![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 187. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by fi on March 28, 2003, at 16:43:45
I think its wonderful that Dr Bob persists with the work involved in running this board- lots of research projects would run for a short fixed term, then move on. And looks like he still has a facilitating role, taking the flak about holding the boundaries and passing up the possible positive kudos of displaying his therapeutic skills direct.
And its good to see some familiar names of wise posters.
And to be able to not post for a long time then just drop by again (as I am doing).
Thank you, Dr Bob and posters.
Fi
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 28, 2003, at 19:34:25
In reply to Thank you, posted by fi on March 28, 2003, at 16:43:45
fi,
You wrote,[...it is good to see some familiar names of {wise} posters...].
I was wondering if you meant that:
A. there are [only]posters here that are {wise}?
B. there are wise and unwise posters here?
C. the wise posters are those that are fimiliar?
D. Lou is fimiliar ,so he is wise?
E. none of the above
F. something other than the above which is___
G. some combination of the above
If you could clarify that, then I could have a better understanding of your post and have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by noa on March 28, 2003, at 19:36:30
In reply to Thank you, posted by fi on March 28, 2003, at 16:43:45
Yes, I think this is mostly for support and education, and only secondarily for research. Funding is minimal and requires Dr. Bob giving of his own time a lot, in addition to his regular job seeing patients in a university.
I can't imagine working that hard, myself, so even though I don't always agree with Dr. Bob's decisions (as you can see in an above thread), I also appreciate his hard work to keep these boards going well. Without these rules, the board can easily deteriorate into hostile chaos. This has happened in the past, and the rules and structure of the boards have evolved in response to what was learned about how misunderstandings and disputes develop.
The other posters are fantastic, too. Lots of information and support flowing around here.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 29, 2003, at 2:53:07
In reply to Thank you, posted by fi on March 28, 2003, at 16:43:45
Posted by fi on March 30, 2003, at 5:26:55
In reply to Lou's response to fi's post » fi, posted by Lou Pilder on March 28, 2003, at 19:34:25
Hi again Lou
It was really a general memory of having read some very supportive/insightful/entertaining posts when I was more involved months ago. So it was good to see that some of the names were familiar, although of course its a good sign that new people have got involved too.
Nothing as specific as you are asking.
Fi
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2003, at 6:51:26
In reply to Re: Lou's response to fi's post » Lou Pilder, posted by fi on March 30, 2003, at 5:26:55
fi,
I remember your posts from over a year ago and I was wondering about you. Are you from England?
Lou
Posted by noa on March 30, 2003, at 12:18:55
In reply to Lou's response to fi's post » fi, posted by Lou Pilder on March 28, 2003, at 19:34:25
Lou,
I'd like to share my thoughts with you about your posts asking for clarification from posters, and I hope they will be received in the supportive tone in which I intend them:
Having read a number of your posts that are essentially requests for clarification, I think I understand why a number of posters have reacted negatively to your very detailed requests for clarification.
Frankly, they often read very much like a complicated mutliple choice test. For example:fi,
You wrote,[...it is good to see some familiar names of {wise} posters...].
I was wondering if you meant that:
A. there are [only]posters here that are {wise}?
B. there are wise and unwise posters here?
C. the wise posters are those that are fimiliar?
D. Lou is fimiliar ,so he is wise?
E. none of the above
F. something other than the above which is___
G. some combination of the above
If you could clarify that, then I could have a better understanding of your post and have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
LouThe level of precision you are seeking in asking for clarification is probably higher than most of us tend to use when using language to communicate. Some people are very precise with language, while others are more expressive. Your clarification requests suggest to me that you are someone who prefers a high level of precision in language, but that may not be how others here function.
Being asked to respond to a clarification request (and repeated clarification requests) might be ruffling some feathers around here because such multiple choice style questions seek too much precision for some people. And I imagine that mulitple choice questions conjure up negative experiences for many of us who have had to take too many standardized tests in our lifetimes!
And the level of detail in the multiple choice questions you ask is actually very challenging! It reminds me of the complicated multiple choice questions on higher level tests that require a great deal of concentration to logically isolate one answer to the exclusion of others, or to discern if one or more answers can be true.
It is just too much work. And often, what a poster expresses just cannot be parsed out so intricately as that.
While it is good to clarify before jumping to conclusions, sometimes we don't get to find out through precise analysis exactly what someone means. Sometimes we just have to try to sense it based on our previous impressions of the speaker, the context, how we sort out what our own mood contributes at the moment to our understanding,etc. and other imprecise factors.
And sometimes we are left with a question mark. And that is ok.
Posted by fayeroe on March 30, 2003, at 12:29:04
In reply to Re: Lou's response to fi's post, posted by noa on March 30, 2003, at 12:18:55
you have hit the nail on the head about Lou's posts. i cannot believe that it hasn't been addressed before. i hope that Lou takes this as positive as we mean it. but i just don't want to take the time to analyze what he wants analyzed...
Lou, i appreciate you and your interaction to me but it is just too much to try to spend 30 minutes figuring out the answers to the multiple choice tests that you offer me....i really hope you understand what we are saying to you. and no, i won't go back and explain any of this to you.:-)
your friend, pat
Posted by beardedlady on March 30, 2003, at 14:36:29
In reply to Re: Lou's response to fi's post » noa, posted by fayeroe on March 30, 2003, at 12:29:04
> you have hit the nail on the head about Lou's posts. i cannot believe that it hasn't been addressed before.
Honey, it has been addressed and addressed and addressed and addressed. Many of us deal with this issue by not responding to the requests for clarification. They take a lifetime to read, and the clarification often requires further clarification. (No, I will not clarify what I mean by often or further.)
Many times, the person requesting clarification is not even the person to whom the original post was addressed. Fi, for example, addressed her post to Dr. Bob, but Lou requested clarification so HE could address it, even though he was not asked to address it.
> your friend, pat
What do you mean by friend? : )>
beardy : )>
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2003, at 16:41:36
In reply to clarification clarifications » fayeroe , posted by beardedlady on March 30, 2003, at 14:36:29
BL,
You wrote,[...Fi addressed her post to Dr. Bob...Lou requested clarification so he could answer it...he was not asked to address it...].
Are you saying that posters here can not respond to a post that is posted here because it is addrssed to someone? It is my understanding that posts are [public] in nature here and that any post is open to anyone to respond to, and that if one wants to corrospond with an individual without anyone else responding , then email or other venues could be used. If you could clarify this , I could have a better understanding of what you wrote above and be better able to respond to it.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2003, at 17:27:19
In reply to clarification clarifications » fayeroe , posted by beardedlady on March 30, 2003, at 14:36:29
BL,
You wrote,[...many of us deal with this by not responding...they take a {lifetime} to read ... and ...there are often other requests for clarification...].
Are you advocating that others {not respond} to my requests for clarification because [they take a {lifetime} to read and other requests for clarification are often asked?...]
If so, I am very hurt that someone on a mental health board would [even suggest] that others not respond to a request for clarification by me and to overexaggerate by writing to others that the requests take [...a {lifetime} to read...].
Lou
Posted by fi on March 31, 2003, at 12:56:40
In reply to Re: Lou's response to fi's post-2A » fi, posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2003, at 6:51:26
Hi Lou
Nice that you remembered!
I'm from the UK.Fi
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 31, 2003, at 13:38:33
In reply to Re: Lou's response to fi's post-2A » Lou Pilder, posted by fi on March 31, 2003, at 12:56:40
Fi,
Yes, I remembered that you were from England. Are you near Hull?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 31, 2003, at 14:44:45
In reply to Re: Lou's response to fi's post, posted by noa on March 30, 2003, at 12:18:55
noa,
You wrote,[...the level of precision ...that you are seeking is probably higher than most of us tend to use...could ruffle feathers...too much work...conjur up negative feelings...requier great concentration...].
Are you saying that one should not ask for clarification on this forum because:
A. the posters here are too lazy to clarify what they wrote?
B. the posters here are {not capable} of using {higher} levels of precision in thinking and writing?
C. {all} people are below the level of precision needed to clarify my requests?
D. people on this board should not be presented with multiple-choice questions?
E. some people here think that they are birds?
F. schools should not give tests with multiple chioce questions?
G. people here shoud not be presented with anything that would requier high concentration
H. none of the above
I. a combination of the above which is_____
If you could clarify this, then I could have a better understanding of your post and have an opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by noa on March 31, 2003, at 17:31:44
In reply to Lou's response to noa's post-1B » noa, posted by Lou Pilder on March 31, 2003, at 14:44:45
Posted by fi on April 2, 2003, at 15:42:50
In reply to Lou's response to noa's post-1B » noa, posted by Lou Pilder on March 31, 2003, at 14:44:45
Hiya
How about just leaving it now, rather than continuing to pursue it? I know its difficult when other people approach things differently, but I take that as just part of life. So you may be into analysing things in detail, but some other people arent, and may find it difficult when you do. Just as you may find it difficult when they dont analyse things, and seem (irritatingly) vague?
This is only a suggestion to consider being selective about what you pursue; of course, the decision is yours.
I'm not from Hull, by the way. I live in London but am not from there, but well done remembering the UK bit. I'd rather not give too much personal information that might identify me, as I still have a concern (perhaps unwarranted) that there are people who read the messages on these boards who arent part of our community and have less commendable motives.
I'm now going to be one of those irritating people and not get into discussing this thread further. But its just because that's how I deal with things, not anything personal.
Fi
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 2, 2003, at 17:21:55
In reply to Re: Lou's response to noa's post-1B » Lou Pilder, posted by fi on April 2, 2003, at 15:42:50
fi,
You wrote,[...how about leaving it now...rather than to persue it...]. In reading the rest of your post, I could not see what it is that I am requested by you to [leave], for I was in a discussion with another poster,{noa}, about an administrative suggestion for improvement, as I recall. You also wrote that,[... and not discuss further...].If you could point out what {it} is, in your post, and what {leaving} could entail, then I could have the opportunuty to resspond accordingly, but with your writing that you are closing your input to this discussion, I have no opportunity to reply.
I am hurt by you making a statement to me and then writing that you will,[...not discuss further...]. I feel that if people are not going to [...continue discussion...] {on [what they wrote]}, that they are {putting the other person down that they are saying that to}, for {I} think that it would be better for the poster that writes that they [will not continue in discussion] to have never wrote what they wrote to the other person at all. If {I} was the moderator of an internet board, {I} would state in my guidlines that posters can not use a phrase like you wrote, ie;[...not discussing further...]{ in [a reply] to another person's {ideas or point of view}, for {I} feel that that type of respons is being disrespectfull to the other poster's point of view.
Lou
Posted by shar on April 3, 2003, at 21:19:57
In reply to clarification clarifications » fayeroe , posted by beardedlady on March 30, 2003, at 14:36:29
>Many of us deal with this issue by not responding to the requests for clarification.
........you're right. It's the only way to fly.
Shar
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 3, 2003, at 22:03:48
In reply to Re: clarification clarifications » beardedlady, posted by shar on April 3, 2003, at 21:19:57
shar,
You wrote,[...you'r right...only way to fly...]. in a response to beadedlady's post that stated that not responding to a request for clarification was a way to deal with a request for clarification.
Are you saying, by the phase that you wrote, that to not respond is the {only way} to deal with the request for clarification? If so, could you clarify why there could not be another way? And if you are saying that the only way to handle a request for clarification is to not respond, then could you clarify why {responding} would be {not} the way to handle a request for clarification? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of what you meant by,[...you'r right, it is the only way to fly...], and have an opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by coral on April 4, 2003, at 5:49:14
In reply to Lou's response to shar's post » shar, posted by Lou Pilder on April 3, 2003, at 22:03:48
Wasn't there some request made by Dr. Hsuing to not put people on the spot, e.g. by requesting that they answer questions, especially when they've indicated they'd prefer not to continue?
Coral
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 8:19:39
In reply to Re: Lou's response to shar's post, posted by coral on April 4, 2003, at 5:49:14
coral,
You wrote,[...wasn't there some request made by Mr. Hsuing to not put people on the spot; eg by requesting that they answer questions especially when they have indicated that they preferrrd not continue...].
Did not Dr. Bob just ask fayroe for clarification about {what she wrote}? It is my understanding that asking for clarification for {what another poster wrote} is not the same as asking a poster to reply to something that they {did not} write, and then to also {continue} to ask for an answer about the same thing in the same post. I remember when a poster here asked me to answer a question about a golf joke. I replied that I was not a golfer. The poster continued to ask for my response to the golf joke and then [there was a warning by a deputy here to cease their requests for an answer to me] , and the poster [continued] anyway with another request for me to [answer the same thing], the golf joke, and then there was a sanction given by the administration. In my requests for clarification, it is a request to the poster about what {they} wrote, not asking them to answer a question about something that they [did not] write. And requests for cliarification help discover what a poster is writing about so that an opportunity could be given to not only the one that asks for clarification, but also to other posters to respond accordingly to the topic that the poster that was asked for clarification innitiated, not to [...put them on the spot...].
Are you saying that when I ask for clarification here that it is my [intention] to {put people {on the spot}?...]. If so, could you give me your rational that caused you to make that conclusion? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 4, 2003, at 11:33:49
In reply to Re: Lou's response to shar's post, posted by coral on April 4, 2003, at 5:49:14
> Wasn't there some request made by Dr. Hsuing to not put people on the spot, e.g. by requesting that they answer questions, especially when they've indicated they'd prefer not to continue?
Well, the idea is not to pressure others. Would you consider that to be pressuring people? It's never easy to know where to draw the line...
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 13:03:55
In reply to Re: putting people on the spot, posted by Dr. Bob on April 4, 2003, at 11:33:49
Dr. Bob,
You wrote,[...its {never} easy to know where to draw the line...].
I disagree with you on that, that you use the word,{never}. There could be, without any problem at all, a way to define this issue by formulating a [test]. This test could be developed by an expert in communication, along with another psychiatrist, and yourself. It would be better to not include the posters here as participants in the group of people that make up the group that will formulate the criteria involved in the test, for they could have a different reason for wanting, let's say, to be able to post statements that have more than one meaning in order to defame or accuse another poster and be allowed to not clarify that statement so that the statement could have the potential to arrouse ill-feelings toward another poster. My coommunication expert calls those type of statements, [hit and run] statements and have the potential to cloud the thought of the discussion at hand when they refuse to clarify [what they wrote] and have the potential to [encourage] animosity toward a poster if the vague staement has the potential to be considered accusitive or defaming to a poster. He also sys that a request for clarification is not the same as {badgering], which is one deffinition of [pressureing]. If you have already concluded that a test for this can not be made, then consider my idea about a test for this (which is forthcomming) and ,perhaps, my input here could be considered constructive.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 13:14:27
In reply to Lou's response to Dr. Bob's post-CL » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 13:03:55
Friends,
I wrote that there could be a test to determine if a post constituted pressuring someone. My first question that I would ask in the test is, [does the post imply that something, such as harm, will result to the poster that the post is written to as a result of not answering the question posed by the questioner?
An example would be:
"If you do not answer my question, I'll..."
Now the moderator could have a sanction, such as deleting the post , or admonishing, if the poster refuses to respond to the request, for it could be considered contemptuous to not answer the moderator, not the other poster, though.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 13:32:26
In reply to Lou's suggestion for a test for [pressuring], posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 13:14:27
Friends,
In {my} test to determine if a post constitutes [pressuring someone], the second question would be:
Does the repeated requests constitute an [ongoing] burden to the other poster?
To determine that, there would have to be a number of repeated question of the same nature to the same poster in the same thread and the poster asked the question never responded to the question. In my contact with this situation, the number of times the question is asked, has been determined as (6) in some situations, and 3 in others, and I have never encounterd (2) as a basis for concluding that one is pressuring anyone, for people have lapses of memory and could easily ask twice the same question without being condemmed to be [pressuring others]. At any rate, no matter what the number would be here, the moderator calls a halt to the questioning and {then}, if the poster asks the question again, in the same post, to the same poster, {then} that would constitute, [pressuring a poster].
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.