![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 118 to 142 of 187. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 9, 2003, at 9:09:28
In reply to Lou, posted by NikkiT2 on April 9, 2003, at 8:17:43
NikkiT2,
You wrote, "When you ask fro clarification, you very rarely just post one simple post asking for this."
Now it would take a great endevor to categorize all of the posts, relevant to your conclusion, to determine the accuracy of your statement. There are two types of requests for clarification in question, one being a one-sentance request, and the other the list of choices. I feel that the [list of choices] is a good way to separate possible things in order to facilllitate clarification, not for any other reason, and I feel that the list makes it simpler for one to reply so that clarification could be given.
However I feel that if I ask for clarification, that the one being asked could ask me to clarify my request for clarification if they need assistance to comprehend the request and then we could continue after that was clarified. My goal in asking for clarification is to further the goals of this forum , which is for support and education, and I feel that clarification is a good way to foster this.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 9, 2003, at 9:58:26
In reply to (((((((((((((((Lou))))))))))))))))) » Lou Pilder, posted by OddipusRex on April 9, 2003, at 5:22:22
OddipusRex,
You wrote,[...you are not messed up, Lou...].
Well, being messed up is in the eye of the bemesseder?
Lou
Posted by OddipusRex on April 10, 2003, at 10:48:00
In reply to Lou's response to Oddipus Rex's post-LR » OddipusRex, posted by Lou Pilder on April 9, 2003, at 9:58:26
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 13, 2003, at 12:18:04
In reply to Re: Lou's respomses, posted by Dr. Bob on April 9, 2003, at 1:02:03
Dr. Bob,
I asked if one could declare that particular people not to be permitted to respond to the one's post and you replied that one could do that. But you also stated that even though one could declare that some others be not permitted to reply to them that they still could do so because as you wrote, [...the request for declaring that some others not be allowed to respond could be unreasonable because...{there is no apparent reason for it}...].
Are you saying that there must be an [...apparent reason...], {that can be seen}, for one to be allowed to make the declaration that someone not be allowed to post to them and that ther is the possibility that their declaration could be ignored because [there is no apparent reason] for their declaration? If so, then would there have to be , first, an understanding here as to whether or not a poster has [an apparent reason], or not, to declare that another person to not post to them in order for their demand to be allowed here? And if so, could you list some reasons that would make those reasons acceptable here to allow someone to declare that another poster can not post to them? If you could, then we could see what these [accptable, apparent] reasons are, or are not, so that we could respond, or not respond, by having knowlege of the full disclosure of those reasons, without the potential of {entrapment} being used here, for if one knows in advance that there are posters that can, or can not, declare that one not post to them and if there is [no apparent reason] for them to make the declaration to the other to not post to them, then one could either post to them , or not post to them, without having to guess as to if there posting to them is OK because they do, or do not, have an [...apparent reason ...] to exclude the other poster from posting to them.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 13, 2003, at 14:08:56
In reply to Re: Lou's respomses, posted by Dr. Bob on April 9, 2003, at 1:02:03
Dr. Bob,
You wrote,[...I feel it is more important for people to not feel harrased than for people to be able to ask questions...].
I do not believe that a question to another poster constitutes [harrassment]. Harrasment is ruled out when a request for clarification is a result of what the poster being asked to clarify had directed to the one requesting clarification.
If a person feels harrased, that feeling that they have may be a result of an {internal} condition that they have, and not a result of being asked a question by another poster, and I think that it is better to not allow a poster to declare that another poster to not be allowed to respond to them, thus allowing to create stigmatization here on a public forum to that poster that responds to that poster.
If a person writes that they feel harrased, that may not necessarily be the real reason that they are declaring that another poster can not respond to what they wrote, for others could respond to what they wrote and that is permiissible here, so they may have an ulterior motive to declare that another poster can not respond to them. They could be attempting to defame the other poster and want to try and prevent the other poster from correcting the potentually defaming statement. They may be predudiced to the other poster. They may hate the other poster. They may be trying to conceal their unjustfied ill -feelings to the other poster by preventing them from exposing them by requesting clarification from them. After all, the complaint that is seen here that is used to attempt me from requesting clarification is that the request,[...put them on the spot...], not that they consider a request for clarification to constitute harrassment.
If a person declares that another can't post to them because they claim that they are being harrassed by the other poster, it could be that , in actuallity, that the poster claiming harrassement is harassing the one that is responding to what they wrote, for the statement in question that one is responding to may allude to being an accusatory or defaming statement to another poster that would like clarification of what they wrote.
I do not belive that it is harrasment to be a discussant on a public forum and be able to freely request clarification from a poster about what they wrote, for if what they are writing is in violation of the code here, then the moderator could always intercede, thus making any such decaration to [...don't post to me...] to be unecessary.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 13, 2003, at 14:24:53
In reply to Re: Lou's respomses, posted by Dr. Bob on April 9, 2003, at 1:02:03
Dr. Bob,
You wrote,[...If a persom wants to be able to post to another person, they should take account of the other poster's feelings...].
I always take account of people's feelings, if they are ligitamate and reasoanable. But I feel that it is unreasonable to take in accout any feelings of another if the post has the potential to be defaming or accusatory or needs to be clarified for identification or for some other good or just cause. I do not feel that a public forum should allow people's {ill}-feelings toward another poster to render them to declare that another poster can not respond to them. I feel that if people's feelings are more important than the purpose of this board, that they should not be posting statements that have the potential to hurt my feelings, or hurt other people's feelings. My suggestion, if {I} was the moderator of a public internet mental -health forum, would be not to favor a person's want to keep anyone from posting to what they posted. Instead, I would requier a poster to answer a request for clarification if their statement had the potential to be defamatory or accusitve, so that any offensive statement is addressed for its potential to defame another poster,[and not left on the board unclarified .]
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 13, 2003, at 14:34:31
In reply to Re: Lou's respomses, posted by Dr. Bob on April 9, 2003, at 1:02:03
Dr. Bob,
You wrote that a person can declare another to [...not to post to me...].
I am requesting that you direct me to some link that identifies to me the posters here that have made that decalration that I am not to respond to them. Then I would like for the reason(s) that they have made this decaration to deny me to post to them be published here so that I could have the opportunity to chalenge such reasons, for I do not believe that I am a person that deserves to be stigmatized by this forum of people in any way, for my requests for clarification are reasonable and just, and if you are going to allow any one here to decalre that I can not post to them, then I would like them identified so as to defend myself againt the stigmatization that could occure as a result of your allowing this practice here.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 13, 2003, at 15:27:06
In reply to Re: Lou's respomses, posted by Dr. Bob on April 9, 2003, at 1:02:03
Dr. Bob,
Let us consider the following example:
ObstreporousTex: All people that like the Kentucky Derby are in need of psychotropic drugs and are troublemakers.
Weirdedbeardo: Yes, If they like horses to run fast so that they could die, they have no respect for animals.
Lou: I am in the class of people that like the Kentucky Derby, ObstreporousTex, so could you clarify what your rational is for making your conclusion?
Drippy2: Lou, don't you know that ObstreporousRex has declared that you are not to respond to him?
Lou: I am in that class, so I am responding to a post that is directed to me, even though my name is not mentioned.
boozman: Can you drink Bourbon at the Kentucky, Derby, ObstreporousRex?
OCDDitty: Horse racing is an obsession.
Lou: I am requesting that Dr. Bob make a determination as to whether it is allowed in this case forObstreporous Tex to delare that I can not post to him.
Dr. Bob, in this case , could I have posted, under your policy of [...do not post to me...] to ObstreporousTex?
Lou
Posted by noa on April 13, 2003, at 17:04:53
In reply to Lou's response to Dr. Bob's post-VC-3 » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 13, 2003, at 14:24:53
> I always take account of people's feelings,
Lou, did you take people's feelings into account when you used these insulting distortions of people's names to illustrate your point?
ObstreporousTex:
Weirdedbeardo:
Drippy2:
boozman:
Posted by noa on April 13, 2003, at 17:09:29
In reply to Lou's response to Dr. Bob's post-VC-3 » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 13, 2003, at 14:24:53
> I always take account of people's feelings, if they are ligitamate and reasoanable.
How exactly does one determine what feelings are "legitimate and reasonable"?
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 13, 2003, at 20:08:52
In reply to Re: Lou's respomses, posted by Dr. Bob on April 9, 2003, at 1:02:03
Dr. Bob,
You wrote,[...no apparent reason...].
Let us look at this example:
Drippy2: Does anybody here know of a good OTC medicine for sinus trouble?
Weirdedbeardo: I had seeenus trouble once.
Drippy2: What do you mean seenus trouble? I have sinus trouble.
Lou: Well, Drippy2, could you explain the diiference between sinus trouble and seenus trouble?
Drippy2: I'm declaring that you are to not post to me. I am a recently new poster here and I have never communicated with you, but I am exercising my right here to declare that you not post to me anyway.
Wierdedbeardo: I was out with this girl and my girlfriend seenus, and boy did I have trouble.
Dr. Bob, would Drippy be allowed to invoke the declaration that I was not to respond to him/her under the fact that there was [...no apparent reason...]?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 13, 2003, at 20:31:01
In reply to Re: Lou's respomses, posted by Dr. Bob on April 9, 2003, at 1:02:03
Dr. Bob,
You wrote,[...unfortunately,people who are asked not to post could end up stigmatized...].
Let us look at this example:
ObstreporousTex: I have been reading this board and I'm not taking any advise from any of you. The only question that I really wanted answered here was whether I should take mojo at the same time that I am using parfanute. I read all of your replys to me and I'm just not going to listen to you because not one of you had taken mojo with parfanute yourselves and were only citing opinions of others, and us Texans want it from the horse's mouth.
Lou: I took mojo with parfanute, ObstreporousRex, would you like to here what I know personally about it?
ObstreporousTex:I have been reading that others here are telling you that you are not to post to them, so there must be something wrong with you and so I do not want to hear from you either.
Dr. Bob, would OT be allowed to invoke the [...not post to me...] policy under in this example?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 13, 2003, at 20:53:45
In reply to Re: Distorting people's names, posted by noa on April 13, 2003, at 17:04:53
noa,
You wrote,[...distortions of people's names...].
The names in the examples are fictitious names in a hypothetical example to ask the moderator of this baord to clarify a proposed policy that I consider to be an unsound mental-health practice , if the polcy is implemented without input from the posters here. Ther is a civil discussion ongoing about whether this policy should exists in one form or another , or not at all. It is important that the discussion be focused on the policy that we are talking about, and I am giving my input , and others are also. Are you saying that my intentions are to insult someone? If so,and my intentions are not to innsult anyone, could you tell me what it is that makes you rush to that conclusion?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 13, 2003, at 21:17:18
In reply to Re: feelings, posted by noa on April 13, 2003, at 17:09:29
noa,
You wrote,[...how do you determine what feelings are reasonable and ligitamate...]?
Well, if their feelings are internally generated, then I do not feel that I am responsible for anyone else's reaction that they may have for their reaction could be irrational in respect to the subject at hand. This was discussed here previously when a poster objected to me writing about God because the poster's parents were religious and somehow the religion in the family harmed the poster and my post supposedly could trigger bad memories of the posters parents in relation to religion. I feel that no one has to muzzle themselves to accomodate the unknown triggers to anothers past problems in their lives, for I feel that would be an unreasonable expectation to impose on any one.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on April 14, 2003, at 8:08:49
In reply to Lou's respomse to noa's post-DPTM » noa, posted by Lou Pilder on April 13, 2003, at 20:53:45
"The names in the examples are fictitious names in a hypothetical example ..."
You are joking right Lou... The names you used, are NOT fictitious as you rightly know. YOu have taken posters names here and distorted them.
It is offensive, nasty, and your denial of it simply... well, I don't have the word for it.
Are you trying to tell me that names such as OsteperousRex and WierdedBeardo, Boozeman and Drippy2, were just complete figments of your imagination, and any similiarity to posters here, is a strange coincidence?
Please refrain from using names you have twisted from real posters.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 14, 2003, at 9:20:48
In reply to Re: Lou's respomse to noa's post-DPTM » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on April 14, 2003, at 8:08:49
NikkiT2,
You wrote,[...you have taken poster's names here and distorted them...].
Could you match up the names in my hypothetical situation that you think corrospond to posters here? If you could, then I could respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by OddipusRex on April 14, 2003, at 9:30:36
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post-DPTM » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on April 14, 2003, at 9:20:48
Here I was thinking I'd been an inspiration :) I wouldn't have taken any offense if I had been.
> NikkiT2,
> You wrote,[...you have taken poster's names here and distorted them...].
> Could you match up the names in my hypothetical situation that you think corrospond to posters here? If you could, then I could respond accordingly.
> Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 14, 2003, at 9:40:59
In reply to Perhaps I flattered myself re ObstreperousTex » Lou Pilder, posted by OddipusRex on April 14, 2003, at 9:30:36
OddipusRex,
You wrote,[...I'd been an inspiration...].
Thank you for pointing out that there could be [other] reasons why a name is used in a hypothetical example. You see, in the hypothetical example, another poster could have been {inspiered} by you and since he was from Texas, and cantankerous, he made up the name, ObstreperousTex because he admired you.
Lou
Posted by noa on April 14, 2003, at 9:42:48
In reply to Lou's respomse to noa's post-DPTM » noa, posted by Lou Pilder on April 13, 2003, at 20:53:45
I haven't concluded anything. But I am saying that I perceive that the "fictitious" names you've chosen are not hypothetical enough. To me, they seem too closely related to real names on this board, with minor distortions of a negative nature. This is my perception. I am saying that when I read them I see them as potentially insulting and in contradiction to your stated intentions of considering other people's feelings. That is all.
Posted by noa on April 14, 2003, at 9:49:25
In reply to Re: Perhaps I flattered myself re ObstreperousTex » OddipusRex, posted by Lou Pilder on April 14, 2003, at 9:40:59
Lou, give me a break.
Any second-grader would be able to match them up. And if you claim that it is coincidence, I would not be able to believe you.
And if you claim that there is no way the names could be perceived as insulting, I would disagree. Rex might be flattered but I think that is unusual. To be flattered would require seeing it as sarcasm in good faith, and sarcasm is at the very least very risky in this form of communication.
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 14, 2003, at 9:50:15
In reply to Re: Lou's respomse to noa's post-DPTM, posted by noa on April 14, 2003, at 9:42:48
noa,
You wrote,[...I havn't concluded anything...potentually insulting...].
Could you match up the posters names with the hypothetical ones? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond to your perception that the names are insulting.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 14, 2003, at 10:02:21
In reply to Re: Perhaps I flattered myself re ObstreperousTex, posted by noa on April 14, 2003, at 9:49:25
noa,
You wrote,[...to be flattered would {requier}...].
I do not believe there are any set requierments for one to be flattered. In the hypothetical, more than one perception could be made. ObstreporousTex could have {liked} the name of OddipusRex for many different reasons, not just the reason that you percieve.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 14, 2003, at 10:09:46
In reply to Re: Perhaps I flattered myself re ObstreperousTex, posted by noa on April 14, 2003, at 9:49:25
noa,
You wrote,[...names changed...insulting...].
Could you clarify what names are changed and how the change resulte in {insulting}? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 14, 2003, at 10:37:12
In reply to Re: Perhaps I flattered myself re ObstreperousTex, posted by noa on April 14, 2003, at 9:49:25
noa,
You wrote,[...any 2end grader would be able to match them up...].
Well, I do not know who you are matching up who with who. Are you saying that a 2end grader could do the matching and that I can't? If so, could you clarify the charactoristics of a 2end grader that I am lacking? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 14, 2003, at 10:48:31
In reply to Re: Lou's respomse to noa's post-DPTM » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on April 14, 2003, at 8:08:49
NikkiT2,
You wrote, "The names you used are Not fictitious as you rightly know."
Could you clarify what you used to make that conclusion? The names are fictitious,for the example is hypothetical and the names are of unreal people. Are you saying that you have some type of special power to look into my mind and tell what I {know}?
Lou
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.