![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 87 to 111 of 133. Go back in thread:
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 19:33:17
In reply to Re: Ok, » so, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 19:13:13
> So, if I'm now understanding you correctly, this is more or less a global crusade to bring about regulation and standardization to a new form of peer support?
If you could cite anything I've written that suggests to you my concerns are either "global" or that my response to his invitation to suggest a first step is a "crusade" I might more easily help clarify your understanding of my perspective.
>snipped.
I am open to understanding the views of those you hold out as a "large number." But I am replying to your request to help you better understand my perspective, not asking for further explanation of your views, which I believe I understand. It's not that I don't understand your view, its just that I don't find it to resolve all of my concerns. If I'm not mistaken, your view is that the number, large or small, that does not enjoy the atmosphere here and that potentially finds administrative style harmful can go somewhere else. If I correctly read the plain language of your comment, theirs, or our concerns at least as I represent them are potentially beyond your understanding. Do you find any further reason to attempt to understand my concerns, or even to articulate them in terms I can verify as an accurate description of my concerns?
>
> I trust you won't get all paternalistic on me here.I trust you will not consider my compliance with your request that I help you clarify your understanding of my perspective to be a paternalistic act.
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 19:38:34
In reply to Re: Ok, » so, posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 19:20:09
> So we want to understand the rules better...
> And how the rules are applied in particular determinations...
>
> Is that what this is about???
>
no
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 19:39:06
In reply to Re: Ok, » Dinah, posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 19:33:17
Sigh. No, I was being sincere.
I thought I understood, but after your last post I saw that I didn't understand before and understood even less now.
I take full responsibility for that. But I also take responsibility for perhaps not being able to understand.
I'd be perfectly willing to continue trying, but you'll have to talk in smaller bites maybe? if I'm to understand. And if you don't wish to change your communicative style, I perfectly understand, but I acknowledge my limitation in understanding what you're trying to say.
If that makes sense. I'm just saying there is a difference in communicative styles that is neither right nor wrong on either of our parts, but that may make discussion difficult.
All I meant by paternalistic (and perhaps I was overly succinct) is that some people have come here in the past and led me to understand that they believe we don't know what's best for us, and they would like to help us with that. I was trusting you to give us more credit than that.
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 19:41:39
In reply to Re: or.... » so, posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 19:26:27
> 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".
If you did not read that, or if you don't agree that is one way of seeing things, or that some reasonable people see it that way, there may be little I can write that would help expand your understanding.
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 19:48:45
In reply to Re: Ok, » so, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 19:39:06
>
> ... some people have come here in the past and led me to understand ...Could you see that as a direction you went but that you might not have been led in that direction?
Or as you offered in an I-statement brief "when some people came here in the past, I developed an understanding that ...
> that they believe we don't know what's best for us, and they would like to help us with that.
Perhaps the uncertainty is over who is "us." You seem to define us as those who have made this a home of sorts, or who have established and maintained regular identities, comradaries or community roles. I am trying to be specific that I am refering to my interests and to those who hold interests similar to mine, which by your definition, just might not include you because your interests are different. Nonetheless, as the site is written "group" refers to the entire set of people who register a user name -- not just to those who profess a profound appreciation for the site.
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 19:51:18
In reply to Re: Ok, » Dinah, posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 19:48:45
But isn't it *impossible* to satisfy people of such very different interests?
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 19:54:41
In reply to Re: Ok, » so, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 19:51:18
> But isn't it *impossible* to satisfy people of such very different interests?
If I thought so, do you think i would be advocating otherwise? For that matter, would I be trying to help you understand my sense of possibility if I had no confidence in your capacity to understand?
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 19:56:32
In reply to Re: Ok,, posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 19:54:41
So what changes could be done that would satisfy your interests without turning the site against mine?
To make it personal.
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 20:00:22
In reply to Re: Ok, » so, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 19:56:32
> So what changes could be done that would satisfy your interests without turning the site against mine?
>
> To make it personal.Would any other professional administrator's involvement in addition to that of Robert Hsiung be a step in turning the site against you?
Would defining the terms of service as terms of service turn the site against you?
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 20:03:40
In reply to Re: Ok,, posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 20:00:22
> > So what changes could be done that would satisfy your interests without turning the site against mine?
> >
> > To make it personal.
>
> Would any other professional administrator's involvement in addition to that of Robert Hsiung be a step in turning the site against you?
>
> Would defining the terms of service as terms of service turn the site against you?
>
against your interests, that is. I'm trying to grill salmon, work, and correspond with you all at once.
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 20:12:45
In reply to Re: Ok,, posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 20:00:22
> > So what changes could be done that would satisfy your interests without turning the site against mine?
> >
> > To make it personal.
>
> Would any other professional administrator's involvement in addition to that of Robert Hsiung be a step in turning the site against you?It might. It would depend a whole lot on the other administrator. I told you I don't trust easily and I meant it. Dr. Bob has gone through hell and back to earn my trust, figuratively speaking.
Plus, I really do like the consistency that comes from having one moderator. But should Dr. Bob decide that it would be best to have more than one moderator, and chose one I could learn to trust, I wouldn't object.
He, and we, have also made various proposals along the way that would make moderating the boards easier for him. I think he's considering them.
>
> Would defining the terms of service as terms of service turn the site against you?
>
>
I've suggested that before. Not terms of service. I wouldn't like that because it would be totally incomprehensible to me. But I like "site guidelines". I'm nostalgic about PBC's. I'm a PBC virgin you know. And PDVSG (Please Don't Violate Site Guidelines) virgin doesn't have the same ring. But I'd be willing to put aside nostalgia to use wording that people who get upset at being told to be civil would find less upsetting.Salmon, yummm...
I appreciate your putting your time into this conversation.
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 20:16:13
In reply to Re: Ok,, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 20:12:45
I like Please Abide By Site Guidelines better. It's phrased as a positive. (Can you tell I'm a mom?)
Hmmm... PABSG...
Still nostalgic.
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.
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.