![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 27 to 51 of 187. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 13:56:46
In reply to Lou's suggestion for a test for [pressuring]-3, posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 13:42:07
Freinds,
The fourth question in my test to determine if a post constitutes,[pressuring a person] would be:
Does the staement that one is aking a question to have the potential to be accusitve or defaming to the poster that it is directed to?
If so, requesting more infomation about what they meant has a proper foundationa and is not [pressuring] the other poster, but simply wanting to make sure that the poster wasn't attempting to arrouse ill-feelings against the poster that they wrote to. If one was not allowed to ask a question to the poster in regards to this situation, then there could be the potential to be accused as [guilty untill proven innocent] by the poster that wrote the statement that one is asking a question to, when we would all like to feel that we are, instead, [innocent untill proven guilty].
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 14:14:00
In reply to Lou's suggestion for a test for [pressuring]-4, posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 13:56:46
Frieds,
The fifth question that I would have in my test to determine if the post constitutes [pressuring a poster], is:
Is the post one that {corrects} another poster in regards to what the other poster wrote to them. If so, there is a valid foundation to ask a question, for misinfomation could cause the thread to decline and it is better for one to ask about what the other poster wrote , if misinfomation is perceived by the poster that the post is written to , than to let any percived misinfomation go unquestioned, and thearfore, the question does not constitute [pressuring a person], for if it did, it would be a condition here to absorb defamation here in order to be a disccussant.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 14:27:21
In reply to Lou's suggestion for a test for [pressuring]-5, posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 14:14:00
Friends,
The sixth test to determine if the post constitute [pressuring a poster] would be to ask:
Is the question asking for the poster that wrote the post to {identify} a spacific part of what they wrote.
If so, then the question has a valid foundation, for without the identifying of the spacific aspect of the post that was written, there could not be any valid discussion, unless one guesses correctly at what it is that they are requesting identification of, and I do not believe that we are requiered to guess at what the poster is referrring to, for if we had to guess correctly, then we could also guess incorrectly and go off the subject at hand. My expert in communication calls those type of posts, that do not identify what they are writinfg about, [sandbagging].
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 14:40:42
In reply to Re: Lou's suggestion for a test for [pressuring]-, posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 14:27:21
Friends,
The 7th aspect in my test for determining [pressuring a poster] would be to [rule out]
any poster from just invoking that they feel pressured.
A poster could say that [any] question to them would cause them to feel pressured and thearfor that could not be a valid question in a test, for if it was, then posters could discriminate against another poster by just invoking that they felt pressured, or the moderator [could], but not necesarily, coax or encorage a poster to invoke that they felt pressured, and my communication expert calls that a [witch-hunt] mentality.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 15:16:53
In reply to Lou's suggestion for a test for [pressuring]-7 » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 14:40:42
Friends,
The 8th aspect of my test to determine if a post constitutes[presuring a poster] would be to examine the post to see if it is [willfull and persistant].
The persistance part has already been written, but now let us look at [willfull].
This means that to say that one willfully posted a statement to pressue someone there must be [evidence], not specualation, or predudice against a person, that a post is willfully made to pressure a person, because it could be that there is an innocent reason why a poster made the post to someone, and I do not believe that anyone on the face of this planet has any power or ability to decern what is in another person's heart.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on April 4, 2003, at 17:14:48
In reply to Re: putting people on the spot, posted by Dr. Bob on April 4, 2003, at 11:33:49
Posted by beardedlady on April 4, 2003, at 17:37:30
In reply to Re: putting people on the spot, posted by Dr. Bob on April 4, 2003, at 11:33:49
Posted by coral on April 4, 2003, at 17:56:42
In reply to Re: putting people on the spot, posted by Dr. Bob on April 4, 2003, at 11:33:49
Posted by IsoM on April 4, 2003, at 18:14:23
In reply to Re: putting people on the spot, posted by Dr. Bob on April 4, 2003, at 11:33:49
Bob: "Well, the idea is not to pressure others. Would you consider that to be pressuring people?"
It goes beyond pressure for most people. It comes across as an insistent demand to most, or a broken record. You asked, I'm explaining as civilly as possible. Yes, I know one can simply not read (& that's what I do unless I want to be amused), but many can't seem to.
Intelligent discourse becomes impossible as there is no flow of ideas & conversation but one must constantly second guess. Try to imagine what it would be like having a conversation with someone who needed every second sentence explained in great detail (& then those details further explained). Frustrating, yes, but when continually asked for further explanations repeatedly, it becomes more than just pressure.
Posted by NikkiT2 on April 4, 2003, at 19:11:37
In reply to Re: putting people on the spot - YES » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on April 4, 2003, at 18:14:23
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 19:23:23
In reply to Re: putting people on the spot - YES » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on April 4, 2003, at 18:14:23
IsoM,
You wrote,[...I don't read unless I want to be amused...].
Are you referring to posts that have my name as the poster? If so, could you clarify your use of the phrase,{...unless I want to be amused...}as to if it is, or is not, your intention to ridicule me by writing that here? If it is not your intention to ridicule me, could you clarify , then, what is it that is in my posts, if you are referring to my posts, that is amusing? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to know that you were, or were not, intending to portray me as a person that should only be read in order to be amused and then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 20:12:09
In reply to Re: putting people on the spot - YES » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on April 4, 2003, at 18:14:23
IsoM,
You wrote,[... intellegent discorse becomes {impossible}...no flow of ideas...must guess...].
Are you saying that you agree with me on this issue, because I ask for clarification so that I could have the opportunity to respond to a statement that has the potential to be defaming or accusitive and you agree with me that discorse becomes [impossible]without clarification of such?
But if you are saying that because I ask for clairification, if that is what you are referring to here, that the request, in and of itself, makes it [impossible] to have intellegent discorse, then could you clarify how a statement that has the potential to be defaming or accusitive enhances {intellegent} discorse? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly and will not have to [guess] as to what you are referring to.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 20:25:47
In reply to Re: putting people on the spot - YES » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on April 4, 2003, at 18:14:23
IsoM,
You wrote,[...further explanations repeatedly...].
Are you saying that {my} requests for clarification constitute,[...further explanations repeatedly?...]. If so, could you cite some of these that you are saying that I posted? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to determine if you are [manufacturing a falsehood about me], which is defamation, or referring to another poster, or that there is , perhaps a case of what you wrote, and if there is, could not it be possible that the reply to my request for clarification was another statement that also needed clarification in order to have an opportunity to respond accordingly? I , in general, post that I am asking for clarification in order to have an opportunity to respond accordingly and do not remember asking another poster {again} to clarify [if they did not respond]. If you are saying that I repeatedly ask the same poster to clarify what they wrote to me , when they did not respond, please cite a reference and I will look at it and see for myself, for I remember none of such.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 21:07:03
In reply to Re: putting people on the spot - YES » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on April 4, 2003, at 18:14:23
IsoM,
You wrote,[...comes across as a...demand...or a broken record...].
Are you equating my requests for clarification to a {demend} or [broken record]? If so, could you clarify how you equate a request to be a demand? It is my understanding that a demand is dfferent from a request. If you examine my requests for clarification, you will see that there is the phrase, {if you could}, not the phrase,[you must] in my requests, and it is my understanding that {could} is stateing that the request is optionable to the poster to reply or not, and that {must} does not give that option, and I use the word,{could}, not the word {must}.
I don't want to sound like a broken record, but a request is, well, a request, and I use the same, in general, format for requesting clarification so as to be {uniform}, and not to sound like a broken record.
Lou
Posted by shar on April 4, 2003, at 22:10:32
In reply to Re: putting people on the spot - YES » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on April 4, 2003, at 18:14:23
Posted by Jonathan on April 4, 2003, at 22:37:49
In reply to Re: putting people on the spot - YES » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on April 4, 2003, at 18:14:23
Posted by jane d on April 4, 2003, at 23:40:43
In reply to Lou's suggestion for a test for [pressuring], posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 13:14:27
> Friends,
> I wrote that there could be a test to determine if a post constituted pressuring someone. My first question that I would ask in the test is, [does the post imply that something, such as harm, will result to the poster that the post is written to as a result of not answering the question posed by the questioner?
> An example would be:
> "If you do not answer my question, I'll..."You mean something along the lines of "Answer me or I'll hold my breath until I turn blue"? (no, Bob, you don't need to contact my ISP - I seem to recall from my distant childhood that that doesn't actually work.)
Jane
PS Usually I like to go with "none of the above" for all multiple choice questions but just this once I'll pick "E. Some people here think they are birds?" I know birds can count but can they answer multiple choice questions?
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 5, 2003, at 5:50:22
In reply to Excellent post requiring no further clarification (nm) » IsoM, posted by Jonathan on April 4, 2003, at 22:37:49
Jonathan,
You wrote,[...excellant post requiering no further clarification...].
Are you saying that the post by IsoM requiers no further clarification to [you] or are you saying that the post is so clear that others should not have to need clarification or are you saying that {I} do not need further clarification in order to have an opportunity to respond accordingly?
If you are saying that the post needs no further clarification for {me} to have an opprtunity to respond accordingly, then are you agreeing with IsoM in respect to that you also, and all others that ever read {anything} that I write, are reading what I write for [humor], if IsoM is referring to me in her post? If you are only reading what I write ,for humor, are you attempting to portray me as someone that should not be listened to in respect to all the ideas that I present here , or is it only {some} or just one idea that I present here that is [humorous] to you, and if so, could you clarify which one(s_ they are? If you could clarify this , then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 5, 2003, at 6:19:10
In reply to Re: Birds and essay exams » Lou Pilder, posted by jane d on April 4, 2003, at 23:40:43
Jane,
Thank you for your inrerset in this discussion. I appreciate your sence of humor.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on April 5, 2003, at 9:01:14
In reply to Lou's response to IsoM's post -CL-5 » IsoM, posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 21:07:03
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 5, 2003, at 9:24:15
In reply to Re: putting people on the spot - YES » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on April 4, 2003, at 18:14:23
> > Well, the idea is not to pressure others. Would you consider that to be pressuring people?
>
> It goes beyond pressure for most people. It comes across as an insistent demand to most, or a broken record.Why "demand" rather than "request"? Also, "broken record" implies the same thing each time...
> Yes, I know one can simply not read (& that's what I do...), but many can't seem to.
Maybe they could use some help with this? And learn how not to read? Or not to reply?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on April 5, 2003, at 9:25:44
In reply to Re: Lou? Are you still here this morning? (nm), posted by Dinah on April 5, 2003, at 9:01:14
I was hoping we could chat a bit on social. Maybe another time?
Posted by Jonathan on April 5, 2003, at 10:03:35
In reply to Lou's response to Jonathan's post-CL » Jonathan, posted by Lou Pilder on April 5, 2003, at 5:50:22
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 5, 2003, at 10:42:04
In reply to Re: feeling put on the spot, posted by Dr. Bob on April 5, 2003, at 9:24:15
Dr. Bob,
You wrote in respose to Isom's statement to [... simply not read...],that:
[...maybe they could use some help to learn to {not read} or {not reply}...].
Thank you for your statement here. I am ROFLOL, even if your intention was to not be humorous.
Lou
Posted by beardedlady on April 5, 2003, at 10:56:56
In reply to Re: feeling put on the spot, posted by Dr. Bob on April 5, 2003, at 9:24:15
> Why "demand" rather than "request"? Also, "broken record" implies the same thing each time...
Because it's persistent, as in your "request" for double quotes.
> Maybe they could use some help with this? And learn how not to read? Or not to reply?
Then maybe this rule could apply to those who get touchy when someone says he doesn't like the president.
If it were that easy to avoid posters with whom we disagree or with whom our personalities clash, we would have no need for civility warnings, Bob.
Those who complain about someone bashing our leerless feeder could simply not read the posts.
It seems like you have a double standard when it comes to some posters. We should ignore what they say when we find it persistent, annoying, offensive. But they shouldn't have to ignore us when we're discussing a subject that isn't their cup of tea.
But this has come up over and over again, and your actions tell us that this is the way it's going to remain.
I don't understand the reason for the administration board.
beardy
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.