![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 69 to 93 of 156. Go back in thread:
Posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 22:39:50
In reply to Lou's respomse to ayuda's post-FQ » ayuda, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 21:30:21
Just out of curiosity, why do you participate in Psycho-Babble?
For example, when I first went on Lexapro, it was newly approved for use in the US, and there was very little public information about it. When I did an internet search on Yahoo! for it, Psycho-Babble came up as the first "hit." I became interested in the idea that I could find out how Lexapro was working (or not) for others, what their side effects were and compare that with my own experiences. Also, I have gotten some good advice that I may not have been able to get from my doctor concerning medications and other psychiatric care-related topics from people who have experienced them. I have been able to make suggestions concerning my care with my doctor through this learning experience.
So what attracted you to Psycho-Babble? In the FAQ's for the site, Dr. Bob says that: "Another goal of these boards is to help us understand how online communities work and affect the mental health of their members...." What do you think about that goal? Do you think that it implies that how we interact -- like what questions we ask each other, what kind of information we ask for clarification on, and what responses we prepare for each other -- are also under the microscope? Do you think that it implies that interaction on this site may have either positive or negative effects on the mental health of the participants?
I'm just curious as to your opinion about that.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 23, 2003, at 23:14:33
In reply to Re: Shutting down the Babbles » Dinah, posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 11:25:43
> I am perplexed by those people who do not agree with Dr. Bob's moderation, and who submit posts criticizing him. They have the choice of just not reading this board ever again, and why they insist on being troublemakers instead is beyond me.
Their intent may be not to cause trouble (though I have to admit I used to think that sometimes), but, for example, to show support for another poster who's been blocked.
> This is not a public forum, though people may think it is because it is on the Internet. It is really a private forum, we "sign" agreements to use this board according to Dr. Bob's rules
Well, it's not completely open, but it's not by invitation only, either...
Bob
Posted by ayuda on March 24, 2003, at 7:21:13
In reply to Re: people who do not agree, posted by Dr. Bob on March 23, 2003, at 23:14:33
> > I am perplexed by those people who do not agree with Dr. Bob's moderation, and who submit posts criticizing him. They have the choice of just not reading this board ever again, and why they insist on being troublemakers instead is beyond me.
>
> Their intent may be not to cause trouble (though I have to admit I used to think that sometimes), but, for example, to show support for another poster who's been blocked.
>
> > This is not a public forum, though people may think it is because it is on the Internet. It is really a private forum, we "sign" agreements to use this board according to Dr. Bob's rules
>
> Well, it's not completely open, but it's not by invitation only, either...
>
> BobI should not have used the term "troublemaker," it is a generalization and a label and I should know better than to use such terms, so I apologize, even though you didn't chastise me for it (I chastise myself).
I think of your creation and moderation of this site like a shopping mall: malls are in the public domain, and anyone can enter them and shop (and without that access the mall would not be profitable), but they are privately owned and operated, and there are rules to follow, and a customer who breaks a rule (no matter how "unfair" the owner's rule may seem for a public place), risks at least temporary banishment by the management. People often think they are in a public place in a mall because it is also not by invitation only, but in fact are in a private realm where not everything "goes." Does that seem like a fair analogy?
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 24, 2003, at 14:44:25
In reply to Lou's question to NikkiT2's post » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 17:44:06
apart from a ; instead of a ' in don't, no other error. I think it could quite easily be assumed that this typo meant '
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 24, 2003, at 14:47:52
In reply to Re: Lou's question to NikkiT2's post » Lou Pilder, posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 21:01:30
Thanks for that.. I'm always hitting ; instead of '... short finger syndrome!! *laugh*
Nikki
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 24, 2003, at 14:50:39
In reply to Lou's respomse to ayuda's post-FQ » ayuda, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 21:30:21
Lou.. the mat at my front door has welcome on it.. infact, it says "welcome all species".. This does not mean that I welcome people into my home who I do not want there at that particular time. I do not welcome strangers into my home. I do not welcome local cats into my home. I only welcome those that I have asked to visit me.
Welcome is a greeting, not an invitation.
Nikki
Posted by Jonathan on March 25, 2003, at 0:14:08
In reply to Re: Lou's respons to ayuda's post-FP » ayuda, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 21:23:12
Lou,
If you quote what others have posted, please do not edit their words in a way which substantially changes their meaning.
You claim that Ayuda wrote, in http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030221/msgs/211952.html :
"...And yes, I believe that people who are incapable of understanding...have emotional problems...and can't see the simple answer is to just leave the site alone..."
Shall we look at what (s)he really wrote? (I'm very sorry, Ayuda — I tried but I cannot infer your gender from your recent posts!). I have enclosed in «guillemets» the sections which you (Lou) deleted:
"... I believe that people who are incapable of understanding «that they signed an agreement to use this site in a particular manner, and then who keep arguing with [Dr. Bob] about those parameters,» have emotional problems, «because» they can't see that the simple answer is to just leave the site alone."
I see nothing wrong in omitting words which aren't essential to the argument, as I have omitted "And yes," from the beginning of the sentence; nor in changing, as I have, "him" to "[Dr. Bob]" because our removal of the sentence from its original context makes it no longer obvious to whom "him" was meant to refer.
However, by deleting Ayuda's words "that they signed an agreement to use this site in a particular manner, and then who keep arguing with him about those parameters," you are not only transforming "understanding" from a transitive verb, the object of which is the noun phrase "that they signed an agreement to use this site in a particular manner", into an intransitive verb with the implicit meaning "understanding anything". You are also obscuring the fact that Ayuda is not talking about all who use the Admin Board, as you later imply with absolutely no justification, but only about those who, having agreed when they registered to observe Dr. Bob's rules, then use this board solely to argue persistently and specifically against those same rules with which they agreed to comply. I do not consider you to be such a person, nor do I believe that you think of yourself in that way.
I am sorry, Lou, that you feel "extremely hurt" by Ayuda's post, but I think that the cause of your hurt is not the words that Ayuda used but your own, perhaps inadvertent, misquotation of them. I think this explains Ayuda's justifiably bewildered response, in http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030221/msgs/211992.html :
"... I don't even understand how you are interpreting what I've said. I am at a loss for understanding your confusion."
Your post concludes with the following words, which I find shockingly out of character for the civil and honourable gentleman I know you to be :)
"I feel extreamly hurt by your statement because I feel that you are ... incapeable of understanding and... have emotional problems..."
To ensure that no-one is misled by my deliberate misquotation of Lou's post, I wish to explain that I substituted an ellipsis (...) for the following words between "you are" and "incapable":
"jumping to a conclusion about people that use the administrative board to request address of what [they percieve to be injustices] when they are invited to do so by Dr. Bob and then you conclude that they are {..."
Please try to observe the Golden Rule, Lou — http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil :
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." — Matt. 7:12.
"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. That is the law: all the rest is commentary." — Talmud, Shabbat 31a.Please treat the words that others have posted with the same respect which you would like others to show for your words.
Respectfully,
Jonathan.
> ayuda,
> You wrote,[...And yes, I believe that people who are incapable of understanding...have emotional problems...and can't see the simple answer is to just leave the site alone...].
> I feel extreamly hurt by your statement because I feel that you are jumping to a conclusion about people that use the administrative board to request address of what [they percieve to be injustices] when they are invited to do so by Dr. Bob and then you conclude that they are {...incapeable of understanding and... have emotional problems...].
> Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 6:17:36
In reply to Misrepresentation » Lou Pilder, posted by Jonathan on March 25, 2003, at 0:14:08
Jonathan,
You wrote,[...if you quote what others have posted...]. Quotes and paraphraseing are not the same. The 3 dots indicate that there have been words left out,which is an idication that what I had written was not a quote, but it is not my {intention} to change the meaning of what was written, but only to shorten my writing, by paraphrasing.
I did not quote ayuda .If you are saying that I did quote ayuda, then I would consider that statement of yours to be a false conclusion, for no quotqtion marks were given.
I do not feel that parapharsing changes the meaning of what was written, but if it did, clarification and discussion could still continue and be {civil} on this forum. If you are requesting clarification of the paraphase, then the following will be my clarification for such.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 7:15:57
In reply to Misrepresentation » Lou Pilder, posted by Jonathan on March 25, 2003, at 0:14:08
Jonathan,
You wrote your subject line, [misreprentation..Lou Pilder].
Are you accusing me of [deliberatly] misrepresenting something in the post that you are writing about that was written by ayuda? If not, could you clarify your use of the word,"misrepresentaion" and the association with my name in your subject line? It is not my intention to misrepresent what others post here, for when I use paraphasing, what is written by me is just what I remember of what was written by the other person. What I remember as to what was written by another person is not [deliberatly] misrepresenting. If clarification is needed, a civil discussion could continue , which could rule out any misconceptions, miisunderstandings and such. I feel that your subject line,[misrepresentation..Lou Pilder] has the potential for others to associate me with [deliberatly] misrepresenting , before I have an opportunity to clarify any misunderstandings that others may have about what I wrote, and it is not my intention to deliberatly misrepresent.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on March 25, 2003, at 7:39:46
In reply to Lou's response to Jonathans post-FR » Jonathan, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 6:17:36
Lou, Dr. Bob has made it easy for you to quote someone without having to write at all. You can just click the box that says include previous post, and the exact words of the previous poster will pop up. Then you can comment on those exact words.
That way you don't have to remember exactly, or to type so much. And there is no chance that the meaning of the original poster will be unintentionally lost.
It still is possible to misunderstand of course, but with the actual words there, perhaps the possibility is less?
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 8:00:19
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Jonathans post-FR » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on March 25, 2003, at 7:39:46
Dinah,
Thank you for the infomation about how to include the previous post. I was not aware of that function. I preferr to paraphrase, though, and if someone sees a parapharse, I feel that they can just as easily go to the post in question to read the entire post if they desire. I feel that it [goes without saying] that a paraphrse is not a [quote] and that the nature of a paraphrse is that there are some parts not included, and that a paraphrase is not a [deliberate] misrepresentation.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on March 25, 2003, at 8:28:28
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah's post » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 8:00:19
I think Jonathan made it clear the he didn't think you were deliberately misrepresenting, just that unintentional misrepresentations are a lot more likely with paraphrases.
May I ask why you prefer paraphrasing? I realize that it makes it easier to highlight certain words, but doesn't highlighting certain words in a whole statement almost by definition change the meaning and intent of the original statement, since the words were not highlighted in the original statement?
Or of course your preferance for paraphrasing might be for some entirely different reason.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 8:39:10
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah's post » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on March 25, 2003, at 8:28:28
Dinah,
You wrote,[...I think Jonathan {made it clear}that he did not think that you were deliberatly misrepresenting...]. Could you point out what he wrote that makes you think that [he made it clear?}. If you could, then I could be better able to see what you see in what he wrote as to substantuate what you think.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on March 25, 2003, at 8:43:47
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah's post » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 8:39:10
Because he called you a civil and honourable gentleman, of course. That implies, to me at least, that he doesn't consider you to be deliberately misrepresenting (since what civil and honourable gentleman would do that), but rather to be inadvertantly misrepresenting by the use of paraphrase rather than quote.
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 25, 2003, at 9:07:33
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah's post » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 8:00:19
Lou,
I believe, in the past, when I paraphrased something someone had wrotten, you pulled me up on this, and asked that I use their exact words.
I believe paraphrasing can be a dangerous thing, as it leads to many misunderstandings.
I do not have the post I am reffering to to hand I'm afraid, and really don't have the time to go find it. But it was on Admin, I know that.
Please, in future, use exact words, and not *your* understanding of them.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 9:29:31
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah's post » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on March 25, 2003, at 8:43:47
Dinah,
You wrote that [...he called you ...a gentleman...],[...that implies to me... that he doesn't consider you to be deliberatly misleading...].
If you examine the context of that statement, he writes that he [....finds it out of character...](because I wrote that I was [hurt by the statement]). The subject that he is refering to is that he finds it out of character for me to feel {hurt}. I feel that the context of the statement that you referr to to inply that Jonathan does not consider me to be [deliberatly] misleading also has the potential for a reasonable person to {not} imply that Johnathan doesn't consider me to be deliberatly misleading on the basis of your statement.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 9:45:24
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah's post » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on March 25, 2003, at 9:07:33
NikkiT2,
You wrote,[...you asked me, in the past, to use the exact words...don't have time to find the post ...].
I do remember a post of yours that write that I wrote [...only a fool says there is no God...]. Now if you used quotes, then I could have asked that you use what I actually wrote, which was to include, [...in his heart...]. I felt that by you using quotes, necessecited the entire quote, whearas in a paraphrase, the entire statement that I had said could be truncated, and I do not know of the exact post either, but ,perhaps, someone else could search for the URL and examine it to see if there were quotes or if it was a paraphrase?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 9:49:33
In reply to Lou's reply to NikkiT2's's post-FS » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 9:45:24
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 25, 2003, at 10:05:40
In reply to Lou's reply to NikkiT2's's post-FS » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 9:45:24
Lou,
So basically.. Its ok for you to paraphrase.. but not OK for me to use only part of a quote??
Do you agree that paraphrasing is something that is best not to do.. It can cause an awful lot fo misunderstandings.. You could say "I understand it to mean xxx, is this how you meant it?".. but not to say "You said xxx" when xxx isn't exactly what the person said.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 10:13:42
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2's's post-FS » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on March 25, 2003, at 10:05:40
NikkiT2,
You wrote,[...{OK}for you to paraphrase, but {not OK}for me to use part of a quote...].
I feel that quotes are for wring [exactly] what someone has written and that paraphasing means that it goes without saying that there could be something ommited.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 10:24:29
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2's's post-FS » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on March 25, 2003, at 10:05:40
NikkiT2,
You wrote,[...do you agree that paraphrasing is best not to do?...].
Well, that depends. I have paraphased Patric Henry's speech to the house in 1775 and ended up with,[...give me liberty or give me death...]. I feel that to quote the entire speech would [...constitute too great of a burden...]. But I have used quotes here when a particular word needed to be used, rather than a synonym, and when the exact words could not be substituted.
I use paraphaseing to simply highlight the area of a post that is relevant to the discussion. If there is any misunderstanding, then clarification can always be requested. even if quotes are used, that does not guarentee that there will still not be misunderstanding.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 25, 2003, at 10:28:48
In reply to Lou's reply to NikkiT2's's post-FT » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 10:24:29
Yes, misunderstandings can occur. But, by paraphrasing using YOUR understanding of something, and not explicity saying that you are paraphrasing, simply perpetuates further misunderstandings in my opinion.
And, I did not paraphrase.. I simply only used part of the whole sentence... and in my opinion, this did not change the meaning. But that is just my opinion.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 10:47:02
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2's's post-FT » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on March 25, 2003, at 10:28:48
NikkiT2,
You wrote,[...by paraphaseing ...and not {explictly saying} that you are paraphrasing...].
When one wants to show that they are writing the exact words ,it is my undertanding that quotation marks are used to show that they are writng the exact words, and not leaving something out. It is my understanding that when quotation marks are absent, then what is written goes without saying that it is {not} a quote and something could be omitted.
You wrote,[...I did not paraphrase....]. Is that in referrnace to the post that you could not find that I remembered? If so, were you quoting? If you were quoting, could you clarify why you used quotation marks and left out a part of what was said? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of your post.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on March 25, 2003, at 10:49:18
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah's post-FS, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 9:29:31
Lou, I don't know if you saw the question in my post. Is there a reason you prefer paraphrasing rather than using the option Dr. Bob gives to include the entire post? You don't have to answer of course, and I wouldn't ask again except that I wasn't sure if you got diverted by the first part of my post and didn't see the question.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 11:00:39
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah's post-FS » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on March 25, 2003, at 10:49:18
Dinah,
You wrote,[...is there a reason that you prefer paraphasing ?...].
Could you read my posts that respond to NikkiT2's posts? If you could, and you do not find an answer to your question to me, could you post to me again? I will, if you request, clarify any further questions that you may have.
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.