![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 32 to 56 of 131. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by gardenergirl on September 15, 2006, at 9:59:28
In reply to Re: nothing to see here, move along SLS, notfred, posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 8:18:57
> This one person who desires to remove a deputy from service has not yet identified the deputy he wishes to have removed.Sorry for not yet moving along.
I just wanted to point out that we don't really know whether it's one, two or all deputies. All of us have received related requests in the past year. I would be very surprised if those feelings had changed.
And I thank you for summing up. It's better than 'splaining when you're short on time and have to go rescue the princess. ;)
gg
Posted by Racer on September 15, 2006, at 10:56:06
In reply to Re: nothing to see here, move along SLS, notfred » SLS, posted by gardenergirl on September 15, 2006, at 9:59:28
Posted by gardenergirl on September 15, 2006, at 12:06:11
In reply to Re: Words matter » gardenergirl, posted by SLS on September 14, 2006, at 19:53:48
> 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 can see that, and it's probably a much better way for me to look at it. It's certainly not the first time I've encountered legal terms in posts or messages about something Babble-related.
>
> > 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 think that would be a positive outcome if more felt empowered to voice their views.
>
> > 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?I hadn't really thought that far. I suppose if Babblemail were not an option, the poster could reply to the other with something along the lines of, "I've asked Dr. Bob about this" or something. I don't know. My thought about letting the person know relates to my thoughts about problem-solving. To me, it makes the most sense to go first to the person with whom you have a problem and try to resolve it at that level. Then you start moving up the chain.
gg
Posted by notfred on September 15, 2006, at 13:27:54
In reply to Words matter, posted by gardenergirl on September 14, 2006, at 14:35:11
I am bothered by the reoccurring accusations without any supporting information or proof offered in a public manner. When supporting proof or information is offered it is always with conditions. To me this feels like manipulation. It may not be intended that way, though.
Once an accusation is made it cannot be taken back as the damage is done. I feel that if one cannot or will not provide proof or supporting information out in the open then it is best to handle this off the board.
Posted by Racer on September 15, 2006, at 13:37:26
In reply to Re: Words matter, posted by notfred on September 15, 2006, at 13:27:54
>
>
> I feel that if one cannot or will not provide proof or supporting information out in the open then it is best to handle this off the board.Yes! Thank you! And that, in my own personal opinion which matters to me if not to anyone else, is why it's best these matters be handled via email.
And now, I plan to go do something offline. Because I can. I have the technology -- if not the motivation...
Posted by AuntieMel on September 15, 2006, at 13:38:32
In reply to Re: Words matter, posted by notfred on September 15, 2006, at 13:27:54
Posted by AuntieMel on September 15, 2006, at 13:45:57
In reply to Re: Words matter, posted by notfred on September 15, 2006, at 13:27:54
It is actually a difficult thing.
If all is handled offline, then there is a possiblilty that a person might have accusations made against them and no way to defend him(her)self.
On the other hand, if someone is bothered and doesn't want to publicly "tattle" offline might be better.
And on another hand, if everything is public it can be disruptive.
Yet another hand - well, I'm out of hands....
I think what I find bothersome is public insinuations without details. This gives the other members of the board no chance to decide for themselves if there is any basis in them.
Posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 14:13:34
In reply to Re: Words matter, posted by notfred on September 15, 2006, at 13:27:54
Hi NotFred.
I agree with the others who agree with you. If there are any who will agree with me, then I will agree with them too.
> Once an accusation is made it cannot be taken back as the damage is done. I feel that if one cannot or will not provide proof or supporting information out in the open then it is best to handle this off the board.
Very well stated.
- 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.