![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 12 to 36 of 85. Go back in thread:
Posted by Tamar on July 10, 2005, at 11:17:22
In reply to Lou's reply to Dr./ Hsiung's reply to Lou-shun? » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 9:40:31
Hi Lou,
For what it’s worth, I didn’t imagine for a moment that the suggestion not to read would allow people to think it’s OK to shun you.
Quite the reverse, in fact: I thought the effect was to indicate that your feelings are valuable and that you shouldn’t be accused or put down. And that if anyone finds it difficult to read your posts without responding in an uncivil manner, maybe it’s better not to read.
And also, Lou, I don’t like to see people being uncivil to you. I kind of wish that people would simply not read or not post rather than posting things that put you down. Maybe it’s wrong of me to wish that. I don’t know.
Having said that, I also didn’t think that the suggestion not to read referred specifically to your posts. I thought it was fairly general advice that could apply to anyone’s posts. It was in the context of an exchange between you and another poster, but its application could be taken much more widely.
For example, I can imagine that some people here don’t warm to my posting style. Clashes of style are not unusual in a community this big.
It’s possible that some people experience a reaction to my posts that would lead them to respond in an uncivil manner. And I would prefer it if those people didn’t read my posts, rather than reading and responding in an uncivil manner. If that means they don’t click on a post with my name next to it, I don’t mind.
I’d prefer to be heard by most people and ignored by those who would get angry, rather than heard by everyone and yelled at by some.
But that’s just me. How do you feel about it?
Best wishes,
Tamar
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 11:24:32
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dr./ Hsiung's reply to Lou-shun? » Lou Pilder, posted by Tamar on July 10, 2005, at 11:17:22
Tamar,
You wrote,[...how do you feel about it...?].
I feel that this is an important aspect of the communities legislation,as to the statement in question and I appreciate that you have shown your interest in this aspect.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 11:35:13
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dr./ Hsiung's reply to Lou-shun? » Lou Pilder, posted by Tamar on July 10, 2005, at 11:17:22
Tamara,
You wrote,[...if anyone finds it difficult to read your posts...its better not to read...].
Are you saying, then, that it is {my name}in the subject line that could have someone think ahead of time that they could {...find it difficult to read...} and thearfore not read any post with my name as the poster?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 11:50:50
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dr./ Hsiung's reply to Lou-shun? » Lou Pilder, posted by Tamar on July 10, 2005, at 11:17:22
Tamara,
You wrote,[...it was in the context between {you} and another poster....application could be taken...widley...].
Well, if it was between me and another poster, could there not be the potential for some others to think that I am ,at least, {a particular} person that the poster in question,,[....not read...]even if there could be others that the poster,[...not read...]?
Lou
Posted by Tamar on July 10, 2005, at 12:09:44
In reply to Lou's reply to Tamara-nam?B » Tamar, posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 11:35:13
Hi Lou,
You asked an honest question and I think it deserves an honest answer. I hope that’s OK.
> You wrote,[...if anyone finds it difficult to read your posts...its better not to read...].
> Are you saying, then, that it is {my name}in the subject line that could have someone think ahead of time that they could {...find it difficult to read...} and thearfore not read any post with my name as the poster?Yes, I do think that scenario is possible. A person who finds that they react to your posts by becoming angry and replying in an uncivil way might decide that it is in their own best interests and yours not to read posts with your name in the subject line.
I have experienced this in the past: not with you and not at Babble, but with the posts of someone else on a completely different forum. I disagreed with that person profoundly and always became angry when I read his posts, and I found myself replying in a manner that was somewhat rude to him and made me look aggressive and mean.
I found it almost impossible to read his posts without replying because they triggered powerful feelings. My feelings were so strong that I didn’t know how to put it all in perspective and refrain from replying. And my replies were not very polite. So I thought that it was best both for me and for him if I didn’t read his posts any more.
My point is that it was my own anger that was the problem. The other person was well-liked and well-respected. When I stopped reading his posts it was because I couldn’t seem to control my emotional reactions to his views.
I think it’s possible that people here might want to avoid posts with my name in the subject line. Some people might find my posting style pompous and didactic. I would rather they ignored me than yelled at me.
Having said all that, I still don’t think Dr Bob’s suggestion about not reading referred specifically to your posts. And I don’t think that it should in any way be interpreted as a means of shunning you. I hope no one here would shun you. I think the suggestion not to read should be interpreted as advice to people to be aware of their emotional reactions and to take whatever action is appropriate to ensure that they refrain from incivility, whether towards you or towards anyone else.
Best wishes,
Tamar
Posted by Tamar on July 10, 2005, at 12:27:07
In reply to Lou's reply to Tamara-shn?B » Tamar, posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 11:50:50
Hi Lou,
> You wrote,[...it was in the context between {you} and another poster....application could be taken...widley...].
> Well, if it was between me and another poster, could there not be the potential for some others to think that I am ,at least, {a particular} person that the poster in question,,[....not read...]even if there could be others that the poster,[...not read...]?This is how I see it: I think that others might read the exchange and come to the conclusion that a poster reacted to one of your posts in a way that was uncivil. That poster was warned about the incivility and then there was a general suggestion not to read posts that might cause a strong reaction leading to an uncivil reply.
It is possible that people could infer that the particular poster who responded to you in an uncivil manner might decide not to read your posts, at least for the time being, until he or she feels able to reply in a civil manner.
Again, I think the issue is not about shunning you. Quite the reverse. I think the issue is that people are being asked to take steps to ensure that their participation on these boards is civil. Insofar as it is specifically about you, the important thing is that you should not put down publicly by posters who react to your posts in an uncivil manner. And also that people like me shouldn't be saddened by seeing you publicly put down.
Insofar as it is general, and not specifically about you, the important thing is that everyone should try to remain aware of their emotional responses to other people’s posts so that no one is publicly put down.
If someone chooses not read your posts because they find they react by being uncivil, then it is a sad thing because they are missing out on your participation.
Best wishes,
Tamar
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 12:57:39
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Tamara-nam?B » Lou Pilder, posted by Tamar on July 10, 2005, at 12:09:44
> Hi Lou,
>
> You asked an honest question and I think it deserves an honest answer. I hope that’s OK.
>
> > You wrote,[...if anyone finds it difficult to read your posts...its better not to read...].
> > Are you saying, then, that it is {my name}in the subject line that could have someone think ahead of time that they could {...find it difficult to read...} and thearfore not read any post with my name as the poster?
>
> Yes, I do think that scenario is possible. A person who finds that they react to your posts by becoming angry and replying in an uncivil way might decide that it is in their own best interests and yours not to read posts with your name in the subject line.
>
> I have experienced this in the past: not with you and not at Babble, but with the posts of someone else on a completely different forum. I disagreed with that person profoundly and always became angry when I read his posts, and I found myself replying in a manner that was somewhat rude to him and made me look aggressive and mean.
>
> I found it almost impossible to read his posts without replying because they triggered powerful feelings. My feelings were so strong that I didn’t know how to put it all in perspective and refrain from replying. And my replies were not very polite. So I thought that it was best both for me and for him if I didn’t read his posts any more.
>
> My point is that it was my own anger that was the problem. The other person was well-liked and well-respected. When I stopped reading his posts it was because I couldn’t seem to control my emotional reactions to his views.
>
> I think it’s possible that people here might want to avoid posts with my name in the subject line. Some people might find my posting style pompous and didactic. I would rather they ignored me than yelled at me.
>
> Having said all that, I still don’t think Dr Bob’s suggestion about not reading referred specifically to your posts. And I don’t think that it should in any way be interpreted as a means of shunning you. I hope no one here would shun you. I think the suggestion not to read should be interpreted as advice to people to be aware of their emotional reactions and to take whatever action is appropriate to ensure that they refrain from incivility, whether towards you or towards anyone else.
>
> Best wishes,
> Tamar
>
> Tamara,
You wrote,[...I think that...is possible...], [...a person that finds that they react to your posts...by replying in an uncivil manner might decide that it is in their own ...interests...not to read posts with your name in the subject line...].
But is there the potential for some others to have the potential to think that there is a differance here? In this case, is not the moderator suggesting such? And is not the moderator haveing something about civility written with the suggestion? And how could one conclude that just the name, in this case perhaps mine, would be enough to have someone not read what I posted? Could I not post something that may not "trigger" this poster unbeknowing to Dr. Hsiung or the poster? How could you know unless one read my post? Are you saying that {every} post of mine should be unread by the poster in question because that poster could have some type of "trigger" just by seeing my name? Are you saying that my name "triggers" uncontrolled uncivility to some here? If so, do you ,in your opinion, consider that rational?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 13:36:47
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Tamara-nam?B » Lou Pilder, posted by Tamar on July 10, 2005, at 12:09:44
Tamara,
You wrote,[...I think a suggestion not to read...].
Could you consider the following if you are going to reply?
Let us review what has been written. First,are you saying that you think that there is the potential for some others to think that Dr. Hsiung's suggestion to,[...not read...] could mean that just that my name in the subject line is needed to decide to [...not read...]? If so, is that not [...overgeneralizing....]?
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on July 10, 2005, at 13:55:29
In reply to Lou's reply to gardenergirl-nam?3 » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 10:50:09
1.
>>In your above reply to me, you write,[...he, (Dr. Hsiung), is saying, do not read posts that might trigger one into being uncivil...]
Well, if one sees a post, although the subject could be what could "trigger" uncivility, is it not also {the poster's name} in the subject line that is going to determine if the post will "trigger" uncivility?
LouYes, Lou. The poster's name might be one way another poster decides whether to read the post or not.
But Dr. Bob was not saying "don't read Lou's posts."
2.
>>If you are going to reply to me, could you consider in your reply that I do not write the subject, but just that my post is usually a response or a reply to someone or some aspect of the thread? With that in mind, could there not be the potential to think that Dr. Hsiung;s statement(s) in question could have the potential for some others to think that it is my {name} that could have the potential to "trigger", for there is not usually a subject written in my subject lines?
Lou
I’ve said this before about my understanding of the word “potential”. If you are truly asking what the potential is, then yes there is the potential. There is also the potential for people dressed like purple cows to shop for alligator shoes in Macy’s. But is it likely? Are you asking how likely it is that someone perceives that Dr. Bob is specifically saying “don’t post to Lou?” It’s possible. It’s also possible that others can or have already decided that for themselves, regardless of Dr. Bob’s statement. There is also a likelihood that someone has decided that about my posts. And about Dinah’s. And about Dr. Bob’s.Ricky Nelson said it best, “You can’t please everyone, so you gotta please yourself.”
3.
>>You wrote in your post above something like,[...he (Dr.Hsiung) is not saying to not read your posts spacifically...]
But is there not the potential for some others to take what Dr. Hsiung has written in the initial post to perhaps have the potential to think that?
LouYes, Lou. There is the potential. There is also the potential for koala bears to become the new national animal, replacing the turkey. (Don’t laugh, non-US folks! It’s true…we identify with turkeys!) But it’s not likely. Likely is the word that matters, imo.
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 14:02:03
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gardenergirl-nam?1-3, posted by gardenergirl on July 10, 2005, at 13:55:29
> 1.
> >>In your above reply to me, you write,[...he, (Dr. Hsiung), is saying, do not read posts that might trigger one into being uncivil...]
> Well, if one sees a post, although the subject could be what could "trigger" uncivility, is it not also {the poster's name} in the subject line that is going to determine if the post will "trigger" uncivility?
> Lou
>
> Yes, Lou. The poster's name might be one way another poster decides whether to read the post or not.
>
> But Dr. Bob was not saying "don't read Lou's posts."
>
> 2.
> >>If you are going to reply to me, could you consider in your reply that I do not write the subject, but just that my post is usually a response or a reply to someone or some aspect of the thread? With that in mind, could there not be the potential to think that Dr. Hsiung;s statement(s) in question could have the potential for some others to think that it is my {name} that could have the potential to "trigger", for there is not usually a subject written in my subject lines?
> Lou
>
>
> I’ve said this before about my understanding of the word “potential”. If you are truly asking what the potential is, then yes there is the potential. There is also the potential for people dressed like purple cows to shop for alligator shoes in Macy’s. But is it likely? Are you asking how likely it is that someone perceives that Dr. Bob is specifically saying “don’t post to Lou?” It’s possible. It’s also possible that others can or have already decided that for themselves, regardless of Dr. Bob’s statement. There is also a likelihood that someone has decided that about my posts. And about Dinah’s. And about Dr. Bob’s.
>
> Ricky Nelson said it best, “You can’t please everyone, so you gotta please yourself.”
>
> 3.
> >>You wrote in your post above something like,[...he (Dr.Hsiung) is not saying to not read your posts spacifically...]
> But is there not the potential for some others to take what Dr. Hsiung has written in the initial post to perhaps have the potential to think that?
> Lou
>
> Yes, Lou. There is the potential. There is also the potential for koala bears to become the new national animal, replacing the turkey. (Don’t laugh, non-US folks! It’s true…we identify with turkeys!) But it’s not likely. Likely is the word that matters, imo.
>
> gg
>Gardenergirl.
Could there not be a difference here? Does not Dr. Hsiung connect in some way [...conducive to civic harmony...] with [...not read...]?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 14:10:36
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gardenergirl-nam?1-3, posted by gardenergirl on July 10, 2005, at 13:55:29
gardenergirl,
You wrote,[...not likely...].
Could you write what you think, IYO, that could make it [...not likely...]?
Lou
Posted by Tamar on July 10, 2005, at 14:17:25
In reply to Lou's reply to Tamara-nam?D » Tamar, posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 12:57:39
Hi Lou,
> You wrote,[...I think that...is possible...], [...a person that finds that they react to your posts...by replying in an uncivil manner might decide that it is in their own ...interests...not to read posts with your name in the subject line...].
> But is there the potential for some others to have the potential to think that there is a differance here? In this case, is not the moderator suggesting such? And is not the moderator haveing something about civility written with the suggestion?
Sorry, I’m not sure if I understood. A difference between what and what?
> And how could one conclude that just the name, in this case perhaps mine, would be enough to have someone not read what I posted?
A person could come to the conclusion that your name is linked to posts whose content has on occasion led to a particular poster’s uncivil reaction. That would not be your fault, of course. It would indicate that the person who reacts has a difficulty in responding to your posts more appropriately. (I am talking here about a hypothetical person who might choose not to read your posts, and not about any particular individual who may have reacted in an uncivil manner. I hope that is clear.)
> Could I not post something that may not "trigger" this poster unbeknowing to Dr. Hsiung or the poster? How could you know unless one read my post?
Well, that’s absolutely true. A person could not know if the post would be triggering unless he or she read it. But in my previous experience on the other board that I talked about, I discovered that the other man’s posts almost always triggered a powerful reaction. It wasn’t his fault. It was my discomfort with the way he talked about certain subjects. So after I stopped reading his posts he might have posted something that I might have liked and agreed with. Unfortunately I won’t know. It’s my loss, I suppose.
> Are you saying that {every} post of mine should be unread by the poster in question because that poster could have some type of "trigger" just by seeing my name?
Ah, I hoped you wouldn’t think that. No. I don’t think that every post of yours should be unread by the hypothetical person we’ve been talking about. And I don’t think that every post of yours should be unread by the particular poster who reacted in an uncivil manner on this occasion. But if he or she decides not to read your posts, I hope he or she will reflect on the reasons for that decision.
And I don’t think that your name can cause a trigger. I think the trigger would be caused by the hypothetical poster’s emotional reaction to the content of your posts. If that happened, it would not be your fault. It would be a problem for the hypothetical poster, who should (in an ideal world) think about why they have a problem with the content of your posts and try to discover a way to relate to you without reacting in an uncivil manner.
> Are you saying that my name "triggers" uncontrolled uncivility to some here?
Definitely not. I do not think your name triggers anything negative. Again, speaking from my previous experience on another forum, the man’s name never caused me any triggers. It was entirely a problem with my reaction to the content of his posts. So I didn’t read posts with his name in the subject line because I expected to be triggered by the content. I will emphasise again that the problem was with me and that he was well-liked and respected, just as you are. If any person decides not to read your posts I think it would be a shame. But I would hope that he or she would understand that the problem is in his or her reaction to what you say, and nothing to do with you as a person, nor with your name, nor with your beliefs.
And again, it’s not just about *your* name. The same could apply to anyone. Some people might see my name and decide not to read. I’m happy with that if it means I don’t get yelled at.
> If so, do you ,in your opinion, consider that rational?
Well, I don’t think strong emotional responses are particularly rational. But it’s undeniable that some people do react strongly to some posts, or to some posters. It’s difficult trying to understand and be understood at the best of times, and even harder when everything is written down and we have no visual cues to help us understand each other. There are misunderstandings at Babble nearly every day, and happily they can usually be sorted out quickly, as long as people remain polite. The serious problems arise when people find it difficult to remain polite.
I do hope you know that you are liked and respected here.
Best wishes,
Tamar
Posted by Tamar on July 10, 2005, at 14:31:57
In reply to Lou's reply to Tamara-ovrgen » Tamar, posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 13:36:47
Hi Lou,
Sorry; I replied before I saw this.
> You wrote,[...I think a suggestion not to read...].
> Could you consider the following if you are going to reply?
> Let us review what has been written. First,are you saying that you think that there is the potential for some others to think that Dr. Hsiung's suggestion to,[...not read...] could mean that just that my name in the subject line is needed to decide to [...not read...]? If so, is that not [...overgeneralizing....]?Hmm… I’m not sure I entirely understand. May I rephrase?
I think you’re asking if I think that other people might read Dr Bob’s suggestion and come to the conclusion that your name in the subject line would be the basis for making the decision not to read a post. And if I think that, the question is whether I am overgeneralizing.
Is that approximately right?
Is that’s the question you’re asking, then my answer would be:
I think that other people might read Dr Bob’s suggestion and come to the conclusion that any poster’s name in the subject line might be a reason not to read the post IF the person reading has a strong and uncivil reaction to that poster’s posts. Your name might be the name in the subject line. My name might be the name in the subject line. Or anyone else’s name.It might be overgeneralizing. I’m not sure. I’m inclined to feel that overgeneralizing might be better than being uncivil. But I’m prepared to be challenged on that, if you see things differently.
Best wishes,
Tamar
Posted by Tamar on July 10, 2005, at 14:36:43
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Tamara-ovrgen » Lou Pilder, posted by Tamar on July 10, 2005, at 14:31:57
About what I said:
> It might be overgeneralizing. I’m not sure. I’m inclined to feel that overgeneralizing might be better than being uncivil. But I’m prepared to be challenged on that, if you see things differently.
I read this again and I don't really know what it means. And I wrote it!
Could you say more about how you think the overgeneralizing might occur? Maybe then I can try to give a more coherent answer.
I may have to start not reading my own posts...
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 14:38:15
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Tamara-ovrgen » Lou Pilder, posted by Tamar on July 10, 2005, at 14:31:57
Tamara,
Could it, IYO, be [...jumping to a conclusion...]?
Lou
Posted by Tamar on July 10, 2005, at 14:53:17
In reply to Lou's reply to Tamara-jmptoconclu » Tamar, posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 14:38:15
Hi Lou
> Could it, IYO, be [...jumping to a conclusion...]?
If someone decides not to read a post on the basis of the name in the subject line, then they might indeed be jumping to a conclusion. But at the same time they might be making an educated guess, based on previous experience.
I want to emphasise as strongly as possible that a person making the decision not to read a particular person’s posts should be making that decision based on their own personal foibles.
If you are worried that lots of people will stop reading your posts, then I want to reassure you. I don’t think anyone believes your posts should not be read. If someone decides that they can’t handle the emotions they feel when they read the content of your posts, then I hope they will take appropriate measures to ensure they refrain from being uncivil to you. But I have seen many people post in support of you and I took part in your recent thread on Social, as did many other people, and I genuinely believe you are well liked here. I doubt people will stop reading your posts.
Best wishes,
Tamar
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 15:13:07
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Tamara-jmptoconclu » Lou Pilder, posted by Tamar on July 10, 2005, at 14:53:17
Tamara,
You wrote,[...if someone {decides}not to read a post on the basis of the name in the subject line...].
Could there be a difference between when someone {decides}on their own [...not to read...] and when they are {suggested} to [...not read...]?
Lou
Posted by Tamar on July 10, 2005, at 15:41:13
In reply to Lou's reply to Tamara-authorandobednce? » Tamar, posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 15:13:07
Hi Lou
> You wrote,[...if someone {decides}not to read a post on the basis of the name in the subject line...].
> Could there be a difference between when someone {decides}on their own [...not to read...] and when they are {suggested} to [...not read...]?Ah, did you think that Dr Bob was advising that poster (or other posters) not to read your posts? I didn’t understand it that way.
Sometimes I hear people say, “If you don’t have something nice to say, then don’t say anything at all.” I read Dr Bob’s suggestion as a bit like that. Like, “If you can’t read without posting an uncivil response, then don’t read at all.” And I read it as directed at all posters, not just at the people posting to that thread, of course.
It seemed to me that the suggestion not to read is only made in the circumstances when the reply might be uncivil.
Does that make sense?
Best wishes,
Tamar
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 16:02:36
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Tamara-authorandobednce? » Lou Pilder, posted by Tamar on July 10, 2005, at 15:41:13
Tamara,
You wrote,[...Dr bob... advising...not to read your posts?...].
Let us look at the innitial post by Dr. Hsiung.
[...its more "conducive to civic harmony and welfare...{not to read in the first place}...]. This was later revised ,[...another alternative is to ...].
In your opinion, do you think that the latter changes the former? If so, what is changed?
Lou
Posted by Tamar on July 10, 2005, at 16:37:27
In reply to Lou's reply to Tamara- » Tamar, posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 16:02:36
Hi Lou
> You wrote,[...Dr bob... advising...not to read your posts?...].
> Let us look at the innitial post by Dr. Hsiung.
> [...its more "conducive to civic harmony and welfare...{not to read in the first place}...]. This was later revised ,[...another alternative is to ...].
> In your opinion, do you think that the latter changes the former? If so, what is changed?Actually, I read the former post the same way I read the latter. I understood why Dr Bob clarified his meaning in the second post, but I read his first post the same way. In other words, I assumed when I read his first post that he was suggesting not reading posts if reading might lead to an uncivil response.
I can understand that confusion can sometimes arise when people read something written when there is no visual context to help. But in this instance it never occurred to me for a moment that Dr Bob might be suggesting that people stop reading your posts (or anyone else’s) for no reason. I made the assumption when I read his first post that he meant it was better not to read IF reading was going to result in an uncivil reply.
The bottom line is that I just don’t believe Dr Bob wants people to stop reading your posts. What I believe he wants is that people post only civil replies. And I think other people here would agree with that.
Best wishes,
TamarP.S. Just one little thing… Confusingly enough, there’s another person here called TamaraJ and she’s sometimes known as Tamara, where I’m just Tamar. I thought I should mention it in case she thinks your posts are directed to her. I hope that’s OK.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 16:59:53
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Tamara-, posted by Tamar on July 10, 2005, at 16:37:27
Tamar,
You wrote,[...I assumed...].
Could you clarify if you think that there could be the potential for others to have the potential to think something else if they do not make the assumption(s) that you have here?
Lou
Posted by Tamar on July 10, 2005, at 17:45:15
In reply to Lou's reply to Tamar-asum » Tamar, posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 16:59:53
Hi Lou
> You wrote,[...I assumed...].
> Could you clarify if you think that there could be the potential for others to have the potential to think something else if they do not make the assumption(s) that you have here?It’s hard to say. I don’t know for sure how others might have read it. There are always gaps in written language, and people fill the gaps according to their experience, intuition, and all kinds of other things. Context is particularly important. The context of the suggestion was a PBC. The context indicated to me that the suggestion was made in the spirit of promoting civility. That’s what led me to my assumptions. I think, therefore, that many people would be likely to make the same assumption I did, because I think the context would lead people to interpret the suggestion in the light of the request for civility.
If you didn’t read the suggestion as part of the request for civility, could it be that your direct involvement in the situation elicited an emotional response that might have got in the way of seeing the suggestion in the context of the PBC? Or am I off base?
I still think that people here value you as a person, and value your participation here, and won’t stop reading your posts.
Best wishes,
Tamar
Posted by gardenergirl on July 10, 2005, at 20:04:40
In reply to Lou's reply to gardenergirl-deminimus? » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 14:10:36
> Could there not be a difference here? Does not Dr. Hsiung connect in some way [...conducive to civic harmony...] with [...not read...]?
Yes Lou, he does. Again, it is not about you. It is about suggesting a way for people to deal with posts that trigger their emotions to the point they then are not able to be civil.
> gardenergirl,
> You wrote,[...not likely...].
> Could you write what you think, IYO, that could make it [...not likely...]?
> LouI think it's not likely because I doubt that Dr. Bob would invest that much of his energy in suggesting that others not read your posts, Lou. He has no reason to, and there is no precedent for him suggesting anyone not read a specific poster's posts.
I don't know how many other ways to say it's not about you, Lou, so I'm bowing out now.
gg
Posted by Dinah on July 11, 2005, at 18:32:02
In reply to Lou's reply to gardenergirl-gtbk » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 6:09:28
Dr. Bob makes that suggestion all the time, to different posters, in response to different posters.
Because of that, I think it so unlikely as to be impossible that he meant you in particular or any one of the dozens of other posters he wrote the same response to in particular.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 11, 2005, at 20:31:12
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gardenergirl-gtbk » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on July 11, 2005, at 18:32:02
Friends, It is written in this thread that Dr. Hsiung makes that suggestion all the time,( to not read?).
If this is the suggestion that Dr. Hsiung {...makes all the time...}, could anyone posts a URL to such? I would like such in order to see if there is a difference.
Lou
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.