![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 65 to 89 of 187. Go back in thread:
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?
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 6, 2003, at 17:47:44
In reply to Re: Lou's respomse to Dinah's post-CP-3 » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on April 6, 2003, at 16:45:52
Dinah,
You wrote,[...sometimes your requests do not give a clue to what you are looking for...].
I disagree with your observation about that, for if you examine those requests, you will see that , with a rare exception, that the requests are spacific in nature, and direct the request individually, to a spacific sentance that the poster wrote. You will always see, "you wrote,[...]" by me, and then after that will be my request as to what I am looking for. I am looking for clarification as to how people make a conclusion, or for a referrence, or something else that I specify so that I could respond better to their post. I do not consider my requests to be vague at all, and if you have a lot of my requests, not just one, that do not have me asking for clarification so that I could give a better response, then if you could show it to me, then I will have an opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on April 6, 2003, at 18:24:47
In reply to Lou's respomse to Dinah's post-CP-4 » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on April 6, 2003, at 17:47:44
Lou, I give up.
Again, my post was full of so many positive statements to you, and yet you ignore them all. :(
I will clarify what I meant however, in the spirit of friendship. And I do hope you understand this post fully.
You often ask very specific questions about words or parts of phrases. So in that sense your requests are clear. But you often don't place that in a larger context. I can't think about things on that level without understanding the entire context of the request.
For example if you were to ask me "Could you clarify what you meant by [can't thing about things on that level]" I probably wouldn't know how to respond. I wouldn't know what you were aiming at. It's too small a piece of the entire post for me to understand. Perhaps it's just the way my brain works, and I apologize.
On the other hand if you were to ask me "It seems from your post that you are frustrated, and that there is something about my requests for clarification that make it difficult for you to reply. I think my requests are perfectly understandable. Could you clarify what you meant by [can't think about things on that level]" I would understand that I was not conveying properly that I can't focus on that small a part of my post, on that small a concept and I would attempt to explain in different words.
But if you said "I am hurt by your implication that my requests are a burden. Could you clarify what you meant by [can't think about things on that level] I would understand that you had misinterpreted my frustration as anger and accusation towards you, and I would attempt to reassure you that I wasn't angry or accusatory at all. That I was sorry you misinterpreted my words in such a way.
In both cases you would be asking for clarification of seven words, but you would be placing those seven words in context. And the two contexts would be very different and call for a very different response. While just using the seven words without placing them in context leaves me without a frame from which to respond.
I understand that you might not understand this, and I apologize for not having the proper words. I understand that you might be offended by something in this post, and I am sorry for it. No offense was intended. And I hope that if you feel offended by seven or eight words in this post, that you will look over our entire conversation today and recognize how unlikely it is that I meant something cruel by what I've said.
I, as always, continue to see you as a friend, however you choose to see me.
Dinah
Posted by Dinah on April 6, 2003, at 18:39:01
In reply to Re: Lou's respomse to Dinah's post-CP-4, posted by Dinah on April 6, 2003, at 18:24:47
I'm kind of hurt that all you got from all the communications we had today was the sense that I was saying something derogatory about you. I spent a lot of time and effort trying to convey something very different.
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 6, 2003, at 18:40:19
In reply to Re: Lou's respomse to Dinah's post-CP-3 » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on April 6, 2003, at 16:45:52
D,
You wrote,[...so, asking for clarification, to you, is a religious obligation?...]
Well, I feel that it is an obligation for all fair-minded people, regardless of any religious consideration to ask one for clarification in these situations, for I would want one to give me an opportunity to clarify what I said before they would make a conclusion about me. And I do write things like evryone else here that could be open to clarification and I would rather take the time to answer them than to refuse a request for clarification, even if my answer could reveal , perhaps, something that I said was inappropreate, and then I would apologise.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 6, 2003, at 18:51:34
In reply to Re: Lou's respomse to Dinah's post-CP-4, posted by Dinah on April 6, 2003, at 18:24:47
D,
You wrote,[...Lou, I give up...].
I accept your resignation.
But as to your request to clarify why I had not commented on all of the rest of your posts to me, the answer is that I can only answer one thing at a time and {if} I was to continue replying to you, I could, eventually, answer all relevant aspects of your post.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 6, 2003, at 19:29:36
In reply to Re: P.S. Lou » Dinah, posted by Dinah on April 6, 2003, at 18:39:01
D,
You wrote,[...I'm kind of hurt that all you got from our discussion today was the sense that I was saying something derogatory about you...].
I am sorry that you conclude that, for I did not write that you were saying anything derogatory about me, so if you got that {sense}, then I can assure you that you do not have to be concerned that I thought that you were saying something derogatory about me. If we could have continued our discussion , perhaps, that would have become clear, but since you have [given up], perhaps we will have to wait for another opportunity to continue our discussion, perhps when you accept that I do not consider that you wrote anything derogatory about me?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on April 6, 2003, at 19:33:24
In reply to Re: P.S. Lou » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on April 6, 2003, at 19:29:36
Lou, that's a great start.
Posted by shar on April 6, 2003, at 21:42:59
In reply to Re: Lou?, posted by Dinah on April 6, 2003, at 10:12:45
That you can be optimistic and caring in this case. All I am is cynical. Alternatives only work when people are truly interested in change, and not just extending the status quo. A quick look at this thread indicates to me (imo) an interest on the part of some to keep things just exactly the way they are.
Shar
> 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 shar on April 6, 2003, at 21:55:15
In reply to Re: alternatives and a last resort, posted by Dr. Bob on April 6, 2003, at 11:13:37
ok, I have to admit I got pretty mixed up with the A's and B's, but I think the idea is sound. It seems reasonable that someone could make a civil request not to hear from someone. And, that someone could respond on the board if they had other things to say.
If I ask Sweet Sue (not a real person that I know of) not to respond to me--direct a post to me specifically--then Sweet Sue could address the topic at hand if she wanted, stating her own opinion using "I" statements and all that good communication stuff. She just wouldn't be pointing directly at me. I have no doubt that she could do so indirectly, this is a pretty sharp crew here.
If I changed my mind, and said I'm sorry to Sweet Sue, and wanted to discuss things after all, I always have that option. And, I guess I feel Sweet Sue should have the option to post a "hey, Shar, wanna talk?" post if she later stopped hating me. (tongue firmly in cheek)
Or, things could just be left the way they are, and people could learn to just ignore the known posts and/or posters that cause them problems. There are several posters that I don't read at all, and don't respond to, even though I may read and respond to other posters in that thread.
All this A and B and Sweet Sue and Posters and Posting and Responders and Threads is making me dizzy.
Shar
> > 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?
> >
> > Dinah
>
> Some creative alternatives would be great, thanks for suggesting that.
>
> > It really just amounts to harassment, IMO.
> >
> > shar
>
> OTOH, 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 Dr. Bob on April 7, 2003, at 3:46:44
In reply to Re: alternatives and a last resort » Dr. Bob, posted by beardedlady on April 6, 2003, at 13:36:18
> 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.
Yes, that's true, and hopefully the first poster understands that.
> 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.
I think the policy would need to be that "none" means "none". But the request doesn't *have* to be for "none"...
I'm afraid people are going to be hurt, too, that's why I said specifically that the request should be civil.
> 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?
>
> DinahThose are also good alternatives. Actually, administratively, the more black and white, the easier...
----
> > We could say A is considered to harass B if A directs uninvited and unwelcome posts to B.
>
> Now it is my understanding that your use of the word {AND} means that {both} have to occurYes.
> 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
I don't know about "simply", but yes, that request for clarification would be considered invited.
> Are you saying that anyone here can direct potential defaming or accusitive stements to another poster...
>
> LouNo, civility is just as important as before.
----
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> beardyNot reading or replying to posts doesn't necessarily mean those posts aren't welcome. To communicate that, you need to "go on record, officially". Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 7, 2003, at 7:07:58
In reply to Re: a last resort, posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2003, at 3:46:44
Dr. Bob,
I welcome any administrative policy that could further the goals of this forum. I will await your written policy to appear here concerning allowing or not allowing one to request clarification from another poster that writes a statement that has the potential to be accusitve or defaming to the one that is requesting the clarification.
But before you construct your policy, could you consider if there is anything in the policy that could have the potential to allow your policy to be arbitrary, caprecious, or descriminatory? If you could, then I feel that the policy could further the goals of this forum, and if there are any parts of the policy that are not {well-defined}, then that could lead to the administration of your policy to have the potential to be applied in an arbitrary, or caprecious, or descriminatory manner which would , IMO, degrade the goals of the forum.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 7, 2003, at 7:26:24
In reply to Re: a last resort, posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2003, at 3:46:44
Friends,
The following is my suggestion to those that object to me, or anyone else, requesting clarification from those that write statements to me or others that have the potential to be accusitive or defaming.
1. Before you send your statement to me,or anyone else, could you examine it and take out anything that has the potential to be included in the following code for writing statements here?
[...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 or exaggerate or overgeneralize or be sarcastic...].
If you could, then the possibility for one to request that you clarify your statement will be greatly reduced, for it is those type of statements that prompt me, at least, to request that you clarify what you wrote.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2003, at 10:01:25
In reply to Lou's response to Dr. Bob's post-LR » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 7, 2003, at 7:07:58
> I welcome any administrative policy that could further the goals of this forum. I will await your written policy to appear here concerning allowing or not allowing one to request clarification from another poster that writes a statement that has the potential to be accusitve or defaming to the one that is requesting the clarification.
If A asks B not direct posts to A, yet directs a post to B, B still may request clarification from A. If, however, the post by A isn't directed to B, B should not request clarification from A -- but still may email me with their concerns about the civility of the post by A.
> before you construct your policy, could you consider if there is anything in the policy that could have the potential to allow your policy to be arbitrary, caprecious, or descriminatory?
For example? Do you have something particular in mind?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 7, 2003, at 10:29:22
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dr. Bob's post-LR, posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2003, at 10:01:25
Dr. Bob,
You wrote that your policy for requesting clarification is that:
[...if A posts to B, then B can request clarification from A {regardless if A wrote that B was not to reply, or that they would not reply to B}...]?
If that is the case, then is what you are saying is that :
A. no one here can [requier] another to {not} request clarification from them {if they directed a post to them}?
B. A statement by a poster, to a poster that {they directed a statement to}, to not reply to them would be considered {uncivil} here?
C. anyone can reqquest clarification {unlesss the other poster writes that {no one can} request clarification from them? And this is overrulled if the statement is directed to the person that is requesting the infomation?
C-2. a poster can discriminate by writing that {anyone can respond to them},except Lou? (or someone else)
D. something else which is______
E. none of the above
F. All of the above,
some of the above , but not_____
Lou
Posted by Ron Hill on April 7, 2003, at 15:11:55
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
Posted by OddipusRex on April 7, 2003, at 17:09:46
In reply to Re: a last resort, posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2003, at 3:46:44
Was my post to Beardedlady in acceptable form? Do I need to specify all posts, particular thread or anything? I'm willing to be a test case.
> > 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.
>
> Yes, that's true, and hopefully the first poster understands that.
>
> > 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.
>
> I think the policy would need to be that "none" means "none". But the request doesn't *have* to be for "none"...
>
> I'm afraid people are going to be hurt, too, that's why I said specifically that the request should be civil.
>
> > 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?
> >
> > Dinah
>
> Those are also good alternatives. Actually, administratively, the more black and white, the easier...
>
> ----
>
> > > We could say A is considered to harass B if A directs uninvited and unwelcome posts to B.
> >
> > Now it is my understanding that your use of the word {AND} means that {both} have to occur
>
> Yes.
>
> > 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
>
> I don't know about "simply", but yes, that request for clarification would be considered invited.
>
> > Are you saying that anyone here can direct potential defaming or accusitive stements to another poster...
> >
> > Lou
>
> No, civility is just as important as before.
>
> ----
>
> > 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.
> >
> > 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
>
> Not reading or replying to posts doesn't necessarily mean those posts aren't welcome. To communicate that, you need to "go on record, officially". Thanks,
>
> Bob
Posted by OddipusRex on April 7, 2003, at 18:56:38
In reply to I'm trying it out for you » Dr. Bob, posted by OddipusRex on April 7, 2003, at 17:09:46
Possible modifications might include the requirement of not making accusations or insulting interpretations of another person's behaviour prior to requesting that he no longer post to you. Good luck with your procedure.
> Was my post to Beardedlady in acceptable form? Do I need to specify all posts, particular thread or anything? I'm willing to be a test case.
>
>
> > > 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.
> >
> > Yes, that's true, and hopefully the first poster understands that.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > I think the policy would need to be that "none" means "none". But the request doesn't *have* to be for "none"...
> >
> > I'm afraid people are going to be hurt, too, that's why I said specifically that the request should be civil.
> >
> > > 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?
> > >
> > > Dinah
> >
> > Those are also good alternatives. Actually, administratively, the more black and white, the easier...
> >
> > ----
> >
> > > > We could say A is considered to harass B if A directs uninvited and unwelcome posts to B.
> > >
> > > Now it is my understanding that your use of the word {AND} means that {both} have to occur
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > 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
> >
> > I don't know about "simply", but yes, that request for clarification would be considered invited.
> >
> > > Are you saying that anyone here can direct potential defaming or accusitive stements to another poster...
> > >
> > > Lou
> >
> > No, civility is just as important as before.
> >
> > ----
> >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > 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
> >
> > Not reading or replying to posts doesn't necessarily mean those posts aren't welcome. To communicate that, you need to "go on record, officially". Thanks,
> >
> > Bob
>
>
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.