![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 99 to 123 of 133. Go back in thread:
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 20:22:36
In reply to Actually, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 20:16:13
So you are a virgin mother and the administrator is like a god?
I'm sorry, full-belly intoxication caught up with me. I'll enclose my serious reply in another post.
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 20:24:06
In reply to Re: Actually -- silliness inside » Dinah, posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 20:22:36
Posted by gardenergirl on May 23, 2005, at 20:26:19
In reply to Re: Ok,, posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 20:03:40
EEEEPPPP!
I'm afraid I have not been acting very zenesque, Thus, I am going to let this go. I get confused about who I am and what I'm about when I stray from the path. And I don't like feeling as if I am not being authentic, since that is something I value.
I really dislike inauthenticity.
gg
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 20:31:38
In reply to Re: Ok,, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 20:12:45
I would be less put off by instructions to please follow site guidelines than to please be civil. The former would send me looking for site guidelines, whereas the later sends me looking into my personal experiences regarding what is civil.
While there might be risk for you to learn to trust another person, I might ask whether the benefits you realized from developing trust for one person couldn't be expanded by developing trust for another?For that matter, if you benefited from learning to trust a person, could you potentially realize a similar benefit from learning to trust concepts that grew from one person's intitiative then were refined by others?
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 20:35:49
In reply to LOL. I think I like you when you're silly. (nm) » so, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 20:24:06
Posted by partlycloudy on May 23, 2005, at 20:37:34
In reply to Ommmmm, posted by gardenergirl on May 23, 2005, at 20:26:19
You said that very authentically... (joke)
and I have the greatest of empathy with your feelings. (not joke)
pc
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 20:42:03
In reply to Re: Ok, » Dinah, posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 20:31:38
But what if I didn't?
You asked if my interests would be in jeopardy. I don't like or trust all mental health professionals, by a long shot.
Nor do I have good experiences in trusting that people I like and trust will put their faith in other people I like and trust.
Apart from someone else having to endure the same trials that poor Dr. Bob had to endure. (oooh, i need a smiley)
There would be a more than reasonable chance that a second, never even mind third or fourth, moderator would be not liked or trusted by me, which would be against my interests, unless all had to answer to Dr. Bob, who I trust. But I think that would be against your interest.
And we only have to look at the laws of this land to know that no matter how much codification and reams of documentation are included in laws, there will always be inconsistency in applying it between individual (in the case of the law, judges) moderators. I still prefer the consistency of having the law of the site interpreted by one moderator.
Dr. Bob has proposed a system that I believe was intended in part to lessen his administrative burden. It would allow posters to have a system of reporting posts to him, so that he didn't have to review all posts. Wouldn't that achieve the same end, but retain the greater consistency that comes from having a single moderator?
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 20:50:54
In reply to only then? (nm) » Dinah, posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 20:35:49
To employ Alexandra's test of logic.
I think I like you when you're silly implies only that I think I do not dislike you when you are silly.
It can't be discerned from the statement that I like or dislike you in other than silly states.
Because all of the following could be true.
I think I like you when you're silly.
I think I like you when you're serious.I think I like you when you're silly.
I think I don't like you when you're serious.I think I like you when you're silly.
I think I like you sometimes when you're serious, but sometimes I don't.I think I like you when you're silly.
I have no opinion about you when you're not.And various and sundry other permutations of all sorts of states not limited to silly or serious.
The truth is that I don't know you all that well. Unless I actually do, and don't know it. Because this is the internet and there's no way of telling that, is there? So going on the assumption that this is the third name you've ever posted on on Babble, which is all you've said you've posted on, I don't know you very well.
I'm making an effort to know you better.
I don't think you appear to be the sort of person who would appreciate statements of affection from someone who doesn't know you very well.
Have I at least correctly deduced that about you?
Because of course, I could be wrong. I don't know you very well.
Posted by gardenergirl on May 23, 2005, at 20:58:26
In reply to Re: Ommmmm » gardenergirl, posted by partlycloudy on May 23, 2005, at 20:37:34
Posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 21:07:08
In reply to Re: Ok, » Dinah, posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 20:31:38
> >Please cite one instance of Dr Bob asserting that the behaviour was uncivil.
>I have stated in this thread that demanding that people be civil is seen by some people as in implication that they are not being civil -- hence "uncivil".
Yes. Though the trouble is that 'implication' is an objective matter. Asking someone to be civil does not imply that they are not being civil. Not unless you have your own 'private meanings' going on in which case we really aren't going to be able to get communication of this issue up of the ground...
>If you did not read that, or if you don't agree that is one way of seeing things,
Of course it is one way of seeing things
Which is just to say that some people do in fact see it that way.>or that some reasonable people see it that way, there may be little I can write that would help expand your understanding.
Hmm.
I think we are only going to continue to talk past each other....
Good luck with whatever it is that you are trying to do...
I give up.
I don't understand you
And you don't understand me
And there it is.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 21:08:14
In reply to Thanks (nm) » partlycloudy, posted by gardenergirl on May 23, 2005, at 20:58:26
We wuv you gg.
I'm all confused myself.Shall we go be silly somewhere else???
;-)
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 21:20:58
In reply to Re: Ok, » so, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 20:42:03
I snipped the first part, for the sake of tidyness -- I agree codification has had its merits and deficits and indeed it has destroyed the spirit of the law in some cultures. The worlds best selling book seems to tell such a story. But then a system of codification let a nation of white male landholding citizens mature into a nation of multicultural, multiethnic, multigender, sometimes landless citizens who elect a congress largely made up of white male landholders.
Wait. that was supposed to go somehwere else.
Anyway.
Well, that would tend to address some of your concerns, though. More inclusion of other people wouldn't necessarily mean the end of Hsiung's unique methods -- such as public sanctions for the "good" of the group, or an obligation to own ones own emotions and those of others. It just might require that he better explain why he prefers those methods.
>
> Dr. Bob has proposed a system that I believe was intended in part to lessen his administrative burden. It would allow posters to have a system of reporting posts to him, so that he didn't have to review all posts. Wouldn't that achieve the same end, but retain the greater consistency that comes from having a single moderator?
It could resolve one concern of mine, which is his unprovoked defense of the theoretical feelings of hypothetical people. Of course, concerned citizens interested in consistency could still bring matters to him that could potentially offend hypothetical people.For the most part, I don't see that as a system I would immediately find faulty. It is a standard feature of many bulliten board softwares, and many administrators choose to enable the feature.
i can't really say where my "set-point" would be for accepting his administrative style modified to resolve my concerns. That might make it difficult to use my concerns as part of a guide for what to improve if I don't present a stationary target, but it would be reasonable to seek to resolve concerns I present without seeking my ultimate approval. After all, support in the group is provided by members for members, not by members for the administration. If I represent members who are particularly hard to please, vote for me, I'll represent you well, maybe.
We might agree, you and I, on part of the "more involvement" thing. I would rather see less administrative smileys, and more suggestions on how to comply with his personal preference short of sanctions for people who don't meet his standard. That could be where other administrators expand the overall administrative capacity, if they were hands on admins, and not just aides in developing policy. I think you might try as member who happens to be a deputy, but your suggestions sometimes have just not been consistent with his requirements, no matter how you try. i think it might have more to do with what side of the bed he gets up on, how generally bothersome a particular poster is, and a posters reputation or group standing, no matter how he tries in his own mind to be consistent.
Eliza has proven it possible to develop strict algorithms for dealing with some kinds of language. he or his peers could pay a bit more attention to conjugating what people write -- not to reopen the case, but the one that I got hung on was his assertion that "To me" does not preface an "i-statement." I felt he was generally tired of my tone and found a flimsy peg on which to hang an inevitable PBC -- maybe because he just didn't have the time to give it any more effort. And I just don't grasp the implicity requirement that I statements can only embody feelings but not perceptions, whether he as acknowledged that requirement or not. Anyway, lets not go further into that if I'm not prone to better understand even after all this effort.
What I mean to say, of substance, is that even if he were training professional subordinates to do his job, the questions that come up of how to deal with particular statements could lead to better understanding on his part of the limits some members encounter understanding his perspective -- maybe it would make him a bit less trustworthy to embody those less desirable traits you said you trust him to demonstrate. He might be more flexible in resolving questions with peers in the privacy of his office than he is on line in a durable database. Maybe.
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 21:34:52
In reply to Now is a time » so, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 20:50:54
> To employ Alexandra's test of logic.
>
> I think I like you when you're silly implies only that I think I do not dislike you when you are silly.
>
Well, no, you could potentially both like me and dislike me while I am being silly."I like you when you're silly", formally, only conveys meaning only about what you like, and exposes nothing about what you dislike when I'm silly or at any other time. So I asked about other times. That doesn't necessarily imply I think you don't like me at other times, it only means I provided an opportunity for you to further reveal you likes or dislikes.
But logic is not the only tool available for examining rhetoric. Metaphor or allegory are not logical but they are useful rhetorical devices. Likewise, a demand to perform a certain behavior, if consistently said only in one context, can expose some implications.
What about a "whites only" sign? it doesnt' say anything is wrong with anyone else, not by logical analysis. And golly gee, black folks used to have their very own drinking fountains, restroom, restaraunts, parts of town and more. What could possibly be wrong with that? Most of us know what was wrong.
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 21:43:41
In reply to Re: Ok, » so, posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 21:07:08
> Yes. Though the trouble is that 'implication' is an objective matter.
I thought perceptions of implications tended to be subjective.
>Asking someone to be civil does not imply that they are not being civil.The person could repeat exactly what they wrote to which he said "please be civil" because it was not uncivil at all?
-----
>some people do in fact see it that way.I'm glad you recognize that.
>> I think we are only going to continue to talk past each other....
Quite possibly. Or not talk or talk about something else. It doesn't mean I don't like you.
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 21:47:01
In reply to Re: Ok, » Dinah, posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 21:20:58
Oooh. I've gotten confused again. I think I understand your shorter posts best. (Gee, maybe that's why I like Dr. Bob's style.) I'm sorry. But I'll give it a try, and if I've messed up, I hope you forgive me.
> Well, that would tend to address some of your concerns, though. More inclusion of other people wouldn't necessarily mean the end of Hsiung's unique methods -- such as public sanctions for the "good" of the group, or an obligation to own ones own emotions and those of others. It just might require that he better explain why he prefers those methods.
>
But why can't he give that? Or others who understand? Not that I don't see outside input as helpful at times. I really like it when he has Kali Munro as a guest expert. She once managed to explain something to him that I just couldn't manage to put in the right words.
>
> It could resolve one concern of mine, which is his unprovoked defense of the theoretical feelings of hypothetical people. Of course, concerned citizens interested in consistency could still bring matters to him that could potentially offend hypothetical people.
>
I don't actually mind protecting hypothetical people. For example, members of some minority groups may not be posting on Babble at any given moment, but I would still wish to have their concerns given consideration.> For the most part, I don't see that as a system I would immediately find faulty. It is a standard feature of many bulliten board softwares, and many administrators choose to enable the feature.
I'm all for making Dr. Bob's job easier.
>
> i can't really say where my "set-point" would be for accepting his administrative style modified to resolve my concerns. That might make it difficult to use my concerns as part of a guide for what to improve if I don't present a stationary target, but it would be reasonable to seek to resolve concerns I present without seeking my ultimate approval.Yes, certainly. In fact none of us will be given ultimate approval. Or a guarantee that our concerns will be resolved. If we want that, I imagine we have to start our own board.
> After all, support in the group is provided by members for members, not by members for the administration.
Exactly!!! And not by the administration for members!!!
> If I represent members who are particularly hard to please, vote for me, I'll represent you well, maybe.
I didn't quite understand that sentence as a whole. But was that perchance a quomma? My husband has a book of grammar humor that includes quomma humor.
>
> We might agree, you and I, on part of the "more involvement" thing. I would rather see less administrative smileys, and more suggestions on how to comply with his personal preference short of sanctions for people who don't meet his standard.Actually, we're in agreement there. I've long lobbied for more use of the Please Rephrase, and explanations of what the Please Rephrase might entail on the part of Dr. Bob's expectations. And Dr. Bob has listened to that concern of mine (and others of course) and has given both explicit and informal Please Rephrases with alternate suggestions.
> That could be where other administrators expand the overall administrative capacity, if they were hands on admins, and not just aides in developing policy. I think you might try as member who happens to be a deputy, but your suggestions sometimes have just not been consistent with his requirements, no matter how you try.
Hmmm... I don't see that I'm out of step with Dr. Bob all that often. You may have seen it once or twice, especially on Faith Board matters. But if it happens often, I'd appreciate your pointing it out. Because I'd like to know if my belief that I have a reasonably good grasp on the civility rules, their application, Dr. Bob's habits, and sundry related issues is a delusion on my part. I don't *think* so, because Dr. Bob often validates my perceptions. Admin issues are something of an avocation of mine. But sadly I find that my attempts to help in this area often fall flat, and I am not infrequently seen as a know it all busybody who should leave the matters to Dr. Bob. Not that anyone says so, of course. But trying to help often leads to more grief on the part of myself and the posters than it leads to good outcomes. I don't often act as deputy, in keeping with the very strict deputy escalation clause.
> i think it might have more to do with what side of the bed he gets up on, how generally bothersome a particular poster is, and a posters reputation or group standing, no matter how he tries in his own mind to be consistent.
I appreciate your willingness over the course of this discussion to ascribe better motives to Dr. Bob. I think Dr. Bob is actually not particularly likely to block a poster for being objectively disruptive, often to the dismay of fellow posters. Only for violating board guidelines. He has received more flack for that than he has for blocking popular posters, I think. It's one of the reasons that I trust, respect and admire him.
>
> Eliza has proven it possible to develop strict algorithms for dealing with some kinds of language.I can't say, having just "conversed" with Eliza, that I would recommend that Dr. Bob be more like it.
I won't get into your PBC, other than to say I didn't find it incompatible with board guidelines. I'm sorry if my explanation of "I" statements left you flat, but I think it more or less accurately represents Dr. Bob's viewpoint.
But shall we agree that I won't get into your PBC if you don't critique my writing?
> What I mean to say, of substance, is that even if he were training professional subordinates to do his job, the questions that come up of how to deal with particular statements could lead to better understanding on his part of the limits some members encounter understanding his perspective -- maybe it would make him a bit less trustworthy to embody those less desirable traits you said you trust him to demonstrate. He might be more flexible in resolving questions with peers in the privacy of his office than he is on line in a durable database. Maybe.
>
>
Maybe, maybe not. Maybe this is his characteristic style. But... wouldn't it be just as good to tell him that people don't always understand the civility guidelines, to ask him to use more Please Rephrases with explanations, and to ask fellow posters who do understand (and there are many) to help out where they can.In fact, he really does seem to be doing that more often.
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 21:56:03
In reply to Re: Now is a time .. » Dinah, posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 21:34:52
I *always* have trouble with rhetoric. And formal debating methods. Hmmm... I had this discussion with someone else once. I think it might have been Rod. I have no training in debate. I don't even understand what rhetoric is.
I can talk to you openly and honestly. And I can be playful on occasion. I'm good at metaphor only in weaving stories, and only if it comes naturally. I draw a blank if I try on purpose.
I tend to be very concrete and literal most of the time. Not so literal as to compare Dr. Bob with God of course.
To be honest, I would prefer to get to know you better before making statements about likes and dislikes. I just don't know you well enough. I thought since you read hypocrisy into emoticons, you would also read hypocrisy into premature professions of likes and dislikes.
I will say that I like you better now than I did last time you were here, or before I began conversing with you. (I hope Dr. Bob applies the rules of logic to that statement, since I could also say I love my husband more now than when we married.) I appreciate your considering that Dr. Bob's motives might not be bad. And that's as authentic as you can get.
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 22:11:08
In reply to Ahhh, maybe I see » so, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 21:56:03
> To be honest, I would prefer to get to know you better before making statements about likes and dislikes.Well you were the one that started it. I'm not that worried about whether you like me or not, the question was just a way of stretching the humor.
> I love my husband more now than when we married.
I'm glad things are going better for you and your husband than when you were first married.
Or are you saying you're not married to your husband anymore?
I hope you can parse that as humor without an emoticon.
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 23:10:35
In reply to Re: Ok, » so, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 21:47:01
> I think I understand your shorter posts best.
Well of course. Easier to shovel a wheelbarrow full than a truckful.
> >
> But why can't he give that?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...
> Or others who understand? Not that I don't see outside input as helpful at times. I really like it when he has Kali Munro as a guest expert. She once managed to explain something to him that I just couldn't manage to put in the right words.
>> I don't actually mind protecting hypothetical people. For example, members of some minority groups may not be posting on Babble at any given moment, but I would still wish to have their concerns given consideration.
There is some merit to it. But sometimes it seems quite extreme to me. 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. That's another place he might benefit from a peer with a somewhat different perspective.
A lot of the tension there might also arise from people holding him to things he's said in the past that don't hold up when applied to new situations.>If we want that, I imagine we have to start our own board.
Hmmm-de-hmm-hmmm. Whistle. Nice weather we're having, huh? Business is sure slow today. I mean at the grocery store.
> > If I represent members who are particularly hard to please, vote for me, I'll represent you well, maybe.
>
> I didn't quite understand that sentence as a whole. But was that perchance a quomma? My husband has a book of grammar humor that includes quomma humor.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 ¿.
> Hmmm... I don't see that I'm out of step with Dr. Bob all that often. You may have seen it once or twice, especially on Faith Board matters.
I claim to read the archives, but really my understanding is shaped by more recent posts. I think he would run into some real challenges in justifying some of his assertions regarding language in an English department, while your essay and his on certain matters would be seen as reaching divergent conclusions, regardless your intent to explain his point of view.
>But if it happens often, I'd appreciate your pointing it out.
I hope you would eventually appreciated it. It might be bit turbulant during the take-off roll-out and climb, though.> Because I'd like to know if my belief that I have a reasonably good grasp on the civility rules, their application, Dr. Bob's habits, and sundry related issues is a delusion on my part. I don't *think* so, because Dr. Bob often validates my perceptions.
His validation on some matters doesn't confirm your coherence to his views on others. A reasonably good grasp leaves lots of room for divergent views, most likely to be expressed in longer conversations or around more contentious matters.
> Admin issues are something of an avocation of mine. But sadly I find that my attempts to help in this area often fall flat, and I am not infrequently seen as a know it all busybody who should leave the matters to Dr. Bob.
and or his peers, if I am among those by whom you are seen.
>Not that anyone says so, of course.
But YOU are somebody, and you said so.
> > i think it might have more to do with what side of the bed he gets up on, how generally bothersome a particular poster is, and a posters reputation or group standing, no matter how he tries in his own mind to be consistent.
>
> I appreciate your willingness over the course of this discussion to ascribe better motives to Dr. Bob. I think Dr. Bob is actually not particularly likely to block a poster for being objectively disruptive, often to the dismay of fellow posters. Only for violating board guidelines. He has received more flack for that than he has for blocking popular posters, I think. It's one of the reasons that I trust, respect and admire him.yeh, you mentioned that you trust him once before. Regardless his motives, if his condition -- i.e. got up on which side of the bed -- sometimes affects his performance, he might sometimes resolve that by sharing the load with peers. Then they could all justify their worst performances.
Oh, that's supposed to be your line.
> > Eliza has proven it possible to develop strict algorithms for dealing with some kinds of language.
>
> I can't say, having just "conversed" with Eliza, that I would recommend that Dr. Bob be more like it.The exercise of writing alogrythms for that software can help people classify things they might have thought they had adequately grouped, but for which they were instead relying on instinct for guidance. And this is only a few years into the study. Give it five or ten times that long. If we don't nuke ourselves, cook ourselves or otherwise loose our place here, as a species, we're about to wake up to some dramatic understandings. Probably one day after it's too late.
> But shall we agree that I won't get into your PBC if you don't critique my writing?
Er, how abou we each ask what we want of the other without making it a bargain. That leaves room for gift-giving.
> But... wouldn't it be just as good to tell him that people don't always understand the civility guidelines, to ask him to use more Please Rephrases with explanations, and to ask fellow posters who do understand (and there are many) to help out where they can.Not if part of it has to do with what side of the bed he got up on. And if it's good for posters to tell and ask those things, what harm could there be in him having peers that could share with him the same concerns?
> In fact, he really does seem to be doing that more often.
I've considered in the past month writing a protocol for measuring interventions in various health-related boards, but its just not that important to me compared to other things on my plate.
We really could slow this discusison down, if not for my 100wpm error-ridden type-talking. Does your husband know where to find you?
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.
Posted by so on May 24, 2005, at 2:19:18
In reply to Re: Ok, » so, posted by Dinah on May 24, 2005, at 1:10:30
> 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?
Never mind. I just sometimes encourage people to value their real lives more than virtual interactions. I'm sure you have it under control.
> Funny thing is that I think with minor help from our diplomatic staff, I think we could have an agreement in principle.Several agreements, actually. That and a dollar might get one of us a cup of coffee. I don't see our agreements on principles as having much likelihood of affecting the way one administrator manages a board the touches the lives of hundreds of people over the course of a year.
> 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?
I would like to think discourse among them would lead to new insights, but from what I am seeing in physicians, once one declares something others can observe evidence starkly to the contrary yet say they respect their peer's opinion and refuse to challenge them by acknowledging the facts evident in test results. That might be part of why I take such offense at an effort by a physician to repress discourse that challenges ideas in favor of protecting the sensitivities of others that hold those ideas.
Nonetheless, I'm not dissuaded of my conviction. Organizational oversight has value. Maybe it's the liberal in me, who says collective power can protect people from the shortcomings of powerful individuals.
> 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.
My having seen the numbers probably wouldn't make much difference in whether other professionals would help improve operation of this board. Again, I think the processes native to an organization might require better articulation of the reasons for the fine lines he chooses to draw. It seems such a contradiction, to me, sanctioning people for writing something one intends to publish nonetheless, in perpetuity. Such gratitude. Enforcing those measures on the faith board, where he has set such a fine line for writers he has invited, just doesn't embody the kinds of compassion I would hope to see in a faith community, whatever his personal beliefs.
> 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."
Actually, I have information that the quomma is a proposed new punctuation mark that comprises a comma instead of period under a question mark, to be used in a sentence internally punctuated as a question, but not ending at the punctuation. The mark, similar in form to a semicolon, was proposed by Owen Maresh of the .... drum roll ... University of Chicago, in 2000. But then Thornton's Lexgon of Intentoinaly Ambigus Recomedations was copyrighted in 1998. I wonder if he will touch on administrative policies of asynchrounous open networks in a future publication.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 24, 2005, at 2:25:47
In reply to Re: team effort » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 20:48:32
> I think you might be underestimating how much your training etc helps you make informed decisions about what is most likely to benefit the forum...
>
> I think Babble would be a LOT different if it became consumer run. Consumers tend to have mental health issues which impact on some of their decisions / perspectives. There are a lot of consumer run boards out there and IMO they lack consistency with respect to decision making and have a tendancy to vanish when moderators / members encounter personal crisis...Those are good points, but: (1) A lot of decisions have already been made. (2) I think a team that's been together a while would be a lot different than an individual consumer. (3) I wouldn't just vanish myself. :-)
> I still think other professionals would be a good idea...
>
> Is it that it is hard to get people interested...
> Or that you like this being your site???Some professionals are already here... In my experience, it's hard to get others interested. They're busy, they have their own projects... But if you know any, send them on!
Bob
Posted by Nikkit2 on May 24, 2005, at 4:20:09
In reply to Re: Ok, » so, posted by Dinah on May 24, 2005, at 1:10:30
I've got a bit lost through all of this.. so could you help me understand (its lack of time on my part to keep up I'm afraid)
Is it being suggested, and accepted by Dr Bob, that he is going to let others run this place instead of him?
Oh heavens.. maybe I've been around the net too long, but I can see that going terribly wrong.
Why can't people just accept this is Dr Bobs place.. he pays for the online space etc.. Its not somewhere for treatment, its just somewhere for MUCH needed peer support.
Have others not come across the theory of peer support? Its something we're keen on promoting very much at work (and I am *quite* sure the people I work with have more mental health training that anyone on this board, other than possibly Dr Bob (but then, I strongly believe some I work with have alot more, and wider, experience than dr Bob also)..
Dr Bob - if you are to hand over the reins of this place, please could you do me the favour of removing ANY trace of me from your servers. I trust you implicitly, I do not trust someone else to come in and give me the level of safety that you do. (and yes, safety is *incredibly* important to me here..)
Nikki
Posted by gardenergirl on May 24, 2005, at 5:45:48
In reply to Re: (((gg))), posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 21:08:14
Awwww, right back atcha, sweetie.
Yes we should definitely go be silly together somewhere. But first I must go to work, darn it. Silly will have to wait just a bit.
But I will keep smiling in anticipation. :)
gg
Posted by Dinah on May 24, 2005, at 6:03:34
In reply to Re: Ok, » Dinah, posted by Nikkit2 on May 24, 2005, at 4:20:09
No, no, no, Nikki.
Not at all.
I was just having a discussion with so to try to better understand his/her goals and what he/she was trying to say. And to see those areas that we could find mutual ground.
I agree completely about Dr. Bob. (Which I also said.) He's earned our trust.
Posted by chemist on May 24, 2005, at 11:41:10
In reply to Re: ..., posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 14:24:52
hello there, chemist here...my comments below, delineated by asterisks....all the best, chemist
**** what happened to the first in the list? informing us about your stance in re: the issue of medical practice and liability in this forum is key, especially given your subsequent calls for more stringent and real-time monitoring of the site by Dr. Hsiung....might you clarify? ****
> >
> > second: a request appears to have been made which more than infers that Dr. Hsiung can attend to his perceived duties on this site by securing more sleep: i am not privvy to Dr. Hsiung's sleep and waking regimen, and i suspect that as Dinah notes, family members would perhaps be the best source of information in this regard. in any event, the issue is not germane when paralleled to whether or not one would entrust their safety to a sleep-deprived and over-worked airline pilot.
>
>
> If it involves a critical service, the capacity of a service provider to provide a service that is not harmful is germaine, as are factors that might infringe upon that quality, whether the service is free or not. The administrators routine early-morning interventions, his presence nearly 365-days-a-year and his usual seven-days-a-week presence are a matter of record.**** a free-of-charge internet posting site - PB - inclusive of extensive notices to all parties that the information posted herein may or may not be deleterious to one's health is more than sufficient to free PB from a ``critical service provider;'' moreover, as part of the registration process and lurking in the FAQ - which you note are not items commonly read by you - are more details concerning the extent to which this forum is (suggested) to be of use. a 911 substitute is not one of them, and sleep patterns are hardly non-stochastic in this day and age....******
>
> >the collective PB community - one-time browsers through long-term steadfasts - cannot be (collectively) labeled a ``customer,'' if for the only reason being that the ``shopkeeper'' actually does not provide a tangible service aside from an online bulletin board. the issue of whether or not money changes hands is moot - an exchange of legal/accepted tender does not a vendor/customer relationship make.
>
> Ah, but they can and have been so labeled. A relationship between a service provider and user are the relevant concepts. In this case, we have terms of service construed as a guideline for civilized behavior. Civilized people often violate contractual terms.
>
**** i am unaware of being labeled a customer....regardless, i am a participant - Dr. Hsiung is a customer, forwarding monies to host and maintain this site, retain the URL(s), and items such as these do include actual contractual paperwork - who has knowingly accepted the terms inclusive of assignment of non-exclusive copyright to Dr. Hsiung of any/all writing i am allowed to post here. Dr. Hsiung expects that i take the thoughts and feelings of others into consideration before posting a (usually) inappropriate (my evaluation) response, and i will not be surprised or seek reward in any form should i encounter the collective posts of PB in the bookstore years later...civilized people are a cohort of subjects inhabiting one's imagination, is a very subjective label, and is used with abandon and not with aforethought. i recall the well-heeled parents of my friends, dressed in their sunday best, fully drunk by noon on sunday, when the lawn service people - the uncivilized, of course - came to earn their (our) pay. remember how little it took for president clinton to slide from the civil side to the uncivil? why is the kennedy clan revered? ****
>
> > third: the assertion that if people need ``this sort of service, they need quality service'' is an opinion for which i cannot locate an antecedent. is it the ``administrative planning'' to which the reference is made? the task in question is determined not likely to be an occasional talk to one's peers about a ``web project'' or requesting and presumably digesting (again) peer-source feedback in a casual setting. instead, a suggestion for a round-table discussion with one's peers during which time appropriate actions - to be executed when required in a clinical situation - are subject to revision and veto sounds to my ears like overkill, and service at that level was not promised, implicitly or otherwise.
>
> Then at least we are not suffering from both broken promises and informally developed protocols for therapeutic intervention in a clinical setting.
>
**** then you and i approach treatment in the same way: face-to-face with our respective therapists and/or psychiatrists. the administrative staffs are quite adept at scheduling and warning in advance of vacation time and the like. my ISP is shaky enough, and thus using PB in case of an emergency to seek help from a doctor who is, well, not my doctor nor i his patient, pales in comparison to 911 or a neighbor....*****> >the internet - and this website - is/are a strange ``clinical setting,'' i would concur.
>
> Please further contemplate the gravity of your concurance.
>
**** concurrence reconsidered, same result: aside from the error in using a word to imply agreement or consent in re: a particular matter between one or more people to myself, i remain of the thought that an internet posting board is not the ideal setting for optimum patient/doctor/therapist interactions. grave matters - none so far - would be handled by local emergency care persons...did you mean something different? ****> >however, it is not a clinic, and all matters addressed on PB - from pills to therapy to writing and so forth - are handled by the posters. Dr. Hsiung polices the area: he does not practice medicine online.
>
> And so, as far as we know, he has not been charged with such. But he does contemplate by inference at the top of each page, and detail in stating that his administrative style might be therapeutice, that his activities might be therapeutic.
>
**** how is an action such as the one you describe different from assertive posts from, say, me in which i relate an excellent personal experience with a medication, note how much rosier life appeared, and remind the audience of my advanced degrees, even with a very pronounced disclaimer that i am not a medical doctor - to find a post a day or two later in which (and i am far from being alone in this example and in real life) the person writes something to the effect that they ``took my advice'' and decided to do (insert dangerous act here)? *****
> >
> > fourth: (reference to technical milieu snipped)*** why? it is important that critical service providers adhere to civilized practices known as full disclosure. do you not feel that the confirmation/denial/correction to ownership/administration duties - which you ignored, and they are outsourced, thus Dr. Hsiung does deserve a nod in that direction: he has obviously wisely opted for reading the posts instead of catering to a server farm - do you concur, or have any reason to justify the gloss that was applied to the issue? *****
> >
> > fifth: the issue of what are deemed ``inconsistent'' and ``arbitrary'' rules by the owner, (reference to tecnical milieu snipped) is an opinion.
>
> Most spoken or written statements, outside strict scientific dialogue, are opinions. Perhaps since opinion is the primary mode of speech among civilized humans, we could develop for network dialogue a text-coloring algorithm so people could recognize the rare case when an opinion is so fully accepted by all interested parties as to be considered fact.
>
***** i disagree: that is a fact. i disagree with your statement(s) not because mine or yours are factually devoid, but rather because our opinions do not mesh. the claim that most spoken or written statements, outside strict scientific dialogue, are opinions is questionable: the phrase ``is that for here or to go?'' must have considerable heft...and i am heartened by what i assume is your informed revealation that most civilized dialogue is opinion. as an atheist, i am still amazed that an opinion - some call it ``faith'' - actually is manifest in the minds of the faithful as an extant being or force or entity, and, most stunning, that the ``god'' is a specific type depending on the faith employed to create the totem...but i digress....*****
>
> > sixth: from whence did poster ``so'' determine that ``there is a notion in the medical profession that people can work any hour of the day, seven days a week,; and if there is any question that the FAA and aviation-associated unions are endorsing 168-hour work weeks for the flight and ground crews,
>
>
> In reference the medical industry, if you did not fully contemplate the demands placed on student interns, I invite you to do so now. Otherwise, If you have information I have not fully considered about the extent to which sleep depravation affects quality of service in other professions, I appreciate that you have reported it.
>
**** i did not reference interns in my post - please reread - in any regard; they are not the subject of this discourse, nor is lack of sleep. i asked for- and you did not supply - the source(s) from which you gathered information that ``there is a notion in the medical profession that people can work any hour of the day, seven days a week, and whatever they put out is some gift of mercy to the clients?'' can you do so? many thanks! ****> > he does not practice medicine on this site, and he does not even chime in with information that might be ``more correct''
>
> But he stated that his doctrine of "blocking" "stories" he considers innappropriate might be a means of encouraging new "stories", and hence, therapeutic. And he occassionally states that intent is not important -- that effect is the subject of interest in deciding the propriety of communicaiton.
>
**** i agree with your assessment: in my own experiences, it is the behaviour on my part - and not the substance of the post(s) from the players - that earns a vacation. i stay on the meds and substances boards, where perhaps a yes/no answer is easier to provide/seek than, for instance, on the faith or relationship boards, just to name the first that came to mind (a chemical trade name is a fact confirmed in a few literature sources; a question posed to the audience concerning a soured relationship invites opinions that might escalate, although i am hardly in a position to deny that even a one-word fact can be adorned with enough rancor to invite a well-deserved time-out for yours truly)....as for suicide plans, information to secure scheduled substances via the internet pharmas, and so on: the site is Dr. Hsiung's and he calls the shots...**********> > eighth: ``so'' is not informed about the realities of academe -
>
> Please re-examine your instrument. It seems insufficient to accurately measure what I know.
>
**** instrument? i am lost...but here we go, i was long overdue for one of these... i am ``incapable of measuring what [you] know?'' about what? academe and funding? physics? chemistry? pharmaceuticals? systems administration? coding? applied math? publications? being a faculty member for a stretch? please feel free to add categories...as for my being ``incapable of measuring what you know,'' i used a measure that can accomodate one dram (avdp.) of liquid, and no more.you wrote in one post that you had been combing through the archives: you might have noticed that Dr. Hsiung will question a new PB member if their ``handle'' is blatantly or close to suggesting that the poster is a medical professional (e.g. ``BigDocM.D.'' or some such), a wise move in my opinion, as these posters will likely be heeded by more readers who might think that the information is valid if the supplier is an M.D...and the advertised or implied higher education ought to be confirmed...
i do not receive invitations of that sort, and any post i have penned that includes mention of my holding a Ph.D. granted from a Department in Chemistry and Biochemistry, or having published in the journal Science, or any number of fellowships, postdoctoral appointments, and other immodest facts that are in the hands of numerous PBers, does not get dinged for the only reason being: that is just the tip of the c.v. i forgot to mention i am a charming and handsome chap as well....******
> >
> > where do you suggest Dr. Hsiung attain the money to fully immerse himself in the business of providing a service that, by your own admission, you are indifferent as to whether or not it can survive in the near future?
>
> I didn't say be paid to fully immerse himself. More careful study would be required to document evidence for my premise that boards where the management does not leave allegations posted about members behavior are also those that have a budget, and for which administrative workload is shared among several qualified and identified individuals, some of which are compensated for their effort, and for which administrative policies have been contemplated in formal meetings among peers qualified to challenge each other's opinions.
>***** i reread your original post and the message was overstated by me. i remain curious about your indifference about the fate of PB, yet the vigor with which you are supplied in what seems to me to be a move of change..that said, i am game for free employ, and have a pretty good c.v.; are you game?
i am curious as to why you suggested that using interns to ``assist'' Dr. Hsiung appears afore the obvious suggestion to secure funding by writing grants: first of all, any academic knows long before they start the tenure track that the job is little more than writing grants; second, medical school interns will largely be populated by holders of B.A./B.S. degrees in the ``soft'' hard sciences such as biochemistry, molecular biology, and botany; and third, what they could make up for in experience in the field of social work, say, is not resident in a 24-year old...besides, some of the most fertile minds in fields encompassing the sciences, arts, equine care, music, therapy, and just about the whole of it are regular posters here at PB...besides, they are nice folks, and some of them tolerate my presence....*****
>
> > p.s. i find the atmosphere at PB to my liking. Dr. Hsiung and myself are not chums, should that thought
>
> It would seem a normal product of circumstance that most of those active here at any given time would be those who find the atmosphere to their liking. My concerns focus on those who don't like it, who feel alienated by the administrative environment and who, some after offering considerable contribution in time and thought to the community, have left.
>
***** have you acted in a similar fashion at other sites? i am ignorant of any of them - i have written before and do so again that PB is the one and only place of its kind i frequent - and know nothing about their operations. is your quest related to trouble you had on PB, or is PB a singular spot that you feel needs attention, and soon? ****
>
> >it seems to me that little intervention by Dr. Hsiung - if any - is called for, given the nature of the crowd here...
>
> It's difficult for me to parse this in the context of the rest of your essay, but with the meaning implicit in the statement, I would agree.***** i do not know what to say about the parsing or the essay - yacc next time, perhaps? - but the point was that PB appears to warrant a modicum of attention from Dr. Hsiung, focused upon a few areas: many posters handle thread redirects, warnings about impending PBC/blocks, and so on...funding is nice to have, of course, but i find myself asking: if you (more or less) agree that the PB community largely polices itself, why fix what is not broken, especially if the burden weighs to heavily upon Dr. Hsiung? *****
>
> > tenth: ``so'' states that the exchange of information on PB takes a backseat to increasingly bad behaviour of the posters because Dr. Hsiung ... ``his speculations about hypothetical feelings:'' the ... statement ... is outstanding;
>
> perhaps you could say more about why you consider it an outstanding statement.**** it is an outstanding statement in my opinion because you - the writer - assume that every so often, Dr. Hsiung guesses a dx (mistakenly, yet with conviction) about troubles that emanate from some dischord in feelings you somehow know are not real. that's outstanding! *****
Would you be comfortable publishing that opinion outside the context of a lengthy critique of my opinions you don't find equally meritous?
***** sure: give credit where due....why me, though?****
>
> Finally, you expressed hope that I not take your comments personally, and that they not be deemed uncivil.
>
> If I took it personally or considered it uncivil -- well the later is unlikely, because few uncivilized creatures have the capacity for aysnchronous network communication --**** are you implying that you are civil because you are capable of - what, um - being a carrier, say, for a time multiplexed and modulated signal? ****
and it was intended for my personal review as well as that of a wider audience in reference to my personal contributions, so I must take it personally.
**** your call on ``must;'' i only requested a ``please don't''......*****
I would hope you consider it a complement that I take it personally. The allusion to adult behavior in the context you offer in your reply is otherwise often used as a metaphor for graciously excepting other's views about one's personal opinions and recognizing the range of behaviors accepted and preferred among civilized creatures.**** i did not intend it in that way: the reference to adult behaviour is firmly couched at the tail end of a sentence in which i attempted to quantify the extent of what i perceived the workload to be for Dr. Hsiung, and i was attempting to note that i am pointing to specific behaviours that can easily be rectified, and name them. because i tend to get dinged a bit, i drew on my experiences, in which i acted like a child in need of a spanking. period. but again, a ``range'' of acceptable civil behaviours is mentioned: it depends. and besides, i am not very good with metaphors....*****
Unfortunately, not all clinical practitioners hold such generous and welcome views of civilized, personal interaction.
>
> and one further observation, informed by my unique insight which taints the observation as an opinion,***** but not your unique insight???? how does that work, can you explain????....******
I don't find any evidence that the administration has equated "civil" with "adult" in any of his admonishments of group members. i suspect if one person directly proposed that one he implicitly considers "uncivil" was in fact less than "adult" he would also tend to classify the one offering the proposal as less than civil. Obviously, I would question the accuracy of the semantics of either presumption -- civility being largely a subjective notion that implies failure to fully benefit from a civilizing culture, and adult being a biological measurement.
**** okay....... *****
>
> Now, having only limited resources to invest, I am submitting this reply with only a casual review of spelling, formatting and compliance with terms of service, the latter with which I have meticulously attempted to comply nonetheless.**** thank you!...all the best, chemist *****
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.