![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 15 to 39 of 39. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by Dinah on October 23, 2003, at 10:09:05
In reply to Re: civil alternatives, posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2003, at 10:01:33
You might as well give it up, Lar. When Dr. Bob is set on being obtuse, nothing will shake him.
Besides I think he has a theoretical position here that the majority of the board doesn't share.
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 23, 2003, at 14:37:48
In reply to Re: Sigh. - Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on October 23, 2003, at 10:09:05
So..
if for example, Dinah were to start emailing me (And Im only using Dinah as an example as I know she would never do this) and threatening me, and saying nasty horrible things.. I wouldn't actually be able to warn anyone here about on the board??
Do I understand it correctly??
Nikki x
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 23, 2003, at 17:43:49
In reply to Re: civil alternatives, posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2003, at 10:01:33
> > 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.Accused of what? The truth?
> What would be the point of bringing it up?
I'm amazed to hear you wonder about intent. Your determinations of civility/uncivility seem to not (much) consider intent at all.
This whole thread seems to have arisen from the ashes of a faked suicide. It will be a long time before I get over that. What if the next time it isn't a fake, but I don't respond because I don't want to get hurt again? We've got to be able to talk about it. It's a matter of fact for us all.
> > > > 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?It might matter to some people, getting at the truth. The truth can be unpleasant, but unpleasant is not inherently uncivil.
> 1. What would be the point? How would that be beneficial?How does intent come into it? You don't criticize a guy for asking if we're men or sheep, but I get asked to rephrase when I use the passive voice form of an I statement about being offended by the original comment. I am totally confused.
> 2. Would it need to happen here?
Yes, if it involves participants on these boards. We share a common environment.
> If we can clarify what the point of a post would be, then I think it would be easier to discuss possible alternatives...I'm apparently beating my head against the wall.
> > > > 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...It was a hypothetical. Like at the start of a cop show, "Any resemblance between this scenario and a real life situation is a coincidence" or whatever. It may resemble someone's reality, but that doesn't mean they're being accused of anything. People have to be able to talk about the event if it affects feelings of safety. I think the 9 week ban of Gabbix2 was totally inappropriate, given the circumstances. You, yourself, more than once in this thread, raise the issue of intent. You didn't give Gabbix2 any consideration of intent, or so it seems.
> > 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?Again, accused of what? The truth? There are ways to say things descriptively, and ways to say them judgmentally. I agree that the latter should be minimized, but descriptive content doesn't inherently carry emotional weight.
> > 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!
>
> BobIt's clear it's not plain and simple. Forgive me, Bob, but I had to try one last time to understand. This is it, though.
Lar
Posted by tealady on October 24, 2003, at 2:46:30
In reply to Re: civil alternatives, posted by Dr. Bob on October 22, 2003, at 23:19:22
>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.
I agree with Lar. It's not working for me either.I think it is very important weare able to discuss why we don't feel comfortable or object to (or dislike in any way) another person's post. Personally if anything I posted led anyone to feel uncomfortable, the MOST important thing to me would be for anyone to be able to say ..hey, that's wrong/hurt/ etc. It just is not working without questions being able to be raised.
What seems to be happening, to me, is that instead of a direct comment..which I welcome even if it puts me down..we get lost of little innuendos all over the place ..or people posting in a similar style that may be sending you up..or people just being overly-sweet..also with intent to insult.
When you aren't thinking clearly, (or maybe that is just an excuse), but I am finding it very difficult to know if one is helping by throwing in suggestions or being a real nuisance or embarrassing. I really do need the feedback AS a part of the "safety" issue.
The undertones going on here lately have affected me more than any direct accusations ever could. Maybe it is just me, but I don't think so.
I also cannot understand why you pulled up Lar, Gabby or DSCH. I'm afraid I haven't really grasped this l-statement, as I think what Lar, Gabby and DSCH have said were worded civilly and carefully even with a lot of thought into their words.
I think if it does make someone feel put down..that is far better , the person should know they are stepping over boundaries, and most people would wish to know, I do. Personally I would really appreciate it if I ever stepped on anyone's toes if they could feel free to tell me immediately, so I could try to correct my wording to better reflect what I meant to say. I personally am not clear headed at all lately..or articulate.
I guess that is what I find difficult, as noone does tell you, and perhaps I am not thinking clearly, I get confused as to if I am helpful or within boundaries or not.
I also think we need to be free to support anyone who we feel is being "attacked" by being able to state that is we also find it could be offensive.
There have been many times I felt I would like to have supported someone, but just wasn't able to as I was not feeling sharp enough.Sorry, I know you don't agree as it would lead the person to feel put down...but maybe sometimes that is what is needed to help determine a clear intent. IMO, it would also in a lot of cases stop the behaviour from occurring at all.
If their meaning was misconstrued, it gives them a chance for correction of their post to makehe their real intentions clear before it gets out of hand.I think it would lead to the overall atmosphere of the board becoming more friendly. This is not meant as a slight on anyone, or you , or the board. The huge majority here are wonderful caring people who I've learnt a lot from.
I'm finding the implied intent is far more powerful a put down than the words, which seem to fit in the "civil" definition.
Jan
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2003, at 8:12:38
In reply to Re: civil alternatives » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on October 23, 2003, at 17:43:49
Maybe Dr Bob will consider allowing Gabbi and others back now.. seeing as he has shown he is happy to allow others back early, even when their offence was dispicable.
So.. how about it Dr Bob?? Or do you only allow it for people that do actually break the incivility rules in a huge manner??
Nikki
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 24, 2003, at 8:18:28
In reply to Re: civil alternatives » Larry Hoover, posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2003, at 8:12:38
> their offence was dispicable.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, thanks.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 24, 2003, at 23:56:45
In reply to Re: civil alternatives » Dr. Bob, posted by tealady on October 24, 2003, at 2:46:30
> > My concern would be that the above might lead X to feel accused.
>
> Accused of what? The truth?> It might matter to some people, getting at the truth. The truth can be unpleasant, but unpleasant is not inherently uncivil.
Not inherently, but possibly. Which is why it can be an accusation.
> > > could you please suggest something that you would accept?
> >
> > What would be the point of bringing it up?
>
> I'm amazed to hear you wonder about intent. Your determinations of civility/uncivility seem to not (much) consider intent at all.Those are two different situations. After something's been posted, if the issue is how civil I think it is, the poster's intent is not (much) an issue. Before it's posted, if the issue is how the poster should say it, their intent is very much an issue.
> This whole thread seems to have arisen from the ashes of a faked suicide. It will be a long time before I get over that. What if the next time it isn't a fake, but I don't respond because I don't want to get hurt again? We've got to be able to talk about it. It's a matter of fact for us all.
It's fine to talk about how (or even whether) to respond to apparent suicide attempts. BTW, how to respond to posters who are suicidal is now in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#suicidal
> You don't criticize a guy for asking if we're men or sheep, but I get asked to rephrase when I use the passive voice form of an I statement about being offended by the original comment. I am totally confused.
Sorry, sometimes it's hard to know exactly where to draw the line. The passive voice form of an I statement isn't an I statement.
> It was a hypothetical... It may resemble someone's reality, but that doesn't mean they're being accused of anything.
That might not have been the intent, but the more it resembles their reality, the more likely it is to lead them to feel accused.
> People have to be able to talk about the event if it affects feelings of safety.
>
> LarIt's fine to talk about events. But if people are going to do it here, I'd like them to do it in a civil way.
----
> if for example, Dinah were to start emailing me ... and threatening me, and saying nasty horrible things.. I wouldn't actually be able to warn anyone here about on the board??
>
> Nikki xIf your intent is to warn people, what about posting that you were shocked by an email she sent you and you think others should think twice before emailing her? And maybe that they could email you if they wanted more details?
----
> I think it is very important weare able to discuss why we don't feel comfortable or object to (or dislike in any way) another person's post. Personally if anything I posted led anyone to feel uncomfortable, the MOST important thing to me would be for anyone to be able to say ..hey, that's wrong/hurt/ etc. It just is not working without questions being able to be raised.
It's fine for people to post here about how uncomfortable they feel. It can be therapeutic to vent more freely, too, but for that, this isn't necessarily the place. If someone wants me to do something, it may be better to email me than to post here.
It's also fine to ask others for feedback. And for others to provide it -- as long as it's constructive.
> I also think we need to be free to support anyone who we feel is being "attacked" by being able to state that is we also find it could be offensive.
I think it's great to support others. But not by counterattacking.
> maybe sometimes that is what is needed to help determine a clear intent.
If it's not clear what someone's intent is, it's fine to ask...
> I'm finding the implied intent is far more powerful a put down than the words, which seem to fit in the "civil" definition.
>
> tealadyThe thing is, it can be hard to be sure what's implied. It's like intent...
Bob
Posted by Brio D Chimp on October 26, 2003, at 10:57:28
In reply to Re: civil alternatives, posted by Dr. Bob on October 24, 2003, at 23:56:45
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20031025/msgs/273313.html
A poster seems to be accusing someone of "spamming" . Is this civil? I was banned for 12 weeks for saying insensitive. Lou was banned for 48 weeks for saying insensitive. Gabbi was banned for 9 weeks for characterizing someone's posts in an unflattering way. Please check this out thanks.
My personal preference is that Lou and Gabbi should come back not that this poster should be banned for 3 times her last ban which would be 48 weeks this time unless you use the pardoned version for the math in which case it would be 36 weeks. But consistency IS important, no?
Posted by Brio D Chimp on October 26, 2003, at 11:25:33
In reply to Bob Please check this post » Dr. Bob, posted by Brio D Chimp on October 26, 2003, at 10:57:28
I just characterized the words Gabbi said that got her banned as "unflattering" does that meant I'm headed out the door again myself? I find flattery not something to be desired myself. Let the unvarnished truth suffice!!!!!I chose not to call them unc*vil because I didn't agree with you that they were. In fact I confess sir I thought you unc*vil to call her unc*vil. Is that confession a further inc*vility? But yet I would not ask you to pass judgement on someone else's post and not also hold mine up to scrutiny.
Posted by Liligoth on October 26, 2003, at 22:25:04
In reply to Re: Bob Please check my post too, posted by Brio D Chimp on October 26, 2003, at 11:25:33
Oh Brio! Pls try to stick around for a little while this time. I always look forward to your return & then you are gone again!
Good Lord! I hope I havent inadvertently made you feel accused of something.
Posted by galkeepinon on October 27, 2003, at 1:04:32
In reply to Bob Please check this post » Dr. Bob, posted by Brio D Chimp on October 26, 2003, at 10:57:28
I just saw this is in one of my school books WOW! It is quite interesting:)
Definition of Spamming: Engaging in the practice of sending unsolicited electronic messages.
Spamming on the internet has become a nation wide problem. The 108th Congress will be addressing this issue soon. This practice is looked upon much the same as telemarketing calls that you receive at home without you permission.
Political/Gossip/Threat/Hate spamming. Individuals are engaging in the ugliest of rumor, gossip, and other personal attacks on board members.
The Problem:
Freedom of speech is one of the most important freedoms we enjoy in the United States. Certainly members should be free to say what they want within the boundaries of law. The problem arises when certain members hide behind this freedom to launch vicious attacks against other members and then literally force other members to hear their stories which are most often based on half truths, exaggerations and in most cases, outright lies. In many cases, members are the victims of liable statements (Spoken or written defamation of a person in the presence of a third party.)That is just so interesting:)
Posted by Dinah on October 27, 2003, at 8:07:31
In reply to Bob Please check this post » Dr. Bob, posted by Brio D Chimp on October 26, 2003, at 10:57:28
Posted by Brio D Chimp on October 27, 2003, at 9:33:08
In reply to Bob Please check this post » Dr. Bob, posted by Brio D Chimp on October 26, 2003, at 10:57:28
Was that an implied civility determination? Please elaborate for our edification. If you remove posts you deem uncivil are the posters relieved of the blocks which would otherwise be awarded? Yr friend Brio
Error: Couldn't find post 273313
Couldn't find post 273313, sorry! Please go "back" and try again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20031025/msgs/273313.html
>
> A poster seems to be accusing someone of "spamming" . Is this civil? I was banned for 12 weeks for saying insensitive. Lou was banned for 48 weeks for saying insensitive. Gabbi was banned for 9 weeks for characterizing someone's posts in an unflattering way. Please check this out thanks.
>
> My personal preference is that Lou and Gabbi should come back not that this poster should be banned for 3 times her last ban which would be 48 weeks this time unless you use the pardoned version for the math in which case it would be 36 weeks. But consistency IS important, no?
>
Posted by Susan J on October 27, 2003, at 9:46:03
In reply to You removed the post bob? Bob, posted by Brio D Chimp on October 27, 2003, at 9:33:08
Hi, Brio,
I guess you couldn't give us a flavor of what that post said? I was curious, too, only to find the post was gone...
Susan
This is the end of the 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.