Psycho-Babble Administration | about the operation of this site | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

re: questions

Posted by Dr. Bob on June 10, 2004, at 2:46:06

In reply to re: no more questions » Dr. Bob, posted by Sabina on June 9, 2004, at 23:30:24

> > > Has Larry hurt anyone?
> >
> > He may have. How does it matter?
> 1] It's been stated previously that anticipated supportiveness upon return is a factor in block reduction. If someone was unquestionably seen as supportive and an asset; and additionally he didn't hurt anyone, that would surely be relevant...
> 2] If you mean that technical interpretations only are used (such that assessing hurt does not play a role)...

Anticipated supportiveness does matter.

If someone was unquestionably seen as supportive and an asset, they wouldn't have been blocked in the first place.

Whether someone's been civil and whether someone else has been hurt aren't necessarily the same question. I think I need to base decisions mostly on the former, which you may be calling "technical interpretations".

> > > I feel that you're being rather obstinate to prove a point. If I'm correct, please tell me what point you're trying to prove.
> >
> > In what way do you feel I'm being obstinate?
> It will soon be going on two weeks since a possible block reduction was announced. People apparently didn't understand what the process of deliberation was going to be. They probably got the idea that discussion, to some degree including you, was being welcomed. Or that they would be given some information as to what was transpiring. But perhaps you were thinking in terms of the matter not being "due" on the table until the four-weeks-since-block point, at which time the potential reduction would apply if granted.

Sorry, I had no way of predicting how this process was going to go. I do in fact welcome discussion. What you see is what's transpiring. And yes, I don't think a decision is absolutely necessary until the 4-week point.

> I’m confused as to how this answer:
> > I try my best to understand context. Even if that means reading and re-reading...
> ties in with...
> > I don't always read every line of every post, especially if it isn't civil...

Hmm, let me rephrase that...

I don't always read every line of every post. But if there's a civility issue, I will if I need to. But I may not respond to questions in an uncivil post.

Is that more comprehensible?

> Additionally, the first answer is hard to spot in action, when one of the classic complaints is about other, often more obvious violations on the thread being allowed to stand (including literal ones like cursing). And I thought the default explanation in those cases was that it was somehow too late or there wasn't time to go back and address other violations, even if it had only been hours/day(s).

Sorry, I'm confused, what answer is hard to spot?

Sometimes I let something stand when I missed it (or decided to let it go) the first time, but think it's better to move on. Other times it's because there's been an apology.

> > It wouldn't be surprising if some people here were particularly sensitive to unfairness.
> The last sentence is a recurring one, that seems to modify any apology with “…but it is their unique weakness” or something of that nature...
> spoc

Sorry, that's not my intent at all. What I mean is, of course some people here are really going to care about fairness (because they've been subjected to unfairness).


> If I didn't' believe that this is something that will help present and future posters, I wouldn't be in the mix. This is not the most fun I've ever had. I just feel that an open and transparent, if you will, message board is healthier for all.
> fayeroe

Thanks for trying to make things better. This is better than last time, at least?


> even though chicklet also (kindly) provided you with an edited and absolutely civil version of jim's post

Was it edited? I had no idea.

> i think it's beyond the pale to keep the decision as to whether it's a good idea to be flexible in this particular case to be such an ordeal that you can't come to a decision before a month has passed.

I wanted to leave time for discussion, and discussion has continued...

> i've decided to go back on vacation...from this place. it's not like anyone will care one way or the other where i place my observation seat...

I'd rather you stayed, but if it's too frustrating or you're too opposed to the way I do things or whatever, then maybe a vacation would in fact be better...

> i don't know if he'll be able to come back after all that's happened, but i still hope he will.
> Sabina

The question is when, not whether, he can come back. And I suppose whether he'll want to...





Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post

Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.


Start a new thread

Google www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Administration | Framed

poster:Dr. Bob thread:346427