![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 39. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dinah on October 8, 2003, at 19:20:40
In reply to Re: please be civil » galkeepinon » justyourlaugh » lil' jimi, posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 19:07:32
> > i got a bunch of demented nasty notes too ... ...
> >
> > lil' jimi
>
> This is a rough time, but please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused, thanks.
>
> BobNot sure about this PBC, Dr. Bob. Are you objecting to the nasty or the demented? If it's the nasty, is it really uncivil to describe an email as nasty? How else would you convey that you received a nasty email? He didn't say anything about a fellow poster. I'm confused. Could you clarify?
Posted by Tabitha on October 8, 2003, at 19:38:53
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on October 8, 2003, at 19:20:40
oh my goodness. Dr Bob, if that happened, they are doing folks a service by warning people. You would have us restrained to where we can't protect each other by naming the offense.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 21:14:40
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on October 8, 2003, at 19:20:40
> is it really uncivil to describe an email as nasty?
IMO, yes. Would you like an email of yours to be described that way? Regarding warning others, see:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031008/msgs/266942.html
Bob
Posted by Dinah on October 8, 2003, at 21:27:52
In reply to Re: describing an email as nasty, posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 21:14:40
what descriptive words would be acceptable?
And by the way, if I ever sent a truly nasty email in my life, I'd be prostrate with guilt and self flagellating from now till eternity.
Posted by Tabitha on October 8, 2003, at 21:32:22
In reply to Re: describing an email as nasty, posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 21:14:40
IMO, if someone characterizes a slightly insulting email as 'nasty' it might be an accusation or a put-down because it would be an exaggeration. But there's a point where the word 'nasty' just might be an accurate description-- for instance, if the email contained obscenity and violent imagery. In that case calling it a 'nasty' email might even be kinder than a more elaborate description of its contents.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 21:46:31
In reply to Re: describing an email as nasty, posted by Tabitha on October 8, 2003, at 21:32:22
> there's a point where the word 'nasty' just might be an accurate description
Yes, but the issue is civility, not accuracy.
Bob
Posted by gabbix2 on October 8, 2003, at 22:10:55
In reply to Re: describing an email as nasty, posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 21:46:31
Did I read that correctly?
The truth is uncivil? Its more important to phrase things 'nicely' than to be accurate?
This was a situation where a NIKKI was accused of lying about recieving threatening emails by the poster involved
Jimi was not only supporting her he was validating what she had said, and that the emails were indeed scary.
It would be okay for that poster to say something untrue as long as it was said civilly,
(Although in my world lying is innately uncivil)It is not permissible however to truthfully warn others of a heinous action because its very nature makes that an impossiblity. It can't be civil and heinous simultaneouly.
Am I seriously out of touch or is this a frightening way of implementing the original intent of 'civilization'
It is not about truth it is about civility..
That is going to echo in my head tonight.
Posted by stjames on October 8, 2003, at 22:17:36
In reply to Re: describing an email as nasty, posted by Tabitha on October 8, 2003, at 21:32:22
I would:
Contact Dr Bob via e-mail and foward the e-mail's
that you are conserned about.Contact the persons ISP; if there are threats also
contact the police in the town the e-mail was sent from. Post here if you need help figuring out which ISP or town to contact, I or others can help with this.I think posting on these boards about these e-mails
just proves the person was sucessful in hurting you.
Posted by gabbix2 on October 8, 2003, at 23:17:56
In reply to Re: describing an email as nasty, posted by stjames on October 8, 2003, at 22:17:36
>> I think posting on these boards about these e-mails
> just proves the person was sucessful in hurting you.Thats true, it also adds to the amount of attention the person recieves.
There might be a time when you want to warn other posters of something though, and if its serious enough that you feel compelled to warn others, chances are the truth wouldn't be civil.
Posted by Tabitha on October 8, 2003, at 23:52:20
In reply to Re: describing an email as nasty, posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 21:46:31
It irks me when you pick out one sentence or phrase and reply to that. It makes me think you missed my point, which leads me to feel frustrated. (See? how bout that I-statement).
But... I'm going to back off from controversy for a while. I need a break.
Dr Bob thanks for finally responding to the recent issues. I still don't agree with policy, but I'm feeling less frustration and anger now.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 9, 2003, at 1:40:51
In reply to The Issue is not accuracy its civility?, posted by gabbix2 on October 8, 2003, at 22:10:55
> The truth is uncivil? Its more important to phrase things 'nicely' than to be accurate?
It may be possible to be both civil and accurate. If not, that doesn't mean you have to lie, couldn't you just not say anything?
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 9, 2003, at 1:43:16
In reply to Re: replies » Dr. Bob, posted by Tabitha on October 8, 2003, at 23:52:20
> It irks me when you pick out one sentence or phrase and reply to that. It makes me think you missed my point, which leads me to feel frustrated.
Sorry I missed your point. Could you give it another try?
Bob
Posted by Tabitha on October 9, 2003, at 5:52:00
In reply to Re: you missed my point, posted by Dr. Bob on October 9, 2003, at 1:43:16
will email an attempt-- tired of arguing here, don't want to inflame anyone further.
Posted by gabbix2 on October 9, 2003, at 6:44:58
In reply to Re: accuracy vs. civility, posted by Dr. Bob on October 9, 2003, at 1:40:51
How could you say nothing? How could you watch as a person with a history of threats and abuse told bold faced lies under the guise of an apology and say nothing!
I think most people would want to spare someone else the pain they themselves endured. That would mean having to describe what happened truthfully. Sometimes saying something "Frightened me" is not enough.
That has different interpretations to different people.
People are going to ask questions,
"Well what frightened you?
Why should someone have to wear a muzzle to protect someone who has been abusive and threatening. People have a right to know.
Especially people who are dealing with enough already, and likely have had issues with this type of thing in their past.Additionally when someone is accused of lying about an incident, and another person knows they are not lying because the same thing has happened to them, they are almost morally obligated to say something. This is the reality.
In this particular cirumstance
I'd say it certainly wasn't gratuitous "incivility" This was defending someone's moral character moral character
and supporting someone at the same time.That is why you would "say anything"
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 9, 2003, at 19:44:35
In reply to Re: accuracy vs. civility » Dr. Bob, posted by gabbix2 on October 9, 2003, at 6:44:58
> a person ... told bold faced lies
>
> someone who has been abusive and threatening.Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused. The last time you were blocked, it was for 3 weeks, so this time, it's for 9.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on October 9, 2003, at 19:52:59
In reply to Re: blocked for 9 weeks » gabbix2, posted by Dr. Bob on October 9, 2003, at 19:44:35
Look forward to seeing you back (and email of course). Please don't feel without support. If you contact me by email, I'd be happy to give you an alternate method of contacting me too.
High block toll on this one. :(
Posted by HannahW on October 9, 2003, at 22:01:05
In reply to Sorry, Gabbi., posted by Dinah on October 9, 2003, at 19:52:59
Once again, I'm stunned. Can you say random acts of violence? I'm with you, and I'm so sorry.
Posted by shar on October 9, 2003, at 22:27:11
In reply to Re: blocked for 9 weeks » gabbix2, posted by Dr. Bob on October 9, 2003, at 19:44:35
No! I will miss Gabbix 2 too much! Dang it, and more!
Shar
Posted by Tabitha on October 9, 2003, at 22:59:32
In reply to Jeeze Louise!, posted by shar on October 9, 2003, at 22:27:11
Posted by Sabina on October 10, 2003, at 0:14:35
In reply to Re: blocked for 9 weeks » gabbix2, posted by Dr. Bob on October 9, 2003, at 19:44:35
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 22, 2003, at 20:52:20
In reply to Re: describing an email as nasty, posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 21:46:31
> > there's a point where the word 'nasty' just might be an accurate description
>
> Yes, but the issue is civility, not accuracy.
>
> BobDr. Bob, I'd really like a straight answer here.
Tabitha described an hypothetical situation, e.g. "the email contained obscenity and violent imagery". As that language is descriptive, not judgmental like "nasty", would the descriptive terms be acceptable to you?
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 22, 2003, at 21:00:40
In reply to Re: blocked for 9 weeks » gabbix2, posted by Dr. Bob on October 9, 2003, at 19:44:35
> > a person ... told bold faced lies
> >
> > someone who has been abusive and threatening.
>
> Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused. The last time you were blocked, it was for 3 weeks, so this time, it's for 9.
>
> BobDr. Bob, I am baffled by your position here. I can see that others are, too. Could you step out from behind the curtain for a moment, please, and give a little insight here?
No one was mentioned by name. How could anyone feel accused?
Is a statement like "I know that (situation X) is false" an acceptable alternative to describing the situation as lying?
Would posting a copy of the hypothetical email (edited to block unacceptable language) itself be seen as uncivil?
My gut reaction is that people want to feel safe, and your intent is to keep things emotionally safe, but there is a lack of congruence between the concepts. People are not feeling safe, and when they try to discuss it, they get banned. It's not working.
Lar
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 22, 2003, at 23:19:22
In reply to Re: blocked for 9 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on October 22, 2003, at 21:00:40
> Tabitha described an hypothetical situation, e.g. "the email contained obscenity and violent imagery". As that language is descriptive, not judgmental like "nasty", would the descriptive terms be acceptable to you?
> Is a statement like "I know that (situation X) is false" an acceptable alternative to describing the situation as lying?
Those are better, at least. It's hard to be definitive without a context...
> Would posting a copy of the hypothetical email (edited to block unacceptable language) itself be seen as uncivil?
Would it be with the permission of the author of the email?
And what would be the point of the above? Might there be other ways to accomplish that?
> No one was mentioned by name. How could anyone feel accused?
If no one's mentioned by name, then lots of people may feel accused...
> My gut reaction is that people want to feel safe, and your intent is to keep things emotionally safe, but there is a lack of congruence between the concepts. People are not feeling safe, and when they try to discuss it, they get banned. It's not working.
It may be because someone doesn't feel safe that they post something uncivil, but (1) that doesn't make it more safe and (2) there are civil alternatives.
Bob
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 23, 2003, at 8:24:18
In reply to Re: civil alternatives, posted by Dr. Bob on October 22, 2003, at 23:19:22
> > Tabitha described an hypothetical situation, e.g. "the email contained obscenity and violent imagery". As that language is descriptive, not judgmental like "nasty", would the descriptive terms be acceptable to you?
>
> > Is a statement like "I know that (situation X) is false" an acceptable alternative to describing the situation as lying?
>
> Those are better, at least. It's hard to be definitive without a context...Thanks for making this effort with me, Bob.
Unfortunately, I'm still unsatisfied.
It still seems as if your answer is, "Not this. Probably not that." I believe that if someone uses descriptive language, that there is no labelling, accusing, or putting down occurring. Simply, this is what happened. Good, bad, or indifferent, this is what happened. I can't see that ever being uncivil, unless it crosses into another category, such as foul language.
Let us consider an hypothetical posting reading, in its entirety, "I am uncomfortable communicating with X, because I received a private email from X which contained profanity and a threat against my wellbeing."
Is that uncivil? If it is, could you please suggest something that you would accept?
> > Would posting a copy of the hypothetical email (edited to block unacceptable language) itself be seen as uncivil?
>
> Would it be with the permission of the author of the email?It might arise that there was a debate that was of the form "Did not" "Did so", and the email itself might be the only evidence available. I'm just trying to find the comfort zone in a difficult scenario. One, which I might add, faces us right now.
> And what would be the point of the above? Might there be other ways to accomplish that?What other ways? You don't have to give ten examples, but please give one.
> > No one was mentioned by name. How could anyone feel accused?
>
> If no one's mentioned by name, then lots of people may feel accused...I think that's a straw man argument, Dr. Bob. The statements that you focussed on were contextually self-limiting.
Anyway, so is the issue the use of words like "lying"? Just that plain and simple?
> > My gut reaction is that people want to feel safe, and your intent is to keep things emotionally safe, but there is a lack of congruence between the concepts. People are not feeling safe, and when they try to discuss it, they get banned. It's not working.
>
> It may be because someone doesn't feel safe that they post something uncivil, but (1) that doesn't make it more safe and (2) there are civil alternatives.
>
> BobI have studied the links to past discussions, but I remain unsatisfied that I understand what you consider to be a civil alternative. Simple examples would be very helpful to me (and others, I'm sure).
Thanx,
Lar
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2003, at 10:01:33
In reply to Re: civil alternatives » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on October 23, 2003, at 8:24:18
> Let us consider an hypothetical posting reading, in its entirety, "I am uncomfortable communicating with X, because I received a private email from X which contained profanity and a threat against my wellbeing."
>
> Is that uncivil? If it is, could you please suggest something that you would accept?My concern would be that the above might lead X to feel accused. What would be the point of bringing it up?
> > > Would posting a copy of the hypothetical email (edited to block unacceptable language) itself be seen as uncivil?
> >
> > Would it be with the permission of the author of the email?
>
> It might arise that there was a debate that was of the form "Did not" "Did so", and the email itself might be the only evidence available.So the goal would be to resolve the debate?
1. What would be the point? How would that be beneficial?
2. Would it need to happen here?If we can clarify what the point of a post would be, then I think it would be easier to discuss possible alternatives...
> > > No one was mentioned by name. How could anyone feel accused?
> >
> > If no one's mentioned by name, then lots of people may feel accused...
>
> I think that's a straw man argument, Dr. Bob. The statements that you focussed on were contextually self-limiting.If the context limits it to someone in particular, wouldn't it be easy for that poster to feel accused?
> Anyway, so is the issue the use of words like "lying"? Just that plain and simple?
That's at least a part of it, but I'd hardly call this plain and simple!
Bob
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.