![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 39 to 63 of 275. Go back in thread:
Posted by greywolf on May 28, 2006, at 18:43:32
In reply to Re: Just wondering Dr. Bob, do you have a response, posted by Deneb on May 27, 2006, at 23:48:17
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 29, 2006, at 11:48:17
In reply to Maybe he's busy (nm) » Deneb, posted by greywolf on May 28, 2006, at 18:43:32
That is so very tolerant of you.
It would be nice, to simply know what aspects of the post warranted a block.
It seems like a simple question.
It seems like something that ought to have a salient answer. The decision was made. The why part ought to be salient.
Meanwhile, while this delay goes on, non-trivial effects are occurring. She is still blocked. Her sentence was not suspended, pending re-examination.
The decision to not reply to these questions is indeed a decision. It is not the absence of a decision, at all.
Bob has chosen to silently persist in this.
I do not wish to absolve him.
Lar
Posted by greywolf on May 29, 2006, at 22:31:55
In reply to Re: Maybe he's busy » greywolf, posted by Larry Hoover on May 29, 2006, at 11:48:17
> That is so very tolerant of you.
>
> It would be nice, to simply know what aspects of the post warranted a block.
>
> Lar
My post wasn't a defense or a challenge. It was simply an observation.
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 29, 2006, at 22:42:56
In reply to Re: Maybe he's busy, posted by greywolf on May 29, 2006, at 22:31:55
> > That is so very tolerant of you.
> >
> > It would be nice, to simply know what aspects of the post warranted a block.
> >
> > Lar
>
>
> My post wasn't a defense or a challenge. It was simply an observation.I know. I'm sorry if that comment seemed in any way to be critical. I have trouble being as you are, or seem to be. There is hurt in the silence, to me. It saddens me. It is not a positive thing, in any respect. To have no comment whatsoever, I mean, in all this time....when he has clearly been on the board in the meantime.
You give a sense of detachment that I cannot achieve. I just can't. I felt I was demeaning my own state, rather than being critical of yours. I guess that isn't what it looked like, though. I'm sorry.
Lar
Posted by greywolf on May 30, 2006, at 7:08:42
In reply to Re: Maybe he's busy » greywolf, posted by Larry Hoover on May 29, 2006, at 22:42:56
No problem, Lar. I understand.
It's not that this site isn't important to me. It is a great place with great people.
I just see it a little differently, I guess. I don't feel any ownership of PsychoBabble. It's Dr. Bob's site, his rules, his decisions. I have too many problems in my life to take blocks very seriously.
But I don't mean to suggest that others should not take them seriously. It's all in what we value individually, and I do see an occasional disconnect between the policy and its application.
Posted by Gabbi~G on May 30, 2006, at 18:50:13
In reply to Re: Maybe he's busy » Larry Hoover, posted by greywolf on May 30, 2006, at 7:08:42
pulling the wings off of flies?
I don't think since Zen was blocked for 24 (or more) weeks for saying sh*t have I ever been so revolted by a decision.
Estella had recently stated how hurt she'd been by her previous blocks.. and was obviously trying to follow the rules. I still can't see how they were flouted. It was a gentle and polite statement of her beliefs.
This makes me sick
Dr. Bob, you should know better.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 31, 2006, at 2:26:28
In reply to I think you made an error Dr Bob, posted by zazenduck on May 27, 2006, at 9:55:18
> > clearly didn't understand PBC and made effort to reply: no
>
> I believe you have made an error in this partFair enough, I shouldn't have said "no". Still, this is an issue that's come up before.
> Wouldn't it be fairer to explain clearly what you want before you block someone for 4 weeks?
I know it's not always easy to use I-statements, but in this case, one possibility might have been something like:
> > i prefer to be free from religious influences...
I'm sorry she's blocked again, too,
Bob
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 31, 2006, at 8:04:56
In reply to Re: I-statements, posted by Dr. Bob on May 31, 2006, at 2:26:28
> > > clearly didn't understand PBC and made effort to reply: no
> >
> > I believe you have made an error in this part
>
> Fair enough, I shouldn't have said "no". Still, this is an issue that's come up before.
>
> > Wouldn't it be fairer to explain clearly what you want before you block someone for 4 weeks?
>
> I know it's not always easy to use I-statements, but in this case, one possibility might have been something like:
>
> > > i prefer to be free from religious influences...
>
> I'm sorry she's blocked again, too,
>
> BobThe I statement she used had broader scope than that. You have changed the meaning.
She thought all of us might be better off without it, as then we too would know a freedom of thought. That is not a bad thing to wish for people, to wish them a chance to know something they cannot now know. To wish them a chance to be naive.
I pray that if I have crossed one of your lines, Bob, you give *me* a chance to rephrase myself.
Lar
Posted by curtm on May 31, 2006, at 9:54:59
In reply to Re: I-statements » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on May 31, 2006, at 8:04:56
Posted by teejay on May 31, 2006, at 10:18:56
In reply to ***Resistence is Futile!*** (nm), posted by curtm on May 31, 2006, at 9:54:59
The borg are more forgiving too ;-))))))))
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 31, 2006, at 11:08:55
In reply to Re: I-statements » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on May 31, 2006, at 8:04:56
> The I statement she used had broader scope than that. You have changed the meaning.
Right, that's the idea, to state something about oneself rather than about others.
> She thought all of us might be better off without it, as then we too would know a freedom of thought. That is not a bad thing to wish for people, to wish them a chance to know something they cannot now know. To wish them a chance to be naive.
But is that something they wish for themselves?
Bob
Posted by curtm on May 31, 2006, at 11:31:54
In reply to Re: I-statements, posted by Dr. Bob on May 31, 2006, at 11:08:55
>> She thought all of us might be better off without it, as then we too would know a freedom of thought. That is not a bad thing to wish for people, to wish them a chance to know something they cannot now know. To wish them a chance to be naive.
Exactly. If I said "I think you would be better off wishing for a bicycle when you blow the candles out on your birthday cake," does that really mean that you really would be or is it just my opinion. I am just trying to help you consider alternatives that you might not, from my perspective, have contemplated.
>But is that something they wish for themselves?
That doesn't change that.
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 31, 2006, at 11:51:38
In reply to Re: I-statements, posted by Dr. Bob on May 31, 2006, at 11:08:55
> > She thought all of us might be better off without it, as then we too would know a freedom of thought. That is not a bad thing to wish for people, to wish them a chance to know something they cannot now know. To wish them a chance to be naive.
>
> But is that something they wish for themselves?
>
> BobShe's asking that a novel idea be considered, not that there is any right answer, or decision being made for someone else.
She's asking them to try and imagine a different world.
Her personal world is hers, clearly. She's not defining anybody else's world. She's asking them to imagine a novel world. What it would be like, if religious precepts were absent, and we had to sort things out from experience itself. Where there are no books to turn to, with "answers" to the questions, at hand.
It would be a different world. One person may affirm or deny the thought, but it isn't imposed on them. Not in any way. There is no label being assigned.
Imagine a Babble where no one got blocked.
Have I hurt you, to imagine?
Lar
Posted by curtm on May 31, 2006, at 11:59:36
In reply to Re: I-statements » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on May 31, 2006, at 11:51:38
A small girl fell sick in 1692. Her “fitts”—convulsions, contortions, and outbursts of gibberish—baffled everyone. Other girls soon manifested the same symptoms. Their doctor could suggest but one cause. Witchcraft.
That grim diagnosis launched a Puritan inquisition that took 25 lives, filled prisons with innocent people, and frayed the soul of a Massachusetts community called Salem.
Posted by muffled on May 31, 2006, at 15:33:07
In reply to Salem Reborn!, posted by curtm on May 31, 2006, at 11:59:36
Not that you'll answer , other than by blocking me, but I feel that there was a f*ckup on this block of Estella's. But I feel you just as stubborn as a damn mule so I may as well shut up.
Yeah.
A bit draconian round here.
Whole f*cking world.
I don't get you Bob, you come acrosss nice sometimes but I feel you really seem to have issues of omnipotence and I feel its hurting people.
You just don't get it do you?
I wish I could duct tape your mouth shut for 2wks. and see how you like it :-(
It hurts.
It really f*cking HURTS- DO YOU HEAR ME ?????????????
Muffled
Posted by Jakeman on May 31, 2006, at 18:48:00
In reply to Yeah ,Bob......, posted by muffled on May 31, 2006, at 15:33:07
I like these quotes:
Admitting error clears the score
And proves you wiser than before.--Arthur GuitermanThe wisest of the wise may err.--Aeschylus
warm regards, Jake
Posted by henrietta on May 31, 2006, at 19:41:30
In reply to Re: Yeah ,Bob......, posted by Jakeman on May 31, 2006, at 18:48:00
Another quote, loose so don't quote me:
An error doesn't become a mistake until it is ignored.
John F. Kennedy
Posted by Jakeman on May 31, 2006, at 19:45:12
In reply to Re: Yeah ,Bob......, posted by henrietta on May 31, 2006, at 19:41:30
> Another quote, loose so don't quote me:
> An error doesn't become a mistake until it is ignored.
> John F. KennedyHow true. JFK had some great ones.
thanks, Jake
Posted by henrietta on May 31, 2006, at 19:53:41
In reply to Re: Yeah ,Bob...... » henrietta, posted by Jakeman on May 31, 2006, at 19:45:12
Oops. I think it was Bobby. Which makes it even more important, since he was talking about Vietnam, and by implication, the error his brother (among many others) fell into, inherited.... Takes courage and honesty, straight talk. Don't seem to see that much in politics these days, or in the land of civility police.
Posted by Tabitha on June 1, 2006, at 0:45:46
In reply to Re: I-statements » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on May 31, 2006, at 11:51:38
>
> She's asking that a novel idea be considered, not that there is any right answer, or decision being made for someone else.
>
> She's asking them to try and imagine a different world.
>Lar, I think if someone had said "I'd like people to try and imagine a world without religion" that would have been fine. But when it's worded "I think the world would be better without religion", then a judgement creeps in. It sounds like a negative judgement about religion. It's those judgement statements that get flagged as uncivil.
Posted by Jakeman on June 1, 2006, at 1:19:13
In reply to Re: I-statements » Larry Hoover, posted by Tabitha on June 1, 2006, at 0:45:46
Oh well I guess it's back to splitting hairs again. The central question is who did she harm?
Let's be reasonble.warm regards, Jake
Posted by Jakeman on June 1, 2006, at 2:08:14
In reply to Re: I-statements, posted by Jakeman on June 1, 2006, at 1:19:13
Lets flip it over and examine the logic.
An apposing view could say: "I think the the world is a much better place WITH religion."Would that merit a block?
No, it shouldn't... either stance is an OPINION. Both opinions are worthy of discussion and I am very sorry that this discussion has been cut off. I was interested in what we could learn from each other. But now the discussion has been cut off and I regret that.
Warm regards, Jake
I could throw in some quotes from Twain, Jefferson, etc. but I'll stop.
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 1, 2006, at 4:30:39
In reply to Re: I-statements » Larry Hoover, posted by Tabitha on June 1, 2006, at 0:45:46
> >
> > She's asking that a novel idea be considered, not that there is any right answer, or decision being made for someone else.
> >
> > She's asking them to try and imagine a different world.
> >
>
> Lar, I think if someone had said "I'd like people to try and imagine a world without religion" that would have been fine. But when it's worded "I think the world would be better without religion", then a judgement creeps in. It sounds like a negative judgement about religion. It's those judgement statements that get flagged as uncivil.She didn't judge it. She gave her opinion.
It's really two thoughts. Each of which is civil, IMHO.
One is implied. You have to consider a world without religion to consider her thought. What would the world be like, absent dogma? (Def: An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.)
She stated her personal preference, with respect to the actual and the imagined worlds.
I think butter tarts would be better without raisins.
I think Babble would be better without lengthy blocks.
I sincerely believe the only reason this was flagged was because of prejudicial thinking, with respect to religion. Does it deserve special protection, amidst all other thoughts with respect to personal choices?
It seems to have been afforded a "special case" scenario, which I would infer arises from internal bias.
Bias, n.
A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice.Lar
P.S.
Not to you, Tabitha, but to Bob, I reiterate that all this debate takes place while she continues to serve a block that many people believe is unfair. There is no fair way to restore her loss, if the decision is to be changed or reconsidered.There ought to be an option to suspend sentences, given sufficient degree of dispute about the fairness of any single instance of administrative fiat.
Absent true appeal, this entire process is a sham.
Lar
P.P.S. I again trust that should I have run afoul of these civility guidelines, that I should be afforded an opportunity to rephrase.
Lar
Posted by Dinah on June 1, 2006, at 6:59:33
In reply to Re: I-statements » Tabitha, posted by Larry Hoover on June 1, 2006, at 4:30:39
Sigh. In the "I" statement context, I think Dr. Bob is correct. Tabitha is right, as I see it.
My objection wasn't in that area.
Incidentally, similar rules are observed on the Faith board about statements putting forth one faith as being a superior path. So that, for example, I don't think it would be acceptable under board guidelines to assert that the world would be better if everyone were Christian. Or that the world would be better if there was no liberal movement or no conservative movement.
Were she to have said "I sometimes wonder what the world would be like without religion." she would have been imagining what the world would be like without religion, and probably wouldn't have been flagged. But that's not what she said.
It's not just semantics.
But I grow weary.
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 1, 2006, at 9:10:06
In reply to Re: I-statements » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on June 1, 2006, at 6:59:33
> Sigh. In the "I" statement context, I think Dr. Bob is correct. Tabitha is right, as I see it.
To use your arguments, you have just called me wrong. All by inference. If they're right, and I'm different........
Do you not see the circularity in that? There are simple declaratory I-statements that use comparators, which do nothing more than reveal an individual's preference.
She said what she thought was better, between two selections. Others may list their own preferences, without prejudice.
We just had a thread on Social about Starbucks treats. There was some disagreement there, about what was favoured. Should all get blocks, for daring to speak of what they liked, once someone else had spoken?
> My objection wasn't in that area.
>
> Incidentally, similar rules are observed on the Faith board about statements putting forth one faith as being a superior path. So that, for example, I don't think it would be acceptable under board guidelines to assert that the world would be better if everyone were Christian. Or that the world would be better if there was no liberal movement or no conservative movement.Then, my conclusion would be that the Faith board needs fixing, too. It uses an unsupportable argument.
> Were she to have said "I sometimes wonder what the world would be like without religion." she would have been imagining what the world would be like without religion, and probably wouldn't have been flagged. But that's not what she said.
>
> It's not just semantics.
>
> But I grow weary.Correct. It is not just semantics. She merely combined two thoughts in one simple sentence. And unless you can show me where either one was uncivil, literally, then this is the civility issue writ large.
This is precisely why I grow angry (historically).
Lar
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.