![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 76 to 100 of 125. Go back in thread:
Posted by special_k on April 16, 2006, at 21:14:03
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » 10derHeart, posted by tealady on April 16, 2006, at 20:01:50
> He was talking mainly of Oz politics I'd guess...
Yeah. I've heard many liberals (in Australia) lament the same thing...
> there wasn't that much of a diff in the past 30 yrs or so to make anyone feel much except apathy about who got in..and no real issues.
yeah. so apathy is the general feeling in Australia re politics. i think... it is fair to say that. so people aren't likely to feel upset if you lament the current state of politics / policy / political parties etc etc...
> I wish people would try to understand a post before critising it.. or ya know, question the poster for more clarity about what he is saying..i agree 100%
> Someone suggested having 2 boards.. based on IS parties? Huh??
heh heh. i was kidding.
i get tired of trying to get people interested in NZ politics over on the politics board...
> I've always been against people dobbing on others or crying out offended rather tha trying to work out some common ground , comprehension, and even help first... same in society as on ths board.
> Used to make IMO a good neighbourhood or community. I realise it's frowned upon these days, and keeping out of others business and dobbin is encouraged. If you feel somethin is not wuite right we now have an abundance of police an relevant autghorities to handle it. No need to act friendly or try to be helpful.
> saddened and feel a real lack of community, exasperated by the bans. I feel noone much is left out of the community that was here a couple of years ago on alter is there, at least maybe the more mature part? Maybe its just time and people moving on?interesting...
thanks for your thoughts.
Posted by tealady on April 16, 2006, at 22:51:54
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » tealady, posted by special_k on April 16, 2006, at 21:14:03
>yeah. so apathy is the general feeling in Australia re politics. i think... it is fair to say that. so people aren't likely to feel upset if you lament the current state of politics / policy / political parties etc etc...
Well it used to be apathy.. been replaced in past few years by complete amazement of any viable centre left party anymore.. as Declan stated!!Sorry for misintrepeting your US pary politics suggestion.. I'm guilty , but at least I didn't cry " offended" .. :-). Thanks so much for explaining. :-)
I put my view on admin way earlier somewhere.
I've read some great posts on the politics board on NZ politics.. even stated that I wish we were more like NZ as regards to our stance on the US foreign policy, nuclear weapons etc.
I started this thread a while ago to try to contact Declan when babblemail didn't work.
http://tealady-health.blog.co.uk/?tag=babble (click on comments down bottom and reply to comment posted by TJ or Declan .. it may reach them, not a great setup though like here)
Posted by AuntieMel on April 17, 2006, at 10:40:23
In reply to I interpreted it the same way » 10derHeart, posted by gardenergirl on April 14, 2006, at 22:50:45
No way did I get the idea that D meant that 'liberals' (whatever that entails) are 'clueless.'
In fact, I got the idea that they (we) were approved of in that post.
I interpreted it to mean that 'liberals' (of which I seem to be one of these days) are having a severe problem with wording what we stand for, and convincing others that we have a point.
At least that's what I thought clueless meant - that we are idealogically correct, but these days we are politically inept.
And I didn't take it to be uncivil. I was just trying to take some time in replying because I got a PBC for posting a link to Molly Ivans - who had just said the exact same thing.
Posted by verne on April 17, 2006, at 10:53:26
In reply to Re: I *didn't* interpreted it that way » gardenergirl, posted by AuntieMel on April 17, 2006, at 10:40:23
I saw her on Booknotes and thought she had good insight, common sense, and a kind of pioneer spirit.
Could you recommend one of her books? I've thought about getting "Whacked" or "Dogs" - for my daughter who's showing an interest in politics.
For me politics is like a black hole - it will completely consume me so I have to steer clear of the event horizon. I've even had to delete the news channels on my TV remote.
verne
Posted by zeugma on April 17, 2006, at 13:23:43
In reply to Re: I *didn't* interpreted it that way » gardenergirl, posted by AuntieMel on April 17, 2006, at 10:40:23
>
> And I didn't take it to be uncivil. I was just trying to take some time in replying because I got a PBC for posting a link to Molly Ivans - who had just said the exact same thing.
>i sympathize totally. I spent the entire day yesterday trying to write on Bush's Iran policy and follow the civility guidelines, but found it an impossible (for me, anyway) task and just gave up. I could have simply praised Senator Lugar's recommendation that we talk openly to Iran for the first time since 1979, but in my desire to explain why Lugar's words were reasonable (to me, that is) I was driven to say things that were most uncivil (by this board's standards).
Apologies to those who find me obsessed with U.S. politics. We are, after all, planning a nuclear attack on another nation that has not attacked us. (Note: I said "planning," which strictly speaking is true- Pentagon types are drawing up plans for the attack even if there is no intention on implementing them in the White House or elsewhere. Ack. I apologize for boring everyone with my concerns.)
-z
>
Posted by Dinah on April 17, 2006, at 15:26:33
In reply to Re: I *didn't* interpreted it that way » AuntieMel, posted by zeugma on April 17, 2006, at 13:23:43
I think that you aren't giving yourself enough credit.
Posted by zeugma on April 17, 2006, at 15:47:22
In reply to Re: I *didn't* interpreted it that way » zeugma, posted by Dinah on April 17, 2006, at 15:26:33
thank you Dinah.
But I am sure you would sympathize with my desire to write something PROPERLY. (This is something apart from the rules of this site.) I see it as an ethical issue to write in a way deserving of the subject. It's "the fascination of what's difficult."
-z
Posted by Dinah on April 17, 2006, at 16:59:39
In reply to Re: I *didn't* interpreted it that way » Dinah, posted by zeugma on April 17, 2006, at 15:47:22
Then you should be even more fascinated with saying both properly and civilly, since that increases the degree of difficulty. :)
Posted by zeugma on April 17, 2006, at 17:17:53
In reply to Re: I *didn't* interpreted it that way » zeugma, posted by Dinah on April 17, 2006, at 16:59:39
> Then you should be even more fascinated with saying both properly and civilly, since that increases the degree of difficulty. :)>>
Of course. It's why I spend so much time here :-)
-z
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 18, 2006, at 22:24:11
In reply to Thank you VERNE! » special_k, posted by gabbi~1 on April 15, 2006, at 10:50:52
> Charitable always came across to me as
> well I know that you're all wrong, but I'll let it go..
> Somehow it sounds condescending and artificial to me.Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
But please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 18, 2006, at 22:24:20
In reply to Re: Two separate issues » gardenergirl, posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 22:36:10
> there was a rumination about how perhaps it was an american tendency to take politics personally but then i noted z was from america. so there is an exception.
> i was not talking about ALL americans.
> it is an unfortunate tendancy the way having a tendancy to bake in the sun would be an unfortunate tendancy: it is likely to lead to the experience of pain. There is no judgement in the 'unfortunate' it is just that seeing as the consequences aren't so well it might be better to rethink things...
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel put down. Implying that people should rethink things could lead them to feel put down. Excepting some members of a group still leaves the others. Sorry, but I'm going to block you from posting for 2 weeks (see below).
But please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceOne possibility is to ask another poster to be your "civility buddy" and preview posts before you submit them.
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
> i don't appreciate the way you characterise my views. i guess it isn't intentional... but i feel they are being caricatured and without reference to what i actually said.
That's what can happen after a critique...
> according to the faq if it is *possible* for someone to respond by feeling offended then the comment is uncivil. my point is... people could *possibly* feel offended in response to pretty much anything. but clearly pretty much anything is not uncivil.
Right, so judgment is required.
> if you talk about some of her crappy politices ideas or implementing of those... i wouldn't feel offended. i can't think of a single person in nz who would.
>
> if you guys started poking fun of this tin pot country in the south pacific. where teh sheep outnumber the people i won't feel offended either. don't know anyone in nz who would.There might be others there who would. Again, please respect the views of others and be sensitive to their feelings.
> was anyone offended by declans remark?
> i'm serious.
> can you read charitably and feel offended by his remarkMaybe people were, but are being charitable and not saying so. IMO, one can be charitable and still feel offended. And still enforce guidelines.
Bob
PS: I'm trying out a new system:
previous block: 2 weeks
period of time since previous block: 10 weeks
particularly uncivil to other posters: no
different type of incivility: no
clearly didn't understand PBC and made effort to reply: no
provoked: no
uncivil in multiple posts at same time: kind of
already archived: noIf we divide 10 weeks by 10, that's a reduction of 1 week. If we apply that to your previous block, that's 2 - 1 = 1 week. And if we double that, that's 2 weeks.
Posted by muffled on April 18, 2006, at 22:57:43
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » special_k, posted by Dr. Bob on April 18, 2006, at 22:24:20
Guess you pretty much knew it was comming eh?
Mebbe a break would be a good thing?
Dr. Bob sure wrote alot to you.
Mebbe he gives some kind of a sh*t?
Dunno.
Cept I know I do.
Take care,
muffled
Posted by Deneb on April 18, 2006, at 23:16:21
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » special_k, posted by Dr. Bob on April 18, 2006, at 22:24:20
Dr. Bob! You're trying out a new system! Wow!
((((Dr. Bob))))
This means that there is great incentive for me to be civil for long periods of time. The new system applies to everyone right? Not just to special k? I'm going to try to never be uncivil again, but it's good to know that if I make a mistake in, say, five years, I won't get an 8 week block right?
Dr. Bob, you sure wrote a lot to special k. How come you don't write a lot to me when I get blocked? I wish you would write a lot to me. Can I please please please give you a hug at the Babble Party? Please don't say no here. Tell me in person. I promise I won't write about it on the boards.
It would make so soooo happy if I could just give you a small hug...
I imagine giving you a hug all the time. I swear I won't go all psycho and stuff. I'm just a quiet person in real life...really quiet.
You would make me very very happy, if you would just allow me one small hug. I'm getting happy just thinking about it! Please consider it.
Deneb*
Posted by Deneb on April 18, 2006, at 23:18:35
In reply to Re: New blocking system, posted by Deneb on April 18, 2006, at 23:16:21
No pressure, I'm not pressuring you to let me hug you. It's entirely up to you. I'll be okay if you don't want to let me hug you.
Deneb*
Posted by NikkiT2 on April 19, 2006, at 5:20:13
In reply to Re: New blocking system, posted by Deneb on April 18, 2006, at 23:16:21
>Dr. Bob, you sure wrote a lot to special k. How come you don't write a lot to me when I get blocked? I wish you would write a lot to me.
BECAUSE he was trying out a new system. If you try and remember, you were the first person he wrote the "its not because I don't like you" to. Infcat, that whole sentence came about due to your complaints I believe. Thats means he does take notice of you.
And, would you like a long post if it meant you were blocked?!
Nikki
Posted by Deneb on April 19, 2006, at 9:14:00
In reply to Re: New blocking system » Deneb, posted by NikkiT2 on April 19, 2006, at 5:20:13
You're right Nikki! Dr. Bob does take notice of me! :-)
Sometimes I forget.
Deneb*
Posted by Damos on April 19, 2006, at 19:15:08
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » special_k, posted by Dr. Bob on April 18, 2006, at 22:24:20
Okay, I feel a little like Demi Moore in A Few Good Men.
"I object!"
Overruled.
"I strenuously object!"
Overruled.
Is there really anything I can say in objection to this block that I haven't said in my other forays onto Admin questioning previous ones? Not really. Will anything I or anyone else says make the least little bit of difference? It appears not.
Thanks for the lesson in advanced Babbematics Bob, but it doesn't change anything. Giving the appearance of doing something isn't the same as actually doing something. The appearance of change doesn't signify any *real* intent to change. Your wonderful new calculation doesn't change the fact that the punishment significantlty outweighs any perceived crime or slight. It is also focuses solely on negatives or the lack thereof.
Surely the 'unofficial' PBC was sufficient. Surely the fact that there were more than a dozen posts by Deputies none of which raised issue with the post/statements prior to that counts for something.
And yes I can hear people saying "He's only questioning it because they're friends." Well you're right in a sense. I do feel honour bound to speak up for my friend. Honour bound because my friend is not uncivil, is not insensitive, is not inconsiderate. Simply is not, and I will not allow those implications to go unchallenged.
I do not understand what you are trying to achieve. To protect people from their feelings? You can't do it. I do not understand what good is served by this and some other blocks; what supportive or educational end. I don't see what is served other than to make someone just "Shut the f*ck up".
The selection of the statements re American/Americans was sadly predictable and I'm not going to waste more words flogging that poor dead horse again. But to suggest that there may be some New Zealander out 'there' somewhere who may be offended is really a bit much when what was being said was that; "I who am one won't be offended, and I who know more of them than any of you ever will don't know one that would be either." You are basically telling this person that *you* know better. And that is simply not true. How far do your idiosyncratic civility rules and the 'boundaries' of babble extend? As an Australian who knows plenty too, I can't think of one who would be either. But again we've spoken at length about this previously.
Special, I'm sorry, I've failed to do you and what you are trying to achieve justice yet again. I'm sorry that you've been blocked, and will miss you. Please take very good care of you.
((((((((((Special_K))))))))))
Posted by henrietta on April 19, 2006, at 19:36:29
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Damos on April 19, 2006, at 19:15:08
I'm sorry, Special, I haven't been here. Haven't been here to support you and tell you how much I admire you. Believe me, there are plenty of "Americans" who agree with you, and are not offended by your honest comments. I'm one, and nearly every friend I have is one.....(I say "nearly" because tho' at the moment I can't think of one who would not agree, I suppose there must be some).So, I'm both supporting you and sorta defending Americans, I guess. We aren't all #######s.
Love you, girl. Take good care of yourself during your respite, your blessed release from this #######.
love, Hen
Posted by Dinah on April 19, 2006, at 19:46:44
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Damos on April 19, 2006, at 19:15:08
Damos, speaking only for myself, I try not to act deputorially in a thread I'm heavily involved in, so you can't use the fact that I posted without posting as deputy as any sort of guide. I think there is a conflict of interest in those hopefully few situations and I try to avoid conflicts of interests wherever possible.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 19, 2006, at 20:56:09
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Damos on April 19, 2006, at 19:15:08
> what was being said was that; "I who am one won't be offended, and I who know more of them than any of you ever will don't know one that would be either."
That by itself would've been fine.
> to suggest that there may be some New Zealander out 'there' somewhere who may be offended is really a bit much
> You are basically telling this person that *you* know better. And that is simply not true.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I knew better the probability that New Zealanders would feel offended. But I didn't think it was zero. And why take the risk?
Bob
Posted by Racer on April 19, 2006, at 21:05:55
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Damos on April 19, 2006, at 19:15:08
Just for the record, I was offended by some of what Special K posted. And my feelings were hurt, too, by the exchange I had with her.
In the larger scheme of things, that probably doesn't matter much -- but it kinda matters to me. Do I think that someone should be blocked for hurting *my* feelings? No. I only bring that up to show that it wasn't a hypothetical Someone whose feelings could Potentially have been hurt. It was an individual, whose feelings were hurt directly, and who felt quite put down by some of the statements made -- especially by the implication that I was being "over"-sensitive about it.
Again, I'm not saying that the block was justified simply because it was my feelings that were hurt. I'm only saying that someone's feelings were hurt, that someone felt put down. It's quite possible that someone else here also feels hurt or put down, but hasn't said so.
Peace.
Posted by verne on April 19, 2006, at 21:28:23
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Damos, posted by Racer on April 19, 2006, at 21:05:55
As an American, not especially patriotic or sensitive about it, I often feel hurt, annoyed, frustrated, and dismayed by the anti-american tone by some posters.
And not just on the politics board. Someone asks themselves "Why do I feel unsafe" on the social board and one response is a link posted to a book about what *Americans* are unreasonably afraid of. http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20060413/msgs/634039.html
It wears me down for one.
Verne
Posted by Racer on April 19, 2006, at 21:33:20
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Damos, posted by Racer on April 19, 2006, at 21:05:55
>It was an individual, whose feelings were hurt directly, and who felt quite put down by some of the statements made -- especially by the implication that I was being "over"-sensitive about it.
>I realized, as soon as I hit "Submit," that I wasn't all that clear about that. My feelings were individually hurt, by some of what SK wrote to me, but some of it was about the lumping together of Americans, as well. Just as you might feel a twinge if someone said, maybe, that all Aussies love sheep, smell like lanolin, or speak Strine. Kinda diminishes that identity thing, you know?
Anyway, I'll get over it, and I was just wanting to make it clear that it wasn't only the remarks that were directed at me that I was reacting to.
Posted by Damos on April 19, 2006, at 22:17:23
In reply to Whoops! Clarification of part of that, posted by Racer on April 19, 2006, at 21:33:20
Hi Racer,
I apologise if you felt I was discounting your feeling in my post, I in no way meant to do that. That there was hurt on both sides of the exchange was obvious and saddens me greatly.
Re your previous post. In the larger scheme of things, any scheme of things it does matter - much.
For the record, my identity wouldn't be the least little bit diminished if you made those types of remarks, just as it isn't when people spell and pronounce my name incorrectly - but that's me.
Again, I'm sorry that you were hurt and really do appreciate your replying as you have.
Posted by Damos on April 19, 2006, at 22:42:09
In reply to Clarification » Damos, posted by Dinah on April 19, 2006, at 19:46:44
Dinah, I respect and admire the way you manage the potential poster/deputy conflict and had always assumed that that was in fact the case. It is an unenviable position for all deputies to be in.
If you or any other deputy felt I was doing anything more than simply stating how things 'appeared' to me then I apologise. I have an unfortunately tendency to be inarticulate(amongst other things).
Damos
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.