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 » Dr. Bob

Posted by spoc on June 10, 2004, at 9:01:16

In reply to re: questions, posted by Dr. Bob on June 10, 2004, at 2:46:06

Had this post all loaded up, although now I am reminded that due to my shorter time here; intermittent idealism/naivete; and habituation to how conversation *usually* works, I can still get caught up in attempting to provide that golden clarification of the issue or question that could actually lead to true directness. Which may not be such a rewarding activity. Oh well...

I will even start with something positive, since I know the likelihood of change can get even lesser if told we never could/will. I'm glad you did show up Dr. Bob, I know we want to encourage that. And I'm glad you have acknowledged that unfairness exists, and that you're not opposed to apologizing for at least some things. Following are some responses to your own responses/questions.

> ...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...>

>> 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... >

<<<<< That's probably where a lot of the confusion came in -- with people seeing you as an integral part of this and thinking you'd participate more actively, discussing rather than occasionally refuting or asking clarification in what could be seen as a diversionary way. It looked like maybe the carrot was dangled and then yanked back, leaving us appearing to be dissenting just for its own sake. I think we started to feel like we had erred in assuming that much beyond "yes" or "no" had been solicited or was welcome and would lead to interaction of some kind.

> 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 these...
> > I don't always read every line of every post, especially if it isn't civil...
> > If you'll allow me the same latitude, if someone doesn't want me to miss something potentially important, they should be civil...
> Additionally, the first answer is hard to spot in action,... 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?

<<<<<< Just meant that it's hard to spot "reading and re-reading" in action, when in the end other violations or prohibited language are so frequently still missed on a thread, and is part of what we're discussing now.

>> 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?

<<<<<< A little ... But I don't think only unanswered questions in posts were being referred to, but rather something you said that sounded like in general you may disregard the good in a post if you spot a possible civility infraction (“I don't always read every line of every post, especially if it isn't civil”). So I still don’t quite get how one can read and re-read to determine civility and context, and at the same time profess to sometimes stop reading as soon as the civility issue is spotted...

> 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...
>> 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).

<<<<< Thank you, that was an important difference!

> 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 Chicklet reposted Jimi’s entire post, then I posted an attempted edit...

> 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...

<<<<<< Again, I just think people thought you were going to be more a part of it, shed light, appear to be interested in addressing ideas and opinions. Like I mentioned, it probably would have helped if people knew from the start, or at some point prior to this, that you were just presenting the subject and would be back in four weeks.




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:spoc thread:346427