Posted by Minnie-Haha on May 24, 2005, at 14:43:56
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » Minnie-Haha, posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 18:05:59
> > An assumption is made here that I was talking about a particular poster.
>
> Yeah. It was pretty clear that you were from the 'lets try that again' comment on the start of the thread...If some felt offended by a particular poster's behavior, could that set off a discussion about the behavior without necessarily discussing the poster? For instance, one or more posters on this site must have been the first to curse here. If that set off a discussion about cursing, did that mean everyone was talking about those people? Or even necessarily that the offended were talking about those people? And is it possible that "let's try again" means to talk about a behavior (and not a person)?
> >The paragraph that I got blocked on has 10 sentences. If one focuses on the third and fourth paragraphs (both start with “If”), they might conclude I was talking about a particular poster. However, if you look at the whole paragraph, and consider everything I’d written (or not written) in that thread, I think it’s clear that I am not talking about a particular person, but about two (not all) “intentions” that might be behind the behavior we were discussing.
>
> Whos behaviour???I WAS TALKING ABOUT A BEHAVIOR, NOT A PERSON! Interrupting is a behavior. I can talk about it alone as a subject, though it would be hard if others wanted to talk about why a particular person interrupts.
> The problem was that both 'intention' hypotheses were uncharitable...
When may I proceed with this subject without others concluding that I am talking about a person? IMO, insisting that I’m out to persecute someone, even when I’ve declared that I am not, seems uncharitable.
> > FWIW: If I could have been rightly (IMO) blocked anywhere in my second thread, it would have been for what I wrote in the third “option” at the end of the post I got blocked on. I used the words “a certain individual’s behavior.” Although I did not identify anyone, it was a slip-up on my part.
>
> And that... By your own admission... Was the problem there. That you DID have the behaviour of a particular individual in mind. And that you were judging the poster to not care about others feelings that you felt he was responsible for.At the very end of one of my final posts I used the words “a certain individual’s behavior.” But that doesn’t mean I had a particular poster in mind when I started the thread, or when I posed scenarios, or even when I offered a couple of possible reasons – well before I used those four words – for the kind of behavior we were discussing. The only reason I went into intention was because others thought it was important. But even if others were thinking about a particular poster from the start on that thread, I tell you I was not.
> It isn't so much about 'being careful with what you say' as being careful with what you think in your interpretations. If you are careful with your interpreatations then you should be able to express them without 'being careful'.
I thought civility on this site was exactly about being careful with what you say. It would be pretty hard to manage this site if you had to weigh also what people think – unless they say what they think – or you are psychic. (I’d wager we'd be blocked here much more often if Dr. Bob could read minds.)
poster:Minnie-Haha
thread:500533
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050517/msgs/502286.html