Posted by Dinah on May 24, 2005, at 1:10:30
In reply to Re: Ok, » Dinah, posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 23:10:35
My husband found me just fine. He's asleep now, and I'm off to finish my work. Did I give the impression that he thought I was lost?
I do indeed frequently have trouble recognizing humor. But if someone points it out, I can generally see it. You did, and I did.
Funny thing is that I think with minor help from our diplomatic staff, I think we could have an agreement in principle.
You and I both believe that Please Abide By Board Guidelines is more civil than Please Be Civil.
You and I both believe that a Please Rephrase with examples of appropriate rephrasings are appropriate on those occasions when it is clear that the poster was not intentionally flouting board guidelines.
I have a greater concern for hypothetical persons.
You believe that my knowledge of board guidelines is not as broad or deep as I believe it is. Oh well, we all have our small conceits. I think I'll leave it up to Dr. Bob to disabuse me.
I have no problem, in principal, with Dr. Bob using other professionals as consultants or co-workers as long as he maintains control for the sake of consistency in interpretation and application of board guidelines. Not to mention the not so small matter of earned trust. If that's what he wishes to do.
I see far more consistency in his actions than you do, and I don't think I could identify a day that Dr. Bob got out of the wrong side of the bed. No doubt due to the benefits of asynchronous communication, he always seems steady and reliably Dr. Bob. I also trust him more, but I've known him longer, I presume.
You even agree with me on a subject dear to my heart, the small board, and the vast preferability of keeping the viewing of conversations limited to those who can join in.
Am I correct this time?
Not that it matters all that much, except insofar as charity between two posters go. It's Dr. Bob's board.
> Communication is a multi-party affair. People here are somewhat articulate, but his peers might be best at explaining perspectives here to him in terms he understands. Sort of like the difference in having a native-born speaker or an English-as-second-language guide in a foreign land - the native English speaker might more readily speak in terms you will understand. And you make the same point well enough in the next sentence...Except that... If the difference is that his peers speak the same language, wouldn't they also find the same difficulty in understanding what we posters were trying to say?
> Overall, I think the most cocnern among writers to the board does center on his views on the faith board. I would have to ask if he is too close to the matter, perhaps because of some faith he holds, so that maybe he is trying extra carefully to avoid imposing or challenging faith systems.
Funny, my assumption is that Dr. Bob isn't a person of religion. And that is where some of the problems lie. But you must confess, religion and politics are tricky. Some sites outlaw them outright. He's got posters or lurkers potentially of every faith and ardent atheists and he's trying to walk a fine line there. I don't envy him. Since you may have seen the recent numbers of atheism among mental health professionals, I'm not sure other mental health professionals would help much there.
> That almost gave me stretch marks? on my vocabulary. The word isn't even listed? in two dictionaries I checked. And there is no HTML character entity for it either. Closest is ¿.
>
The quomma is a smudge which may or may not be a comma, placed deliberately to allow for multiple interpretations of a sentence. The classic example from the book, and one that my husband and I enjoy, is the two sentences "She will do nothing which will displease you." vs. "She will do nothing, which will displease you."It's been a pleasure getting to know you. I hope to see you out and around the board.
poster:Dinah
thread:491889
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050517/msgs/502104.html