![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 48 to 72 of 187. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by shar on April 5, 2003, at 23:07:16
In reply to No. Find your clarification in the dictionary. (nm) » Lou Pilder, posted by beardedlady on April 5, 2003, at 14:46:15
No read, no reply (sort of like don't ask, don't tell...). I pretty much adhere to this, especially in cases of multiple responses requesting clarification.
However, I want to be sure that the issue is seen from another perspective as well, and that is the routine disruption caused by such posts. While I know it isn't feasible to make sure that all posts are focused, coherent, well-developed writing with few errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling and general conventions used in writing (that is to say, comprehensible), by not using some discretionary power we have the other extreme--wherein someone is permitted to hammer away at others, seemingly constantly (no limits), with requests for additional information that do not end up in anything except a quagmire of additional, similar requests; and/or requests to the administration for support of the practice.
That style is not supportive, responsive, or even a dialogue. It really just amounts to harassment, IMO.
Basically, I'm pretty comfortable with the no read, no reply approach, but that doesn't mean there isn't a real and quite specific problem here.
Shar
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 6, 2003, at 8:54:51
In reply to 'No read, no reply' policy--Dr. Bob, posted by shar on April 5, 2003, at 23:07:16
shar,
You wrote,[...disruption caused by such posts...].
Are you referring to my posts that ask for clarification to another poster that had posted a statement that had the potential to be accusitve or defaming to me?
If so, could you clarify why my requesting for the poster to clarify their statement could be concluded by you to be deemed as [disruption]? If you could, then I could have te opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 6, 2003, at 9:25:05
In reply to 'No read, no reply' policy--Dr. Bob, posted by shar on April 5, 2003, at 23:07:16
shar,
You wrote,[...that style is not supportive, responsive, or a dialog...].
I disagree with your conclusion, for I have had a communication expert review this issue for his opinion and he says that a request for clarification is a great way to {enhance} dialog for it is attempting to [unveil what is hidden] which brings into the discussion {more} comprehension when the reply to the request for clarification is included in the discussion. It is also very supportive for it gives the discussants the {opportunity} to respond when the hidden aspect of the discussion is revealed, and the poster that wrote the statement that had a request to clarify it could have the opportunity to express more about {what they innitiated}, which furthers discussion, responsivemness and dialog. He also said to me that the poster that does not respond to a request for communication could cause a degradation to the discussion, for the non-response does not reveal what is hidden and thearfore has the potential to stop dialog, responsiveness, and support. My communication expert has a degree from Harvard University concerning these issues, has a masters in Law from the University of Cincinnat and Harvard University, and teaches law at Ohio State University. Could you clarify what credentials that you have to make the conclusion that:
[this style is not supportive, responsive, or a dialog]? If you could, then I could determine what degree of credibility to give to your conclusions and respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 6, 2003, at 9:51:43
In reply to 'No read, no reply' policy--Dr. Bob, posted by shar on April 5, 2003, at 23:07:16
shar,
You wrote,[...doesn't mean that there isn't a {real problem} here...].
In referrance to the phrase, [real problem], are you saying that;
A. the {real problem} is the refusal of the posters that are requested clarification from because their refusal denies the opportunity to the one requesting the clarification to respond accordingly, because they can't respond unless what is hidden is revealed?
B. the {real problem} is that DR. Bob allows posters here to ask for clarification?
C. the {real problem} is that if Lou is allowed to ask for clarification to the posters that write statements that have the potential to be accusatory or defaming to him, that this could reveal their attempts to portray him falsly, {if} the statement that was asked to be clarified actually was a statement designed to defame Lou and they reply as such?
D. some other meaning which is________
E. none of the above
Lou
Posted by Dinah on April 6, 2003, at 10:12:45
In reply to Lou's response to shar's post-FS » shar, posted by Lou Pilder on April 6, 2003, at 9:51:43
Perhaps we're missing something important here. Something that is becoming a bit clearer to me in your latest posts.
Are you trying to say with your posts requesting clarification that you're feeling hurt by what is being said about you? I think that would be perfectly understandable. I would feel hurt too, I think. In fact, sometimes I feel hurt by posts too, sometimes even posts that I realize weren't meant to hurt me.
I also think I remember (and please correct me if I'm wrong here because it was a long time ago) that you are very cautious about violating Dr. Bob's civility rules. Does this style of requesting clarifications help you feel better able to communicate without running the risk of violating the rules here?
Lou, I'm sorry you're feeling hurt. Perhaps there is some way here to start a meaningful dialogue about hurt and frustration and communication. Do you think your communication expert would consent to sign in and post? I'm pretty sure Dr. Bob would refuse to mediate, since that would go beyond his administrative duties. But it seems to me that there is a core of truth here that we're all bypassing. A common ground that can be reached if we could just get past the misunderstandings on all sides. Misunderstandings that are probably too large at this point to be solved by requests for clarification.
Perhaps we can all try to think of some alternatives?
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 6, 2003, at 11:13:37
In reply to Re: Lou?, posted by Dinah on April 6, 2003, at 10:12:45
> Perhaps there is some way here to start a meaningful dialogue about hurt and frustration and communication... it seems to me that there is a core of truth here that we're all bypassing. A common ground that can be reached if we could just get past the misunderstandings on all sides.
>
> Perhaps we can all try to think of some alternatives?
>
> DinahSome creative alternatives would be great, thanks for suggesting that.
> It really just amounts to harassment, IMO.
>
> sharOTOH, that might be one way to approach it, too... We could say A is considered to harass B if A directs uninvited and unwelcome posts to B. "Uninvited" means not in response to posts directed by B to A. "Unwelcome" means B has already asked A not to direct posts to him or her.
A could still reply to posts by B as long as those replies weren't directed back specifically to B. The request by B not to have posts directed to him or her should of course be civil.
If you request that someone not direct posts to you, please save that URL. Then if they do, let me know the URLs of your post to them as well as theirs to you.
How about that? I'd rather lines of communication stayed open, but if someone doesn't want that -- and there aren't any alternatives -- maybe it would help to have a policy like this as a last resort.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on April 6, 2003, at 11:59:05
In reply to Re: alternatives and a last resort, posted by Dr. Bob on April 6, 2003, at 11:13:37
I think your suggestion would have been the answer to a couple of recent situations.
But I do have one concern about it. Sometimes there is a misunderstanding that may lead a poster to request no further communication from another poster. To not be able to answer that post would not allow any room to clear the misunderstanding. I think being able to say something like "I am hurt and confused by your request not to direct any further posts to me. I think you may have misunderstood what I said" has solved many a problem in the past. A first flush of anger might cause someone to ask that no further communications be directed to them, leaving no room for rapprochement.
If you could incorporate that possibility into the policy somehow, I think it would be a good last resort. It could be pretty hurtful to be asked that, and that degree of hurt *should* be a last resort.
Perhaps the request should be thread specific or topic specific? "I don't want to discuss xxxx with you further", rather than "I don't want to ever hear from you again". It would also be easier administratively I think?
I also think the ability for A to comment on B's posts as long as the comments weren't directed to B is a good idea.
I think it's the start of a good idea, Dr. Bob. I just think it needs some refinement and tweaking to ensure that it is a last resort.
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 6, 2003, at 13:33:20
In reply to Re: alternatives and a last resort, posted by Dr. Bob on April 6, 2003, at 11:13:37
Dr. Bob,
You wrote,[...A could be considered to harass B if,A directs uninvited {AND} unwelcomed posts to B].
Now it is my understanding that your use of the word {AND} means that {both} have to occur, and asking for clarification to a statement by another poster to remark(s) to that poster that have the potential to be accusitive or defaming to that poster, is simply accepting the invitation to reply, since all posts are [public] here. Are you saying that anyone here can direct potential defaming or accusitive stements to another poster and that poster can not ask for clarification if the poster that wrote the statement adds on to their post that the other person that the remark was directed to [is not allowed] to ask for clarification of their potentually defaming or accusitve statement? If so, if you could you clarify this, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by beardedlady on April 6, 2003, at 13:36:18
In reply to Re: alternatives and a last resort, posted by Dr. Bob on April 6, 2003, at 11:13:37
But Shar and Iso and I have already posted, numerous times and at least once on this thread, that we usually don't read or respond to Lou's requests for clarification. Yet on this thread are DOZENS of those requests in spite of our very clear feelings.
So you want us to go on record, officially? How much more official can you get than Shar's "no read, no reply policy"?
Lou's requests for clarification from me (the others should speak for themselves) are unwelcome.
beardy
Posted by noa on April 6, 2003, at 13:45:44
In reply to 'No read, no reply' policy--Dr. Bob, posted by shar on April 5, 2003, at 23:07:16
Shar, well said.
Posted by Dinah on April 6, 2003, at 13:51:56
In reply to Lou's respomse to Dr. Bob's post-AB » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 6, 2003, at 13:33:20
Do you trust Dr. Bob to take care of posts that violate the civility policies, Lou? I'm lucky, I guess, in that I trust him.
If you find that you can trust Dr. Bob, perhaps you could just email him the posts you find objectionable and let him make the call as to whether they violate the civility policy. I think you can rely on him to not let defaming comments to you or anyone else go unanswered, and if he misses something you can always let him know of your concerns.
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 6, 2003, at 15:20:28
In reply to Re: Lou's respomse to Dr. Bob's post-AB » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on April 6, 2003, at 13:51:56
Dinah,
You wrote,[...let him make the call whether comments to you constitute a violation of the code here...email Dr. Bob...].
Well, do you not think that it is plainly visible in some cases? And is there not a body of examples from the [past practice] of the years past to allow one to know it when it is seen? And are you saying that I have not emailed Dr. Bob with my objections to the defaming and accusatory remarks directed to me? And have you not seen the posts of mine on the admin. board that have gone unanswered by Dr. Bob even though they remained on the board for over a momth?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on April 6, 2003, at 15:43:29
In reply to Lou's respomse to Dinah's post-CP » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on April 6, 2003, at 15:20:28
Yes, Lou. I have. And you're right, I guess. I think Dr. Bob allows a bit more latitude on the admin board since the purpose of the board is to discuss posts and policy.
I am very sorry that you've been hurt, Lou. I think sometimes that people don't think of you being hurt. And as I've said before, that distresses me.
This is just a suggestion of course, but maybe if you expressed how hurt you were at certain posts, people might understand better. I think it's a pretty typical response for people to feel defensive if a person says "your post is rude" and are perhaps more receptive to hearing "i am hurt by what you said." That's why Dr. Bob encourages "I" statements rather than "you" statements.
Now I am not in any way saying that you say "your post is rude". I know you make every attempt not to say that. That's why you ask for clarification, right? But I think people still feel defensive when you ask for clarification because they understand that you are feeling offended. If, instead, you acknowledged the deeper feelings of hurt, perhaps they would feel less defensive. I'm just making guesses here, of course. Seeing if I can think of workable alternatives.
It's just a suggestion, Lou. I really enjoy our conversations, and I would like to see you get more from this board. There are some really nice, supportive people here. And this post is just my attempt to see if we can't figure out some way to work this all out. I hope you take it in that spirit, and don't see any of it as criticism of you. I do know how important it is to you to communicate in a style you find comfortable. I'm just trying to find a way for you to find the support that this board can offer.
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 6, 2003, at 16:06:52
In reply to Re: Lou's respomse to Dinah's post-CP, posted by Dinah on April 6, 2003, at 15:43:29
Dinah,
You wrote,[...yes I have...you are right...I {think}Dr. Bob {allows} those type of statements because they are on the admin board...].
Sorry,it is my underestanding that those type of statements are not protected on any of the boards, or even the subject lines, and if there is a statement by Dr. bob to say that they are, please give me the URL that {clearly} states such and I will then ask Dr. Bob why he has not answered my email with what you are writing here so that I would not have had to email him with my requests for him to examine those type of statements made to me. But is is plainly visible that the admin. board is {not a haven} to direct potentually defaming or accusitive statements, for there are admonishions by Dr. Bob for doing such on the admin. board and if what you said was the fact of the admin. board, then there would be no admonishions to those type of statements. Have you considered that there may be two different standards here? Are you saying that the statement:
[...I ...do not read...unless I want to be amused...] does not violate the standards here that state:
[...please be sensitive to the feelings of others and don't jump to conclusions about them or post anything that could lead them to feel accused or put down...]? If so, could you clarify why that post is exempt from the policy here? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on April 6, 2003, at 16:14:11
In reply to Lou's respomse to Dinah's post-CP-2 » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on April 6, 2003, at 16:06:52
Lou, Lou, Lou.....
Of course I don't. I have been saying that I understand why you are hurt.
You didn't need to ask for clarification though. You could just ask me straight out, as you did, and I answered. How about we agree between the two of us that it's ok for you to ask me something straight out instead of asking for clarification.
Ahhh Lou, would you accept a cyberarm around your cybershoulders?
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 6, 2003, at 16:29:55
In reply to Re: Lou's respomse to Dinah's post-CP-2 » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on April 6, 2003, at 16:14:11
Dinah,
You wrote,[...you didn't {need} to ask for clarification...].
Sorry, but there was , and will be, and has been, a need to ask for clarification when there is a statement directed to me that has the potential to be defaming or accusitve.
You see, I am not like evrybody else, and I feel that I do not have to be. I ask for clarification so that I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly and to do so, I always try to give the other poster the {benifit of the doubt}, for there could be a possible other explanation for the post that has the {potential} to be defaming or accusitive. There could also be an apology to me, which I would accept. ther could have been a misunderstanding of some other nature that mre and her could have had a further discussion about. I will always ask for clarification when a poster directs to me those type of statements, for if I do not, and make a conclusion before an opportunity for clarification is given to the poster, then I could be denying that poster due-process, and then my offense could be greater than theirs.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on April 6, 2003, at 16:45:52
In reply to Lou's respomse to Dinah's post-CP-3, posted by Lou Pilder on April 6, 2003, at 16:29:55
No, of course you don't have to be like everyone else. How dull that would be, if we all had to be like everyone else. I am different from other people too. And I relish that difference, although sometimes it makes me feel lonely.
I suppose my reason for asking was that if you hadn't been so direct with me in the first half of your post, I wouldn't have had any idea of how to respond to the second half of your post. Sometimes the requests for clarification don't give any clue to what you're looking for, and so I'm perplexed as to how to respond. But when you are direct with me as you were in the first half of the post, I have a better idea of how to respond.
So asking for clarification is, to you, a religious obligation? A way for you to avoid the sin of being angry with someone where anger isn't called for? Did you really think that I had deliberately given you reason to be angry with me? I have never ever deliberately tried to hurt you, and I never would deliberately try to hurt you. Does your religion draw a difference between deliberately trying to hurt someone and inadvertantly hurting someone? I also try to assume the best about people.
I said a whole lot of positive things in my various posts to you, yet you haven't commented on them. Is there any particular reason why?
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.