![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 24 to 48 of 131. Go back in thread:
Posted by zazenducky on September 14, 2006, at 12:38:43
In reply to Nice, *really* nice.., posted by NikkiT2 on September 14, 2006, at 9:15:45
He's very British too!......
Whenever Onslow inquires about foodstuffs (for example, usually beer, bacon butties or smokey bacon-flavoured crisps) and Daisy tells him that they're out, he responds with an exasperated, "Oh, nice!" He also uses this phrase for other unusual situations, usually revolving around Hyacinth or when he is put down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeping_Up_Appearances
You are pretty nicki....you really really are
Lou is a beautiful work of his creator as are we all!! Even though I don't always agree with him I admire his willingness to work with Bob to uphold and respect Bob's vision of civility without compromising his own values.
I think he has been treated unfairly here in the past and I think that is sad.
I think it is pretty......that he is banned for a year at a time while others............
> And this makes me feel sooo very pretty...
>
> (I love just using my own, *very* civil language. Hope I'm not being too British if you catch my drift)
>
>
Posted by zazenducky on September 14, 2006, at 12:46:30
In reply to Do you know Onslow????? » NikkiT2, posted by zazenducky on September 14, 2006, at 12:38:43
> He's very British too!......
>
> Whenever Onslow inquires about foodstuffs (for example, usually beer, bacon butties or smokey bacon-flavoured crisps) and Daisy tells him that they're out, he responds with an exasperated, "Oh, nice!" He also uses this phrase for other unusual situations, usually revolving around Hyacinth or when he is put down.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeping_Up_Appearances
>
> You are pretty nicki....you really really are
>
> Lou is a beautiful work of his creator as are we all!! Even though I don't always agree with him I admire his willingness to work with Bob to uphold and respect Bob's vision of civility without compromising his own values.
>
> I think he has been treated unfairly here in the past and I think that is sad.
>
> I think it is pretty d********e that he is banned for a year at a time while others............
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > And this makes me feel sooo very pretty...
> >
> > (I love just using my own, *very* civil language. Hope I'm not being too British if you catch my drift)
> >
> >
>
>
Posted by NikkiT2 on September 14, 2006, at 12:54:30
In reply to Do you know Onslow????? » NikkiT2, posted by zazenducky on September 14, 2006, at 12:38:43
Keeping up appearances is an instituion *l* A favourite for hungover sunday afternoons
*smiles*
Nikki
Posted by notfred on September 14, 2006, at 12:58:51
In reply to Re: nothing to see here, move along - Duh. » SLS, posted by SLS on September 14, 2006, at 8:05:54
> Duh. This is an example of an elected judge. Sorry.
>
> State and municipal judges are often appointed by governors and mayors respectively rather than being elected. They, too, are removed from office through appointed processes.
>
>
> - Scott
I was speaking of the executive branch of government. There appointed persons serve at will. In the judicial branch impeachment is indeed
how you get a judge out of office.
Posted by Racer on September 14, 2006, at 13:21:10
In reply to Re: nothing to see here, move along - Duh., posted by notfred on September 14, 2006, at 12:58:51
"Impeachment" is something that generally happens in a governmental institution. You can impeach an elected official, you can impeach a witness in a trial -- government court, right? -- etc. In a more colloquial sense, you can impeach someone's credibility.
This isn't a government. This site has no links to any government, except in the sense that it is governed by its owner, Dr Bob.
We could, I suppose, impeach the credibility of the deputies, although I don't see how that could be done civilly.
That's not the sense of impeachment I'm getting here, though. So, forgive me for apparently being about as bright as a 15 watt bulb, how does a public impeachment process apply to PsychoBabble at www.dr-bob.org?
Posted by Jost on September 14, 2006, at 13:26:36
In reply to Re: nothing to see here, move along, posted by notfred on September 14, 2006, at 0:56:38
Isn't impechment different from removal from office?
Impeachment: to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office
But is there a "competent tribunal" here?
Are the deputies "public officials"?
Is there an "office" here such that they could carry out such misconduct?
If these words are being used in some analogic way, what are the analogies? and how really relevant is it?
Do we want to spend time setting up a system for charging one another with misconduct and carrying out complex litigations or investigations and prosecurtions?
I hope the anwer is no.
So, if there are any gross violatons of what we commonly as a community find acceptable behavior, do we really need an elaborate set of institutions and rules to deal with them?
Again, I hope the answer is no.
If not, what is all this about?
I'd really like to know, in a simple cogent and down-to-earth summary, not vague abstract or curtailed and cursory ones.
Jost
Posted by notfred on September 14, 2006, at 13:40:09
In reply to I guess I don't understand..., posted by Racer on September 14, 2006, at 13:21:10
So, forgive me for apparently being about as bright as a 15 watt bulb, how does a public impeachment process apply to PsychoBabble at www.dr-bob.org?
It does not. That fact has gotten lost in the semantics.
Posted by gardenergirl on September 14, 2006, at 14:35:11
In reply to Re: I guess I don't understand..., posted by notfred on September 14, 2006, at 13:40:09
I think that the term "impeachment" is a loaded word, and not necessarily the most applicable for this site for the reasons that others have given.
I also think that when loaded words are used in broad, non-specific contexts, it increases the likelihood for speculation, projection, fear, defensiveness, anxiety, conflict, and argument.
I think that a perfectly reasonable approach to a complaint about a deputy's actions would be to email the specific concern and any applicable supporting materials to Dr. Bob. I see nothing wrong with making a post on admin announcing that an email has been sent to Dr. Bob about a concern about a deputy's actions.
I also believe that it's courteous, though not required, to inform the person you are making a complaint about regarding the nature of your complaint and your actions. And I think that the manner in which a complaint is raised often positively correlates with the manner in which it's received and considered.
gg
Posted by SLS on September 14, 2006, at 18:57:16
In reply to Re: nothing to see here, move along SLS, notfred, posted by Jost on September 14, 2006, at 13:26:36
I think you missed a few lines of text somewhere along this thread. My current thoughts regarding the treatment of deputies does not include a process of impeachment.
> I'd really like to know, in a simple cogent and down-to-earth summary, not vague abstract or curtailed and cursory ones.
I didn't know my submissions were to be subject to such demanding requirements.
I apologize for my entire posting history.
- Scott
Posted by Jost on September 14, 2006, at 19:31:06
In reply to Re: nothing to see here, move along SLS, notfred » Jost, posted by SLS on September 14, 2006, at 18:57:16
How your entire posting history?
I was referring to the basic issues at stake in this discussion. What are we talking about, actually? ie are there any major bad decisions that occurred here recently? Some seeming misconduct on someone's part such that the discussion has some point-- as opposed to being a formalistic exercise about theoretical possibilities? If so, I haven't noticed it, and would like to know, in terms that I can comprehend, what it is.
If there isn't any, then the discussion hasn't got enough content. IMO discussing issues like this--and alluding to impeachment, etc.-- in a vacuum (ie a space without any context), is useless, because without enough instances and shared examples, there's really no way of knowing what anyone means.
My comment doesn't invoke your posting history. What I don't understand--which is why I'm having trouble even ascribing a cogent meaning to the discussion-- is what the serious problems are that have occasioned, and therefore could inform, the discussion.
From your comments, it seemed that you did see a basis for the discussion. From your comments, I'd also concluded that you'd be likely to be able to state it in a way that I'd understand and could work with.
No criticism of you was intended. I have found some parts of the discussion enigmatic, and was looking for clarification.
Jost
Posted by zazenducky on September 14, 2006, at 19:47:20
In reply to Re: Do you know Onslow????? » zazenducky, posted by NikkiT2 on September 14, 2006, at 12:54:30
Posted by SLS on September 14, 2006, at 19:53:48
In reply to Words matter, posted by gardenergirl on September 14, 2006, at 14:35:11
Hi GG.
> I think that the term "impeachment" is a loaded word,
and not necessarily the most applicable for this site for the reasons that others have given.I can see that. I guess I never attached such a pejorative theme to the word because of my early interest in law. It was just a mechanism being part of a process.
> I see nothing wrong with making a post on admin announcing that an email has been sent to Dr. Bob about a concern about a deputy's actions.This provides visibility and might motivate others who feel the same way to register similar concerns to Dr. Bob.
> I also believe that it's courteous, though not required, to inform the person you are making a complaint about regarding the nature of your complaint and your actions.Would this be through Babblemail?
- Scott
Posted by SLS on September 14, 2006, at 21:00:37
In reply to Re: nothing to see here, move along SLS, notfred » SLS, posted by Jost on September 14, 2006, at 19:31:06
> I was referring to the basic issues at stake in this discussion. What are we talking about, actually?
Someone would like to impeach a deputy. They would like for a deputy to not administrate anymore.
> ie are there any major bad decisions that occurred here recently?
This someone believes that there was.
> Some seeming misconduct on someone's part such that the discussion has some point
This someone believes so; enough to post a series of petitions to Dr. Bob to remove a deputy from service.
> -- as opposed to being a formalistic exercise about theoretical possibilities?
I don't think the sophomorish bantor that was occurring between NotFred and myself approached anything so lofty as a formalistic exercise.
> If so, I haven't noticed it, and would like to know, in terms that I can comprehend, what it is.
Why do you need to know so much?
> If there isn't any, then the discussion hasn't got enough content.
I apologize. Again. It's those damned premium posting requirements that I can never quite meet.
> IMO discussing issues like this--and alluding to impeachment, etc.-- in a vacuum (ie a space without any context),
I doubt the participants in the discussion ever lost sight of the context within which the concept of impeachment was being considered. I felt no vacuum by the way.
> is useless,
To you, perhaps. I learned a few things.
> because without enough instances and shared examples, there's really no way of knowing what anyone means.
This must surely be true. There have been no shared examples here, and I haven't a clue what any of this means.
> From your comments, it seemed that you did see a basis for the discussion. From your comments, I'd also concluded that you'd be likely to be able to state it in a way that I'd understand and could work with.
I have no need of you working with any of my comments. Believe me, they are fine just the way they are.
> No criticism of you was intended.
Phew.
- Scott
Posted by notfred on September 14, 2006, at 21:08:20
In reply to Re: nothing to see here, move along SLS, notfred » Jost, posted by SLS on September 14, 2006, at 21:00:37
> I don't think the sophomorish bantor that was occurring between NotFred and myself approached anything so lofty as a formalistic exercise.
>You took the bait, hook, line and sinker.
Posted by SLS on September 14, 2006, at 21:28:31
In reply to Re: nothing to see here, move along SLS, notfred, posted by notfred on September 14, 2006, at 21:08:20
>
> > I don't think the sophomorish bantor that was occurring between NotFred and myself approached anything so lofty as a formalistic exercise.
> >
>
> You took the bait, hook, line and sinker.
;-)
- Scott
Posted by 10derHeart on September 15, 2006, at 0:44:34
In reply to Re: nothing to see here, move along SLS, notfred, posted by Jost on September 14, 2006, at 13:26:36
I'd really like to know, in a simple cogent and down-to-earth summary, not vague abstract or curtailed and cursory ones.<<
Wouldn't we all, dear Jost, wouldn't we all.
Good post, helped to ground some of my thoughts. Thanks for that :-)
Posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 8:18:57
In reply to Re: nothing to see here, move along SLS, notfred » Jost, posted by 10derHeart on September 15, 2006, at 0:44:34
> I'd really like to know, in a simple cogent and down-to-earth summary, not vague abstract or curtailed and cursory ones.<<
>
> Wouldn't we all, dear Jost, wouldn't we all.
>
> Good post, helped to ground some of my thoughts. Thanks for that :-)
How's this:As I understand it:
We have one person asking to remove a deputy from service. He would like Dr. Bob to develop what he terms an "impeachment" process for this purpose, perhaps with the aid of community feedback.
This one person who desires to remove a deputy from service has not yet identified the deputy he wishes to have removed.
We have two people having fun or not having fun bantoring over the relative use of the procedure of impeachement in this situation. We have one person entering this discussion contributing his stuff. We have another person entering the discussion acknowledging the wisdom of the previous entrant. Then we have this post, which is ruining everything.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 8:20:13
In reply to Re: nothing to see here, move along SLS, notfred, posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 8:18:57
Yeah. Let's move along.
- Scott
Posted by zazenducky on September 15, 2006, at 8:35:14
In reply to Re: nothing to see here, move along SLS, notfred, posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 8:18:57
?
>
> How's this:
>
> As I understand it:
>
> We have one person asking to remove a deputy from service. He would like Dr. Bob to develop what he terms an "impeachment" process for this purpose, perhaps with the aid of community feedback.
>
> This one person who desires to remove a deputy from service has not yet identified the deputy he wishes to have removed.
>
> We have two people having fun or not having fun bantoring over the relative use of the procedure of impeachement in this situation. We have one person entering this discussion contributing his stuff. We have another person entering the discussion acknowledging the wisdom of the previous entrant. Then we have this post, which is ruining everything.
>
>
> - Scott
Posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 8:42:29
In reply to I'm confused which person is me??? » SLS, posted by zazenducky on September 15, 2006, at 8:35:14
Some names were left in the vacuum of space to protect their civil virginity.
:-)
- Scott
Posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 8:48:50
In reply to I'm confused which person is me??? » SLS, posted by zazenducky on September 15, 2006, at 8:35:14
> Some names were left in the vacuum of space to protect their civil virginity.
The rest remained undeclared to allow them to resurrect it.
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on September 15, 2006, at 8:52:19
In reply to Re: nothing to see here, move along SLS, notfred, posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 8:18:57
> Then we have this post, which is ruining everything.
I'm sorry, Scott, but I'm going to have to ask you to please follow the civility guidelines of this site, which include not posting anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Dr. Bob is always free to override deputy decisions. His email is on the bottom of each page. Please feel free to email him if you believe this decision was made in error.
Dinah, acting as deputy for Dr. Bob
Posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 9:43:14
In reply to Please be civil » SLS, posted by Dinah on September 15, 2006, at 8:52:19
> > Then we have this post, which is ruining everything.
> I'm sorry, Scott, but I'm going to have to ask you to please follow the civility guidelines of this site, which include not posting anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.I must say that I am surprised that this text earned me a PBC. I will take some time to contemplate how this sentence qualifies as a breach of civility. I am really bewildered.
I guess it wasn't really supportive.
- Scott
Posted by zazenducky on September 15, 2006, at 9:54:31
In reply to Please be civil » SLS, posted by Dinah on September 15, 2006, at 8:52:19
Dinah I read this as gentle self deprecatory humour. I didn't think we go PBCed for talking about ourselves or our posts. Of course if he wasn't talking about his own post I guess I get PBCed now for thinking he was.
> > Then we have this post, which is ruining everything.
>
> I'm sorry, Scott, but I'm going to have to ask you to please follow the civility guidelines of this site, which include not posting anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
>
> If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
>
> Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
>
> Dr. Bob is always free to override deputy decisions. His email is on the bottom of each page. Please feel free to email him if you believe this decision was made in error.
>
> Dinah, acting as deputy for Dr. Bob
>
Posted by zazenducky on September 15, 2006, at 9:57:23
In reply to Re: I'm confused which person is me??? » zazenducky, posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 8:48:50
:)
> > Some names were left in the vacuum of space to protect their civil virginity.
>
> The rest remained undeclared to allow them to resurrect it.
>
>
> - Scott
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.