![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 10 to 34 of 51. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by Declan on May 24, 2006, at 0:34:58
In reply to Re: National stereotypes lack substance, posted by zazenduck on May 23, 2006, at 17:36:27
Quite right. Every time I get upset about this kind of stuff I'll repeat "Todd Solondz" to myself until I calm down.
Posted by tealady on May 29, 2006, at 19:57:20
In reply to National differences » Estella, posted by Declan on May 20, 2006, at 15:12:53
> 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.
it wouldn't just be "bad form" mate.. everyone would think you were .. umm weird? (not quite the word) :-)"I think the Brits themselves are way more patriotic in a way about their own country though, but not about its politicians and policies as such.. but I guess there is a long history there, lots of old castles and stuff to set an atmosphere and remind ya.. if your ancestors did come from there I guess. I guess I felt something like that over there so its not just the Brits:-)
I do think the American people are temperamentally unsuited to being at the centre of whatever they are at the centre of.not sure here Dec.. they are totally responsible for what they have got into.. noone else forced it on em..and I dont think most people would be suited to it?
And the national differences are the big ones here.
that's what I pointed out before.. the politics board and the comments made really hit me.. and magnified the differences between the US.
That's why I called for it to be shut down, if discussion on all sides of view to try to resolve the differences was not allowed.It's almost impossible for anyone not from the Nth American area to participate without feeling stung by what is "supportive" or without "not being sensitive" if they respond.. not matter if they use "i" language or are just expressing their feelings?
My understanding anyway?Also politics isnt exactly a topic to really be debated if you are trying to find a supportive atmosphere if not feeling the best? The words blissful,fun, supportive, enjoyable,peaceful,contented are not usually accosciated with politics?
Posted by Declan on May 29, 2006, at 20:11:32
In reply to Re: National differences » Declan, posted by tealady on May 29, 2006, at 19:57:20
Hey Jan, I wonder about just talking about Australian politics. 'As a community of Australians here on PB we express extreme reservations about the morality of our government and hope that in the future it may find the love of truth' Ahem. The last 6 years have been awful, but this lot only has a little while left.
I think imperialism/spheres of influence/troops-in-a-123-countries is best left to non-democratic states.
Declan
Posted by tealady on May 29, 2006, at 22:23:52
In reply to Re: National differences, posted by Declan on May 29, 2006, at 20:11:32
> Hey Jan, I wonder about just talking about Australian politics. 'As a community of Australians here on PB we express extreme reservations about the morality of our government and hope that in the future it may find the love of truth' Ahem.
ROFL.. thanks for the laugh
I've known politicians who leave Dec, as they just can't take the corruption etc.. that's the problem.. it's too wearing trying to stand up to it.The last 6 years have been awful, but this lot only has a little while left.
> I think imperialism/spheres of influence/troops-in-a-123-countries is best left to non-democratic states.
> Declanyou know Declan, the problems on the poli board re sensitivies would be overcome a lot if everyone cooled down and realised it's basically a misrepresentation of a person him(her)self to think the just because one is anti "bad policies" or disagrees or even condemns the policies of a govt that you are anti- anyone or any country or even anti the govt of that country.. just some of its policies! If it changed its policies we wouldnt be anti them:-)Its not them , only their policies!
So I think its hurtful(and a snub) that people do feel offended and even say walk out of the room if they were really there.. instead of attempting to see anothers point of view.It's like say someone is attempting to say .. but I find find this may be the wrong way to go about things, it's not working.. look at what is happening! hear this side pls.. and the other person not only snubs them.. but refuses to listen..and reports them. Says they are offended as they disagree with their ideas? Bit like being dobbed in and then thrown in prison for ones' ideas without any trial maybe?
Of course I do expect people to present their thoughts with as little upset and anger as possible, and not to openly attack! But they is a need for discussion on all sides to try to reach an understanding, not necessarily an agreement at least at first.It's just that same thing that causes the terrorism and "flare-ups" as happened in Solomon's recently.. that feeling you are beiing disenfranchised.. not represented.. your values are not being listened to. Democracy in itself unfortunately is taken to be govt by majority.. and this mixing of cultures as has happened in the last 60 or so years especially means that an lot are left voiceless and powerless.. their culture, values, lifestyle, land, beliefs maybe disappearing to be taken over by I guess capitalism/ownersship-control by other countries/cultures.. those with the money to power the voice(even from differing countries).. and suprisingly a lot don't like it.. but have no power to do anything but revolt/ lash out...
It's the concept that democracy is NOT right if its not implemented to allow all to have a voice..
Oh well going now.. its not the politics board:-)
but the same concepts do apply to letting everyone have a voice whether or not they are in the majority on babble politics too!
Posted by Declan on May 30, 2006, at 3:20:39
In reply to Re: National differences » Declan, posted by tealady on May 29, 2006, at 22:23:52
Passed 2: Nil by the Australian Caucus on the Admin thread 'I think I may have broken a rule and I am sorry' 30/5/06.
Posted by AuntieMel on May 30, 2006, at 9:11:10
In reply to Re: National differences » Declan, posted by tealady on May 29, 2006, at 22:23:52
"you know Declan, the problems on the poli board re sensitivies would be overcome a lot if everyone cooled down and realised it's basically a misrepresentation of a person him(her)self to think the just because one is anti "bad policies" or disagrees or even or even anti the govt of that country.. just some of its policies! If it changed its policies we wouldnt be anti them:-)Its not them , only their policies! So I think its hurtful(and a snub) that people do feel offended and even say walk out of the room if they were really there.. instead of attempting to see anothers point of view."
Well, I have to say I agree with you there.
Though I have to admit that sometimes my *first* reaction at some of the terminology has been to get defensive, I *do* know that it's really issues being discussed.
I hate it that people get blocked for this - it is really semantics after all.
Sometimes I try to point out what it is about the phrasing that is problematic, but that doesn't help either. If anything it calls attention to the phrasing and makes things worse.
So instead we end up side-tracked and lose sight of the issues being discussed.
What a waste of what could be a truly interesting board.
Posted by Dinah on May 30, 2006, at 9:16:38
In reply to Re: National differences » tealady, posted by AuntieMel on May 30, 2006, at 9:11:10
I don't think the board, or allowing politics to be discussed, will ever work on this site. But my reasons for thinking so differ from everyone else's I think.
I hope Dr. Bob appreciates my discretion in biting my tongue.
Posted by curtm on May 30, 2006, at 11:33:54
In reply to Politics board, posted by Dinah on May 30, 2006, at 9:16:38
IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO
If we didn't have religion or politics, we wouldn't have ANYONE to point the finger at!
Posted by 10derHeart on May 30, 2006, at 15:48:19
In reply to Politics board, posted by Dinah on May 30, 2006, at 9:16:38
>>But my reasons for thinking so differ from everyone else's I think.<<
Perhaps not *everyone* else's :-)
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.