![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 51. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by zazenduck on May 11, 2006, at 17:52:52
On the politics board I have 4 posts in a row but 1 of them is a new topic so I don't know if that counts. But now I want to clarify that when I said I found George Bush very intelligent that I did not in anyway intend to make people who have a different opinion feel bad.
I feel anxious about offending you and being banned.
I was hurt and somewhat confused that you gave me a please be civil rather than a please rephrase when I used a word you do not allow. I did not know you did not allow it. I thought I invented it. I did not even know it was a real word.
Perhaps it would be kinder just to ban me outright than to hold me to different standards than the other posters. Thank you.
Posted by Estella on May 11, 2006, at 20:34:23
In reply to I think I may have broken a rule and I am sorry, posted by zazenduck on May 11, 2006, at 17:52:52
> I was hurt and somewhat confused that you gave me a please be civil rather than a please rephrase when I used a word you do not allow.
while counter-intuitive to most...
please rephrase is supposed to be more of an ask than please be civil.
because rephrasing requires some work to think up a rephrase.i thought that was odd personally. i always thought please be civil sounded harsher than please rephrase.
i hope you don't get blocked for your four posts in a row...
i've been doing a bit of that.
and soemtimes i feel bad about breaking that rule...
i mean...
i wonder how fair that is to lou.
i wonder...
did he ever get blocked for flouting it?
would he have?
Posted by NikkiT2 on May 12, 2006, at 3:51:33
In reply to I think I may have broken a rule and I am sorry, posted by zazenduck on May 11, 2006, at 17:52:52
How about using the automatic asterixing?
That changes ALL words Dr Bob considers banned, and you can never get caught out.
I'm quite sure that PBC's are *always* issued to anyone who posts a word that would have been *'d, but the poster chose to turn off the auto-asterixing. So I don't see that you're being treated any different to anyone else.
Sorry
Nikki
Posted by zazenduck on May 12, 2006, at 8:20:54
In reply to Re: I think I may have broken a rule and I am sorry » zazenduck, posted by Estella on May 11, 2006, at 20:34:23
Me too :(
Thanks for the explanation.
Posted by zazenduck on May 12, 2006, at 8:26:51
In reply to Re: I think I may have broken a rule and I am sorry » zazenduck, posted by NikkiT2 on May 12, 2006, at 3:51:33
> How about using the automatic asterixing?
I am
>
> That changes ALL words Dr Bob considers banned, and you can never get caught out.Apparently not.
>
> I'm quite sure that PBC's are *always* issued to anyone who posts a word that would have been *'d, but the poster chose to turn off the auto-asterixing.Not the case here.
>
> Sorry
>
Posted by Estella on May 12, 2006, at 11:36:02
In reply to Re:* » NikkiT2, posted by zazenduck on May 12, 2006, at 8:26:51
yeah.
bob says people are *bypassing* the system...
which sounds like they are *intentionally* doing so
(even though that doesn't follow)he seems to think people can be blocked for *bypassing* the system even though he says that if you turn automated asterisking on then you won't be blocked for swearing...
methinks...
he doesn't know what the f*ck he wants....
Posted by Estella on May 12, 2006, at 11:37:13
In reply to Re:*, posted by Estella on May 12, 2006, at 11:36:02
what is the definition of *bypassing* the system versus the system being *inadequate* for the purpose...
how does he decide when to blame the poster vs when to blame his system
?
Posted by NikkiT2 on May 12, 2006, at 13:15:26
In reply to Re:* » NikkiT2, posted by zazenduck on May 12, 2006, at 8:26:51
Then, previous examples have shown you should have the PBD over turned.
If you used a *rude* word (I don't quite know how else to put it!) and didn't override the *'ing, then its the softwares fault, not yours
Nikki
Posted by gardenergirl on May 12, 2006, at 13:19:34
In reply to Re:*, posted by Estella on May 12, 2006, at 11:37:13
I think that spelling a word (or made up word) so that it can be read phonetically as a vulgar word without much effort by the reader is equal, in my opinion, to bypassing the auotmatic asterisk system by typing in a space or doubling a letter or some other method.
So, although one cannot know if the system would catch the alternate spelling, if it's merely a tiny hop versus a leap from here to there, I'm not sure how it's fundamentally different from the word that would be automatically asterisked.
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on May 12, 2006, at 13:26:40
In reply to Re: I think I may have broken a rule and I am sorry » zazenduck, posted by Estella on May 11, 2006, at 20:34:23
> did he ever get blocked for flouting it?
>
> would he have?To the best of my memory, Lou was never blocked for breaking the 3 post rule, and I think he worked very hard to follow it. His most recent block was for a different "rule of 3", which was about asking admin to review more than 3 posts by a specific poster after having been asked by Dr. Bob to find an alternate way to express his concern.
But about the 3 post rule. I think it's making more than 3 in a row on a thread that are not directly replying to different prior posts. I also think, but I'd have to search the archives, and I'm not willing to do that, that it's also starting more than three threads on one board in a row.
What do folks think aobut this rule? Is it still a good rule (or I suppose you could ask was it ever a good rule)? Is it effective in allowing everyone into the dialog who wishes to be? Should we do something different? If so, what?
gg
Posted by zazenduck on May 12, 2006, at 14:03:37
In reply to Re:*, posted by gardenergirl on May 12, 2006, at 13:19:34
> I think that spelling a word (or made up word) so that it can be read phonetically as a vulgar word without much effort by the reader is equal,
Do you think people do not read an asterikked word as the offending word without much effort?
I believe my neologism was farther removed from any offending word than the asterikked version.
If you do not want the offending word read as the offending word perhaps you should asterik the entire word not just the vowel.
>
> So, although one cannot know if the system would catch the alternate spelling, if it's merely a tiny hop versus a leap from here to there, I'm not sure how it's fundamentally different from the word that would be automatically asterisked.
>
> gg
Posted by gardenergirl on May 12, 2006, at 14:25:55
In reply to Re:* » gardenergirl, posted by zazenduck on May 12, 2006, at 14:03:37
You make a very good point. I've never liked the automatic asterisking system for just that reason.
gg
Posted by Dinah on May 12, 2006, at 17:28:40
In reply to 3 post rule---What do you think about it?, posted by gardenergirl on May 12, 2006, at 13:26:40
I've always opposed it.
Posted by Estella on May 13, 2006, at 3:51:39
In reply to Re: 3 post rule---What do you think about it?, posted by Dinah on May 12, 2006, at 17:28:40
> I've always opposed it.
er...
you mean you have always supported those who didn't want it???
;-)
Posted by gardenergirl on May 13, 2006, at 9:33:00
In reply to Re: 3 post rule---What do you think about it? » Dinah, posted by Estella on May 13, 2006, at 3:51:39
I think Dinah's statement above was accurate.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040927/msgs/395970.htmlgg
Posted by Estella on May 13, 2006, at 13:39:28
In reply to Re: 3 post rule---What do you think about it? » Estella, posted by gardenergirl on May 13, 2006, at 9:33:00
> I think Dinah's statement above was accurate.
hmm. it might be a more accurate representation of what she was thinking...
but then people who support the three post rule might feel offended by her opposition to the rule...
(just like how someone who supports a certain ideology / policy might feel offended if someone opposes the ideology / policy)
of course...
i don't think people should be blocked really...
but there is precedent for 'opposition' receiving a pbc / pbs / blocking.
so in the interests of consistency...
(and my aim is to demonstrate a reductio ad absurdum of the notion of blocking people who oppose an idea / policy / rule - it is most certainly NOT to get Dinah blocked...)
Posted by Estella on May 13, 2006, at 13:39:54
In reply to Re: 3 post rule---What do you think about it?, posted by Estella on May 13, 2006, at 13:39:28
aka...
sometimes the truth is uncivil...
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 15, 2006, at 17:43:53
In reply to Re: 3 post rule---What do you think about it?, posted by Estella on May 13, 2006, at 13:39:28
> people who support the three post rule might feel offended by her opposition to the rule...
Remember, this board is different than the others, the "mission" here isn't support and education. And in fact it's probably not felt to be as supportive or educational. So I guess one conclusion could be that what's done on the other boards to try to keep things supportive and educational actually works. :-)
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on May 16, 2006, at 9:36:30
In reply to Re: 3 post rule---What do you think about it?, posted by Estella on May 13, 2006, at 13:39:28
I don't think there is anything wrong with opposing a policy.
It gets a fair amount greyer when opposing an "ideology"
And greyer still when ascribing that ideology to an entire group of people.
Posted by curtm on May 16, 2006, at 19:47:03
In reply to Re: opposing a policy » Estella, posted by AuntieMel on May 16, 2006, at 9:36:30
Aye! Mutiny will be punished by a walk on the plank, matey! Aaaarh... Off to Davey Jones' locker with ya!
Posted by Estella on May 19, 2006, at 7:33:02
In reply to Re: support, posted by Dr. Bob on May 15, 2006, at 17:43:53
> Remember, this board is different than the others, the "mission" here isn't support and education. And in fact it's probably not felt to be as supportive or educational. So I guess one conclusion could be that what's done on the other boards to try to keep things supportive and educational actually works. :-)
all features of 'what's done' or just some?
i wonder what the relevant features might be...
and what features might be obstructive...
Posted by Estella on May 19, 2006, at 7:45:39
In reply to Re: opposing a policy » Estella, posted by AuntieMel on May 16, 2006, at 9:36:30
> I don't think there is anything wrong with opposing a policy.
neither. but a policy can't be described as hypocritical...
> It gets a fair amount greyer when opposing an "ideology"mmm
i don't see why if you actually engage with the content rather than just namecalling...
i'm opposed to racist and opressive ideologies...
block me for that if you will...
> And greyer still when ascribing that ideology to an entire group of people.i usually acknowledge exceptions / possible exceptions.
i'm a philosopher.
i use 'all' sparingly...
it just takes one counter example to falsify your claim...i'm thinking of particular examples.
can't be opposed to a policy (come now it was clear i was talking about a policy in context)
can't say certain ideals might be unjust (with arguments for the alleged injustice)
can't criticise the 'american dream' 'cause people think i'm talking about every single person in america.doesn't matter.
i give up.here isn't the place for me to talk politics.
it isn't about finding like minded individuals...
it is about finding someplace where people are okay with rational argumentation and words like 'unjust' 'unfair' 'hypocritical' etc so long as it is backed up with arguments.
that isn't okay here.
fine.
but nevermind the educational value in learning those skills of rational argumentation. never mind learning that arguments don't have to be taken personlly. nevermind that words like 'unjust' and 'unfair' and 'hypocritical' have meanings and you can unpack those in a way that isn't just mud slinging.
it is kind of interesting.
i presented someone or others case for animal rights a while back on social.
the analogy went that eating meat is speciest. and speciesm is a form of racism. both are equally unjustifyable. both are equally unjust.
and that wasn't pbc'd.
i don't see how my argument for hypocracy...
(though flawed)
wsa any different.
i don't see how my argument for injustice
was any different.people are entitled to get upset about my criticising the american dream...
whereas they are not entitled (in the sense of being validated by pbcing me) to get upset about my argument that people who eat meat are akin to people who are racist?interesting...
i'll go argue somewhere else.
Posted by Declan on May 20, 2006, at 15:12:53
In reply to Re: opposing a policy » AuntieMel, posted by Estella on May 19, 2006, at 7:45:39
People are patriotic in various ways. Some people aren't patriotic. Anyway I see the American people as patriotic in a way that is quite different to how Australians, for example, are. Australians are not patriotic like that. Winston Churchill remarked of Menzies that 'he leads a country he hates'. There are things you could say about Australia I would find offensive...I can't think of any offhand. And somehow, as an Australian, I find it bad form (British influence!) to have *public* feelings about my country. I do think the American people are temperamentally unsuited to being at the centre of whatever they are at the centre of. And the national differences are the big ones here. I realise this belongs on Politics, but since I read it here here it goes.
Declan
Posted by zazenduck on May 23, 2006, at 17:36:27
In reply to National differences » Estella, posted by Declan on May 20, 2006, at 15:12:53
Interesting article.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=105&ObjectID=10350312
Survey shows national stereotypes lack substance
15.10.05
By Claire Harvey
The English see themselves as repressed emotional bricks, Canadians think their average person is extraordinarily nice, Italians believe themselves to be fiery and passionate - but they're all completely wrong.Every nation on earth has a firm stereotype of the "typical" local, but a major international study shows that stereotypes bear little, if any, resemblance to reality.
Character traits around the world are far more similar than we would like to believe - Canadians and Americans are pretty much alike, as are Australians, Kiwis and Brits.
The findings are prompting researchers to ask why we are so determined to create artificial concepts about ourselves. Are we desperate to belong to a distinctive national identity, are we searching for perfection, or just too lazy to assess individuals on their merits?
The research indicates that people should not trust their own judgments concerning stereotypes.
"Everybody finds it very easy to come up with stereotypic notions - it's very natural to the human way of thinking, but it's full of errors and therefore it's very dangerous," says psychologist Dr Robert McCrae, of the United States National Institute on Ageing, who published his findings in the international journal Science.
"It's striking to me that we asked nearly 4000 people around the world to make these ratings of stereotypes, and nobody had any trouble doing that. We need to remind ourselves when we're dealing with different nationalities or age groups or sexes that our ideas are something we should take with a lot of suspicion."
McCrae and Dr Antonio Terracciano asked researchers worldwide to investigate the "national stereotypes" of 49 cultures by asking participants to describe a "typical person" from their own culture, and to describe people they knew personally, whether they liked them or not.
As a control question, they asked the participants to describe their idea of a typical American.
The researchers matched those results with the findings of surveys in which participants were asked to describe their own personality traits.
The results were clear: in nearly every nation there was a strongly held, well-defined - and completely inaccurate - idea of what the "typical person" was like.
For example, says McCrae, you would think that "if you averaged the scores of a bunch of Canadians they ought to be nice on average, because that's what Canadians think they are".
Wrong. Canadians rated about the same as Americans, even though the Canadians described the "typical Canadian" as much nicer than their notion of the typical "arrogant" American.
The survey showed up a fascinating list of misconceptions. Indonesians and Japanese thought they were very neurotic, but actually rated in the middle of the 49 cultures. Australians thought they were very laid-back, but proved only slightly less neurotic than most people in the world.
Indians thought they were very open, but in fact were less so than people in most countries. Chinese people described themselves as secretive, but turned out to be reasonably open.
> People are patriotic in various ways. Some people aren't patriotic. Anyway I see the American people as patriotic in a way that is quite different to how Australians, for example, are. Australians are not patriotic like that. Winston Churchill remarked of Menzies that 'he leads a country he hates'. There are things you could say about Australia I would find offensive...I can't think of any offhand. And somehow, as an Australian, I find it bad form (British influence!) to have *public* feelings about my country. I do think the American people are temperamentally unsuited to being at the centre of whatever they are at the centre of. And the national differences are the big ones here. I realise this belongs on Politics, but since I read it here here it goes.
> Declan
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2006, at 23:37:13
In reply to Re: National stereotypes lack substance, posted by zazenduck on May 23, 2006, at 17:36:27
:)
Thanks for finding that article.
I'm a hypocrite in the area of stereotypes sometimes, I fear. I fight them tooth and nail in almost every area, but I tend to fall into them myself when it comes to regional differences within the US. But I suppose if national stereotypes aren't true, then neither are regional ones.
So maybe there isn't really a difference in the pace of life down here? And drivers aren't really different in etiquette some places than others? (Though that may be a situational thing rather than a character one, because of commute times or other driving conditions.) Or direct vs. circuitous conversational styles? Well, I suppose actually none of those things have to do with character or inborn traits. But still I might tend to exaggerate the differences.
It's something interesting to think about. Maybe I'll challenge myself a bit more when I fall into those habits.
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.