![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 127 to 151 of 156. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 20:36:52
In reply to Misrepresentation » Lou Pilder, posted by Jonathan on March 25, 2003, at 0:14:08
Jonathan,
You cited a talmidic verse:[...what is hatefull to you, do not to your fellow man...].
Are you citing that verse because you are associating hate in some way with me or someone else on the thread in question? If so, could you clarify who this is and what the hate, if there is hate, is? If you could, I could be better able to understand your citing of this verse in relation to the topic discussed and I would like you to know that I harbor no hate for anyone.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 25, 2003, at 21:09:13
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah's post » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on March 25, 2003, at 9:07:33
> I believe paraphrasing can be a dangerous thing, as it leads to many misunderstandings.
It can be, but misunderstandings can be corrected, and I'd rather not further restrict freedom of speech here.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 25, 2003, at 21:30:13
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
> My guess ... is that Lou is reading only the parts of our posts that will permit him to attack our statements.
> I consider your "requests for clarification" to be unwarranted ... confrontational, lacking in any significance whatsoever to the original conversations, and just plain annoying.
> smart-alek or insulting comments
> patronizing remarksIt may be frustrating here sometimes, but please don't jump to conclusions about others or post anything that could lead them to feel accused or put down.
> it appears that Lou does not answer direct questions
Also, if people prefer not to answer questions, I'd rather they didn't feel they had to... Thanks,
Bob
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 26, 2003, at 7:03:15
In reply to Re: please be civil » ayuda, posted by Dr. Bob on March 25, 2003, at 21:30:13
So, it IS ok for the Lou to take things we've said and change the meaning of them by his use of paraphrasing??
It seems to me that Lou simply wants things HIS way. When I used a direct quote of his, just not the whole sentence (and I did use ... to signify it wasn't the end of the sentence) he got very upset, even though what he had said I found incredibly offensive.
But when Lou takes something someone has said, and changes its meaning by using his own words, credited to the original poster, its allowed to pass with no problem??Lou constantly pushes people until they snap. I know he has been blocked many times in the past, but it does seem that you give him much more lee way than other people.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 26, 2003, at 7:18:45
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by NikkiT2 on March 26, 2003, at 7:03:15
NikkiT2,
You wrote,"So, it IS OK for Lou to take things we've said and change the meaning of them by his use of paraphrasing??
Are you making an accusation toward me that because I paraphrased someone's statement that it was my [intention]to change the meaning of the statement? If so, could you identify what it is that you use to determine that I, or anyone else, [deliberatly] paraphrased a statement by another to change a meaning?
Are you saying that because there is a paraphrase that someone could [not] ask for clarification to the person that made the paraphase so that any misunderstanding could be cleard up and [must] rush to some judgment about the poster that posted the paraphrase that they deliberatly used the paraphrase to change the meaning? If so, are you saying that the principle that Dr. Bob has established here that says,[...give the poster the benifit of the doubt...] does not apply to me? If you could clarify these things, then I could have a better understanding of your post and respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 26, 2003, at 7:44:50
In reply to Lou's response to NikkiT2's post-H1 » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on March 26, 2003, at 7:18:45
If someone reads your words, and see's only your meaning, they are unlikely to ask for clarification as they believe they have an understanding of what was said. Not everyone asks for clarification of every single little point.
Oh, and if you go though all the boards, you will find few postings from me. I do not [spend all my time] on the board *smile*
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 26, 2003, at 7:57:09
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by NikkiT2 on March 26, 2003, at 7:03:15
NikkiT2,
You wrote about your use of a direct quote of something that I had written. In that quote, you left out 3 words that I simply asked you to rewrite and include those words because, first, a use of quotation marks means that you are writing the exact words of someone, not a paraphrase,and what you wrote was not the exact statement that I had written, and I thought that the meaning could be different without the 3 words. I simply asked you for correction of your quote,and if someone wanted me to add some more of the paraphrase that I used in order to clarify, I would welcome such a request and accomodate the poster's wishes because this is a mental health bosrd and it has been stated over and over that one should not jump to a conclusion about another poster and that the poster should be[... given the benifit of the doubt...] That is why I had asked you to include the 3 words, not to condem you for leaving them out, but to give you the benifit of the doubt, for the possibility existed that you may have not known that quotation marks are used to write exactly what someone else said or wrote and I was being sensitive to your feelings by making a request, not a condemnation, by asking you to add the words that you but to further the discussion with the exact words, since you used quotation marks and the deletion of the 3 words could have the effect of distorting what I had written. I do not remember writing that you should be admonished by Dr. Bob for it. But if there was a statement by me to Dr. Bob, like you are posting here to request to Dr. Bob, could you give me the URL and allow me to examine such, if it exists, and I will respond accordingly? Are you saying that Dr. Bob admonished you for leaving the words out, and thearfore he should admonish me for paraphrrasing? I did not see any such thing and if there is a post by Dr. Bob admonishing you for leaving out the 3 words, could you give the URL for such so that I could have a better understanding of what you are writing and respond accordingly?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 26, 2003, at 8:06:55
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post-H1 » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on March 26, 2003, at 7:44:50
NikkiT2,
You wrote,"If someone reads your words, and sees only your meaning,they are unlikely to ask for clarification as they believe they have an understanding of what was said. Not evryone asks for clarification of evry single little point."
Evryone here has the opportunity to ask for clarification and are requiered to not rush to a judgement about what is written and to give the poster in question the benifit of the doubt. That is the guidlines for discussion here, as I understand it. What others do in regards to what they read is up to them. I can only speak for myself.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 26, 2003, at 8:29:20
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by NikkiT2 on March 26, 2003, at 7:03:15
NikkiT2,
You wrote,"Lou constantly pushes people until they snap."
Could you identify what you used to make this conclusion about me? If you could, then I could reply acordingly. It is not my intention to push anyone and I am hurt by your accusation toward me.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 26, 2003, at 8:53:39
In reply to Lou's reply to NikkiT2's's post-Mo-3 » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on March 26, 2003, at 8:29:20
Sorry Lou, but you will have to wait for replies. I do not have the strength to continue this today.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 26, 2003, at 15:24:15
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
Friends,
Ayuda has made the statement that my genuiness does not mean that I am being helpfull.
Well, today, I recieved an email from a person outside of this forum that found me with infomation for them that could be extreamly helpfull to them. The emailer wrote that I was the only source of infomation relevant to her condition and that she found me doing a search and found one of my posts on this forum.
This leads to another aspect of this discussion which is [...the purpose of this forum...].
People find this forum through a search and have the opportunity to find infomation that is relevant to their condition as a [result] of Dr. Bob's establishment of this forum for his research. And as a participant here, I can contribute to the benifit of others {even outside of the discussions here}.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2003, at 13:04:13
In reply to Misrepresentation » Lou Pilder, posted by Jonathan on March 25, 2003, at 0:14:08
Jonathan,
You wrote that ayuda wrote,[...I believe that people that are incapable of understanding {that they signed an agreement to use this site in a particular manner, and then who keep arguing with [Dr. Bob] about those parameters}, have emotional problems, because they can't see that the simple answer is to just leave the site alone...]. The question before us in your post is that you write that my paraphrasing of this statement by ayuda by leaving out the part enclosed by {...} cause you to associate me with [misrepresentation]. It is my understanding , by what I have been told by a communication expert that I have had review this post of yours, that your use of the word,[misrepresentation] in association with my name is distorted, misleading and innacurate.
First, the word [misrepresentation], in and of itself, has the potential to imply that there is deliberate intent to cause others to believe something that is false. This can happen if different words are used in a paraphrase, but in the case in question, only the same words were used and no words were added or substituted.
Secondly, in my paraphrase, the 3 dots indicate that there was an omission. But there could be many reasons for one to use the 3 dots, not just the reason that you wrote.
Third, the issue of whether the part left out would constitute a [material] difference in the meaning of the whole statement by ayuda in the opinion of my expert, is not relevant because the 3 dots indicate that there is something left out so that it is not a mystery to any reader. If the 3 dots were not there, then it would be possible to claim that misrepresentation was sought. But my expert said to me that {I did the proper thing} by putting the 3 dots in the paraphrease and if someone does not understand the convention of such, then I am not responsible for their lack of understanding, anymore than you would be responsible for someone's lack of understanding about the use of quotation marks, for they could request others to help them understand what they do not know, not requirer you, let's say, to not use quotation marks because they do not understand their use.
Fourthly, when my expert examined the issue of the part that is left out, the conclusion was that the meaning was {not} [materially] changed, as your post is writing about. We could take both the paraphased and the whole statement and see.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2003, at 14:06:43
In reply to Misrepresentation » Lou Pilder, posted by Jonathan on March 25, 2003, at 0:14:08
Jonathan,
You have written that my paraphrasing of ayuda's post, by editing, [... substantually changes the meaning...]. You say that this is [misrepresentation]. I beg to differ with you and consider your post to have the potential to falsely portrey me to others as someone that [misrepresents] what others write. You even had the jesus quote directed at me for paraphrasing ayuda's statement as if there is a spiritual something that I am in violation to, and I am not. I am deeply hurt by what you have written in your post for I have no intentions to misrepresent anyone, or to tresspass willfully to jesus, even though I am not a member of christiandom, for on the contrary, my editing and paraphrasing of posts is only to simplify and to direct that part that I am writing about to the whole post so that focus could be made to that part, in general. I have seen others paraphrase and it is common knowlege that paraphrasing is not the same as quoting. If someone wanted to go back to the main part of the post that I am replying to, they have several options to do that.
Let us now examine the two statements, one in toto, and the other with the part left out and see if there is a [material] difference in the meaning of the two.
The statement by ayuda:
[...I beleive that people that are incapable of understanding {that they signed an agreement to use this site in a particular manner, and then who keep arguing with Dr. Bob about those parameters}, have emotional problems, because they can't see that the simple answer is to just leave the site alone...].
The paraphased statement by me:
{...And yes, I believe that people who are incapable of understanding...have emotional problems...and can't see the simple answer is to just leave this site alone...].
My communications expert examined to see if there is a material difference in the two, and his answer is,[no}.
The reasons given are that, first, the people that are in the left out part are {all} the people on this board, because evryone enters this site in the same manner. There are not two different classes of people here, one that signs an agreement to use the site in a particular manner, as ayuda wrote, and some other class that does not sign an agreement to use the site in a particular manner.
Secondly, the people that ayuda write that have {emotional problems}, are still in the paraphrase whether the ommited part is placed in or out of the statement, which is what the paraphrase is focusing on. So that part if ayuda's post is retained, and the ommited part has no bearing on that being retained.
Third, let us focus on the part that says,[...who keep arguing with Dr. Bob about those parameters...]. You see, those people are understood to be invited by Dr. Bob to post on the administrative board those concersns, for he has written that he is [... open to feedback...]. It goes without saying that those people are there for that express purpose, not because they have {emotional problems}. So my expert says that my paraphrase was very good, becuae it brought into focus the main issues and exposed them by ommitting the part that I omited which was irrelevant to the aspect of portreying people that use the administrative board as having emotional problems.
And next, the people that could voice any perception that there is misrepresentaion by me, according to my expert, I am not responsible for them to make any rush to judgement about what is left out, for what is left out is not a mystery, for it can be reviwed by anyone to be placed back into ayuda's statement and then they can make their own conclusion about [misrepresentaion] when the omited part is replaced.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2003, at 15:16:11
In reply to Misrepresentation » Lou Pilder, posted by Jonathan on March 25, 2003, at 0:14:08
Jonathan,
You wrote, [...I think that the cause of your hurt...is your own...].
I feel hurt , not because of what I wrote at all. I feel hurt that ayuda wrote that,[...people that keep arguing with Dr. Bob, about those parameters,{have emotional problems...].
You see, I am in that group of people that she refered to, because I also [keep arguing with Dr. Bob...] and I am arguing with him because I feel that there are things that need to be addressed here, and he is open to feedback, and I do not want to be falsly portreyed as someone that has {emotional problems} because I percieve injustice here, and also I am hurt because others here are also included to have [emotional problems] because of the same. What is said about others hurts me also.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2003, at 19:57:01
In reply to Misrepresentation » Lou Pilder, posted by Jonathan on March 25, 2003, at 0:14:08
Jonathan,
Another reason that I feel hurt by ayuda's post is that there is the statement,[...they {can't see}that the simple answer is to leave the site alone...].
My communication expert said that that part of ayuda's post, which is associated with the people that,[...keep arguing with Dr. Bob about the parameters...],says to me that the statement is insulting to those that accept the opportunity by Dr. Bob to speak on the administration board about [improvements] since Dr. Bob writes that he is,[...open to feedback...]. What is even more outrageous, according to my communications expert, is that ayuda associates those people with being, [troublemakers}, which she did apologise for and I respect her for that. Then ayuda states that these people [can't see] that {there is a simple thing to do, just leave the site alone...]. My expert denotes that statement to be a disrespectfull statement to those that ayuda is referring to, for it states that there is (a simple solution) and [they can't see it.]which is tantamount to saying that there is [only one way] which is to[...just leave the site alone],and the people in question have [emotional problems], which my expert considers to be defamation to those that ayuda is refering to, because they accept Dr. Bob's opportunity for redress of greivences when Dr. Bob writes that he is [open to feedback...].
Then the question of whether the omitted part would substantually or materially affect the meaning if it was included or not included. My expert says,{no}.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2003, at 20:48:02
In reply to Misrepresentation » Lou Pilder, posted by Jonathan on March 25, 2003, at 0:14:08
Jonathan,
I have had your post reviewed by a biblical expert relevant to your posting the christiandom verse of jesus saying,[...thearfore all things whatsoever you would want men to do to you, do you even to them, for this is the law and the prophets...].I asked him if that verse was a verse that could be applied to me because I wrote something that was a paraphrase in what I had no intention for the paraphrase to associated by someone as [misrepresentation]. I asked him if there was a jesus that would admonish me for doing so and would apply the verse in question to me. His answer was, [...not the jesus that I know, it must be a {different} jesus...]. The expert said that the verse is missaplied to me because the verse , according to the expert, is a positive verse to {do}, not a negative command. He went on and said that the poster in question that is applying the verse to my situation is saying that I should not have done something and that the verse in question means to him , as to the jesus that he knows, is misapplied for it means to him to do something positive, such as ,[...love your enemy...], or, [...pray for those that despitfully use you...], or,[...when you call attention to the speck in your brother's eye, look at the plank in your own eye...first remove the plank in your own eye, then you could see to remove the speck in your brother's eye...].
The the biblical expert said that there was no offense in the paraphrase that was gramaticcaly wrong, and if there was, the jesus that he knows was not [in the business] of correcting or admoshing people's grammer. He went on to saty that some of the writers in christiandom had to have others write for them , for they were not the best in grammer, and that there is no condemnation to those that write from what is in there heart, even if others try to make you believe that jesus is some type of [extreme legalist] that is recording all of your spelling mistakes, which he said hat the jesus that he knew was not. He went on to say that God looks at the heart of man, not what is on the outside and that people are told by his jesus not to make conclusions about what is in a person's heart, for he said that that is reserved for God to do.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 28, 2003, at 7:17:35
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by NikkiT2 on March 26, 2003, at 7:03:15
NikkiT2,
You wrote,"So, it IS OK for the Lou to take things we've said and change the meaning of them by his use of paraphrasing??"
When you wrote, [for {the} Lou] in your statement above, was there some meaning that you wanted to portray here by using {for} preceding my name? If there was, could you explain what that is? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of your post and be able to respond accordingly.
Are you making a conclusion that I am taking things [others] said, since you used the word {we've} in your statement above, and change the meaning of them? If so, could you list the [others] that are in the {we've}? If you could, then I would have a knowlege of who these people are in the {we've} and respond accordingly, for not only do I believe that I am not changing the mening of the poster in question here, but also I do not believe that I have changed the meaning of {others}.
You wrote that it seems to you that Dr. Bob gives me much more [lee way] than other people. Yet you wrote what ,"Lou constantly pushes people until they snap." I have had my communication expert review this post of yours and he says to me that your conclusion about me that I constantly push people untill they snap is is in violation of the principles established here and was wondering why Dr. Bob was giving you [lee way] in regards to your statements about me.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 28, 2003, at 9:51:14
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by NikkiT2 on March 26, 2003, at 7:03:15
> So, it IS ok for the Lou to take things we've said and change the meaning of them by his use of paraphrasing??
I don't think misunderstandings can always be avoided. But if people misunderstand you, it's OK for you to correct them.
> I know he has been blocked many times in the past, but it does seem that you give him much more lee way than other people.
Leeway in the eye of the beholder? Thanks for your patience,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 28, 2003, at 9:53:40
In reply to Lou's response to Jonathan's post-FX, posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2003, at 20:48:02
> I have had your post reviewed by a biblical expert
Please keep discussion about jesus on Psycho-Babble Faith, thanks.
Bob
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 28, 2003, at 10:29:35
In reply to Lou's response to NikkiT2's post-PT » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on March 28, 2003, at 7:17:35
The *the* in the sentance "So, it IS OK for *the* Lou to take things we've said and change the meaning of them by his use of paraphrasing??" was not meant to be there. Just a typing error.
I was using the word "we" to signify other posters of this board.
That is all I have to say in reply I am afraid. I think this thread really needs to come to an end.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 28, 2003, at 11:19:18
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post-PT, posted by NikkiT2 on March 28, 2003, at 10:29:35
NikkiT2,
You wrote, "I think this thread really needs to come to an end."
Are you saying, then, that:
A. the thread ought to come to an end {only} [for you]?
B. the thread ought to come to an end for just {Lou}?
C. the thread ought to come to an end for evrybody?
D. the thread ought to come to an end because of some reason which is_______
E. none of the above
F. something other than the above which is_____
G. a combination of the above which is______
If you could clarify your statement , then I could have a better understanding of your post and have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 28, 2003, at 13:06:36
In reply to Lou's response to NikkiT2's post-PU » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on March 28, 2003, at 11:19:18
Lou,
It doesn't matter Lou. I will never be able to saya anything clearly enough for you not to question every single small point in it, and I no longer have the energy to deal with such nit picking.
I'm afraid I will not be posting anymore on this thread, so please refrain from asking for clarification, as I really can't state my intentions any clearer than I have.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 28, 2003, at 13:26:59
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post-PU » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on March 28, 2003, at 13:07:03
NikkT2,
You wrote,"I will never be able to saya anything clearly enough for you not to question evry single small point in it, and I no longer have the energy to deal with such nit picking."
What is "nit picking" to one person, could be extreamly important to another person, for I believe that communication on a mental-health board can be better understood, and thearfore provide better communication which could lead to more therapeutic discourse, when statements by posters that have the potential for one to understand different things from a post, have the opportunity to [rule out] possibilities that could arise from statements that could have more than one meaning. I feel that if I do not give a poster an opportunity to clarify what they wrote, then misunderstandings have a potential to be greater than when clarification is requested.
Lou
Posted by noa on March 28, 2003, at 19:20:30
In reply to Re: Shutting down the Babbles » Dinah, posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 11:25:43
Ayuda, my impression is that Dr. Bob set the board up for support and education and the research part came after. In fact, he added the research-informed consent forms afterward, when he started using excerpts from the board for articles.
But I agree that the moderation of the board makes it much more pleasant and workable.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 29, 2003, at 2:44:00
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post-PU » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on March 28, 2003, at 13:06:36
> I no longer have the energy to deal with such nit picking.
I'm sorry if it's been frustrating, but please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, thanks.
Bob
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.