![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 21 to 45 of 85. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 14:02:03
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gardenergirl-nam?1-3, posted by gardenergirl on July 10, 2005, at 13:55:29
> 1.
> >>In your above reply to me, you write,[...he, (Dr. Hsiung), is saying, do not read posts that might trigger one into being uncivil...]
> Well, if one sees a post, although the subject could be what could "trigger" uncivility, is it not also {the poster's name} in the subject line that is going to determine if the post will "trigger" uncivility?
> Lou
>
> Yes, Lou. The poster's name might be one way another poster decides whether to read the post or not.
>
> But Dr. Bob was not saying "don't read Lou's posts."
>
> 2.
> >>If you are going to reply to me, could you consider in your reply that I do not write the subject, but just that my post is usually a response or a reply to someone or some aspect of the thread? With that in mind, could there not be the potential to think that Dr. Hsiung;s statement(s) in question could have the potential for some others to think that it is my {name} that could have the potential to "trigger", for there is not usually a subject written in my subject lines?
> Lou
>
>
> I’ve said this before about my understanding of the word “potential”. If you are truly asking what the potential is, then yes there is the potential. There is also the potential for people dressed like purple cows to shop for alligator shoes in Macy’s. But is it likely? Are you asking how likely it is that someone perceives that Dr. Bob is specifically saying “don’t post to Lou?” It’s possible. It’s also possible that others can or have already decided that for themselves, regardless of Dr. Bob’s statement. There is also a likelihood that someone has decided that about my posts. And about Dinah’s. And about Dr. Bob’s.
>
> Ricky Nelson said it best, “You can’t please everyone, so you gotta please yourself.”
>
> 3.
> >>You wrote in your post above something like,[...he (Dr.Hsiung) is not saying to not read your posts spacifically...]
> But is there not the potential for some others to take what Dr. Hsiung has written in the initial post to perhaps have the potential to think that?
> Lou
>
> Yes, Lou. There is the potential. There is also the potential for koala bears to become the new national animal, replacing the turkey. (Don’t laugh, non-US folks! It’s true…we identify with turkeys!) But it’s not likely. Likely is the word that matters, imo.
>
> gg
>Gardenergirl.
Could there not be a difference here? Does not Dr. Hsiung connect in some way [...conducive to civic harmony...] with [...not read...]?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 14:10:36
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gardenergirl-nam?1-3, posted by gardenergirl on July 10, 2005, at 13:55:29
gardenergirl,
You wrote,[...not likely...].
Could you write what you think, IYO, that could make it [...not likely...]?
Lou
Posted by Tamar on July 10, 2005, at 14:17:25
In reply to Lou's reply to Tamara-nam?D » Tamar, posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 12:57:39
Hi Lou,
> You wrote,[...I think that...is possible...], [...a person that finds that they react to your posts...by replying in an uncivil manner might decide that it is in their own ...interests...not to read posts with your name in the subject line...].
> But is there the potential for some others to have the potential to think that there is a differance here? In this case, is not the moderator suggesting such? And is not the moderator haveing something about civility written with the suggestion?
Sorry, I’m not sure if I understood. A difference between what and what?
> And how could one conclude that just the name, in this case perhaps mine, would be enough to have someone not read what I posted?
A person could come to the conclusion that your name is linked to posts whose content has on occasion led to a particular poster’s uncivil reaction. That would not be your fault, of course. It would indicate that the person who reacts has a difficulty in responding to your posts more appropriately. (I am talking here about a hypothetical person who might choose not to read your posts, and not about any particular individual who may have reacted in an uncivil manner. I hope that is clear.)
> Could I not post something that may not "trigger" this poster unbeknowing to Dr. Hsiung or the poster? How could you know unless one read my post?
Well, that’s absolutely true. A person could not know if the post would be triggering unless he or she read it. But in my previous experience on the other board that I talked about, I discovered that the other man’s posts almost always triggered a powerful reaction. It wasn’t his fault. It was my discomfort with the way he talked about certain subjects. So after I stopped reading his posts he might have posted something that I might have liked and agreed with. Unfortunately I won’t know. It’s my loss, I suppose.
> Are you saying that {every} post of mine should be unread by the poster in question because that poster could have some type of "trigger" just by seeing my name?
Ah, I hoped you wouldn’t think that. No. I don’t think that every post of yours should be unread by the hypothetical person we’ve been talking about. And I don’t think that every post of yours should be unread by the particular poster who reacted in an uncivil manner on this occasion. But if he or she decides not to read your posts, I hope he or she will reflect on the reasons for that decision.
And I don’t think that your name can cause a trigger. I think the trigger would be caused by the hypothetical poster’s emotional reaction to the content of your posts. If that happened, it would not be your fault. It would be a problem for the hypothetical poster, who should (in an ideal world) think about why they have a problem with the content of your posts and try to discover a way to relate to you without reacting in an uncivil manner.
> Are you saying that my name "triggers" uncontrolled uncivility to some here?
Definitely not. I do not think your name triggers anything negative. Again, speaking from my previous experience on another forum, the man’s name never caused me any triggers. It was entirely a problem with my reaction to the content of his posts. So I didn’t read posts with his name in the subject line because I expected to be triggered by the content. I will emphasise again that the problem was with me and that he was well-liked and respected, just as you are. If any person decides not to read your posts I think it would be a shame. But I would hope that he or she would understand that the problem is in his or her reaction to what you say, and nothing to do with you as a person, nor with your name, nor with your beliefs.
And again, it’s not just about *your* name. The same could apply to anyone. Some people might see my name and decide not to read. I’m happy with that if it means I don’t get yelled at.
> If so, do you ,in your opinion, consider that rational?
Well, I don’t think strong emotional responses are particularly rational. But it’s undeniable that some people do react strongly to some posts, or to some posters. It’s difficult trying to understand and be understood at the best of times, and even harder when everything is written down and we have no visual cues to help us understand each other. There are misunderstandings at Babble nearly every day, and happily they can usually be sorted out quickly, as long as people remain polite. The serious problems arise when people find it difficult to remain polite.
I do hope you know that you are liked and respected here.
Best wishes,
Tamar
Posted by Tamar on July 10, 2005, at 14:31:57
In reply to Lou's reply to Tamara-ovrgen » Tamar, posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 13:36:47
Hi Lou,
Sorry; I replied before I saw this.
> You wrote,[...I think a suggestion not to read...].
> Could you consider the following if you are going to reply?
> Let us review what has been written. First,are you saying that you think that there is the potential for some others to think that Dr. Hsiung's suggestion to,[...not read...] could mean that just that my name in the subject line is needed to decide to [...not read...]? If so, is that not [...overgeneralizing....]?Hmm… I’m not sure I entirely understand. May I rephrase?
I think you’re asking if I think that other people might read Dr Bob’s suggestion and come to the conclusion that your name in the subject line would be the basis for making the decision not to read a post. And if I think that, the question is whether I am overgeneralizing.
Is that approximately right?
Is that’s the question you’re asking, then my answer would be:
I think that other people might read Dr Bob’s suggestion and come to the conclusion that any poster’s name in the subject line might be a reason not to read the post IF the person reading has a strong and uncivil reaction to that poster’s posts. Your name might be the name in the subject line. My name might be the name in the subject line. Or anyone else’s name.It might be overgeneralizing. I’m not sure. I’m inclined to feel that overgeneralizing might be better than being uncivil. But I’m prepared to be challenged on that, if you see things differently.
Best wishes,
Tamar
Posted by Tamar on July 10, 2005, at 14:36:43
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Tamara-ovrgen » Lou Pilder, posted by Tamar on July 10, 2005, at 14:31:57
About what I said:
> It might be overgeneralizing. I’m not sure. I’m inclined to feel that overgeneralizing might be better than being uncivil. But I’m prepared to be challenged on that, if you see things differently.
I read this again and I don't really know what it means. And I wrote it!
Could you say more about how you think the overgeneralizing might occur? Maybe then I can try to give a more coherent answer.
I may have to start not reading my own posts...
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 14:38:15
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Tamara-ovrgen » Lou Pilder, posted by Tamar on July 10, 2005, at 14:31:57
Tamara,
Could it, IYO, be [...jumping to a conclusion...]?
Lou
Posted by Tamar on July 10, 2005, at 14:53:17
In reply to Lou's reply to Tamara-jmptoconclu » Tamar, posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 14:38:15
Hi Lou
> Could it, IYO, be [...jumping to a conclusion...]?
If someone decides not to read a post on the basis of the name in the subject line, then they might indeed be jumping to a conclusion. But at the same time they might be making an educated guess, based on previous experience.
I want to emphasise as strongly as possible that a person making the decision not to read a particular person’s posts should be making that decision based on their own personal foibles.
If you are worried that lots of people will stop reading your posts, then I want to reassure you. I don’t think anyone believes your posts should not be read. If someone decides that they can’t handle the emotions they feel when they read the content of your posts, then I hope they will take appropriate measures to ensure they refrain from being uncivil to you. But I have seen many people post in support of you and I took part in your recent thread on Social, as did many other people, and I genuinely believe you are well liked here. I doubt people will stop reading your posts.
Best wishes,
Tamar
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 15:13:07
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Tamara-jmptoconclu » Lou Pilder, posted by Tamar on July 10, 2005, at 14:53:17
Tamara,
You wrote,[...if someone {decides}not to read a post on the basis of the name in the subject line...].
Could there be a difference between when someone {decides}on their own [...not to read...] and when they are {suggested} to [...not read...]?
Lou
Posted by Tamar on July 10, 2005, at 15:41:13
In reply to Lou's reply to Tamara-authorandobednce? » Tamar, posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 15:13:07
Hi Lou
> You wrote,[...if someone {decides}not to read a post on the basis of the name in the subject line...].
> Could there be a difference between when someone {decides}on their own [...not to read...] and when they are {suggested} to [...not read...]?Ah, did you think that Dr Bob was advising that poster (or other posters) not to read your posts? I didn’t understand it that way.
Sometimes I hear people say, “If you don’t have something nice to say, then don’t say anything at all.” I read Dr Bob’s suggestion as a bit like that. Like, “If you can’t read without posting an uncivil response, then don’t read at all.” And I read it as directed at all posters, not just at the people posting to that thread, of course.
It seemed to me that the suggestion not to read is only made in the circumstances when the reply might be uncivil.
Does that make sense?
Best wishes,
Tamar
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 16:02:36
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Tamara-authorandobednce? » Lou Pilder, posted by Tamar on July 10, 2005, at 15:41:13
Tamara,
You wrote,[...Dr bob... advising...not to read your posts?...].
Let us look at the innitial post by Dr. Hsiung.
[...its more "conducive to civic harmony and welfare...{not to read in the first place}...]. This was later revised ,[...another alternative is to ...].
In your opinion, do you think that the latter changes the former? If so, what is changed?
Lou
Posted by Tamar on July 10, 2005, at 16:37:27
In reply to Lou's reply to Tamara- » Tamar, posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 16:02:36
Hi Lou
> You wrote,[...Dr bob... advising...not to read your posts?...].
> Let us look at the innitial post by Dr. Hsiung.
> [...its more "conducive to civic harmony and welfare...{not to read in the first place}...]. This was later revised ,[...another alternative is to ...].
> In your opinion, do you think that the latter changes the former? If so, what is changed?Actually, I read the former post the same way I read the latter. I understood why Dr Bob clarified his meaning in the second post, but I read his first post the same way. In other words, I assumed when I read his first post that he was suggesting not reading posts if reading might lead to an uncivil response.
I can understand that confusion can sometimes arise when people read something written when there is no visual context to help. But in this instance it never occurred to me for a moment that Dr Bob might be suggesting that people stop reading your posts (or anyone else’s) for no reason. I made the assumption when I read his first post that he meant it was better not to read IF reading was going to result in an uncivil reply.
The bottom line is that I just don’t believe Dr Bob wants people to stop reading your posts. What I believe he wants is that people post only civil replies. And I think other people here would agree with that.
Best wishes,
TamarP.S. Just one little thing… Confusingly enough, there’s another person here called TamaraJ and she’s sometimes known as Tamara, where I’m just Tamar. I thought I should mention it in case she thinks your posts are directed to her. I hope that’s OK.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 16:59:53
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Tamara-, posted by Tamar on July 10, 2005, at 16:37:27
Tamar,
You wrote,[...I assumed...].
Could you clarify if you think that there could be the potential for others to have the potential to think something else if they do not make the assumption(s) that you have here?
Lou
Posted by Tamar on July 10, 2005, at 17:45:15
In reply to Lou's reply to Tamar-asum » Tamar, posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 16:59:53
Hi Lou
> You wrote,[...I assumed...].
> Could you clarify if you think that there could be the potential for others to have the potential to think something else if they do not make the assumption(s) that you have here?It’s hard to say. I don’t know for sure how others might have read it. There are always gaps in written language, and people fill the gaps according to their experience, intuition, and all kinds of other things. Context is particularly important. The context of the suggestion was a PBC. The context indicated to me that the suggestion was made in the spirit of promoting civility. That’s what led me to my assumptions. I think, therefore, that many people would be likely to make the same assumption I did, because I think the context would lead people to interpret the suggestion in the light of the request for civility.
If you didn’t read the suggestion as part of the request for civility, could it be that your direct involvement in the situation elicited an emotional response that might have got in the way of seeing the suggestion in the context of the PBC? Or am I off base?
I still think that people here value you as a person, and value your participation here, and won’t stop reading your posts.
Best wishes,
Tamar
Posted by gardenergirl on July 10, 2005, at 20:04:40
In reply to Lou's reply to gardenergirl-deminimus? » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 14:10:36
> Could there not be a difference here? Does not Dr. Hsiung connect in some way [...conducive to civic harmony...] with [...not read...]?
Yes Lou, he does. Again, it is not about you. It is about suggesting a way for people to deal with posts that trigger their emotions to the point they then are not able to be civil.
> gardenergirl,
> You wrote,[...not likely...].
> Could you write what you think, IYO, that could make it [...not likely...]?
> LouI think it's not likely because I doubt that Dr. Bob would invest that much of his energy in suggesting that others not read your posts, Lou. He has no reason to, and there is no precedent for him suggesting anyone not read a specific poster's posts.
I don't know how many other ways to say it's not about you, Lou, so I'm bowing out now.
gg
Posted by Dinah on July 11, 2005, at 18:32:02
In reply to Lou's reply to gardenergirl-gtbk » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 6:09:28
Dr. Bob makes that suggestion all the time, to different posters, in response to different posters.
Because of that, I think it so unlikely as to be impossible that he meant you in particular or any one of the dozens of other posters he wrote the same response to in particular.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 11, 2005, at 20:31:12
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gardenergirl-gtbk » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on July 11, 2005, at 18:32:02
Friends, It is written in this thread that Dr. Hsiung makes that suggestion all the time,( to not read?).
If this is the suggestion that Dr. Hsiung {...makes all the time...}, could anyone posts a URL to such? I would like such in order to see if there is a difference.
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on July 11, 2005, at 21:06:54
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-maksaltim, posted by Lou Pilder on July 11, 2005, at 20:31:12
Just curious, Lou. Did you try looking for one first yourself and not have any luck?
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 11, 2005, at 21:14:05
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread-maksaltim » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on July 11, 2005, at 21:06:54
gg,
You wrote,[...did you try looking...?]
I have tried searching and I would like for others to post any URL that they find in their searching.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 11, 2005, at 21:41:31
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Tamar-asum » Lou Pilder, posted by Tamar on July 10, 2005, at 17:45:15
Tamar,
You wrote,[...the suggestion was made...of promoting civility...]..
Could you clarify if, in your opinion, someone has to have it suggested to them to not read someone's posts, including possibly mine, here? Or could it {go without saying} that an alternative to not responding is also to [...not read...]?
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on July 12, 2005, at 13:34:46
In reply to Lou's reply to gardenergirl-costrs » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on July 11, 2005, at 21:14:05
> gg,
> You wrote,[...did you try looking...?]
> I have tried searching and I would like for others to post any URL that they find in their searching.
> LouYou're right, Lou. They are hard to search for. I had no luck using google, but I wasn't sure what to google, anyway.
gg
Posted by Tamar on July 12, 2005, at 19:09:55
In reply to Lou's reply to Tamar-gowthotsayg? » Tamar, posted by Lou Pilder on July 11, 2005, at 21:41:31
Hi Lou,
> You wrote,[...the suggestion was made...of promoting civility...]..
> Could you clarify if, in your opinion, someone has to have it suggested to them to not read someone's posts, including possibly mine, here? Or could it {go without saying} that an alternative to not responding is also to [...not read...]?Anything *could* go without saying. Sometimes in the context a reminder can help.
Best wishes,
Tamar
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 12, 2005, at 20:04:18
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Tamar-gowthotsayg?, posted by Tamar on July 12, 2005, at 19:09:55
> Hi Lou,
>
> > You wrote,[...the suggestion was made...of promoting civility...]..
> > Could you clarify if, in your opinion, someone has to have it suggested to them to not read someone's posts, including possibly mine, here? Or could it {go without saying} that an alternative to not responding is also to [...not read...]?
>
> Anything *could* go without saying. Sometimes in the context a reminder can help.
>
> Best wishes,
> Tamar
>Tamar,
You wrote,[...could go without saying...] and you wrote,[...a reminder {could help}...]
Are you saying that there are posters here that do not know that they can not read a post on their own volition and need to be reminded of that? If so, is there something here on this forum that causes anyone to think that it is {requierd} to read every post here, or requierd to read all of my posts here?
Lou
Posted by Tamar on July 12, 2005, at 20:45:07
In reply to Lou's reply yo Tamar-reqrdredng? » Tamar, posted by Lou Pilder on July 12, 2005, at 20:04:18
Hi Lou,
> You wrote,[...could go without saying...] and you wrote,[...a reminder {could help}...]
> Are you saying that there are posters here that do not know that they can not read a post on their own volition and need to be reminded of that? If so, is there something here on this forum that causes anyone to think that it is {requierd} to read every post here, or requierd to read all of my posts here?
> LouI think the purpose of the reminder is to remind people that not reading posts may be a means of maintaining civility. The reminder is helpful if it promotes civility. It's possible that some posters at some times do find it useful to be reminded that they can refrain from reading some people's posts.
Best wishes,
Tamar
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 12, 2005, at 21:03:16
In reply to Re: Lou's reply yo Tamar-reqrdredng? » Lou Pilder, posted by Tamar on July 12, 2005, at 20:45:07
Tamar,
You wrote,[...the purpose of the reminder is to remind people that not reading posts may be a means of maintaining civility...].
Are you saying that Dr. Hsiung suggested (reminded) the poster to ,[...not read...]in the post with me so that the poster would not write an uncivil post? If so, then would it not be that there is the potential for the poster to have the potential to think that he/she could not read any post here or he/she might write an uncivil post? Or are you saying that it is just the posts of only you?
Lou
Posted by Jakeman on July 12, 2005, at 21:26:29
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dr. Hsiung's post-felhum » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on July 9, 2005, at 23:43:22
Honestly, I tried to read it but got lost. any conclusion?
warm regards ~Jake
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.