![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 33 to 57 of 85. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by gardenergirl on July 11, 2005, at 21:06:54
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-maksaltim, posted by Lou Pilder on July 11, 2005, at 20:31:12
Just curious, Lou. Did you try looking for one first yourself and not have any luck?
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 11, 2005, at 21:14:05
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread-maksaltim » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on July 11, 2005, at 21:06:54
gg,
You wrote,[...did you try looking...?]
I have tried searching and I would like for others to post any URL that they find in their searching.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 11, 2005, at 21:41:31
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Tamar-asum » Lou Pilder, posted by Tamar on July 10, 2005, at 17:45:15
Tamar,
You wrote,[...the suggestion was made...of promoting civility...]..
Could you clarify if, in your opinion, someone has to have it suggested to them to not read someone's posts, including possibly mine, here? Or could it {go without saying} that an alternative to not responding is also to [...not read...]?
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on July 12, 2005, at 13:34:46
In reply to Lou's reply to gardenergirl-costrs » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on July 11, 2005, at 21:14:05
> gg,
> You wrote,[...did you try looking...?]
> I have tried searching and I would like for others to post any URL that they find in their searching.
> LouYou're right, Lou. They are hard to search for. I had no luck using google, but I wasn't sure what to google, anyway.
gg
Posted by Tamar on July 12, 2005, at 19:09:55
In reply to Lou's reply to Tamar-gowthotsayg? » Tamar, posted by Lou Pilder on July 11, 2005, at 21:41:31
Hi Lou,
> You wrote,[...the suggestion was made...of promoting civility...]..
> Could you clarify if, in your opinion, someone has to have it suggested to them to not read someone's posts, including possibly mine, here? Or could it {go without saying} that an alternative to not responding is also to [...not read...]?Anything *could* go without saying. Sometimes in the context a reminder can help.
Best wishes,
Tamar
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 12, 2005, at 20:04:18
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Tamar-gowthotsayg?, posted by Tamar on July 12, 2005, at 19:09:55
> Hi Lou,
>
> > You wrote,[...the suggestion was made...of promoting civility...]..
> > Could you clarify if, in your opinion, someone has to have it suggested to them to not read someone's posts, including possibly mine, here? Or could it {go without saying} that an alternative to not responding is also to [...not read...]?
>
> Anything *could* go without saying. Sometimes in the context a reminder can help.
>
> Best wishes,
> Tamar
>Tamar,
You wrote,[...could go without saying...] and you wrote,[...a reminder {could help}...]
Are you saying that there are posters here that do not know that they can not read a post on their own volition and need to be reminded of that? If so, is there something here on this forum that causes anyone to think that it is {requierd} to read every post here, or requierd to read all of my posts here?
Lou
Posted by Tamar on July 12, 2005, at 20:45:07
In reply to Lou's reply yo Tamar-reqrdredng? » Tamar, posted by Lou Pilder on July 12, 2005, at 20:04:18
Hi Lou,
> You wrote,[...could go without saying...] and you wrote,[...a reminder {could help}...]
> Are you saying that there are posters here that do not know that they can not read a post on their own volition and need to be reminded of that? If so, is there something here on this forum that causes anyone to think that it is {requierd} to read every post here, or requierd to read all of my posts here?
> LouI think the purpose of the reminder is to remind people that not reading posts may be a means of maintaining civility. The reminder is helpful if it promotes civility. It's possible that some posters at some times do find it useful to be reminded that they can refrain from reading some people's posts.
Best wishes,
Tamar
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 12, 2005, at 21:03:16
In reply to Re: Lou's reply yo Tamar-reqrdredng? » Lou Pilder, posted by Tamar on July 12, 2005, at 20:45:07
Tamar,
You wrote,[...the purpose of the reminder is to remind people that not reading posts may be a means of maintaining civility...].
Are you saying that Dr. Hsiung suggested (reminded) the poster to ,[...not read...]in the post with me so that the poster would not write an uncivil post? If so, then would it not be that there is the potential for the poster to have the potential to think that he/she could not read any post here or he/she might write an uncivil post? Or are you saying that it is just the posts of only you?
Lou
Posted by Jakeman on July 12, 2005, at 21:26:29
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dr. Hsiung's post-felhum » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on July 9, 2005, at 23:43:22
Honestly, I tried to read it but got lost. any conclusion?
warm regards ~Jake
Posted by portage on July 13, 2005, at 1:31:27
In reply to Lou's reply yo Tamar-Platrs » Tamar, posted by Lou Pilder on July 12, 2005, at 21:03:16
I think you are interesting. Can I ask WHY are you so bent on "clarifying" nearly EVERYTHING? I'm just curious, I don't know how you do it. Don't you exhaust yourself picking out inconsistancies or vagueness in other people's writings?
I'm sure you are not trying to upset people; but your posting style confuses me. Makes me think too hard, I get a head-ache.
Can you reply? I'm just curious about your motives for posting on this board?from portage
Posted by Tamar on July 13, 2005, at 5:30:58
In reply to Lou's reply yo Tamar-Platrs » Tamar, posted by Lou Pilder on July 12, 2005, at 21:03:16
Hi Lou
> You wrote,[...the purpose of the reminder is to remind people that not reading posts may be a means of maintaining civility...].
> Are you saying that Dr. Hsiung suggested (reminded) the poster to ,[...not read...]in the post with me so that the poster would not write an uncivil post? If so, then would it not be that there is the potential for the poster to have the potential to think that he/she could not read any post here or he/she might write an uncivil post?I don’t think that the reminder that one can refrain from reading is likely to cause someone to think that they can’t read any posts here, nor that they might write an uncivil post. I think rather that the reminder simply reminds the poster that they are bound by the civility regulations and that they have a number of options available to them if they are to abide by the civility regulations.
> Or are you saying that it is just the posts of only you?
I would like to emphasise again that I don’t think the reminder applies to the posts of any particular person. Not to your posts; not to my posts; not to anyone else’s posts specifically. This particular reminder occurred in the particular context of a thread that you happened to have posted to, but it was general in its application.
Best wishes,
Tamar
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 13, 2005, at 8:42:27
In reply to Re: LOU, posted by portage on July 13, 2005, at 1:31:27
portage,
You wrote,[...I think that you are interesting...].
Could you specify what the things are that you think are interesting?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 13, 2005, at 17:01:08
In reply to Re: Lou's reply yo Tamar-Platrs » Lou Pilder, posted by Tamar on July 13, 2005, at 5:30:58
Friends,
It has been asked in some way here to clarify in some way what this thread is about.
The statement by Dr. Hsiung to the poster about the poster's post to me is:
[...more conducive to civic harmony and welfare...{not to read}...]
In my opinion,I feel that there is the potential for one to think after reading that, that there is a {risk}of replying in an uncivil manner to reading either my posts or all posts here. If so, could there be the potential for some others to think that the risk be different if they are replying to my posts, verses all the rest of the posts? If so, then what ,in your opinion, is there in the statement by Dr. Hsiung that {rules out that potential} for some others to think that the risk is not only spacific to my posts?
Another aspect is if the post by Dr. Hsiung is if it is a suggeation or a reminder or something else. I ask, does it matter? If so, could you clarify the difference as to if it does matter?
Another aspect is that Dr. Hsiung did modify his statement. I ask, does Dr. Hsiung's change to what he wrote in the first place alter the meaning of his original statement? If so, could you clarify why it does?
Now if Dr. Hsiung is saying that the poster has the alternative to not read in the first place, then how could anyone take that position to not read, what I write, if I do not give in the subject line as to what I would be writing about, unless it is only my name that is the name of the poster of the post? I ask you, would not one have to click on my post, and read it, to know what it is about, since I generally only put in the subject line who I am responding or replying to and a code that is for my purposes to use to go back to the post if needed?
Lou
>
>
Posted by AuntieMel on July 13, 2005, at 18:24:16
In reply to Lou's summery of the issues-sumry » Tamar, posted by Lou Pilder on July 13, 2005, at 17:01:08
I don't think the point was just about you.
We are all human, with different tastes and preferences. As humans, I think, there are some people we get along with and some that just plain irritate us. It's natural, and it's ok. What is *not* ok is being rude to them.
If I see a poster (obviously not you, right?) that I find annoying for whatever reason I just don't read what they write. It saves me a lot of agida.
The reason I find some posts (or posters) annoying really doesn't matter. It could be because they say things I don't agree with. It could be because they use complicated language I don't understand. I could be a stickler for grammar and theirs isn't perfect. Anything, really.
Anyway, that's what I understand Dr. Bob meant. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 13, 2005, at 21:02:19
In reply to Re: my opinion, for what it's worth these days » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on July 13, 2005, at 18:24:16
> I don't think the point was just about you.
>
> We are all human, with different tastes and preferences. As humans, I think, there are some people we get along with and some that just plain irritate us. It's natural, and it's ok. What is *not* ok is being rude to them.
>
> If I see a poster (obviously not you, right?) that I find annoying for whatever reason I just don't read what they write. It saves me a lot of agida.
>
> The reason I find some posts (or posters) annoying really doesn't matter. It could be because they say things I don't agree with. It could be because they use complicated language I don't understand. I could be a stickler for grammar and theirs isn't perfect. Anything, really.
>
> Anyway, that's what I understand Dr. Bob meant. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.AuntieMel,
You wrote,[...I don't think the point was about you...].
Is there anything in what Dr.Hsiung has written in regards to his statement,[...don't read...], that {rules out} the potential for anyone to perhaps think that his statement has the potential to mean that it is me that he is referring to in his statement,[...do not read...]?
You wrote,[...I could be wrong, {but I don't think so}...].
Could you specify a part of what Dr. Hsiung has written in regards to his statment to the poster,[...do not read...]. that could cause you to believe that you,[...don't think so (that you are wrong)...]?
Lou
Posted by Racer on July 14, 2005, at 1:08:58
In reply to Lou's reply to AuntiMel-cudbewrog » AuntieMel, posted by Lou Pilder on July 13, 2005, at 21:02:19
Just for this thread, I'm rescinding my request that you not post to me, Lou.
I'm asking you if you, personally, like me? I'm not asking you to write back with a question about potentials, I'm asking a clear and concise question. Do you like me? When you see my name attached to a post, do you immediately perk up and click on that one first?
See, when I come to these boards, there are certain names I look for first. Those are people whom I've come to like -- and a few I know will irritate me, for any number of reasons, ranging from bad spelling or grammar, to ideas that do not interest me, to just something I can't put my finger on but know is there. That's natural, and it's normal. Not everyone likes everyone else. It is not something that rules can be made about, it wouldn't do any good to make a rule such as "Everyone must now like Poster A the best" because it wouldn't work. Sure, that rule could be made, but it really couldn't be enforced.
Some people can't -- or don't -- control their reactions when they read posts that upset them. Their reactions may lead them to post something that does not meet the civility guidelines for this site. I believe that Dr Bob was reminding those people that they were required to abide by the rules, and that it might be that they could avoid the sort of posts that trigger them.
That said, Lou, I do believe that Dr Bob's meaning does include reminding people that they don't have to read any post by a poster who consistently triggers them. Is there "the potential" that some people find your posts so triggering that they can't control themselves well enough to remain civil after reading them? There probably are some people who feel that way, Lou, just as I'm sure there are a fair number of people who don't bother to read what I have to say. Does it hurt my feelings? Sure, because I want to be liked. Do I lose any sleep over it? No, it really isn't *that* important to me.
On the other hand, when someone brings it to my attention that something I have written has hurt their feelings, or upset them, or just came across as thoughtless, unfeeling, or whatever, I do usually try to respond in a way that increases understanding between us, I try to learn from what has happened, and I try very, very hard to take responsibility for my own actions.
A while ago, one of my very favorite posters here, SLS, mentioned that he often didn't read my posts, because they were too long. That stung, because his is one of the first names I look for here. But I also understand. When I write something for him, I try to keep it short. That's my way of trying to accommodate the needs of someone I care about. That's part of getting along with others, which is what the civility rules are all about.
When I read your posts, Lou, it's hard for me to believe that you are interested in getting along with people here. I've seen a lot of other people ask you questions, but I haven't seen you answer any of those questions -- I've only seen you come back with a number of questions about potential meanings. What's more, in a number of threads, I've seen other people state that your post questioning theirs HAS HURT THEIR FEELINGS. They take responsibility for their feelings, but I've never once seen you write anything that leads me to believe that you care, or feel any regret for having HURT SOMEONE ELSE'S FEELINGS. All I see are questions about whether what someone has written might "have the potential" to be seen as being negative towards you.
Portage asked you a question above, and you replied with a request that he/she clarify that question. I guess I wonder why you seem to think that you are entitled to answers from others, when you won't offer us the courtesy in return?
Posted by AuntieMel on July 14, 2005, at 8:45:53
In reply to Lou's reply to AuntiMel-cudbewrog » AuntieMel, posted by Lou Pilder on July 13, 2005, at 21:02:19
In this particular post? No.
This particular post (thread) was started with a post to you, and the poster was reminded that he/she didn't have to read posts by posters that he/she might react strongly to.
BUT I have seen the same reminder by Dr. Bob to posters regarding posts by different posters (not you.)
So - with that evidence - I would say that it was a general statement, not directed at your posts only.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 8:55:04
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to AuntiMel-cudbewrog » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on July 14, 2005, at 8:45:53
AM,
You wrote,[...I have seen the same...regarding different posters...].
Could you offer a link to one of those?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 9:20:43
In reply to Do you like me? (got long) » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on July 14, 2005, at 1:08:58
Friends,
I am requesting that you consider the following if you are going to post to this thread.
[...Could Dr. Hsiung's post in question here have any potential for anyone to think that he is suggesting to either one poster or the general forum that they do not read a post that has my name as the poster?...]
[...Could you resaerch the causes of the Nazi Holocaust and see how boycotting jewish businesses fosterd to stigmatise jews and arrouse hatred toward them?...]
[...could you look at the following link...?]
Lou
http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/gallery/11286.htm
Posted by Tamar on July 14, 2005, at 10:35:01
In reply to Lou's summery of the issues-sumry » Tamar, posted by Lou Pilder on July 13, 2005, at 17:01:08
Hi Lou,
> It has been asked in some way here to clarify in some way what this thread is about.
> The statement by Dr. Hsiung to the poster about the poster's post to me is:
> [...more conducive to civic harmony and welfare...{not to read}...]
> In my opinion,I feel that there is the potential for one to think after reading that, that there is a {risk}of replying in an uncivil manner to reading either my posts or all posts here. If so, could there be the potential for some others to think that the risk be different if they are replying to my posts, verses all the rest of the posts? If so, then what ,in your opinion, is there in the statement by Dr. Hsiung that {rules out that potential} for some others to think that the risk is not only spacific to my posts?
> Another aspect is if the post by Dr. Hsiung is if it is a suggeation or a reminder or something else. I ask, does it matter? If so, could you clarify the difference as to if it does matter?
> Another aspect is that Dr. Hsiung did modify his statement. I ask, does Dr. Hsiung's change to what he wrote in the first place alter the meaning of his original statement? If so, could you clarify why it does?
> Now if Dr. Hsiung is saying that the poster has the alternative to not read in the first place, then how could anyone take that position to not read, what I write, if I do not give in the subject line as to what I would be writing about, unless it is only my name that is the name of the poster of the post? I ask you, would not one have to click on my post, and read it, to know what it is about, since I generally only put in the subject line who I am responding or replying to and a code that is for my purposes to use to go back to the post if needed?This does indeed seem to be a summary of the issues you've raised. I think I've replied to all of them and so I don't think there's anything I can add to what I've already said, except to mention that I don't think there's any substantial difference between referring to Dr Bob's remarks as 'suggestion' or 'reminder'. In my view, the result is the same in practice: it comes to the attention of the reader that he/she may choose not to read a person’s posts if he/she is likely to reply in an uncivil manner.
And again, I would like to emphasise that, in my view, it’s not your posts in particular that are at issue here. My posts, or anyone else’s, might be best unread by anyone who finds it difficult to respond without being uncivil.
Best wishes,
Tamar
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 11:39:45
In reply to Re: Lou's summery of the issues-sumry » Lou Pilder, posted by Tamar on July 14, 2005, at 10:35:01
Tamar,
You wrote,[...in my view...Dr. Bob's remarks...comes to the attention of the reader that he/she may choose not to read a person's posts if he/she is likely to reply in am uncivil manner...].
I am requesting that if anyone is going to reply to this thread that they consider the following:
A. Is it civil for Dr. Hsiung to suggest to others on this forum that they [...not read...] anyone's posts, or just my posts, because the content of the posts could cause them to reply to be uncivil here?
B. How does one determine for themselves if a post will cause them to reply and be uncivil here?
C. Could Dr. Hsiung's "remarks",([...do not read...]} have been left out in his statement in question and perhaps replaced by:
1.when you read someone's post that you have determined to be of content that you do not agree with, I am reminding , or suggesting, that you consider that different points of view here are encouraged and that your reply is to be in accordance with the guidlines of the forum even if your views are different...]?
2. when you read someone's posts here, that if you have a strong feeling against that person's name being the poster, could you remember that the guidlines of the forum ask you to respect the views of others here even if they are different from yours?...].
3. please do not boycott any poster's posts here, for they could contain support or education to you, unbeknowing to you, unless you read them...]
4. if you see a poster's name as the poster, that you think will have a content that will upset you in some way, before you reply, could you read it several times so that if you have a conclusion about what is written that could trigger something in you, that you babblemail the poster and have a discussion about it off-board so that you do not post something that is not acceptable here?
5. other good and just alternatives to suggesting that one [...not read...].
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.