Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 670602

Shown: posts 1 to 25 of 92. This is the beginning of the thread.

 

question/comment

Posted by cloudydaze on July 26, 2006, at 1:42:27

I've noticed that a lot of people get blocked. This causes me to worry that someday I might say something that (for some obscure reason) someone will find offensive. It makes it hard for me to feel confident in posting sometimes, even though my intentions are always good, and I would never purposely try to hurt someone.

But, occasionally I am impulsive - I'm bipolar, and human.

One thing that bothers me is that posts are not editable. Once you've posted something you can't revise it (if perhaps you catch something later on that may turn out to offend someone).

One thing that might be a good idea: If something is found to be uncivil, why not have a vote on it? Good intentions or not, everyone is biased, so it's good to have input from more than one source. This may make things seem more fair.

I really like this site, and I don't want to leave it. But I don't want to have to worry about being blocked or banned or whatever because one person found something i said offensive.

I understand that the goal of this site is to be supportive and civil, but "civil" is subjective. Also, no one can be supportive of everything, and I believe there are some things you should not be supportive of. If I said I wanted to hurt myself today, would people be expected to say "yeah, that's a good idea"?

Or if I said I thought Saddam is a great guy - wouldn't that offend? I imagine it would. But it's just my (hypothetical) opinion...who's to tell me if it's "good" or "bad"? And isn't it a supportive statement? It's not supportive of Saddam's enemies.

You can't make everyone happy ALL of the time.

That's why i wouldn't dare talk politics for real on this board.

Forgive me, I'm just trying to understand the rules, because they are not clear to me.

 

Re: question/comment

Posted by notfred on July 26, 2006, at 9:22:21

In reply to question/comment, posted by cloudydaze on July 26, 2006, at 1:42:27

. This causes me to worry that someday I might say something that (for some obscure reason) someone will find offensive.

It is not about if or if not one person finds something offensive. It is about what Dr Bob thinks.

 

Re: question/comment

Posted by cloudydaze on July 26, 2006, at 20:07:39

In reply to Re: question/comment, posted by notfred on July 26, 2006, at 9:22:21

> . This causes me to worry that someday I might say something that (for some obscure reason) someone will find offensive.
>
> It is not about if or if not one person finds something offensive. It is about what Dr Bob thinks.
>


Dr. Bob is one person, isn't he?

 

Re: question/comment cloudydaze

Posted by justy0urlaugh on July 26, 2006, at 22:29:25

In reply to Re: question/comment, posted by cloudydaze on July 26, 2006, at 20:07:39

i see it like this;
this is dr bob's site..he floats his own.
we are "permitted" to post as he sees fit..

i hate this place .i am drawn to the wonderful people and their compassionate posts towards each other..
there is good ..and i need to be reminded..

i am off to the ocean for a month..i hope you all continue you grace towards each other.

 

Re: question/comment

Posted by cloudydaze on July 26, 2006, at 23:57:14

In reply to Re: question/comment cloudydaze, posted by justy0urlaugh on July 26, 2006, at 22:29:25

> i see it like this;
> this is dr bob's site..he floats his own.
> we are "permitted" to post as he sees fit..
>
> i hate this place .i am drawn to the wonderful people and their compassionate posts towards each other..
> there is good ..and i need to be reminded..
>
> i am off to the ocean for a month..i hope you all continue you grace towards each other.
>
>

Point taken.

But I still think being objective wouldn't hurt. Also, I think most people on this site are civil, and would be even if there were no consequences. Not saying that there shouldn't be consequences, I'm just throwing my thoughts out there.

Yes this is Dr. Bob's site, and a wonderful site it is. I just think that maybe some system could be set up so things are a little more objective, and maybe people won't feel like it's a personal attack if they happen to be blocked.

 

Re: question/comment

Posted by Tabitha on July 27, 2006, at 1:17:49

In reply to question/comment, posted by cloudydaze on July 26, 2006, at 1:42:27

It's all supposedly spelled out in the FAQ, but I think I can tell you a sure-fire way to avoid getting blocked

1) If you post on politics, don't insult any country or leader that some people may support

2) If you post on faith, don't say one religion is the best & only. Also it's not the place to express doubts about religion in general

3) Don't use curse words. If you're not sure, you could check the online dictionary to see if it's listed as vulgar. The exact dictionary is probably in the FAQ

4) Don't be critical of another poster or their posts. Learn how to state a difference of opinion without making an accusation or a negative judgement. It's pretty much all about learning what's an "I-statement" and what isn't. Talk about yourself and your own reaction more than the other person. If you have to talk about the other person, learn to use a neutral description instead of a judgemental one. For instance it's not "your post is offensive", it's "I felt angry when I read your post about zoloft". And it's not "I get upset by your inconsiderate actions", it's "I get upset when you leave your socks on the floor". See the difference?

5) If someone asks you not to post to them, don't post to them.

and a surefire technique in case you're still confused about the rules

6) Check your intentions-- if you're not feeling supportive toward the topic or person you're talking to, then be very careful. You can always email Dr Bob or a deputy if you're not sure if something is OK.

and it goes without saying (I think)

7) if you get a warning, then back off.

 

Re: question/comment

Posted by justy0urlaugh on July 27, 2006, at 1:49:01

In reply to Re: question/comment, posted by cloudydaze on July 26, 2006, at 23:57:14

but ..i "could" feel offened because you may or may have implied i was not objective.. i could have felt "attacked" by you?..
-we are all objective.. there is a system. it will always bends and transforms at bobs will..
he is the web master.


 

Re: question/comment Tabitha

Posted by justy0urlaugh on July 27, 2006, at 2:07:48

In reply to Re: question/comment, posted by Tabitha on July 27, 2006, at 1:17:49

before i head off ..(winded tonight)..
the faq is nothing more than fluff..
i do not know anyone who fits inside these rules..we need to question, stand for our thoughts, ideas, beliefs..
i will never be a passive mindless sole who needs to "check" with anyone about my thoughts or how i soften their expression..
i will not back off..
we all need to stand.

 

Re: question/comment Tabitha

Posted by Dinah on July 27, 2006, at 9:36:43

In reply to Re: question/comment, posted by Tabitha on July 27, 2006, at 1:17:49

That was a wonderful summary, Tabitha.

I think Dr. Bob should link it in the FAQ.

 

Re: question/comment

Posted by notfred on July 27, 2006, at 11:07:06

In reply to question/comment, posted by cloudydaze on July 26, 2006, at 1:42:27

This idea has come up again and again on this board and has been well discussed. If you have read Dr Bobs responses this you know this is not going to happen.

A minority of the people who visit here post, so any voting by the "group" is not representative of the majority of the people who use this site.

I do not think knowing that a "majority" voted from someone to be blocked is going to make getting a block easier to take. Seems to me this would make it worse; "everyone hates me" vs. "Dr Bob hates me".

If a poster is well liked people will not want to block them.

No one likes getting a block, rearranging the deck chairs will not make it any better.

 

Re: question/comment

Posted by cloudydaze on July 27, 2006, at 17:36:07

In reply to Re: question/comment, posted by Tabitha on July 27, 2006, at 1:17:49

> It's all supposedly spelled out in the FAQ, but I think I can tell you a sure-fire way to avoid getting blocked

***The FaQ doesn't cover everything.
>
> 1) If you post on politics, don't insult any country or leader that some people may support

***So, pretty much....don't talk about politics?
>
> 2) If you post on faith, don't say one religion is the best & only. Also it's not the place to express doubts about religion in general

***I have never said my religion is best or only, and never would. However, that doesn't mean that no one would be offended by a religious post.
>
> 3) Don't use curse words. If you're not sure, you could check the online dictionary to see if it's listed as vulgar. The exact dictionary is probably in the FAQ

***This is probably the rule easiest to follow. But, for some it is not. Everyone has different levels of what they think is vulgar. Some people gasp at the word "stupid".

>
> 4) Don't be critical of another poster or their posts. Learn how to state a difference of opinion without making an accusation or a negative judgement. It's pretty much all about learning what's an "I-statement" and what isn't. Talk about yourself and your own reaction more than the other person. If you have to talk about the other person, learn to use a neutral description instead of a judgemental one. For instance it's not "your post is offensive", it's "I felt angry when I read your post about zoloft". And it's not "I get upset by your inconsiderate actions", it's "I get upset when you leave your socks on the floor". See the
difference?

***I see the difference in the words, but I don't understand why it is such a big deal. It's a lot to think about.

>
> 5) If someone asks you not to post to them, don't post to them.

***Understood.
>
> and a surefire technique in case you're still confused about the rules
>
> 6) Check your intentions-- if you're not feeling supportive toward the topic or person you're talking to, then be very careful. You can always email Dr Bob or a deputy if you're not sure if something is OK.

***I don't think i would ever try to offend someone intentionally on this site. But I do worry that things don't come out like I intend them to. That seems to happen to me a lot.
>
> and it goes without saying (I think)
>
> 7) if you get a warning, then back off.

***Again, understood.

I still think it's impossible to be "civil" (in this site's definition of the word) all of the time. In the FAQ (what is "civil") it says:

"Please don't be sarcastic, treat injury or death lightly, suggest that others harm (or use this site to exchange information that could be used to harm) themselves or others, jump to conclusions about others, post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, harass or pressure others, use language that could offend others, disclose without permission information that identifies or private communications from another poster, post information that you know to be false, exaggerate or overgeneralize -- etc. Even if you're quoting someone else."

Sometimes, we have no control over other's feelings. I would almost go as far to say that (I believe) it is human nature to exaggerate and overgeneralize. It is sometimes hard to override this. Yes, an attempt should be made to do so, but we are only human.

I feel upset when I see posts by people who are thinking or talking about suicide. It makes me very upset sometimes. Is this treating death lightly? In a way, I think so, but we wouldn't dare reprimand those on the brink of suicide! Or has it been done? I don't know - haven't been here long enough.

I just wonder if other people have trouble too. I would think that if I had a website for people with mental/emotional problems, I would not expect them to be perfect. I would expect that they might have problems with thinking clearly, impulsiveness, overreacting, or jumping to conclusions, paranoia, and other such symptoms of people who are mentally ill. I would also think that it would be hard for them to have to worry about each statement so much. I think it is hard (for me) to keep all these rules straight, especially since they seem (to me) to be ever-changing and fluctuating, and there is no solid, clear cut explanations. It seems to me that everything rests on a thin line...

Maybe this just isn't the site for me. Maybe I should start my own site?

I think maybe it's too much stress. I'd like to post here, but honestly, I feel like I'm being ostricized for even bringing this up.

I feel like I have to be perfect here - that I have to be something I'm not - something that no one IS.


 

Re: question/comment cloudydaze

Posted by laima on July 27, 2006, at 22:46:01

In reply to Re: question/comment, posted by cloudydaze on July 27, 2006, at 17:36:07

It's a wonderful site with lots of wonderful people- but it's rather near impossible to always be perfect? Especially when it keeps getting back to "rule adherence" instead of trying to discerne people's feelings and sincerest, earnest, kind intentions or expressions? Or why someone posted what they did, and are they in touble, etc? Yes, some posters won't necessarily have kind intentions, but I gather most do. Will the legions of members and readers, very diverse, and with so many who openly identify themselves as having emotional issues, ever be in full agreement, and free of feeling any and all plausable offenses? I am skeptical. What if someone says something "uncivil" inadvertently, while in great pain, and then, instead of offering support or alternate views, people jump to attack and accuse, "Rules broken!!! I found a place where rules were broken!!! Look!!!"? Then how does the original person who posted feel? Ostracized? How is that supportive or helpful? I imagine it could spark a dangerous downward spiral for that person. Looking around here on Administration in effort to learn about "rules", I immediately easily found an example or two of situations that didn't appear to be problems at all until they were "discovered" and "reported". Sure hope I'm delusional to imagine anyone might get any smidgeon of satisfaction over that kind of discovery and report. My lasting impression is, the site is apparently primarily about "rules"--that's where I keep seeing the most impassioned posts and the most emphasis. "Rules" alone do not make a great or perfect community; we should take a few lessons from history. So, the problem brought up in this thread troubles me, too. I just don't understand what this is supposed to be about anymore.

 

Re: finally... laima

Posted by laima on July 27, 2006, at 23:02:33

In reply to Re: question/comment cloudydaze, posted by laima on July 27, 2006, at 22:46:01


What about just trusting people to excercise "common sense" and "common courtesy"- allowing them chances to excuse and to try to correct their own errors as they might come up in civilized discussion, (as defined by dictionary) unless they prove themselves utterly incapable and repeteadly and intentionally, obviously so mean-spirited and offensive, that they actually require the constant monitoring and public admonishing?? Or, taking a moment to consider, "did that person say something "off" because they are sliding and need help, not more punishment or embarressment?" What's the goal? Humilate the real sufferer, or reward the person mildly or righteously offended by what might even be a rather trivial rule infraction?

 

Re: question/comment

Posted by notfred on July 28, 2006, at 0:23:00

In reply to Re: question/comment cloudydaze, posted by laima on July 27, 2006, at 22:46:01

I just don't understand what this is supposed to be about anymore.


Meta discussions, that is discussions about the discussion, tend to be counterproductive to the
goals of support lists.

 

Re: question/comment notfred

Posted by Jakeman on July 28, 2006, at 0:42:09

In reply to Re: question/comment, posted by notfred on July 28, 2006, at 0:23:00

I respectfully disagree. Laima made some well thought out and fundamental points about how this board is run how it could better serve our needs.

warm regards, Jake


> I just don't understand what this is supposed to be about anymore.
>
>
> Meta discussions, that is discussions about the discussion, tend to be counterproductive to the
> goals of support lists.
>

 

Re: finally...

Posted by Dinah on July 28, 2006, at 8:14:04

In reply to Re: finally... laima, posted by laima on July 27, 2006, at 23:02:33

>
> What about just trusting people to excercise "common sense" and "common courtesy"- allowing them chances to excuse and to try to correct their own errors as they might come up in civilized discussion, (as defined by dictionary) unless they prove themselves utterly incapable and repeteadly and intentionally, obviously so mean-spirited and offensive, that they actually require the constant monitoring and public admonishing?? Or, taking a moment to consider, "did that person say something "off" because they are sliding and need help, not more punishment or embarressment?" What's the goal? Humilate the real sufferer, or reward the person mildly or righteously offended by what might even be a rather trivial rule infraction?


I personally would prefer Dr. Bob to stick to behavior and not try to figure out who is a "real sufferer".

 

Re: question/comment

Posted by notfred on July 28, 2006, at 9:00:50

In reply to Re: question/comment notfred, posted by Jakeman on July 28, 2006, at 0:42:09

> I respectfully disagree. Laima made some well thought out and fundamental points about how this board is run how it could better serve our needs.
>
> warm regards, Jake
>

But it will not matter, will it ?

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060622/msgs/668867.html

 

Re: finally...

Posted by gardenergirl on July 28, 2006, at 9:21:10

In reply to Re: finally..., posted by Dinah on July 28, 2006, at 8:14:04

> >
> > What about just trusting people to excercise "common sense" and "common courtesy"- allowing them chances to excuse and to try to correct their own errors as they might come up in civilized discussion,

I think people are trusted to do this, and when someone apologizes for a behavior there's usually no action taken by admin. Unfortunately, this trust is broken at times.

> Or, taking a moment to consider, "did that person say something "off" because they are sliding and need help, not more punishment or embarressment?" What's the goal? Humilate the real sufferer, or reward the person mildly or righteously offended by what might even be a rather trivial rule infraction?

I don't see how giving a PBC or block for *behavior* precludes understanding about a person's *state* or need for compassion. I think it's possible to admonish a behavior while still maintaining empathy, compassion, and positive regard for the person as a whole.

If someone IRL feels justifiably angry about something, and you can understand and relate to their anger, does that mean you should excuse or overlook a problematic behavior related to the anger? What if they do something such as breaking a valued object, hitting someone, or yelling obscenities and insults to someone? Does that go unremarked because you can understand their anger or even if not, because you can see they are "in a state"?


> I personally would prefer Dr. Bob to stick to behavior and not try to figure out who is a "real sufferer".

I agree.

gg

 

Re: finally... gardenergirl

Posted by laima on July 28, 2006, at 11:08:21

In reply to Re: finally..., posted by gardenergirl on July 28, 2006, at 9:21:10

On this very page, and on the previous (didn't look further back), within the current threads, there appear to be discussions about some genuine, obvious offenses, but also a few that appear dubious, trivial- or just plain confusing. I gather from the comments that some others have a few concerns, too. I hesitate to point out precise examples of course, but many of the threads I am bothered by are on this very page, in plain view.

> I don't see how giving a PBC or block for *behavior* precludes understanding about a person's *state* or need for compassion.

? Not sure if I understand this comment, in practice, for some cases.

>I think it's possible to admonish a behavior while still maintaining empathy, compassion, and positive regard for the person as a whole.

Of course, though...perhaps it's a matter of tone and what sort of emphasis is used then? In some of the cases I read about, I sincerely wonder which was more highly valued: punishment, or education/correction/guidance?

In at least one case discussed right above this thread- more attention is paid to a term casually used by the poster, than to considering what sort of self-image *difficulty* might have caused that person to use that particular term (a common though unfortunate one, tossed around all over the media, in lots of conversations in many places, etc.) in the first place.

Another case looks to involve someone looking in on a conversation between two people who were joking with each other, misunderstanding them?

> If someone IRL feels justifiably angry about something, and you can understand and relate to their anger,

Justifiably- of course!

>does that mean you should excuse or overlook a problematic behavior related to the anger?

Of course not. It is, again, trivial and ultra-zealous cases that are of concern. What's to stop, theoretically speaking, someone from zipping all over the site, being offended by everything, and turning everyone in? They'd get a lot of attention, I gather.

> > I personally would prefer Dr. Bob to stick to behavior and not try to figure out who is a "real sufferer".

I hope he has the time to examine and carefully consider each and every post then, on this massive website. Is the website his full-time job? Or did I gather he has other important appointments, too?

My main point was meant to be- I am concerned that some people, who might post a plea for help or while obviously in trouble, might either disparage themselves or inadvertently (or purposefully), use questionable or vague phrases, (words open to various readings), attract enourmous attention about whether or not there was a real infraction of rules-even if no one speaks up to honestly say, "I was genuinely offended and upset by what I read", and meanwhile, the original poster's core concern gets ignored, and plausabley, this person ends up feeling even worse, perhaps at a loss as to where to turn, should they end up lacking adequate mental health care or outside support system. Meanwhile, anyone, even if only mildly offended, can be rewarded for their behavior-that is-discovering a rule that technically was broken.

Which leads to next point: I gather, from all that is posted around the site, plenty of folks are expressing that they feel skittish to post, lest they accidently break a rule or accidently offend someone. So, contructive discussions that try to (even politely) explore more *controversial*, yet very valid topics--such as the ups and down of the pharmaceuitical industry, the vageries of diagnosises --can't happen--because yes, of course, someone is guarenteed to take offense, or even if no one does, punishments might be doled out freely anyway.

None of us are perfect, we all say things that require more clarification, and written texts are notoriously very open for interpretation and various readings- witness grad schools, philosophy classes, etc. Anyone looking to be offended, likely will be.

Perhaps there could be an area for dicier discussions, "use at your own risk", where people promise to be on their best behavior, yet acknowledge someone could end up offended?

-But no, it's not my site-

...and I choose to not spend any more of my time trying to be a "good" rule follower anymore. I just don't think reality is so clear and simple, and rule adherence does not equal ethics.

 

Re: finally... laima

Posted by Tabitha on July 28, 2006, at 11:38:04

In reply to Re: finally... gardenergirl, posted by laima on July 28, 2006, at 11:08:21

The guidelines were chosen so that when posts are civil, people are less likely to be offended, but 'offending someone' isn't the criteria for a post being civil. A civil post may offend someone, and an uncivil post may not offend anyone. The amount or degree of people offended is not supposed to be the deciding factor determining whether a post is uncivil.

I would be very hesitant to participate if 'offending anyone' was a blockable offense, because of course you can't control or predict others' reactions.

Personally I find the definition of 'civil' to be fairly clear and fairly predictable. And I also think learning to speak in a civil way is a valuable skill to have in general, so it doesn't irk me so much to be constrained by the rules here.

 

Re: finally... Tabitha

Posted by laima on July 28, 2006, at 12:17:51

In reply to Re: finally... laima, posted by Tabitha on July 28, 2006, at 11:38:04

And I also think learning to speak in a civil way is a valuable skill to have in general, so it doesn't irk me so much to be constrained by the rules here.
>

But...in person, when conversation is informed with body language, voice, and expression- it's a bit easier, don't you think? If you are friends or know the person you are writing, it's still not so hard. But, many of us may be penpals of sorts, but have never met in real life. Technically, dare I say, *strangers*?

 

Re: finally... Tabitha

Posted by laima on July 28, 2006, at 12:34:14

In reply to Re: finally... laima, posted by Tabitha on July 28, 2006, at 11:38:04


Perhaps, we have different philosophies, pointless to hash out, for we appear to be going in circles. I am a very firm believer in "civility" and kindness, politeness, if anyone is harbouring a doubt about that. Sometimes hashing out differences openly can result in both parties learning and growing, even if there are some rocky moments. That doesn't necessarily mean "uncivility" is happening. (Again, witness grad school...or "experts" or "politicians" who argue, then shake hands in the end.) I value peace and justice, but don't agree that the rules, as I understand them to be defined or used here, are necessarily the best way. I'll try not to be a hypocrite- meaning, I'll keep up an effort to respect your point of view- and the site's point of view. It's not my site. Might not be the place for me, if I disagree with such a major philosophy of it.

Best wishes.

> The guidelines were chosen so that when posts are civil, people are less likely to be offended, but 'offending someone' isn't the criteria for a post being civil. A civil post may offend someone, and an uncivil post may not offend anyone. The amount or degree of people offended is not supposed to be the deciding factor determining whether a post is uncivil.
>
> I would be very hesitant to participate if 'offending anyone' was a blockable offense, because of course you can't control or predict others' reactions.
>
> Personally I find the definition of 'civil' to be fairly clear and fairly predictable. And I also think learning to speak in a civil way is a valuable skill to have in general, so it doesn't irk me so much to be constrained by the rules here.
>

 

Re: finally...

Posted by cloudydaze on July 28, 2006, at 15:45:52

In reply to Re: finally..., posted by gardenergirl on July 28, 2006, at 9:21:10

> I think people are trusted to do this, and when someone apologizes for a behavior there's usually no action taken by admin. Unfortunately, this trust is broken at times.

***maybe we should stop and ask people "were you offended by this post" before jumping up and saying "that's uncivil" (unless it is very obviously trying to cause offense). Sometimes I think people aren't as easily offended as some think.



> I don't see how giving a PBC or block for *behavior* precludes understanding about a person's *state* or need for compassion. I think it's possible to admonish a behavior while still maintaining empathy, compassion, and positive regard for the person as a whole.

***I think blocks are harsh, in general, and should be saved for circumstances when obvious harm is done. Blocks do more harm then good, I think. They hurt people. Aren't the rules enfored to protect people? I think it's unfortunate that strict order is more important than people's feelings (seems that way to me).


> If someone IRL feels justifiably angry about something, and you can understand and relate to their anger, does that mean you should excuse or overlook a problematic behavior related to the anger? What if they do something such as breaking a valued object, hitting someone, or yelling obscenities and insults to someone? Does that go unremarked because you can understand their anger or even if not, because you can see they are "in a state"?
>


****People "get out of" crimes all the time because of "insanity". The legal system writes them off as not being accontable for their mistakes. I am accountable for my actions, more so than a lot of adults much older than me, but I shouldn't be accountable for someone elses feelings IF I DON'T INTEND TO CAUSE THEM. The rules of this board *seem* to say that *I* should be held accountable for how someone else feels.


>
> > I personally would prefer Dr. Bob to stick to behavior and not try to figure out who is a "real sufferer".
>
> I agree.
>
> gg


***Obviously, we have conflicting views.


 

Re: finally...

Posted by cloudydaze on July 28, 2006, at 16:33:51

In reply to Re: finally... laima, posted by Tabitha on July 28, 2006, at 11:38:04

> The guidelines were chosen so that when posts are civil, people are less likely to be offended, but 'offending someone' isn't the criteria for a post being civil. A civil post may offend someone, and an uncivil post may not offend anyone. The amount or degree of people offended is not supposed to be the deciding factor determining whether a post is uncivil.
>
> I would be very hesitant to participate if 'offending anyone' was a blockable offense, because of course you can't control or predict others' reactions.
>
> Personally I find the definition of 'civil' to be fairly clear and fairly predictable. And I also think learning to speak in a civil way is a valuable skill to have in general, so it doesn't irk me so much to be constrained by the rules here.
>


In the paragraphs about civility is states "Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down...or language that offends others."

It seems offense IS a big part of it. So really, this is part of the never-ending discussion of "what is offensive". I believe its kind of like the question "what is beautiful?" It's not a question I believe can be answered.

Another definition of uncivil (from the same link as Dr. Bob's definition) is "lacking in courtesy".

It seems that laima is much better at expressing things than I am :)

Maybe I should stick to poetry?

I agree with everything laima has said.

 

Re: finally... laima

Posted by laima on July 28, 2006, at 17:38:28

In reply to Re: finally... Tabitha, posted by laima on July 28, 2006, at 12:17:51

> And I also think learning to speak in a civil way is a valuable skill to have in general, so it doesn't irk me so much to be constrained by the rules here.

To attempt to clarify, regarding the above comment: I still don't see how mastering the ability to write "civilily" per rules of a blog, on the blog, has anything to do with speaking civilily or courteously in *real life* face-to-face interactions. I wish I could somehow express myself more lucidly.

I also hope this:
>learning to speak in a civil way
isn't intended to infer stupidity or some kind of inferiority.


Go forward in thread:


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] 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.