![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 22 to 46 of 46. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2005, at 20:59:23
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to 10derHeart-bgcheslimbrgr, posted by Dinah on March 27, 2005, at 20:36:36
Posted by TofuEmmy on March 27, 2005, at 21:00:06
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah's post-bgchese~alwyscomp » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2005, at 20:58:48
Posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2005, at 21:05:08
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah's post-bgchese~alwyscomp » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2005, at 20:58:48
> Your first offered link at the end wrote that the idiom is not always considered complimentary and could be considered to have derisive undertones.
Most of the language can be used ironically or sarcastically. If we banned anything that 'could' be used that way then it would be the end of Babble, Lou. We wouldn't be able to write anymore.
:-(> Not evryone thinks of idioms in all the same way.
What someone thinks idioms mean (speakers meaning) can be different from what idioms actually mean (standard meaning). Sometimes there is more than one standard meaning. Charity again... Choose the meaning that is most charitable unless to do so would mean that you can't make much sense of the post.
If Babble is too different from the real world then it doesn't really do us any favours with respect to dealing with the real world.
The more restrictive it gets the less comfortable people feel to communicate freely.
Posted by Dinah on March 27, 2005, at 21:10:24
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah's post-bgchese~alwyscomp » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2005, at 20:58:48
Well, thank heavens for google!!!
It's relatively easy now to figure out the standard accepted meaning of phrases and idioms, whatever country you're from.
Go to google.com.
Type in the phrase or idiom in quotation marks ("bees knees" for example) and then the word etymology. So for example ["bees knees" etymology}. Google will bring you to any number of sites that devote themselves to the study of language and idiom. :)
Ain't technology grand?
And as Alexandra said, it's only charitable to assume that someone means what they said unless it's clear that it doesn't fit in context.
Hope that helped, Lou. (Plus the writer of the post made clear that she didn't mean Limberger, and I'm sure you accept her explanation as the truth.)
However, should someone call you "The Big Cheese", Lou, it would be fair enough for you to say that you've never been fond of the expression, and could they call you {insert acceptable synonym here} instead. If someone did that, I'd be polite enough to comply. I might not understand, but I'd be polite enough to comply. I'm sure most people would, aren't you?
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2005, at 21:21:03
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dinah's post-bgchese~alwyscomp » Lou Pilder, posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2005, at 21:05:08
a_k,
You wrote,[...the more restrictive...the less comfortable...].
The restriction of speech, IMO, does not have to be less comfortable for the members here. I am all in favor of freedom of speech, but absolute freedom of speech I am not in favor of, in a mental-health community that has a diverse membership. I agree with Dr. Hsiung about his policy about offensive language or profanity to be unacceptable on a mental health forum. There are places for that type of speech, but I agree that this is not the place. I am in favor of a {well-defined} speech policy here and that is one reason that I am requesting from the administration a determination concerning the use of idioms here.
Lou
Posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2005, at 21:33:23
In reply to Lou's reply to alexandra_k-themorresticthemorunco » alexandra_k, posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2005, at 21:21:03
> The restriction of speech, IMO, does not have to be less comfortable for the members here.
It doesn't have to be. But if one cares about trying not to step out of line then more rules = more things to have to worry about, and thus less comfort by extension.
> I am all in favor of freedom of speech, but absolute freedom of speech I am not in favor of,
Me neither. I don't mind if all those racists and Jew haters etc etc feel a bit uncomfortable about having their freedom of speech restricted here. Absolute freedom isn't what I meant to advocate.
>I am in favor of a {well-defined} speech policy here and that is one reason that I am requesting from the administration a determination concerning the use of idioms here.
Yup. But an awful lot of people use idioms, Lou.
Mostly they are genuine.
Mostly people comply with standard meaning.
Then there is a fuzziness with respect to what exactly counts as an idiom or not.
Would you want people to be blocked for repeatedly using idioms that aren't even intended as an insult or sarcastic?
Would you prefer it if people here speak formally?
I dare say those would be the consequences of banishing idioms altogether.Just because some people might seek out the worst possible interpretation and 'may possibly' be offended...
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2005, at 21:48:31
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to alexandra_k-themorresticthemorunco » Lou Pilder, posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2005, at 21:33:23
a_k,
You wrote,[...would you want people blocked for..using idioms...?].
I would like a well-defined policy concerning the use of idioms.
If I was to make the policy I would have the following:
A. Idioms toward a person or group would not be acceptable
B. Idioms that question another persons character would not be acceptable
C. Idioms that say for another person to do something would not be acceptable.
D. idioms that could be interpreted as uncomplimentery would be unacceptable
E. Other good and just reasons for unacceptability
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2005, at 22:12:53
In reply to Lou's reply to alexandra_k-weldefndidio » alexandra_k, posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2005, at 21:48:31
a_k,
Some spacific examples could be:
These are OK
A. it's still rock-n-roll to me
B. you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows
And these would not be OK:
A. Take evrything Dr. Hsiung says with a grain of salt
B. Dinah is the big cheese here.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on March 27, 2005, at 22:44:06
In reply to Lou's reply to alexandra_k-spcfcexmpls » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2005, at 22:12:53
But Lou. Calling me the big cheese wouldn't be uncivil. Merely inaccurate. And I, and others I'm sure, would be willing to point out that Dr. Bob is the big cheese.
It isn't uncivil to be inaccurate.
And I think Dr. Bob says something equivilant to "take everything you read on the internet with a grain of salt" in the intro to the board. He doesn't use those exact words, but the words he uses mean the same thing.
Why don't we just let Dr. Bob determine incivility on a case by case basis, using context.
Posted by Spoc on March 27, 2005, at 23:32:43
In reply to Lou's reply to alexandra_k-spcfcexmpls » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2005, at 22:12:53
> a_k,
> Some spacific examples could be:
> These are OK
> A. it's still rock-n-roll to me
> B. you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows
> LouHi,
I think A] could frequently be used sarcastically, in a case where someone is indicating to another that they may THINK what they are saying is different or new, but it's really all the same, "...still rock and roll to me!"
And that B] could often be used sarcastically, in answer to something like "What are your qualifications to advise/comment on this?" "Well, you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows!"
Posted by rainbowbrite on March 27, 2005, at 23:50:51
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to alexandra_k-spcfcexmpls, posted by Spoc on March 27, 2005, at 23:32:43
Posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2005, at 23:52:15
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to alexandra_k-spcfcexmpls, posted by Dinah on March 27, 2005, at 22:44:06
I think Lou's point is more that he would like to see idioms banned so that their use would count as uncivil. But Spoc is right - even the 'acceptable' idioms have inappropriate usages. In fact - the whole bloody language does so unless you want to stop people Babbling altogether...
Posted by gardenergirl on March 28, 2005, at 0:45:57
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to alexandra_k-spcfcexmpls » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2005, at 23:52:15
Posted by alexandra_k on March 28, 2005, at 0:51:56
In reply to To quote a wise woman...deep breaths, alex... (nm), posted by gardenergirl on March 28, 2005, at 0:45:57
Thanks gg.
I am ok.
:-)Really.
I just like that one because it goes through the civility checker well enough.
And I find that amusing.
Heh heh.
B*llshit.
Heh heh.
I am ok.
I will take deeeeeeep breaths :-)
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 28, 2005, at 2:35:17
In reply to Lou's request to the administration-defam?, posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2005, at 7:02:01
> I am requesting that you write a determination as to if the following is acceptable or not in relation to the guidlines of the forum.
I do think it's acceptable.
Dinah, thanks for those links!
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on March 28, 2005, at 9:46:50
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to alexandra_k-spcfcexmpls, posted by Spoc on March 27, 2005, at 23:32:43
Posted by 10derHeart on March 28, 2005, at 11:02:19
In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on March 28, 2005, at 2:35:17
> > I am requesting that you write a determination as to if the following is acceptable or not in relation to the guidlines of the forum.
>
> I do think it's acceptable.
>
> Dinah, thanks for those links!
>
> BobI'm glad. But I will probably refrain from referring to you in that way in the future. But it was/is kind of an interesting thread....
Posted by Spoc on March 28, 2005, at 11:36:45
In reply to Re: swooping - or staying? (nm) » Spoc, posted by AuntieMel on March 28, 2005, at 9:46:50
Hee hee... the "swoop" was unintentional, so I reckon (like always, anywhere) any "stay" would be too! ;^)
Hope to only read *occasionally*, and only reply to that which I KNOW I can keep concise... HA! As if such a thing exists for me.
...ooooh ooooh ohhhh!! Here's another swoop that I fought back yesterday! A little something created by Slinky that I used to love to plagiarize:
()_()
(*;*)
(__)@
(")(")Happy belated bunny day!
(AAHHH.... Appeased for the moment! ;)
Posted by Spoc on March 28, 2005, at 11:42:32
In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on March 28, 2005, at 2:35:17
Posted by Mark H. on March 28, 2005, at 16:07:51
In reply to Re:Ok know yer glad 2 C me but'll keep it Admin ;) (nm) » Dr. Bob, posted by Spoc on March 28, 2005, at 11:42:32
Posted by 10derHeart on March 28, 2005, at 16:50:03
In reply to Re: Grande Fromage :-) (nm), posted by Mark H. on March 28, 2005, at 16:07:51
Posted by Jai Narayan on March 29, 2005, at 23:40:48
In reply to Re: Grande Fromage :-) (nm), posted by Mark H. on March 28, 2005, at 16:07:51
it's that big cheese?
my god.
Ja*
Posted by gardenergirl on March 30, 2005, at 2:30:35
In reply to Re: Grande Fromage :-), posted by Jai Narayan on March 29, 2005, at 23:40:48
Posted by Mark H. on March 30, 2005, at 10:21:53
In reply to Re: Grande Fromage :-), posted by Jai Narayan on March 29, 2005, at 23:40:48
Dear Jai,
We live in a smallish town with a smaller, older mall and a newer, larger mall, and they are both pretty cheesy. When the new one was built, we started refering to them as the "Grand Mall" and the "Petit Mall." :-)
Mark H.
Posted by Jai Narayan on March 31, 2005, at 9:18:14
In reply to Re: Grande Fromage :-) » Jai Narayan, posted by Mark H. on March 30, 2005, at 10:21:53
This is the end of the 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.