving! That would terrify me to jump out of a plane. I'm afraid of heights. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Phillipa on April 23, 2005, at 22:02:34
In reply to Lou's response top an aspect of this thread-, posted by Lou Pilder on April 23, 2005, at 21:47:37
No one should be able to laugh at any poster. I like what Lou said about taking his concerns up with Dr. Bob before posting them. I think that is the kindest thing to do. Fondly, Phillipa
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.