![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 251 to 275 of 275. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on June 20, 2006, at 23:10:16
In reply to Re: What folks have been saying » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on June 20, 2006, at 22:49:18
Just to clarify, are you suggesting that Dr. Bob give up veto power on Babble?
The name is associated with him, through his copyright (per the bottom of each page it says that anyway). And he pays the costs associated with the site.
I wouldn't give up veto power while my name was associated with the site and while I was paying the bills if I were Dr. Bob.
Or did I completely misunderstand, which seems more than possible - especially today. Misunderstanding seems to be my middle name today. And I can't even blame the meds.
Posted by Jakeman on June 20, 2006, at 23:41:28
In reply to It's not 2004 anymore Dr. Bob..., posted by curtm on June 20, 2006, at 22:54:36
I have ADD and have trouble reading thru all these threads. It's highly frustrating and I won't be back often. BUT...it's just amazing to me though that someone would be blocked for four weeks for saying:
"I think the world would be a better place without religion."
"i believe the world would be a better place if people appealed to natural rather than supernatural explanations."
It is a VALID OPINION based on HER OWN personal beliefs, not directed at anyone, and she herself is being treated uncivily because (i.e. a moderator) made a unilateral judgement that her statement is uncivil. It devalues her and makes the block uncivil in itself.
She didn't say Jane X or anyone else is an *sshole. That's uncivil
good grief! let's be reasonable!!!
Bob will you respond to this or are you going to let it get lost in the ongoing threads?
Jake
Someone mentioned he needed more evidence or arguments. Am I pissing in the wind?
Posted by muffled on June 20, 2006, at 23:46:50
In reply to Re: What folks have been saying » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on June 20, 2006, at 23:10:16
> Just to clarify, are you suggesting that Dr. Bob give up veto power on Babble?
>
> The name is associated with him, through his copyright (per the bottom of each page it says that anyway). And he pays the costs associated with the site.
>
> I wouldn't give up veto power while my name was associated with the site and while I was paying the bills if I were Dr. Bob.
>
> Or did I completely misunderstand, which seems more than possible - especially today. Misunderstanding seems to be my middle name today. And I can't even blame the meds.***I agree with you Dinah, I too feel Bob should have final veto. The prob seems to be that he doesn't listen to us when so many of agree on something. He just won't back down. So we have NO power. NONE. ZIP. ZERO.
I understand that there needs to some restarints, its just the restraints are too capricious and rather unrealistic at times, and that causes alot of dissention and fear.
Hey, and don't be so hard on yourself.
I like you Dinah.
You OK.
Muffled
Posted by muffled on June 20, 2006, at 23:50:07
In reply to Re: What folks have been saying, posted by Dr. Bob on June 20, 2006, at 22:26:19
>Thanks for the tweaks. Any suggestions on how to address questions better?
****Bless your heart I'm sure your a busy man, but maybe answers that are more than one line??????????
> And I would add 3) Many are not happy with the blocking policy in general.
>Sure, but I see that as related to 1) and 2)...*****1.friend thing 2. powerlessness
Gaaaaaackkkkkkkkkk. Manoman you are @#$%. YES, we FEEL hurt and distressed for our friends, and we FEEL powerless. WHEN we(or they) are blocked.HOWEVER its not JUST that. Bob you seem to be fixated on that particular aspect of it.
>The goal is to have it be supportive here.
****We also feel FEAR, that we MAY be blocked, over something relatively trivial, at the whim of Bob.You can go online and make a post and be shocked to find your blocked over a stupid word that noone actually cares about(for example). That doesn't make me feel supported. We DO try to support each other, and WE are very often willing to give the person the benefit of the doubt on alot of stuff, cuz we are TRYING TO BE SUPPORTIVE. We know how much blocks hurt. Alot of people here have problems with self esteem, abandonment, rejection etc, and I REALLY don't think blocking is always the answer. Some of the blocks have been ridiculous and we have TRIED so HARD to try and help you to understand, but you don't :-(
We are human, we will have moments, we will err, but blocking should ONLY be for serious OBVIOUSLY harmful interactions. "Lighter" infractions, for want of a better word, should just be warned. Give the person some time to backpeddal and understand their error and LEARN. Blocking teaches by FEAR. Many of us have learned too much about being obedient thru fear. IT IS WRONG. We should be given correction in kinder ways, and if we are still creating HAVOC, THEN a block is in order. More pbc's AS NEEDED only, and WAY, WAY, less blocks.>Maybe a related issue is that of a more democratic structure?
***We have spoken, time and again, but Bob doesn't hear us :-(
No democracy. See this post:http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060525/msgs/658093.html
We presented all our info, but it didn't matter. Bob doesn't hear or understand. Bob wanted MORE, or no reconsidering. We said it all, what more could we say? No democracy. Alex was blocked cuz she was spazzing bout blocks, they were freaking her and she was getting no response from Bob and she was escalating in utter frustration.
Can you let us in on why the one liners?
Can you tell us or point us in the direction of info on better ways of communicating with you that you will understand better?
Do you tend to respond more to anger, or kindness?(I'd say the first, which is pretty human of you)
I'm just tired and at a loss right now......
Bob I want to beleive your an ok guy....but sometimes I get back to feeling like a lab rat being observed as it responds to various stimuli :-(
Thanks anyways.
Muffled
Posted by Tamar on June 21, 2006, at 5:07:12
In reply to Re: What folks have been saying, posted by Dr. Bob on June 20, 2006, at 22:26:19
> I think it's kind of moot because she was blocked again:
I would agree with you if I thought this were an issue of authority.
But I think it is an issue of justice. If the first block is in fact unjust, then it should be revoked, regardless of whether she was blocked again.
And that’s why I still think it’s worth talking about the first block. The issue of whether it was appropriate still seems to be a question in the minds of many people in this community.
Furthermore, the current block was doubled to 8 weeks because the earlier block had been four weeks. It seems to me that if the initial four week block turns out to be unjust, then the 8 week block should be reduced to four weeks (and I think most of that time has been served).
If you’re able to respond to this I’d really appreciate it.
Tamar
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 21, 2006, at 6:12:32
In reply to Re: What folks have been saying » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on June 20, 2006, at 23:10:16
> Just to clarify, are you suggesting that Dr. Bob give up veto power on Babble?
I'm certain you misunderstood.
I can recall many posts of his, explicitly stating that this place is not a democracy. All of the deputies must defer to him. We must wait upon him, until he comes around again. He doesn't even schedule things, to make sure people are around at the right time. Because it doesn't matter. It's his sandbox.
For him to suggest that a democracy is evolving is false. It cannot be so, unless he's made decisions that he hasn't even bothered to inform us of. Which is another problem he seems prone to creating.
> The name is associated with him, through his copyright (per the bottom of each page it says that anyway). And he pays the costs associated with the site.
It can be his democracy, too. That issue is not germane.
> I wouldn't give up veto power while my name was associated with the site and while I was paying the bills if I were Dr. Bob.
Which is as much as saying you know this isn't a democracy, isn't it?
> Or did I completely misunderstand, which seems more than possible - especially today. Misunderstanding seems to be my middle name today. And I can't even blame the meds.If it was a democracy..... If *only* it was a democracy....
Dinah, this is not intended to be any kind of a slight, to you, or to other deputies. Bob carefully selects people who become his acolytes. People who can weigh the posts here, not in terms of the rule as written, but in terms of how he has applied the rule. With no regard to what is written.
The problem is, it presumes that all posters know of, have read, understood, and recalled all the minor and major variations in what I have collectively called Bobjectivity. The FAQ is largely a waste of effort, as it stands now.
Try and explain the Do Not Post rule, as if you were going to create a complete description of it, for an interested newbie. And then, compare *that* description to the FAQ.
This is not a democracy, here. It is an oligarchy.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 21, 2006, at 6:17:00
In reply to Is it moot? » Dr. Bob, posted by Tamar on June 21, 2006, at 5:07:12
> Furthermore, the current block was doubled to 8 weeks because the earlier block had been four weeks. It seems to me that if the initial four week block turns out to be unjust, then the 8 week block should be reduced to four weeks (and I think most of that time has been served).
That may be the end of the administrative part. But it isn't the end, in a truly civil environment. She deserves an apology. She deserves reparations, for unjust suffering.
Correcting the administrative part is admitting a mistake was made. That's only a part of the job.
Lar
Posted by Dinah on June 21, 2006, at 8:16:17
In reply to Re: What folks have been saying » Dinah, posted by Larry Hoover on June 21, 2006, at 6:12:32
> Which is as much as saying you know this isn't a democracy, isn't it?
Of *course* I know it's not a democracy.
I wouldn't stay here if it were a democracy. I like having Dr. Bob run the place. I've never made any secret of that.
Posted by Dinah on June 21, 2006, at 9:27:31
In reply to Re: What folks have been saying » Dinah, posted by Larry Hoover on June 21, 2006, at 6:12:32
> Dinah, this is not intended to be any kind of a slight, to you, or to other deputies. Bob carefully selects people who become his acolytes. People who can weigh the posts here, not in terms of the rule as written, but in terms of how he has applied the rule. With no regard to what is written.
And this is wrong because? Even the judiciary considers prior case law as well as the written word. And we're not the judiciary. We're not part of an oligarchy. We're not moderators. We're deputies. Which means that we are limited to applying Bob's rules as Bob would have them applied.
I don't think that makes us acolytes.
I am truly, deeply saddened. I have long stood your friend, on board and off. I have protested blocks that I did not think were proportionate, I have lobbied for leniency when I thought the rules had been properly applied. I have steadfastly refused to take sides in any disagreements between two or more of my friends, even to risking the friendship. While I empathize with feelings, I also emphasize that I consider all parties a friend. I am very sad when I read "acolyte" and "oligarchy" under any conditions. Today, I am more sad than usual.
> This is not a democracy, here. It is an oligarchy.
>
> Lar
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 21, 2006, at 10:44:13
In reply to Is it moot? » Dr. Bob, posted by Tamar on June 21, 2006, at 5:07:12
> It is a VALID OPINION based on HER OWN personal beliefs, not directed at anyone, and she herself is being treated uncivily because (i.e. a moderator) made a unilateral judgement that her statement is uncivil. It devalues her and makes the block uncivil in itself.
>
> JakeI agree, it's an opinion that she's entitled to. But not all opinions are civil. Different points of view are fine, and in fact encouraged, but freedom of speech is limited here.
I agree, it's not directed at any particular individual. But religion is important to lots of people. IMO, saying the world would be a better place without it isn't being sensitive to their feelings.
I agree, it was a unilateral judgment. And it wasn't supportive to block her, but my role here isn't to be supportive.
I disagree, the issue isn't her, it's posting her opinion. Her I value, and I'm sorry she can't join in right now.
--
> We also feel FEAR, that we MAY be blocked, over something relatively trivial, at the whim of Bob.
That's a good point. People may become afraid of that (maybe especially if they've been hurt when vulnerable in the past). But I take civility seriously and don't consider it trivial.
> We are human, we will have moments, we will err, but blocking should ONLY be for serious OBVIOUSLY harmful interactions. "Lighter" infractions, for want of a better word, should just be warned. Give the person some time to backpeddal and understand their error and LEARN. Blocking teaches by FEAR. Many of us have learned too much about being obedient thru fear. IT IS WRONG. We should be given correction in kinder ways, and if we are still creating HAVOC, THEN a block is in order.
I do try to treat lighter infractions more lightly. And everyone has a chance to learn. But the primary goal of blocking isn't to teach, it's to keep it civil here. Whether or not people learn.
IMO, it would be a lot less supportive if there were only blocks after serious obviously harmful posts that created havoc.
> We have spoken, time and again, but Bob doesn't hear us :-(
I hear you, I just don't always agree.
> Can you let us in on why the one liners?
> Can you tell us or point us in the direction of info on better ways of communicating with you that you will understand better?
>
> MuffledI try to be to the point. That's a good question, how to communicate better. Does anyone have any ideas?
--
> > I think it's kind of moot because she was blocked again
>
> the current block was doubled to 8 weeks because the earlier block had been four weeks. It seems to me that if the initial four week block turns out to be unjust, then the 8 week block should be reduced to four weeks (and I think most of that time has been served).
>
> TamarWell, that's why I said "kind of"...
I've discussed this with the deputies, and my decision is to let both blocks stand.
Bob
Posted by curtm on June 21, 2006, at 11:02:43
In reply to Re: hearing and fearing, posted by Dr. Bob on June 21, 2006, at 10:44:13
You have done well by stepping up and explaining yourself better and I appreciate that. I may not wholly agree with you, but I can deal with it.
> I agree, it's not directed at any particular individual. But religion is important to lots of people. IMO, saying the world would be a better place without it isn't being sensitive to their feelings.
Religion is also OFFENSIVE to lots of people. IMO, saying the world would be a better place WITH it isn't being sensitive to their feelings.
I would put my money on you being a devout man of faith and bias probably plays a big part here. If that helps you define civility in the world, then I am happy for you.
I apologize for calling you naive. Good day :)
Posted by Dinah on June 21, 2006, at 11:02:53
In reply to Re: hearing and fearing, posted by Dr. Bob on June 21, 2006, at 10:44:13
> I try to be to the point. That's a good question, how to communicate better. Does anyone have any ideas?
My only idea is a simple one. If you reflect back what you think people have said, and you come to an agreement that that is actually what they said, then they'll at least know they were heard.
If you then disagree with them, there still might be problems but I don't see much you can do about that. You can't please all the people all the time, or even most of the people most of the time. I think you should do what you think is right, and hope that people will understand and respect that, while knowing there will be some people who don't.
Remind me of this sometime, will you?
Posted by curtm on June 21, 2006, at 11:06:15
In reply to Re: hearing and fearing » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 21, 2006, at 11:02:53
>> Remind me of this sometime, will you?
made me smile
good day
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 21, 2006, at 12:56:03
In reply to Re: hearing and fearing » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 21, 2006, at 11:02:53
> Religion is also OFFENSIVE to lots of people. IMO, saying the world would be a better place WITH it isn't being sensitive to their feelings.
I tried to distinguish between disagreeing and being sensitive and respectful above, see:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060525/msgs/655122.html
> You have done well by stepping up and explaining yourself better and I appreciate that. I may not wholly agree with you, but I can deal with it.
>
> I apologize for calling you naive. Good day :)
>
> curtmThanks, same to you!
--
> My only idea is a simple one. If you reflect back what you think people have said, and you come to an agreement that that is actually what they said, then they'll at least know they were heard.
>
> DinahThat's a good idea, I'll try to remember that, thanks!
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on June 21, 2006, at 16:19:53
In reply to Re: hearing and fearing, posted by Dr. Bob on June 21, 2006, at 10:44:13
>
> I agree, it's an opinion that she's entitled to. But not all opinions are civil. Different points of view are fine, and in fact encouraged, but freedom of speech is limited here.
>
> I agree, it's not directed at any particular individual. But religion is important to lots of people. IMO, saying the world would be a better place without it isn't being sensitive to their feelings.
>
> I agree, it was a unilateral judgment. And it wasn't supportive to block her, but my role here isn't to be supportive.
>
> I disagree, the issue isn't her, it's posting her opinion. Her I value, and I'm sorry she can't join in right now.
>
> --Where I have a problem with this block is that the bits you took out to use were *way* out of context.
Also in that post she wrote:
yeah i was stating my opinion. i wasn't knocking religion. i wasn't making a statement about religion being *bad* I was making a statement about how I think the world could be better..
and
what do i mean by religion?
i mean established religion as opposed to personal spirituality.
andmaybe the trouble is in trying to differentiate between religion and culture? i think the world profits from cultural diversity it is just the established religious movements that i'm not sure profit the world particularly... but that is just my opinion of course and i'm sure the majority of the world doesn't agree with me...
I thought she took great pains to try to explain what she was talking about in a non-hurtful manner, while at the same time keeping her integrity. I admire that a lot more than I would have just a "Sorry, Dr. Bob" answer - which would have saved her from the block.
Posted by Tamar on June 21, 2006, at 18:17:11
In reply to Re: hearing and fearing, posted by Dr. Bob on June 21, 2006, at 10:44:13
> I agree, it's not directed at any particular individual. But religion is important to lots of people. IMO, saying the world would be a better place without it isn't being sensitive to their feelings.
You know, there were a lot of suggested alternatives earlier in the thread. What if she’d said ‘The world would be a better place without xyz’? And it’s very hard to come up with something as symbolic and emotive as religion. What is important to lots of people in the same kind of way that religion is important? What kinds of social institutions do people invest in with their hearts and souls?
The closest thing I could come up with was marriage. What if someone said, “The world would be a better place without marriage”? Would that be uncivil? Would it be insensitive to the feelings of married people? (I mention marriage partly because my own feelings about marriage as an institution are highly ambivalent, although I love my husband; just as my feelings about religion are highly ambivalent, although I value my Christian upbringing). I honestly don’t know if that would be considered uncivil, and I’d genuinely like to know what others think.
My view is that it should not be considered uncivil to critique social institutions. If Estella had identified a particular religion (or, in my own example, a particular form of marriage such as polygyny) then perhaps it could be considered uncivil. But it was a comment about a social institution that is too broad to be identified with one of its subsets.
I think this point is important because it touches on the whole question of acceptable and unacceptable opinions, and I agree that some opinions are not civil. I would expect a barrage of babblemail if I said I thought the world would be a better place without sexist men. But if I say I think the world would be a better place without sexism, I’d hope no one would PBC me. I think there’s a big difference between the two. Does that make sense?
> That's a good point. People may become afraid of that (maybe especially if they've been hurt when vulnerable in the past). But I take civility seriously and don't consider it trivial.
I don’t consider it trivial either. I take it seriously too. But I think it is most easily achieved when people understand the rules well enough to stay within them. This particular blocking seems to be a very grey area. In particular, the sentence quoted was part of a complex argument, and to take one sentence out of context might not do justice to the meaning of the posts as a whole.
> But the primary goal of blocking isn't to teach, it's to keep it civil here. Whether or not people learn.
That’s interesting. I didn’t know that. Maybe it’s mentioned somewhere and I missed it. Does that answer my question about whether the issue of reconsidering this block is about justice or authority? It sounds to me as if you’re saying it’s more important to exercise your authority in order to ensure civility than to block justly in order to ensure that civility is imposed fairly. I don’t mean that as a criticism; it just looks to me as if the issue of authority is more important than fairness. But if I have misunderstood I will apologise.
> I've discussed this with the deputies, and my decision is to let both blocks stand.I see. And perhaps if I or others continue to raise the issue it might constitute a challenge to your authority. So I’d like to make it clear that I’m not challenging your authority for the sake of it. I’m still talking about this block because I’m still struggling to see it as fair. I guess that reflects my own agenda. I can live with it. I hope you can too.
Tamar
Posted by Jost on June 21, 2006, at 22:47:47
In reply to Re: What folks have been saying, posted by Dr. Bob on June 20, 2006, at 22:26:19
This is probably completely moot, to say the least, but I have one question about the following response by Dr. Bob to jakeman's request to review the blocking of Estella for the general comment about religion.
I may misunderstand the following, which seems to be Dr.B's answer. As I read it (please correct me if I'm not following), Bob is saying that reconsideration of the block on Estella is moot, because she committed a second act of incivility for which she was blocked. Thus the second block supercedes the first one (about which the review request is being made)--so the first block no longer governs, and Jake isn't contesting the second block.
But as I say, the second link here is to a post by Alexandra_k. So I'm a bit confused, since I assume that Estella and Alexandra_k aren't the same person (given other rules).
Is there some other second uncivil message that led Estella to be blocked? Or am I misreading the second link, in ascribing it to someone other than Estella?
Could someone explain? Because I'm not following this part of the thread.
Jost
>
> --
>
> > Dr. Bob, would you reconsider this block on Estella? Again, why is it moot?
> >
> > Jake
>
> Regarding reconsidering, see Dinah's excellent translation:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060525/msgs/658093.html
>
> I think it's kind of moot because she was blocked again:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060525/msgs/654732.html
>
> after the block being discussed:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060417/msgs/646629.html
>
> Bob
Posted by Jakeman on June 21, 2006, at 22:55:26
In reply to Re: What folks have been saying, posted by Jost on June 21, 2006, at 22:47:47
Jost I am lost too. I see comments about an 8 week block, but I was talking about the 4 week block on Estella.
warm regards, Jke
> This is probably completely moot, to say the least, but I have one question about the following response by Dr. Bob to jakeman's request to review the blocking of Estella for the general comment about religion.
>
> I may misunderstand the following, which seems to be Dr.B's answer. As I read it (please correct me if I'm not following), Bob is saying that reconsideration of the block on Estella is moot, because she committed a second act of incivility for which she was blocked. Thus the second block supercedes the first one (about which the review request is being made)--so the first block no longer governs, and Jake isn't contesting the second block.
>
> But as I say, the second link here is to a post by Alexandra_k. So I'm a bit confused, since I assume that Estella and Alexandra_k aren't the same person (given other rules).
>
> Is there some other second uncivil message that led Estella to be blocked? Or am I misreading the second link, in ascribing it to someone other than Estella?
>
> Could someone explain? Because I'm not following this part of the thread.
>
> Jost
>
> >
> > --
> >
> > > Dr. Bob, would you reconsider this block on Estella? Again, why is it moot?
> > >
> > > Jake
> >
> > Regarding reconsidering, see Dinah's excellent translation:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060525/msgs/658093.html
> >
> > I think it's kind of moot because she was blocked again:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060525/msgs/654732.html
> >
> > after the block being discussed:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060417/msgs/646629.html
> >
> > Bob
>
>
Posted by muffled on June 21, 2006, at 23:43:44
In reply to Re: What folks have been saying » Jost, posted by Jakeman on June 21, 2006, at 22:55:26
there will be another controversy soon enough :-(
Too late for this one.
Sigh.
Just let it go.
And FYI its a general argument bout blocks, using some other blocks as examples, thats all.
Different posters, same issues.
Posted by gardenergirl on June 22, 2006, at 0:42:05
In reply to Re: What folks have been saying, posted by Jost on June 21, 2006, at 22:47:47
> >
> So I'm a bit confused, since I assume that .... aren't the same person (given other rules).Actually, they are. It is confusing. The other name you mention is an older name which was not blocked when Estella was blocked. So the eight week block was for posting while blocked, since they are the same.
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on June 22, 2006, at 3:16:54
In reply to Re: What folks have been saying » Jost, posted by gardenergirl on June 22, 2006, at 0:42:05
Sorry, I was trying to clarify confusion, but I should not have posted what I did about the two posting names. I sincerely apologize to the person it hurt. I wasn't thinking.
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 23, 2006, at 3:46:45
In reply to Still here » Dr. Bob, posted by Tamar on June 21, 2006, at 18:17:11
> Where I have a problem with this block is that the bits you took out to use were *way* out of context.
>
> Also in that post she wrote:
>
> > yeah i was stating my opinion. i wasn't knocking religion. i wasn't making a statement about religion being *bad* I was making a statement about how I think the world could be better..Again, not all opinions are civil. And she may not have intended to knock it, but IMO, it was knocked.
> > what do i mean by religion?
> > i mean established religion as opposed to personal spirituality.Established religion is important to lots of people, too.
> > maybe the trouble is in trying to differentiate between religion and culture? i think the world profits from cultural diversity it is just the established religious movements that i'm not sure profit the world particularly... but that is just my opinion of course and i'm sure the majority of the world doesn't agree with me...
IMO, that could also be more sensitive to the feelings of members of those movements...
> I thought she took great pains to try to explain what she was talking about in a non-hurtful manner, while at the same time keeping her integrity. I admire that a lot more than I would have just a "Sorry, Dr. Bob" answer - which would have saved her from the block.
>
> AuntieMelShe did take great pains to explain, and I'm not saying she, or standing up for one's beliefs, shouldn't be admired.
--
> My view is that it should not be considered uncivil to critique social institutions. If Estella had identified a particular religion ... then perhaps it could be considered uncivil. But it was a comment about a social institution that is too broad to be identified with one of its subsets.
First, some people consider religion more than just a social institution. Second, IMO, being insensitive to the feelings of a broader group of people is less civil.
> I take [civility] seriously too. But I think it is most easily achieved when people understand the rules well enough to stay within them. This particular blocking seems to be a very grey area. In particular, the sentence quoted was part of a complex argument, and to take one sentence out of context might not do justice to the meaning of the posts as a whole.
I agree, this seems not to be understood well.
People can be triggered by one sentence... What would you consider the meaning of the posts as a whole? Could it be expressed in a sensitive way?
> > the primary goal of blocking isn't to teach, it's to keep it civil here. Whether or not people learn.
>
> It sounds to me as if you’re saying it’s more important to exercise your authority in order to ensure civility than to block justly in order to ensure that civility is imposed fairly. I don’t mean that as a criticism; it just looks to me as if the issue of authority is more important than fairness. But if I have misunderstood I will apologise.I do think authority is an important aspect of this. But I try to exercise my authority to block justly. Might doesn't make right. But the exercise of authority isn't necessarily unjust, either.
> > I've discussed this with the deputies, and my decision is to let both blocks stand.
>
> I see. And perhaps if I or others continue to raise the issue it might constitute a challenge to your authority.
>
> TamarIf I wanted to avoid being challenged, I would've done away with this board a long time ago! Different points of view are fine, and in fact encouraged. :-)
I just wanted everyone to know where things stood. Continuing to raise the issue is fine -- it may be best if debate about what's just goes on forever -- but it probably won't affect this particular block unless, as Dinah said, people come up with new arguments or restate old ones in ways I find more convincing.
Bob
Posted by muffled on June 23, 2006, at 9:33:47
In reply to Re: Still hearing, posted by Dr. Bob on June 23, 2006, at 3:46:45
Just wanted to say that in the previous post of yours you have some slightly longer answers. That REALLY helps me more to see where you comming from, to mebbe understand you better, and hence to be able to communicate with you better.
I'm too frazzled right now to think too good bout blocks etc.
So thank you Bob.
You DO seem to be trying.
Thats great.
Good on ya.
Also your pictures are lovely, I have been enjoying them.
Thanks again.
Now don't go getting a fat head over this niceness !
But I do mean it.
Hope things go ok for you.
And that you learn as much from babble as I do.
Muffled
Posted by Jakeman on June 23, 2006, at 19:48:31
In reply to Just let it go guys...... » Jakeman, posted by muffled on June 21, 2006, at 23:43:44
> there will be another controversy soon enough :-(
> Too late for this one.
> Sigh.
> Just let it go.
> And FYI its a general argument bout blocks, using some other blocks as examples, thats all.
> Different posters, same issues.I know. I guess I decided to pursue this debate for while with the slim hope that maybe some changes could be made in the blocking policies, such as the FAQ rule on "strong statements." But I probably should go swimming. It's hot here.
warm regards, Jake
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 25, 2006, at 11:14:26
In reply to Bob » Dr. Bob, posted by muffled on June 23, 2006, at 9:33:47
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.