![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 31 to 55 of 187. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by Dinah on April 5, 2003, at 11:26:05
In reply to the ol' double standard » Dr. Bob, posted by beardedlady on April 5, 2003, at 10:56:56
Well, I think Dr. Bob's idea was to keep political arguments off the board so that the main purpose of the board wasn't compromised. As I believe it may have been in the abbreviated political discussions that did occur. I get the distinct feeling, for example, that you are feeling less comfortable with me than you did before, and for that I am sorry.
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 5, 2003, at 11:40:47
In reply to the ol' double standard » Dr. Bob, posted by beardedlady on April 5, 2003, at 10:56:56
beadedlady,
You wrote,in your response to Dr. Bob's response to IsoM's post where he asked her why she used {demand} rather than {request}and you wrote: [...because it is {persistant} as in your request for double quotes...].
Are you saying that a request for clarification constitutes {persistance}? If so , then could you clarify what your definition of {persistance} is? If you could , then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly, for it is my understanding that persistance, [in relation to the discussion at hand], could be applyed {if} a poster asked , perhaps, {3} or more times for the same poster to clarify the {same thing}, in the same thread, when the poster never replied, not to ask {different posters} for clarification, or the same poster for clarification about {different} statements that the poster made to the one asking for clairification. In respect to Dr. Bob's request for posters to use a particular format, each time the format could be used to help him direct the post to the book site, he is only requesting that the format be used, not saying that one {must} use the format, and ,perhaps, his request is just a {reminder}, not a persistant {demand}, and niether am I saying that one {must} respond to my request for clarification, for I am {requesting}, not demanding that one reply. Also, it is my understanding that there has been no objection to Dr. Bob's request for posters here to follow the format that he is requesting, and even if there is, I do not see any harm done to anyone because someone {requests} for one to follow a format when no threat to do anything to the ones that do not follow the format is connected to the declination of the request, which is one of {my} suggestions for a {test} to determine the acceptability , or non-acceptability of a request for anything here, including a request by Dr. Bob to use a specific format. I remember that he asked me, also, to use that format when I cited a book in one of my posts. I could see no reason to object to his request and if I was to quote another book, and he asked me again to use that format, I would not consider his request to me to constitute, {persistance}, as discuused in this thread, but only to {request} that I use the format {so that ther could be the [opportunity] for the post to be directed to the book site} and I find no fault in him or anyone, making a request, even if it is requested each time that I quote a book, and I request clarification each time someone writes a statement to me that could have the potential to be defaming or accusatory, so that I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 5, 2003, at 11:57:28
In reply to the ol' double standard » Dr. Bob, posted by beardedlady on April 5, 2003, at 10:56:56
BL,
You wrote,[...we should inore what they say when we find it persistant, annoying, {offensive}...].
Are you including my posts that ask for clarification in the catagory as to be {offensive}? If so, could you clarify how you equate {offensiveness}, with me, in relation to requesting clarification from others, or yourself? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly, and if you are not including my posts in the catagory of being {offensive}, then could you state that you are not, and then I, and perhaps others, could know that you are not attempting to defame me by catorigiseing me as someone that writes {offensive} requests.
Lou
Posted by beardedlady on April 5, 2003, at 14:46:15
In reply to Lou's response to beardedlady's post-CL- » beardedlady, posted by Lou Pilder on April 5, 2003, at 11:40:47
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.