![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 85 to 109 of 156. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 9:45:24
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah's post » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on March 25, 2003, at 9:07:33
NikkiT2,
You wrote,[...you asked me, in the past, to use the exact words...don't have time to find the post ...].
I do remember a post of yours that write that I wrote [...only a fool says there is no God...]. Now if you used quotes, then I could have asked that you use what I actually wrote, which was to include, [...in his heart...]. I felt that by you using quotes, necessecited the entire quote, whearas in a paraphrase, the entire statement that I had said could be truncated, and I do not know of the exact post either, but ,perhaps, someone else could search for the URL and examine it to see if there were quotes or if it was a paraphrase?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 9:49:33
In reply to Lou's reply to NikkiT2's's post-FS » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 9:45:24
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 25, 2003, at 10:05:40
In reply to Lou's reply to NikkiT2's's post-FS » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 9:45:24
Lou,
So basically.. Its ok for you to paraphrase.. but not OK for me to use only part of a quote??
Do you agree that paraphrasing is something that is best not to do.. It can cause an awful lot fo misunderstandings.. You could say "I understand it to mean xxx, is this how you meant it?".. but not to say "You said xxx" when xxx isn't exactly what the person said.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 10:13:42
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2's's post-FS » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on March 25, 2003, at 10:05:40
NikkiT2,
You wrote,[...{OK}for you to paraphrase, but {not OK}for me to use part of a quote...].
I feel that quotes are for wring [exactly] what someone has written and that paraphasing means that it goes without saying that there could be something ommited.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 10:24:29
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2's's post-FS » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on March 25, 2003, at 10:05:40
NikkiT2,
You wrote,[...do you agree that paraphrasing is best not to do?...].
Well, that depends. I have paraphased Patric Henry's speech to the house in 1775 and ended up with,[...give me liberty or give me death...]. I feel that to quote the entire speech would [...constitute too great of a burden...]. But I have used quotes here when a particular word needed to be used, rather than a synonym, and when the exact words could not be substituted.
I use paraphaseing to simply highlight the area of a post that is relevant to the discussion. If there is any misunderstanding, then clarification can always be requested. even if quotes are used, that does not guarentee that there will still not be misunderstanding.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 25, 2003, at 10:28:48
In reply to Lou's reply to NikkiT2's's post-FT » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 10:24:29
Yes, misunderstandings can occur. But, by paraphrasing using YOUR understanding of something, and not explicity saying that you are paraphrasing, simply perpetuates further misunderstandings in my opinion.
And, I did not paraphrase.. I simply only used part of the whole sentence... and in my opinion, this did not change the meaning. But that is just my opinion.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 10:47:02
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2's's post-FT » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on March 25, 2003, at 10:28:48
NikkiT2,
You wrote,[...by paraphaseing ...and not {explictly saying} that you are paraphrasing...].
When one wants to show that they are writing the exact words ,it is my undertanding that quotation marks are used to show that they are writng the exact words, and not leaving something out. It is my understanding that when quotation marks are absent, then what is written goes without saying that it is {not} a quote and something could be omitted.
You wrote,[...I did not paraphrase....]. Is that in referrnace to the post that you could not find that I remembered? If so, were you quoting? If you were quoting, could you clarify why you used quotation marks and left out a part of what was said? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of your post.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on March 25, 2003, at 10:49:18
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah's post-FS, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 9:29:31
Lou, I don't know if you saw the question in my post. Is there a reason you prefer paraphrasing rather than using the option Dr. Bob gives to include the entire post? You don't have to answer of course, and I wouldn't ask again except that I wasn't sure if you got diverted by the first part of my post and didn't see the question.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 11:00:39
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah's post-FS » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on March 25, 2003, at 10:49:18
Dinah,
You wrote,[...is there a reason that you prefer paraphasing ?...].
Could you read my posts that respond to NikkiT2's posts? If you could, and you do not find an answer to your question to me, could you post to me again? I will, if you request, clarify any further questions that you may have.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 25, 2003, at 11:05:54
In reply to Lou's reply to NikkiT2's's post-FT2 » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 10:47:02
Lou, I have not studied ENglish since leaving high school, so do not know the exact use of "'s.
In the previous thread, I believe i did use your words exactly, even though I missed off the final 3 words. I felt the the final three words did not change the meaning of what you had posted.
I think I posted "only a fool says there is no god", where as what you posted was (i hope I have this almost correct) "only a fool says there is no god in his heart". I was contending this statement, saying that I am *not* a fool, and that I didn;t believe in god, whether in my heart or anywhere else. But this is not the time to bring this discussion up again.Just because I see something in ['s compared to "'s, I would not understand that one is a quote and one is paraphrasing. I'm sure I am not alone in this. I think the fact that other people have mentioned your paraphrasing backs this up.
I am very interested in your reply to Dinah's question, as to why you won't use direct quotes, and feel the need to paraphrase.
When I am replying to a certain post, that post is shown below the typing box. I can refer to this and copy and paste from it.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 11:10:43
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah's post-FS » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on March 25, 2003, at 10:49:18
Dinah,
Could you explain how the option to recapture the post that you are answering can be used?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on March 25, 2003, at 11:20:54
In reply to using the option » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 11:10:43
> Dinah,
> Could you explain how the option to recapture the post that you are answering can be used?
> LouWhen you choose to reply to a post, there are two options. The circle on the left is "your message only". The circle on the right says "include above post". The circle on the left is blacked in automatically, but you can instead choose to include the post by clicking on the circle to the right. Give it a try with this post. It is right above the "Go to form" button that you press to reply to a post.
And I'm afraid I didn't understand from your replies to Nikki why you prefer to paraphrase. A lot of people include the previous post, then put their own comments after each paragragh, or delete certain paragraphs and reply to the paragraph they wish to comment on. I suppose that still leaves some room for misinterpretation, but if you leave sentences intact, I'm guessing it helps a lot.
I used that option to answer your post, and as you see, it uses little symbols to represent what is the previous post.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 11:28:55
In reply to Re: using the option, posted by Dinah on March 25, 2003, at 11:20:54
> > Dinah,
> > Could you explain how the option to recapture the post that you are answering can be used?
> > Lou
>
> When you choose to reply to a post, there are two options. The circle on the left is "your message only". The circle on the right says "include above post". The circle on the left is blacked in automatically, but you can instead choose to include the post by clicking on the circle to the right. Give it a try with this post. It is right above the "Go to form" button that you press to reply to a post.
>
> And I'm afraid I didn't understand from your replies to Nikki why you prefer to paraphrase. A lot of people include the previous post, then put their own comments after each paragragh, or delete certain paragraphs and reply to the paragraph they wish to comment on. I suppose that still leaves some room for misinterpretation, but if you leave sentences intact, I'm guessing it helps a lot.
>
> I used that option to answer your post, and as you see, it uses little symbols to represent what is the previous post.How do you split the sentences?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 11:47:31
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2's's post-FT2 » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on March 25, 2003, at 11:05:54
NikkiT2,
You wrote,[...I do not know the exact use of quotes...].
It is my understanding that there is a literary scholar here under the name of {beadedlady} that could, possibly, offer some instruction in regards to the proper, or improper , use of quotation marks. Perhaps, someone here could alert her to responding to this post?
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 25, 2003, at 11:53:36
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2's's post-FT2-B » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 11:47:31
Maybe it would simply be easier not to paraphrase another poster, but to copy their exact words.
Can I ask again why you prefer to paraphrase than to use the actual words?? I would betetr understand why you do this then.
Nikki
Posted by ayuda on March 25, 2003, at 12:10:32
In reply to Misrepresentation » Lou Pilder, posted by Jonathan on March 25, 2003, at 0:14:08
Thank you, Jonathan, for pointing that out, and for explaining (even to me!) what that exchange was all about!
By the way, I am a girl (woman, female -- whatever term anyone prefers for those of us humans with the XX chromosomes)!
While I do not think that everyone should just lie down and accept all authority and never think for oneself, I also respect rules and the rights of "management" to enforce them, especially if they are known to all parties beforehand. We could all choose to abandon this board if we don't like it, and that would be Dr. Bob's problem, not ours.
> Lou,
>
> If you quote what others have posted, please do not edit their words in a way which substantially changes their meaning.
>
> You claim that Ayuda wrote, in http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030221/msgs/211952.html :
>
> "...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 the site alone..."
>
> Shall we look at what (s)he really wrote? (I'm very sorry, Ayuda — I tried but I cannot infer your gender from your recent posts!). I have enclosed in «guillemets» the sections which you (Lou) deleted:
>
> "... I believe that people who 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."
>
> I see nothing wrong in omitting words which aren't essential to the argument, as I have omitted "And yes," from the beginning of the sentence; nor in changing, as I have, "him" to "[Dr. Bob]" because our removal of the sentence from its original context makes it no longer obvious to whom "him" was meant to refer.
>
> However, by deleting Ayuda's words "that they signed an agreement to use this site in a particular manner, and then who keep arguing with him about those parameters," you are not only transforming "understanding" from a transitive verb, the object of which is the noun phrase "that they signed an agreement to use this site in a particular manner", into an intransitive verb with the implicit meaning "understanding anything". You are also obscuring the fact that Ayuda is not talking about all who use the Admin Board, as you later imply with absolutely no justification, but only about those who, having agreed when they registered to observe Dr. Bob's rules, then use this board solely to argue persistently and specifically against those same rules with which they agreed to comply. I do not consider you to be such a person, nor do I believe that you think of yourself in that way.
>
> I am sorry, Lou, that you feel "extremely hurt" by Ayuda's post, but I think that the cause of your hurt is not the words that Ayuda used but your own, perhaps inadvertent, misquotation of them. I think this explains Ayuda's justifiably bewildered response, in http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030221/msgs/211992.html :
>
> "... I don't even understand how you are interpreting what I've said. I am at a loss for understanding your confusion."
>
> Your post concludes with the following words, which I find shockingly out of character for the civil and honourable gentleman I know you to be :)
>
> "I feel extreamly hurt by your statement because I feel that you are ... incapeable of understanding and... have emotional problems..."
>
> To ensure that no-one is misled by my deliberate misquotation of Lou's post, I wish to explain that I substituted an ellipsis (...) for the following words between "you are" and "incapable":
>
> "jumping to a conclusion about people that use the administrative board to request address of what [they percieve to be injustices] when they are invited to do so by Dr. Bob and then you conclude that they are {..."
>
> Please try to observe the Golden Rule, Lou — http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil :
>
> "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." — Matt. 7:12.
> "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. That is the law: all the rest is commentary." — Talmud, Shabbat 31a.
>
> Please treat the words that others have posted with the same respect which you would like others to show for your words.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Jonathan.
>
>
> > ayuda,
> > You wrote,[...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 the site alone...].
> > I feel extreamly hurt by your statement because I feel that you are jumping to a conclusion about people that use the administrative board to request address of what [they percieve to be injustices] when they are invited to do so by Dr. Bob and then you conclude that they are {...incapeable of understanding and... have emotional problems...].
> > Lou
>
Posted by ayuda on March 25, 2003, at 12:24:18
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2's's post-FT2-B » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on March 25, 2003, at 11:53:36
> Maybe it would simply be easier not to paraphrase another poster, but to copy their exact words.
>
> Can I ask again why you prefer to paraphrase than to use the actual words?? I would betetr understand why you do this then.
>
> NikkiNikki -- My guess from reading the exchanges here, and of course it is just a guess because I do not know Lou personally, is that Lou is reading only the parts of our posts that will permit him to attack our statements. It is difficult to attack people when their actual statements are either 1) grammatically correct, or 2) innocuous.
Also, again this is a personal opinion from personal observations from this board only, it appears that Lou does not answer direct questions, though he asks a lot of them. I asked Lou a series of direct questions that he appears to have ignored, while I was civil and kind enough to answer all of his direct questions.
What his questions have to do with the Administration of Psycho-Babble, though, are quite obscure to me. Ayuda
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 12:32:45
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2's's post-FT2-B » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on March 25, 2003, at 11:53:36
NikkiT2,
You wrote,[...why do you prefer to paraphrase?...].
There is a great amount of differences in writing styles throughout the world and it is my feelings that these differences enrichen the discussions here. I respect other's writing styles and I preferr to use the style that I use because it is simply the way I like to write and I am open to requests for clarification when, my writing style could cause one to have a need for clarification. I do not consider anyone's writing style to constutute [misrepresentation], for if something needs to be clarified,I do not beleive that one can conclude that the writer was attempting to misrepresent just because the reader thinks that.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 25, 2003, at 12:36:39
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2's's post-FT2-B » NikkiT2, posted by ayuda on March 25, 2003, at 12:24:18
*smiles* Welcome to Psycho Babble ;)
Nikki xx
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 12:42:08
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2's's post-FT2-B » NikkiT2, posted by ayuda on March 25, 2003, at 12:24:18
ayuda,
You wrote,[...my guess is...Lou is only reading parts of our posts that will permit him to {attack} our statements...].
Again, I am deeply hurt that someone on a mental health board would even suggest, by saying that they are guessing, that another person here is {attacking} other's statements. I am not attacking anyone's statements, nor do I feel that I even have to defend against what I percieve as an accusation toward me that I am reading only parts of people's post that will premit me to attack other's statements.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 25, 2003, at 12:50:28
In reply to Lou's reply to NikkiT2's's post-FT2-C » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 12:32:45
Please can I ask that you never paraphrase me, but use my factual words.
Paraphrasing, as seen here, can totally confuse a situation. I, personally, find it quite dangerous to change anyones words when trying to make a point.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 13:32:48
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2's's post-FT2-C » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on March 25, 2003, at 12:50:28
> Please can I ask that you never paraphrase me, but use my factual words.
>
> Paraphrasing, as seen here, can totally confuse a situation. I, personally, find it quite dangerous to change anyones words when trying to make a point.
>
> NikkiNikkiT2,
I feel that quotes have their place in discussion and that paraphrasing also has its place in a discussion and I respect others that choose to use the style of writing that is confortable to them. There is always room for anyone to construe or misconstrue something regardless of what form or style the writer chooses. I feel that tolerance to individual differences in writing style, while admitting that any style of writing has the potential to be unclear, could further the support and education aspects of this board by requesting clarification when one needs it to better understand what another has written. As for your request for me to accomodtate your preferences to not use paraphrasing, I could do that.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 13:52:09
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2's's post-FT2-C » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on March 25, 2003, at 12:50:28
NikkiT2,
You wrote,"Paraphrasing, as seen here, can totally confuse a situation."
Are you referring to the post by Jonathan to me? If so, could you clarify if the situation is, or is not confused to you? Could you state the sentance(s) involved that made you conclude, if you are making a conclusion,of such? If so then I could reply accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 14:19:19
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2's's post-FT2-B » NikkiT2, posted by ayuda on March 25, 2003, at 12:24:18
ayuda,
You wrote,[...I asked Lou direct questions that it appears that he has ignored...].
Could you provide me with any questions that you would like me to answer ? I am not ignoring your questions, just trying to {get to them} because I was answering other posts and some of your questions could requirer me to give a comprehensive answer that could be very long and involved.
Lou
Posted by ayuda on March 25, 2003, at 16:31:08
In reply to Lou's response to ayuda's post-MQ » ayuda, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 14:19:19
> ayuda,
> You wrote,[...I asked Lou direct questions that it appears that he has ignored...].
> Could you provide me with any questions that you would like me to answer ? I am not ignoring your questions, just trying to {get to them} because I was answering other posts and some of your questions could requirer me to give a comprehensive answer that could be very long and involved.
> LouAny one of my posts from the other night that have "?" at the end of sentences would be what I am referring to. Do you have a problem with providing "long and involved" responses? You surely ask for a lot of them from others.
And as for your other post concerning my use of the term "attack," I know a verbal assault when I am faced with one.
Your posts do not appear to me to address any sort of Administrative issue re: Psycho-Babble, ther than your insinuations that Dr. Bob either 1) is anti-Semitic, or 2) permits anti-Semitic remarks and is thus hypocritical concerning the issue of "civility," so I am wondering if perhaps these issues should be taken up on another board (and I take that observation from at least two of your posts, one directed at me the other night and one directed at someone else, and if you want to know which ones, please peruse your responses over the past couple of days).
As for your feelings, stating that someone has disturbed your sensibilities because they point out that you are not discussing Administrative issues but instead are jumping on people's grammatical errors and re-writing their posts to serve your own purposes -- well, sorry if you feel put-down or abused, and I really mean that, but you do not seem to be engaged in constructive conversations with anyone here, so what reactions do you expect people to have?
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.