![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 102 to 126 of 156. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 12:32:45
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2's's post-FT2-B » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on March 25, 2003, at 11:53:36
NikkiT2,
You wrote,[...why do you prefer to paraphrase?...].
There is a great amount of differences in writing styles throughout the world and it is my feelings that these differences enrichen the discussions here. I respect other's writing styles and I preferr to use the style that I use because it is simply the way I like to write and I am open to requests for clarification when, my writing style could cause one to have a need for clarification. I do not consider anyone's writing style to constutute [misrepresentation], for if something needs to be clarified,I do not beleive that one can conclude that the writer was attempting to misrepresent just because the reader thinks that.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 25, 2003, at 12:36:39
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2's's post-FT2-B » NikkiT2, posted by ayuda on March 25, 2003, at 12:24:18
*smiles* Welcome to Psycho Babble ;)
Nikki xx
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 12:42:08
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2's's post-FT2-B » NikkiT2, posted by ayuda on March 25, 2003, at 12:24:18
ayuda,
You wrote,[...my guess is...Lou is only reading parts of our posts that will permit him to {attack} our statements...].
Again, I am deeply hurt that someone on a mental health board would even suggest, by saying that they are guessing, that another person here is {attacking} other's statements. I am not attacking anyone's statements, nor do I feel that I even have to defend against what I percieve as an accusation toward me that I am reading only parts of people's post that will premit me to attack other's statements.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 25, 2003, at 12:50:28
In reply to Lou's reply to NikkiT2's's post-FT2-C » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 12:32:45
Please can I ask that you never paraphrase me, but use my factual words.
Paraphrasing, as seen here, can totally confuse a situation. I, personally, find it quite dangerous to change anyones words when trying to make a point.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 13:32:48
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2's's post-FT2-C » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on March 25, 2003, at 12:50:28
> Please can I ask that you never paraphrase me, but use my factual words.
>
> Paraphrasing, as seen here, can totally confuse a situation. I, personally, find it quite dangerous to change anyones words when trying to make a point.
>
> NikkiNikkiT2,
I feel that quotes have their place in discussion and that paraphrasing also has its place in a discussion and I respect others that choose to use the style of writing that is confortable to them. There is always room for anyone to construe or misconstrue something regardless of what form or style the writer chooses. I feel that tolerance to individual differences in writing style, while admitting that any style of writing has the potential to be unclear, could further the support and education aspects of this board by requesting clarification when one needs it to better understand what another has written. As for your request for me to accomodtate your preferences to not use paraphrasing, I could do that.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 13:52:09
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2's's post-FT2-C » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on March 25, 2003, at 12:50:28
NikkiT2,
You wrote,"Paraphrasing, as seen here, can totally confuse a situation."
Are you referring to the post by Jonathan to me? If so, could you clarify if the situation is, or is not confused to you? Could you state the sentance(s) involved that made you conclude, if you are making a conclusion,of such? If so then I could reply accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 14:19:19
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2's's post-FT2-B » NikkiT2, posted by ayuda on March 25, 2003, at 12:24:18
ayuda,
You wrote,[...I asked Lou direct questions that it appears that he has ignored...].
Could you provide me with any questions that you would like me to answer ? I am not ignoring your questions, just trying to {get to them} because I was answering other posts and some of your questions could requirer me to give a comprehensive answer that could be very long and involved.
Lou
Posted by ayuda on March 25, 2003, at 16:31:08
In reply to Lou's response to ayuda's post-MQ » ayuda, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 14:19:19
> ayuda,
> You wrote,[...I asked Lou direct questions that it appears that he has ignored...].
> Could you provide me with any questions that you would like me to answer ? I am not ignoring your questions, just trying to {get to them} because I was answering other posts and some of your questions could requirer me to give a comprehensive answer that could be very long and involved.
> LouAny one of my posts from the other night that have "?" at the end of sentences would be what I am referring to. Do you have a problem with providing "long and involved" responses? You surely ask for a lot of them from others.
And as for your other post concerning my use of the term "attack," I know a verbal assault when I am faced with one.
Your posts do not appear to me to address any sort of Administrative issue re: Psycho-Babble, ther than your insinuations that Dr. Bob either 1) is anti-Semitic, or 2) permits anti-Semitic remarks and is thus hypocritical concerning the issue of "civility," so I am wondering if perhaps these issues should be taken up on another board (and I take that observation from at least two of your posts, one directed at me the other night and one directed at someone else, and if you want to know which ones, please peruse your responses over the past couple of days).
As for your feelings, stating that someone has disturbed your sensibilities because they point out that you are not discussing Administrative issues but instead are jumping on people's grammatical errors and re-writing their posts to serve your own purposes -- well, sorry if you feel put-down or abused, and I really mean that, but you do not seem to be engaged in constructive conversations with anyone here, so what reactions do you expect people to have?
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 18:14:24
In reply to Ayuda's response to two of Lou's posts of 3-25 » Lou Pilder, posted by ayuda on March 25, 2003, at 16:31:08
ayuda,
Below are some replys to your post:
1. I can not spend as much time answering here as ,perhaps, Dinah or Dreamerz or noa or NikkiT2 or some of the other names that you may see often here. I manage 1000s upon 1000s of shares of stock from 8:30Am till 4:00PM via the internat which does give me time between executions to post here. Also I am involved in a movie and I manage many properties. When I open the net in the morning, and there is a post directed to me, I feel that I have some sort of obligation to reply , although I am not saying that others should have that same obligation. Some times when I reply to one poster, a group of other posters will somehow appear and involve me in more discussion. That makes it hard to come back to the original poster that I was replying to. But I am interested in answering all of your requests and hope to do so soon.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on March 25, 2003, at 18:16:20
In reply to Re: using the option, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 11:28:55
>
> How do you split the sentences?Hi Lou. It's really very easy. Just go to the end of a line and hit "enter". That gives you a space in which to write.
I certainly understand you're wanting to use your own style, but perhaps using this option sometimes would save some keystrokes for you.
> Lou
>
Posted by Dinah on March 25, 2003, at 18:17:25
In reply to Lou's reply to ayuda's post-G1 » ayuda, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 18:14:24
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 18:19:37
In reply to Ayuda's response to two of Lou's posts of 3-25 » Lou Pilder, posted by ayuda on March 25, 2003, at 16:31:08
ayuda,
2. It has been a coutesy, but not a requierment, here to provide others with a URL when one wants a response from it rather than to requiere the other to hunt through the previous posts. I can do a hunt, but it could take much longer for me to reply than if you gave me the URL or just the question that you would like me to respond to.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 18:24:45
In reply to Re: using the option, posted by Dinah on March 25, 2003, at 18:16:20
Dinah,
Thanks for the help. That will make things much easier.
Lou
PS.. Are you OK now? What hurt you ?
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 18:29:35
In reply to Ayuda's response to two of Lou's posts of 3-25 » Lou Pilder, posted by ayuda on March 25, 2003, at 16:31:08
ayuda,
3. I am not in any type of verbal assult with anyone. I am sorry if you feel that way.
I hope the you will consider that my requests for clarification can be benifitial to not only me in order to reply accordingly, but also to the poster so that they can [rule out] possible misunderstandings that I may percieve in their post.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on March 25, 2003, at 18:30:38
In reply to Re: using the option » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 18:24:45
You did, Lou. By commenting on the frequency of my posting in a way that didn't sound particularly positive. I do have a job you know, and a family....
Posted by ayuda on March 25, 2003, at 18:35:21
In reply to Lou's reply to ayuda's post-G1 » ayuda, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 18:14:24
> ayuda,
> Below are some replys to your post:
> 1. I can not spend as much time answering here as ,perhaps, Dinah or Dreamerz or noa or NikkiT2 or some of the other names that you may see often here. I manage 1000s upon 1000s of shares of stock from 8:30Am till 4:00PM via the internat which does give me time between executions to post here. Also I am involved in a movie and I manage many properties. When I open the net in the morning, and there is a post directed to me, I feel that I have some sort of obligation to reply , although I am not saying that others should have that same obligation. Some times when I reply to one poster, a group of other posters will somehow appear and involve me in more discussion. That makes it hard to come back to the original poster that I was replying to. But I am interested in answering all of your requests and hope to do so soon.
> Lou
>For someone who is that busy, you sure put out a lot of messages asking a lot of questions, but fewer answering them. And I don't recall involving you in my original post, you sent me 5 or 6 comments when I was replying to Dinah, so you can't blame your participation solely on other people. That's all I'm saying.
And, for someone who is so concerned with their own feelings when confronted, your insinuation that people like Dinah, NikkiT2, et al., have nothing better to do is fairly rude. Though you did not include me on that list, I just would like to mention that I am a full-time PhD student, I teach college history at a major US university, and I tutor gifted high school students and learning-disabled college student athletes at one of the nation's top NCAA schools, but this board gives me a lot of important information concerning my medications, so I try to be kind to people on it by responding to their inquiries. Perhaps the above-mentioned people are also busy but just share my respect for other members of this site.
And again, I am suggesting that these conversations don't belong on Psycho-Babble Administration, and that perhaps a re-direct is in order.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 18:42:27
In reply to Re: using the option » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on March 25, 2003, at 18:30:38
Dinah,
I am sorry that you took it that way, for it was not my intention. What could also be deduced is that your are more dedicated to this board than I and involve yourself in many many threads, and innitiate your own threads whereas I am only involving myself in threads that involve me. I have stopped the [7 gates] here, and I do not innitiate threads anymore as I used to do. I even stopped [which one does not belong, what's wrong with this picture, games...],(which dreamerz has contributed to).
I apologise.
Lou
Posted by ayuda on March 25, 2003, at 18:44:43
In reply to Lou's reply to yahuda's post-G3 » ayuda, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 18:29:35
> ayuda,
> 3. I am not in any type of verbal assult with anyone. I am sorry if you feel that way.
> I hope the you will consider that my requests for clarification can be benifitial to not only me in order to reply accordingly, but also to the poster so that they can [rule out] possible misunderstandings that I may percieve in their post.
> LouLou, since I do have lots of better things to do, this will be my last response to you, and the last time I read Admin, because I would rather be discussing my medications and side-effects with people who are using Psycho-Babble to be helpful and not to play verbal cat and mouse games.
No, actually, I consider your "requests for clarification" to be unwarranted (as in the case of pointing out Nikki's typos), confrontational, lacking in any significance whatsoever to the original conversations, and just plain annoying. I am not so stupid or naive as to believe that just because someone puts "this will help me understand you better" that their otherwise smart-alek or insulting comments are harmless. And you can leave off the patronizing remarks, "I feel sorry for you," because those are the most insulting. I'm sure that you are being genuine, but just because you are being genuine does not mean that you are being kind, helpful, or harmless, as can be seen in other people's responses to you.
And sorry that you don't have the time to re-read what you have written, but I don't have time to be your research assistant.
Bye.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 18:47:50
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to ayuda's post-G1 » Lou Pilder, posted by ayuda on March 25, 2003, at 18:35:21
ayuda,
I was replying to Jonathan's post this morning and others joined in the discussion, which is fine. In you post, i was already a discussant , as I remember, in the thread that you posted on and thearfore I had an interet in your post because it was relevant to the entire discussion that , as i remember, was a participant.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on March 25, 2003, at 18:51:42
In reply to Re: using the option » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 18:42:27
Thank you, Lou. That does sound a bit better. I appreciate the clarification.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 18:54:24
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to yahuda's post-G3 » Lou Pilder, posted by ayuda on March 25, 2003, at 18:44:43
ayuda,
Sorry, but I feel that I , at times when a person's post could be construed different ways, to ask for clarification so that I can respond accordingly and I feel that asking for clarification is not confrontational, and insted of lacking in significance, the requests could lead to greater significance for the clarification gives more light on the subject and could rule out ambiguities.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 18:56:15
In reply to Re: using the option » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on March 25, 2003, at 18:51:42
Dinah,
Thank you for your response, for I was hoping that you would [...give the poster the benifit of the doubt...]
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 19:08:28
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to yahuda's post-G3 » Lou Pilder, posted by ayuda on March 25, 2003, at 18:44:43
ayuda,
I consider your statement that I use smart-alec and/or insulting comments to invoke from me a request for you to identify those statements of mine that you include in your conclusion that they are smart-alec or insulting so that I could respond accordingly and, possibly clarify that they were not smart-alsc or insulting, for it was not my intention to do so. There is a principle here that you [...give the poster the benifit of the doubt...] and that is another reason that I ask for clarification so that theer can be a review of any doubts. Now you have writen that you will not respond to your post to me and that leaves me with no venue to ask you for clarification. I feel hurt when people tell me something and then deny me the opportunity to ask them for clarification.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 19:54:06
In reply to Misrepresentation » Lou Pilder, posted by Jonathan on March 25, 2003, at 0:14:08
Johnathan,
You quoted a verse from the christiandom bible that Jesus said. I am not a member of christiandom.
Could you clarify if you are quoting that verse because you are a member of christiandom, or because of some other reason? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of your post to me.
OTOH, whether you are a member of christiandom or not, are you saying that this jesus is telling me that because I paraphrased a statement by another poster in order to direct the post to that part of her post, that I have committed a violation,and perhaps be condemmed, by that jesus? Does this jesus in your post consider what someone does to be of two different natures, such as a willfull or an innocent trespass? I have read that there is a jesus that looks into the heart of a person and judges not on the outside, but inwardly. Is the jesus that I have read about a different jesus or the same jesus that you referr to in your post to me? If you could clarify these things, I could have a better understanding of your post to me.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 20:11:30
In reply to Misrepresentation » Lou Pilder, posted by Jonathan on March 25, 2003, at 0:14:08
Jonathan,
You wrote about a jesus. Is the jesus in your post to me , the same jesus that said, "Judge not, that you be not judged." If so, could you clarify if you are accusing me of deliberatly misrepresenting something,(and I was not) in the post in question? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of why you quoted a jesus in your post to me. You see, I read of a jesus that had a woman taken to Him by others saying that they caught her in adultery and asked Him if she should be stoned to death. That jesus told the women to go and sin no more., instead of being stoned to death. There was no condemnation to her. It is my deep conviction that in this passage, He saw into the women's heart, and even though she was taken to Him by her accusers, I believe that her accusers were the ones that she was committing adultery with and thearfore she was entrapped, or forced, or too feeble in mind to comprehend , or did not know of the commandment to not commit adultery and thearfore did not willfully commit the act. Could you clarify if the jesus in this passage is the same or a different jesus that you are referring to in your post to me? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of your post to me.
Lou
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.