![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 732 to 756 of 1133. Go back in thread:
Posted by Kath on November 29, 2005, at 14:03:19
In reply to Re: Toronto PB-Birthday 2006 » Kath, posted by Deneb on November 29, 2005, at 11:20:46
Hi Deneb - thanks! I'm still trying to find where it tells the info about the Birthday party being in Toronto, and when & where exactly (if that's even known yet).
Also, I remember reading from someone who said they were from Ottawa & can't seem to find that one either!I'm pretty excited at the thought of being about to meet Babblers in Toronto, but I mostly know folks at PB2000, so I don't even know if there'd be anyone there I'd know! I'm probably too shy to go if there's no one there I'd know.
ALSO, I posted SOMEWHERE saying that I live an hour north of Toronto & might be able to be of some use & I don't remember WHERE I posted that!!
Thanks - Kath
Hi Kath,
>
> Sorry it's confusing. There's a thread over on Psychology about our involvement in the APA meeting.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20050901/msgs/550329.html
>
> Deneb
Posted by 10derHeart on November 29, 2005, at 16:03:18
In reply to Re: Toronto PB-Birthday 2006 » Deneb, posted by Kath on November 29, 2005, at 14:03:19
You posted about Ottawa on Admin...here's the link:http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20051013/msgs/582796.html
:-)
Posted by Dinah on November 29, 2005, at 22:03:50
In reply to Re: Toronto PB-Birthday 2006, posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2005, at 1:11:29
I do believe it is, Dr. Bob.
I don't need to know much yet, other than what days are involved.
It seems as if there are people in the area, who would have ideas for planning.
Although I must confess my favorite moments from the last party were the quiet ones with a good chance for talking. And of course that wonderful dinner the first night! Annierose is terrific.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2005, at 22:06:58
In reply to Re: Toronto PB-Birthday 2006 » Dr. Bob, posted by annierose on November 29, 2005, at 13:47:40
Posted by gardenergirl on November 29, 2005, at 22:08:33
In reply to Re: Toronto PB-Birthday 2006 » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on November 29, 2005, at 22:03:50
She picked a great restaurant and made it a festive affair with her goodies.
Just finished the mints last week. :)
gg
Posted by Deneb on December 9, 2005, at 13:02:55
In reply to Re: Toronto PB-Birthday 2006 » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on November 29, 2005, at 22:03:50
> I don't need to know much yet, other than what days are involved.
I plan to stay for as long as there are activities with other Babblers.
What we know so far:
Friday May 19
Dr. Bob arrivesSaturday May 20
Dr. Bob has meeting during the daySunday May 21
Dr. Bob is busyMonday May 22
9-10:30am Small groups presentationThursday May 25
Last day of APA meeting> It seems as if there are people in the area, who would have ideas for planning.
>
> Although I must confess my favorite moments from the last party were the quiet ones with a good chance for talking. And of course that wonderful dinner the first night! Annierose is terrific.Lets make a list of possible activities
- dinner
- lunch
- museums
- CN tower
- zoo
- walk in park
- walk around downtownEveryone, please feel free to add your schedule and activities to the list.
Deneb
Posted by crazy teresa on December 26, 2005, at 14:02:13
In reply to Re: Toronto PB-Birthday 2006, posted by Deneb on December 9, 2005, at 13:02:55
wear my straightjacket? ROFL!
crazy t
Posted by LegWarmers on January 3, 2006, at 22:19:50
In reply to If I come to Toronto, do I have to, posted by crazy teresa on December 26, 2005, at 14:02:13
Posted by crazy teresa on January 6, 2006, at 20:48:15
In reply to you might (nm) » crazy teresa, posted by LegWarmers on January 3, 2006, at 22:19:50
I would very much prefer hosting an uncivil party in my home.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 6, 2006, at 21:40:09
In reply to Too bad attending no longer appeals to me., posted by crazy teresa on January 6, 2006, at 20:48:15
> I would very much prefer hosting an uncivil party in my home.
where people feel free to judge and abuse you?
Posted by crazy teresa on January 6, 2006, at 22:04:40
In reply to Re: Too bad attending no longer appeals to me., posted by alexandra_k on January 6, 2006, at 21:40:09
Posted by alexandra_k on January 6, 2006, at 22:19:25
In reply to Are you implying I have abused and judged someone? (nm) » alexandra_k, posted by crazy teresa on January 6, 2006, at 22:04:40
i just meant that the point of the civility rules is to deliver consequences for people saying things that are likely to result in another person feeling abused or judged or whatever.
thus...
if you want a party where people aren't 'confined' by the civility rules...
then you might well have yourself a party where people aren't 'confined' so as to refrain from abusing or judging you.i just wondered whether all things considered...
you really would prefer that...
Posted by crazy teresa on January 7, 2006, at 0:51:25
In reply to Re: not at all..., posted by alexandra_k on January 6, 2006, at 22:19:25
The only time you post to me is when you disagree and want to dissect my posts, sentence by sentence; not even a friendly hello otherwise.
Perhaps more friendly communication between us would have eased things, but I feel very accused and put down when I read responses like that; with what I interpret as only negative connotations.
I am currently on day 6 of cold turkey withdrawal from 225 mg. of Effexor; so I'm sure you will understand when I tell you that I do not feel like, nor do I wish to, "debate" with you.
I believe in speaking (and living my life with) the truth in love, without manipulation. Anything less is a waste of my time, because it wouldn't be real enough for me.
You put stock in civility.
I am not interested in having someone try to change my mind.
I will not try to change yours.
End of discussion.
I am very sorry you have jumped to the conclusion I was making a comment on THE RULES. I was not.
(((((((Alex)))))))
And by the way, in real life (yes, even at a party at my house), others AREN'T restrained from abusing us, hating us, judging us, ignoring us, getting fed up with us, leaving us, loving us, over-protecting us...
That's why a lot of us are here, isn't it?It's the bobster's job security.
I'm guessing someday soon, it'll be yours.
(((((((Alex)))))))
Posted by alexandra_k on January 7, 2006, at 2:07:34
In reply to Re: not at all..., posted by alexandra_k on January 6, 2006, at 22:19:25
i can
i am really really sorry
i never meant to hurt
sometimes...
i get into a funny headspace and i don't appreciate that people are sensitive
i'm sorry
:-(
Posted by crazy teresa on January 8, 2006, at 11:31:50
In reply to Re: Too bad attending no longer appeals to me., posted by alexandra_k on January 6, 2006, at 21:40:09
NOW I get it! I’m just soooo f*cking thick at times.
If a poster is offended by another’s post, the offense lies within the offended for being sensitive. NOT because the offensive poster was hurtful.
This is civility. The truth about this statement would not be considered civil, therefore, it is negated.
DNP means a poster can post a response to the one who has requested the DNP, as long as he doesn’t check the little box and add the previous poster’s name (who requested the DNP) to the end of the post in which the response was posted.
Good to know! We should all be playing on an equally civil playing field.
And DNP does not include babble mail…
(Oh, my head… I’m getting confused again. Deep breath.)
And posters are allowed to pretty much post anything they desire, however uncivil, as long as a quickly posted apology directly follows the uncivil post, negating the original incivility.
So really, all one has to do to be civil, is to learn how to work the system! That is the ultimate key in the land of babble.
Posted by wildcard on January 8, 2006, at 11:54:53
In reply to Hysterically (not the good kind) LMAO, bobster, posted by crazy teresa on January 8, 2006, at 11:31:50
but i really......love you you crazy *ss!!!
Posted by zeugma on January 8, 2006, at 12:56:14
In reply to Re: Too bad attending no longer appeals to me., posted by alexandra_k on January 6, 2006, at 21:40:09
where people feel free to judge and abuse you?>>
I think you are making too strong a link between civility and absence of judgement and abuse.
Consider this famous example from Grice::
>>A is writing a testimonial about a pupil who is a candidate for a philosophy job, and his letter reads as follows: "Dear Sir, Mr. X's command of English is excellent, and his attendace at tutorials has been regular. Yours, etc." (Gloss: A cannot be opting out, since if he wished to be uncooperative, why write at all? He cannot be unable, through ignorance, to say more, since the man is his pupil; moreover, he knows that more information than this is wanted. He must, therefore, be wishing to impart information that he is wishing to impart information that he is reluctant to write down. This supposition is tenable only if he thinks Mr. X is no good at philosophy. This, then, is what he is implicating.">>
A has expressed the judgement that Mr. X is no good at philosophy while conforming to accepted principles of civil discourse. Suppose contents of the letter, by evil design on the part of A, were made known to Mr. X (or perhaps A was benevolently trying to get Mr. X out of the philosophy business to save him future embarrassment). Has anything uncivil occured (by the definitions I have extracted from the dictionary, from perusal of existing civility rules, and reflections on how they work in practice)? No. Has a judgement been passed, a negative one? Yes. Could this constitute abuse perpetrated on Mr. X? Yes. It shows a lack of respect for him, and a lack of decency beyond what sending the man a letter strewn with random obscenities could produce. Well, maybe Mr. X can read English, but can't put 2 and 2 together. In that case he can bolster his self-esteem with news of his command of his native tongue and regular attendance, and consider A's omission of more relevant details as a sign that A has no grasp of the first maxim of Quantity. Mr. X's thoughts are perhaps uncharitable, but he keeps them to himself, and moreover, he is wrong.
-z
Posted by thuso on January 8, 2006, at 14:07:08
In reply to Hysterically (not the good kind) LMAO, bobster, posted by crazy teresa on January 8, 2006, at 11:31:50
> So really, all one has to do to be civil, is to learn how to work the system! That is the ultimate key in the land of babble.
>I would actually say that is one of the keys to life. You have to know how to work the system. Lawyers are amazing at this...especially trial lawyers. Think about the lawyers who are questioning or cross-examining a witness. If they can get a witness to say something to help that lawyer's case, even if the phrase is struck from the record...the point is that the jury heard it and no matter how bad the other lawyer wants the jurors to forget what they hear....odds are that it will have some sort of influence on their decision.
If you can perfect how to do that here without getting a PBC or block...then you will be the envy of everyone. hahaha!
Any lawyers in the house?
Posted by alexandra_k on January 8, 2006, at 14:28:46
In reply to Re: Too bad attending no longer appeals to me. » alexandra_k, posted by zeugma on January 8, 2006, at 12:56:14
> where people feel free to judge and abuse you?>>
> I think you are making too strong a link between civility and absence of judgement and abuse.
> A has expressed the judgement that Mr. X is no good at philosophy while conforming to accepted principles of civil discourse.I don't think he has 'expressed the judgement' so much as having implied the judgement. I think that it is worth bearing in mind that in the context (of writing someone a reference for a job application) the very point of for the referee to express a judgement (either positive or negative) about the suitability of the applicant. that tends to be why references are anonymous, so that the referee can feel free to express a judgement without worrying about the hurt feelings of the person they are writing the reference for.
the reference was not supportive.
but that was the point.
the person could equally have said 'i do not support this persons application'.
because... it is implied that while they can speak english and attend tutorials they are able to do very little else (ie have a grasp of appropriate philosophy concepts / terminology and participate actively / thoughtfully in tutorial discussions)
i wasn't meaning to say that everything that is civil is supportive. not at all.but the idea of an 'uncivil' party...
(as opposed to an 'a-civil' party...)i would have thought that would mean that one should feel free to say things that are uncivil (ie that explicitly attack, accuse, judge another)
i know we can't avoid ALL negative judgements...
either explicit or implied...but don't you have some sympathy for the ideal of a civil society?
Posted by alexandra_k on January 8, 2006, at 14:52:38
In reply to Re: Hysterically (not the good kind) LMAO, bobster » crazy teresa, posted by thuso on January 8, 2006, at 14:07:08
hmm... a lawyer, eh?
i don't know.
my point... was to apologise because i believed that an apology was due.
like i said in the babblemail... i might well get blocked for doing this but i want to give an apology because i believe an apology is due.
i'm sorry that that couldn't be received in the spirit in which it was intended.
i mean, complain away if it helps...
make sure dr-bob sees it and make sure he blocks me if it helps...but it would mean a whole heap more to me if the apology could be accepted in the spirit in which is was given.
because... i do indeed risk a blocking for having offered it. and yet... i thought an apology might mean more to the other person than a blocking would hurt me.
and i haven't been the most supportive...
not intentionally...
oftentimes i do do the 'analytic thing' on posts. and yeah, i guess people tolerate that better (knowing i don't mean it as a personal criticism) when i babble with them more and show some support and understanding to them as well.
and...
i just realised that i have only really talked to crazy t on a few occasions...
and that most of them were to disagree :-(
and so...
i can see why she might feel like i just keep jumping on her and that i might not like her or something like that :-(
and if i was in her position i would feel similarly.
and that would hurt.
and so i am sorry for that.
and it isn't about being a lawyer...
my intention isn't to 'get off' a block.
in this case i could get blocked for apologising
but i wouldn't get blocked if i didn't apologise.so really...
it is fairly much the other way around.
i'm sorry people are hurting...
Posted by zeugma on January 8, 2006, at 14:58:58
In reply to Re: Too bad attending no longer appeals to me. » zeugma, posted by alexandra_k on January 8, 2006, at 14:28:46
but don't you have some sympathy for the ideal of a civil society?>>
not when civility is the be-all and end-all.
and civility is like truth in this way- no two people will agree on what is civil behavior.
and who gets to set the rules? That is not a question about civility, that is a question about politics.
And we know that sooner or later, someone is going to say something that is 'uncivil' to someone else when talking freely about politics. And that if they don't, it is only the presence of a very powerful hand that is keeping them from expressing such things. And whose hand is that? And... but enough on that. By the way, textually speaking, we could quibble over what i meant by the word 'expressed.' You said he did not express a judgement, he only implied one. Grice says, The presence of a conversational implicature must be capable of being worked out." p.31, "Studies in the Way of Words". (I feel like a pedantic *uncvil term*, no matter; it's keeping me civil [I hope]well, not really, doublespeak drains the life out of me, but such are the rules of the game, and for some reason I am assuming I have an audience.) For Grice, the implicature IS the meaning of the utterance- not the conventional meaning, true, but it carries truth-value- viz.
"Since the truth of a conversational implicatum is not required by the truth of what is said (what is said may be true- what is implicated may be false), the implicature is not carried by what is said, but only by the saying of what is said, or by 'putting it that way.'""(Ibid., p.39.)
It is clear that by this means a great many uncivil, hurtful, damning truths can be conveyed to others without a civility detector raising an alarm. I am having a pleasant afternoon, are you?
-z
Posted by wildcard on January 8, 2006, at 15:07:23
In reply to Re: Too bad attending no longer appeals to me. » alexandra_k, posted by zeugma on January 8, 2006, at 14:58:58
>>and civility is like truth in this way-no two people will agree on what is civil behavior.
***and I think that this causes a lot of the controversy re: what is considered fair or unfair blocks. X sees this as civil but Y sees this as uncivil. When it is in the grey area, b/c not everything is black and white that problems arise. Just my opinion.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 8, 2006, at 15:29:24
In reply to Re: Hysterically (not the good kind) LMAO, bobster » thuso, posted by alexandra_k on January 8, 2006, at 14:52:38
it is funny (funny strange not funny ha ha)
about lawyers...being careful to be civil here ;-)
when i think of getting someone off on a technical glitch i do feel a little...
i'm not sure there is a word for that that i can make it clear it is my response rather than a judgement about the act...
distaste
thats what i'm trying to convey
i feel that there is something distasteful about that
(but i mean to convey that as a feeling in response rather than that the act of doing that is distasteful)
sometimes it can be hard to express...i know a few people who have done law
started out wanting to do criminal law
and then they realised they had no choice whatsoever in which clients they took on
aside from whether they had the relevant knowledge to defendi'm not sure on our system over here... i think the client is allowed to say they did it to their lawyer and their lawyer is still bound to defend them...
and they decided not to do criminal law because they felt the distaste thing...
but me...
i don't think i'd change careers over it...
or specialities over it...
because...
i dunno.
dunno.anyways...
what i wanted to convey...
was that i wanted to try and make it up to the person.
to try and put things right.
which can be hard to do when there is a dnp.i mean...
dnp's are supposed to be something of a last resort...
when people have tried to put things right and don't seem to be able to...but i'm not sure that we have tried to put things right.
and just in case the request came because the person thinks i don't like them
and am trying to pick on them
or make a fool of them or something like that...i was thinking that was the problem...
the reason for the request...in that case it could make a difference if the person knew that it wasn't about that.
i like the person plenty
i enjoy a lot of the lighthearted threads...
i get a laugh
i get a smile
but i don't really know what to say in response...
because i find social chat hard...
and that is a failing i have
and it leads to social dis-ease in my interactions at times.
and maybe it is like how sometimes peopple don't know what to say in response to some of my posts...
well i find the social chatter posts hard to respond to at times...but maybe i should make more of an effort...
and things would run smoother...
sorry.
Posted by zeugma on January 8, 2006, at 15:39:48
In reply to Re: Too bad attending no longer appeals to me. » zeugma, posted by wildcard on January 8, 2006, at 15:07:23
> >>and civility is like truth in this way-no two people will agree on what is civil behavior.
>
> ***and I think that this causes a lot of the controversy re: what is considered fair or unfair blocks. X sees this as civil but Y sees this as uncivil. When it is in the grey area, b/c not everything is black and white that problems arise. Just my opinion.>>yes, that is part of it.
you know, in many parts of the world just having a mental illness is considered 'uncivil behavior.'taking a drug to control the illness is considered 'uncivil' (pharmacy techs laughing at someone taking Klonopin). politicians who decide that people who have mental illness don't deserve support because they're not illnesses really. they're ways of being 'uncivil.' the homeless people in my neighborhood aren't always 'civil.' or is it the politicians who vote against community support who are uncivil?
OK, I think I understand what civility means. If you're well dressed enough, and make the laws in your town, no one will dare say anything that is less than civil to you. Being civil simply means not saying or doing anything that someone who knows, or thinks that he or she knows, what is not civil.
And I always thought it odd, that the same adjective ('civil') can be equally well applied to good behavior and the bloodiest war in my nation's history. But now I know why.
-z
Posted by wildcard on January 8, 2006, at 15:44:11
In reply to Re: Too bad attending no longer appeals to me. » wildcard, posted by zeugma on January 8, 2006, at 15:39:48
>>And I always thought it odd, that the same adjective ('civil') can be equally well applied to good behavior and the bloodiest war in my nation's history. But now I know why.
***makes ya wonder(sigh)...
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.