![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 209 to 233 of 255. Go back in thread:
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 9, 2005, at 14:04:49
In reply to Re: Hug break, posted by alexandra_k on June 9, 2005, at 3:33:25
How long have you been standing here? Your arms must be tired.
((((SquishedAlex)))
I just pulled your hair too : )
Posted by alexandra_k on June 9, 2005, at 21:21:42
In reply to OH Gosh » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 9, 2005, at 14:04:49
...Though Dr Bob did choose to have the party in Chicago which excludes certain people from attending rather than, say, Auckland NZ which would have excluded certain others ;-)
Posted by alexandra_k on June 9, 2005, at 22:25:10
In reply to OH Gosh » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 9, 2005, at 14:04:49
> How long have you been standing here? Your arms must be tired.
Aw. Its ok.
Its so cold I froze solid
So it didn't take too much effort.
> ((((SquishedAlex))):-)
> I just pulled your hair too : )Careful or I'll have to smack you ;-)
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 9, 2005, at 23:27:44
In reply to Re: relevant difference, posted by alexandra_k on June 9, 2005, at 21:21:42
> ...Though Dr Bob did choose to have the party in Chicago which excludes certain people from attending rather than, say, Auckland NZ which would have excluded certain others ;-)
The inference from that I gather, is ethics of convenience "I wanted to do this, so I'm going to rationalize a way for it to be fair"
I can't imagine anyone having an opinion would feel it any more or less exclusive if Dr.Bob had held it in Japan, or if there was a conference he invitated people to that happened to be in
L.A.Life circumstances are going to prevent some from going to a party. That does not make it an exclusive event if all are invited.
I really wish the topic of the party and the exclusion could be left alone. It's clear what you are saying, that there are personal desires
affecting the consistancy of ethics. There are not.
Some see the two as being different in a way that you do not. Please try and accept this without feeling as if you need to educate the commoners. I wish the inferences would stop. I wish this topic could be let go of. Believe it or not critical thinking is not a foreign concept to us.
Posted by Dinah on June 10, 2005, at 7:53:22
In reply to Re: relevant difference » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 9, 2005, at 23:27:44
Thank you again, Gabbi. You said that better than I could.
I'm assuming that Dr. Bob let the prior comment about the average person go because he correctly believes all Babblers are extraordinary. :)
Posted by Dinah on June 10, 2005, at 8:05:22
In reply to Re: Hug break, posted by alexandra_k on June 9, 2005, at 3:33:25
Alexandra, it seems to me that you're very hurt by not being able to come to Chicago. I think a lot of people were, even though almost everyone is being very gracious about it. I really wish there was some way to include everyone physically, and if not physically, then through technology.
It does occur to me that Babble birthday parties are doing more harm than good to the board, and I even emailed Dr. Bob something along those lines.
I understand that you place less emphasis on intent than I do in this topic. (Although I hope you appreciate the importance I place on intent.)
However, I hope you don't think that Dr. Bob held it there to exclude you. Just as if he were to hold in in New Zealand, and I absolutely could not scrape up enough money to go, I wouldn't consider that his intent was to exclude those from the US. Of course, if he decides to go to that area, I hope it's to the opal mining area of Australia. That's always been on my list of dream trips.
A hug for you, Alexandra, because you seem upset, and that was never my intention.
(((((Alexandra)))))
And a hug for Gabbi and Auntie Mel as well.
((((((Gabbi))))))
(((((Auntie Mel)))))
Posted by alexandra_k on June 10, 2005, at 10:20:10
In reply to Re: Hug break » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on June 10, 2005, at 8:05:22
> Alexandra, it seems to me that you're very hurt by not being able to come to Chicago.
Not particularly. I would have liked to have gone and I feel a little envious that I couldn't but I'm not *very* hurt. I've had worse 'life circumstances' and this does not compare to those.
>I think a lot of people were, even though almost everyone is being very gracious about it.
I'm sorry if you think I am not being gracious about it. I'm not trying to ruin this. I just find it suprising and a little strange that the people most upset about small boards are most happy with the notion of a Babble party.
> It does occur to me that Babble birthday parties are doing more harm than good to the boardI disagree. I think it was a wonderful opportunity. It sounds like the people who went really enjoyed themselves and other people here are enjoying some of what people have to say about their experience.
> I understand that you place less emphasis on intent than I do in this topic. (Although I hope you appreciate the importance I place on intent.)
???
I'm not sure how I am placing less emphasis on intent. But maybe my focus is different. It is like one of us seeing the glass half full and the other seeing the glass half empty. You describe the intent as purposely excluding others, I describe the intent as purposely trying to help people feel included.
> However, I hope you don't think that Dr. Bob held it there to exclude you.I don't.
I am not taking it personally.
Really :-)>Just as if he were to hold in in New Zealand, and I absolutely could not scrape up enough money to go, I wouldn't consider that his intent was to exclude those from the US.
Yup.
And I guess I don't consider his intent to be to exclude people from Babbling.
Thanks for the hug.
I really am ok.
I hope you are ok too.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 10, 2005, at 10:32:46
In reply to Re: relevant difference » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 9, 2005, at 23:27:44
> > ...Though Dr Bob did choose to have the party in Chicago which excludes certain people from attending rather than, say, Auckland NZ which would have excluded certain others ;-)
> The inference from that I gather, is ethics of convenience "I wanted to do this, so I'm going to rationalize a way for it to be fair"
What I was attempting to illustrate was the idea that what might be described as 'life circumstances' can sometimes also be described as 'intentional action'.
With respect to whether feelings of being left out result from 'life circumstances' or the 'intentional action' of a person.
To say that small boards are about intentional exclusion whereas babble parties are about life circumstances may not be so much of a distinction if we can equally well describe small boards as being about life circumstances and babble parties about intentional action.
And so if that is the relevant difference, I'm not sure that the 'difference' is enough to distinguish between those two cases.
> I really wish the topic of the party and the exclusion could be left alone.
I know you do.
> Some see the two as being different in a way that you do not. Please try and accept this
I'm trying to understand it. I'm finding it hard to see the relevant difference.
>without feeling as if you need to educate the commoners.
Ouch. I'm sorry that you feel that that is my intention. I'm trying to have a discussion. I don't see myself as better than you or anyone else on these boards.
:-(>I wish the inferences would stop. I wish this topic could be let go of.
You are free to stop following the thread if you really have had enough.
Remember... I can only post three posts if nobody responds...
>Believe it or not critical thinking is not a foreign concept to us.
Of course I believe it!
Thats why I like talking with you people.
If I looked down on you why would I bother?
If I was just trying to educate you why would I bother?
(Please believe me that tutoring is not my favourite thing to do)In this thread...
What you said to me got me thinking about my thoughts on philosophy etc in general.
In general.I can see you have an image of me
Of what you think I am trying to do
And my ramble on the nature of philosophy probably only served to reinforce that.:-(
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 10, 2005, at 12:56:52
In reply to Re: relevant difference » Gabbi-x-2, posted by alexandra_k on June 10, 2005, at 10:32:46
> >without feeling as if you need to educate the commoners.
>
> Ouch. I'm sorry that you feel that that is my intention. I'm trying to have a discussion. I don't see myself as better than you or anyone else on these boards.How could I not.
You said "I'm trying to help people learn, but most ordinary people don't give a sh*t"
That sounds like an intent to educated to me.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 10, 2005, at 13:06:08
In reply to Re: relevant difference » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 10, 2005, at 12:56:52
> > >without feeling as if you need to educate the commoners.
> >
> > Ouch. I'm sorry that you feel that that is my intention. I'm trying to have a discussion. I don't see myself as better than you or anyone else on these boards.
>
How could I not.
> You said "I'm trying to help people learn, but most ordinary people don't give a sh*t"
> That sounds like an intent to educated to me.Of course that should have said *educate*
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 10, 2005, at 15:59:43
In reply to Re: relevant difference » Gabbi-x-2, posted by Dinah on June 10, 2005, at 7:53:22
> Thank you again, Gabbi. You said that better than I could.
>
> I'm assuming that Dr. Bob let the prior comment about the average person go because he correctly believes all Babblers are extraordinary. :)
That must be it, he couldn't possibly think that was a reference to us.You're very welcome, though, why I do this, I don't know. I think I'm going to go through my day wearing a hair shirt, as it will be equally as productive..
Posted by Dinah on June 10, 2005, at 16:55:10
In reply to Re: Hug break » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on June 10, 2005, at 10:20:10
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 10, 2005, at 17:39:06
In reply to Re: relevant difference » Gabbi-x-2, posted by alexandra_k on June 10, 2005, at 10:32:46
> You are free to stop following the thread if you really have had enough.
I took you at your word when you said all one had to do was ask you to stop. That, apparently is not the case.
> Remember... I can only post three posts if nobody responds...
>
> >Believe it or not critical thinking is not a foreign concept to us.
>
> Of course I believe it!
> Thats why I like talking with you people.
> If I looked down on you why would I bother?
> If I was just trying to educate you why would I bother?
> (Please believe me that tutoring is not my favourite thing to do)
>
> In this thread...
> What you said to me got me thinking about my thoughts on philosophy etc in general.
> In general.
>
> I can see you have an image of me
> Of what you think I am trying to do
> And my ramble on the nature of philosophy probably only served to reinforce that.No, it was your statement, two of them actually, that you are attempting to educate, one here, and one on Social, where you mentioned how frustrating it was to attempt this.
I am going to ask you again to please not post to me, and please do not post indirectly to my posts.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 10, 2005, at 17:45:22
In reply to Please do not post to me (nm) » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on June 10, 2005, at 16:55:10
if that looked like a copy cat idea. It definitely wasn't.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 10, 2005, at 17:57:44
In reply to Re: relevant difference » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 9, 2005, at 23:27:44
Maybe no-one cares, but I'm feeling some thoughts rising up...
OK. First, I wasn't hurt that there was a get-together in Chicago, or that I couldn't or didn't get to go. Second, as I've said before, I don't have a strong preference one way or the other about whether or not there should be small boards (as long as they're not by invitation only). Or even if they should be publicly viewable. (Though in general I wish all of Psycho-Babble wasn't so public.)
I think if there'd been a PB get-together and only select people were invited, that would have been exclusion. (But in reality, the only thing keeping people from attending was desire, and/or time and money.) I think if there are small boards on PB and only select people are invited, that will be exclusion. (But in reality, if I understand the suggestions so far, the only thing keeping people out will be desire and/or space.)
I don't think the intention of the PB get-together organizers was exclusion. And I don't think the intention of those who'd like small-boards is exclusion. And if intention makes the former OK, then the latter is too, IMO.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 10, 2005, at 18:15:30
In reply to Re: But what does Minnie think?, posted by Minnie-Haha on June 10, 2005, at 17:57:44
I think if there are small boards on PB and only select people are invited, that will be exclusion. (But in reality, if I understand the suggestions so far, the only thing keeping people out will be desire and/or space.)
Well, the intention of the small boards, or the purpose of them, is to keep them small, to limit the amount of people, to me that is purposeful exclusion. It's not a lack of space by accident, it's a purposeful limitation, to keep those who've joined seperate from the rest of Babble.
Whereas if everyone could have come to the party, everyone would have been welcome, that to me is the difference.
If I had a party, and invited people, and it was open to everyone I invited, (obviously) but someone halfway across the world could not come, I would not consider it exclusion. However, if I had a small area roped off, that had people in it, and someone wanted to sit there, and I said "I'm sorry, you cannot" I would consider that to be intentional exclusion. And to me, the intent is the key.And that's all I have to say about that. : )
Hi Minnie.
>
> I don't think the intention of the PB get-together organizers was exclusion. And I don't think the intention of those who'd like small-boards is exclusion. And if intention makes the former OK, then the latter is too, IMO.
>
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 10, 2005, at 20:11:34
In reply to Re: But what does Minnie think? » Minnie-Haha, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 10, 2005, at 18:15:30
Isn't it funny how so many of us keep saying we're not gonna post about this anymore... and then we post more? :-) (I've done it too... I think. I'm just trying to keep it light.)
> Well, the intention of the small boards, or the purpose of them, is to keep them small, to limit the amount of people, to me that is purposeful exclusion. It's not a lack of space by accident, it's a purposeful limitation, to keep those who've joined seperate from the rest of Babble ... And to me, the intent is the key.
Yes, if the small-group members' intentions were simply to accept certain individuals and exclude others, that would be bad. But that is not the intention that I've heard expressed. Those who are pro-small-boards say they feel uncomfortable on the larger boards, and that smaller boards would be a way for them to feel safe *and* included. That is their stated intention. To assume it is anything else would be uncharitable. (I assume it would be uncharitable, because when I brought up the subject of intention in a previous thread, and suggested that another's intention cannot be known, I was advised that it was charitable to assume their intentions *are* good -- or at least *not* bad.)
Are there some mind-readers out there who we can employ to help us judge others' intentions?
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 10, 2005, at 21:16:45
In reply to Re: But what does Minnie think? » Gabbi-x-2, posted by Minnie-Haha on June 10, 2005, at 20:11:34
> Isn't it funny how so many of us keep saying we're not gonna post about this anymore... and then we post more? :-) (I've done it too... I think. I'm just trying to keep it light.)
Oh, It wasn't the topic itself that I wasn't going to post on, it was the surrounding comments of "logic" "inconsistancy" and other.. stuff.
The actual topic, and straight up differing viewpoints are not a sensitive topic at all.
Posted by henrietta on June 10, 2005, at 21:24:43
In reply to Re: relevant difference » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 10, 2005, at 17:39:06
A couple weeks ago you asked me to accept your apology for something you'd said to me. You may have noticed I did not respond. That was not an oversight on my part. Here's what I wanted to say, but didn't:
"I suppose I'm meant to feel flattered that you find "some of my posts" interesting,
but I feel under no obligation to explain those you find baffling. I am unable at this time to accept your apology in good faith."
I am still unable to accept your apology, and I think it may be worthwhile for you to examine the possibility that the practice of active condescension falls comfortably within your repertoire.
Please do not post to me, or (if it's within the guidelines here) refer indirectly to any of my posts.
Posted by gardenergirl on June 10, 2005, at 23:53:15
In reply to Re: But what does Minnie think? » Minnie-Haha, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 10, 2005, at 18:15:30
>
> And that's all I have to say about that. : )Ha ha! ;)
gg
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 11, 2005, at 0:02:57
In reply to No wonder I like you, Gabbi » Gabbi-x-2, posted by gardenergirl on June 10, 2005, at 23:53:15
> >
> > And that's all I have to say about that. : )
>
> Ha ha! ;)
>
> ggWell *sniff* if that's the only reason *sniff*
.......oh well, I guess it's as good as any..
Pretty soon you won't have Gabbi to kick around anymore..
Don't worry about me though, I'll be fine *squeak*
: )
Posted by gardenergirl on June 11, 2005, at 0:10:30
In reply to Re: No wonder I like you, GG » gardenergirl, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 11, 2005, at 0:02:57
I'm sorry. What I really meant is that it's just another piece of data in the why I like Gabbi collection.
But your humor takes up a big section in the collection. :)
And I can't kick you. My foot hurts from kicking my husband's *ss. Oh wait. That was my words, not my foot. I get that confused. Foot in mouth and all. (Oh the visual image I just gave myself....)
I know...keep it administrative.
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 11, 2005, at 11:06:13
In reply to Re: relevant difference » Gabbi-x-2, posted by henrietta on June 10, 2005, at 21:24:43
> the possibility that the practice of active condescension falls comfortably within your repertoire.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 11, 2005, at 11:17:14
In reply to Re: But what does Minnie think? » Minnie-Haha, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 10, 2005, at 18:15:30
> If I had a party, and invited people, and it was open to everyone I invited, (obviously) but someone halfway across the world could not come, I would not consider it exclusion. However, if I had a small area roped off, that had people in it, and someone wanted to sit there, and I said "I'm sorry, you cannot" I would consider that to be intentional exclusion. And to me, the intent is the key.
Is a bigger party always better?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on June 11, 2005, at 11:20:09
In reply to Re: parties, posted by Dr. Bob on June 11, 2005, at 11:17:14
I'm sure you would agree, Dr. Bob, that a bigger Babble party where you would get a chance to meet every single Babbler who wishes to attend, would be a truly wondrous event.
And if you don't, do you think maybe that's something that's best kept behind your lips in your brain?
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.