![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 36 to 60 of 60. Go back in thread:
Posted by Atticus on January 21, 2005, at 21:59:12
In reply to Re: jokes are funny but not in admin or under Lou's » Atticus, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 21, 2005, at 17:32:50
Yet the question I posed to Gabbi remains: Why pick a fight on behalf of someone who clearly got the jokes by gg and myself, was not offended by them, offered witty responses, and in the end got a serious answer from Dr. Bob before you even posted this. If I were Lou, I might be a bit offended that both you and Gabbi appeared to have such a low opinion of my mental acuity that you felt you had to intervene on my behalf. To me, that's worse than a joke that jiggles a thread a bit. Atticus
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 21, 2005, at 22:00:46
In reply to Re: jokes are funny but not in admin or under Lou's » Gabbix2, posted by Atticus on January 21, 2005, at 21:50:58
> Gabbi,
> It seems to me that if Lou wasn't offended and clearly understood the humorous intent, it begs the question as to why you insist on being offended on his behalf.I had realized what that's what I was doing and that's why I posted a second time to you Atticus, that I needed to get outside, crack open a window or something, maybe my second post didn't come across the way it was intended. It was both an acknowledgement that I was getting in your business, and an awareness that I was making it look like I wasn't giving lou enough credit, something I don't think I'm guilty of, though it did look like that here. I guess what I'm saying is I'm sorry. I goofed.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 21, 2005, at 22:10:23
In reply to Lou's reply to Fallen4MyT-supedu » Fallen4MyT, posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2005, at 20:11:20
Ah heck I dunno Lou I was just not wanting you to feel sad is all
> F4MT,
> You wrote,[...and concerned if it would hurt...].
> Thanks for putting yourself in my shoes. Is there a concern that the posts in question could have the potential to be considered to constitute a breach of the forum's goals of support and education?
> Lou
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 21, 2005, at 22:13:37
In reply to Re: jokes are funny but not in admin or under Lou's » Fallen4MyT, posted by Atticus on January 21, 2005, at 21:59:12
Atticus if you look up way up you will see my post hit before GG's and Lou's banter. I think highly of Lou and would have chili with him any day :)
> Yet the question I posed to Gabbi remains: Why pick a fight on behalf of someone who clearly got the jokes by gg and myself, was not offended by them, offered witty responses, and in the end got a serious answer from Dr. Bob before you even posted this. If I were Lou, I might be a bit offended that both you and Gabbi appeared to have such a low opinion of my mental acuity that you felt you had to intervene on my behalf. To me, that's worse than a joke that jiggles a thread a bit. Atticus
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 21, 2005, at 22:22:23
In reply to Re: jokes are funny but not in admin or under Lou's » Atticus, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 21, 2005, at 22:13:37
If I were Lou, I might be a bit offended that both you and Gabbi appeared to have such a low opinion of my mental acuity that you felt you had to intervene on my behalf.
That's just not true. People have intervened on my behalf before and I've appreciated it, and I've done it for others, it has absolutely nothing to do with my opinion of their mental acuity or vice versa, there are lots of reasons someone might be compelled to do such a thing.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 21, 2005, at 22:30:47
In reply to Re: jokes are funny but not in admin or under Lou's » Fallen4MyT, posted by Gabbix2 on January 21, 2005, at 22:22:23
Lou thanked me for putting myself in his shoes thus he knew my TRUE intent..I would as I said before have had no issue or fear on these jokes had they been placed after a thread on the social boards not derailing a serious post. Dr Bob has always asked we keep it Admin on this board..until now. I support and stick up for a lot of posters and always will.
> If I were Lou, I might be a bit offended that both you and Gabbi appeared to have such a low opinion of my mental acuity that you felt you had to intervene on my behalf.
>
> That's just not true. People have intervened on my behalf before and I've appreciated it, and I've done it for others, it has absolutely nothing to do with my opinion of their mental acuity or vice versa, there are lots of reasons someone might be compelled to do such a thing.
>
Posted by Atticus on January 21, 2005, at 22:42:26
In reply to Re: list of criteria » Dr. Bob, posted by malthus on January 21, 2005, at 6:12:03
It is always nicer to be the recipient of a direct response than to have your post used as merely a springboard for discussion among others. This problem does seem rather endemic to this site, and the only answer I can come up with is the existence of so many mini-cliques. I don't think these are usually meant to be malicious, but are rather the result of people who are more comfortable talking to their established friends on the site. Nonetheless, you're right: feeling excluded from a thread you've started, rather than a participant in it, seriously s*cks. Maybe people here could make more of an effort to communicate with the names that are not as familiar. I know you haven't been a frequent poster recently, Malthus, but that shouldn't matter. People might be surprised what results when they welcome someone into their discussion circle -- they might even make a great new friend.
Atticus
Posted by Atticus on January 21, 2005, at 22:54:54
In reply to Re: jokes are funny but not in admin or under Lou's, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 21, 2005, at 22:30:47
Gabbi,
The bottom line remains: the one-off jokes by gg and myself did NOT end up derailing the post. Lou got his response from Dr. Bob, the very one he was seeking. So it seems from my perspective that for you to accuse me of derailing the post is disengenuous. The jokes did no harm. Most jokes don't on PB. Since Lou is satisfied, and is not offended or has not expressed frustration to me on any level about the post being "derailed," I have to ask: Why are you keeping this up? More to the point, I guess, why am I keeping this up. I'm going to consider the matter closed. All that's occurring here, in my opinion, is the beating of a dead horse. And besides, you could have supported Lou without laying into me. Have you considered that possibility? I still feel that your defense of Lou went, IMHO, over the top. You leapt in to criticize gg and myself before you even gave Lou a CHANCE to respond himself. Atticus, over and out
Posted by gardenergirl on January 21, 2005, at 22:56:48
In reply to Re: jokes are funny but not in admin or under Lou's » Atticus, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 21, 2005, at 22:13:37
> I think highly of Lou and would have chili with him any day :)
Oh lordy, you don't know what you are in for with the chili that's the specialty around here. Sorry, Lou. I just can't get used to chili without beans. And Goetta? Gotta pass.
;)
gg
Posted by Atticus on January 21, 2005, at 23:00:31
In reply to Re: jokes are funny but not in admin or under Lou's » Fallen4MyT, posted by Atticus on January 21, 2005, at 22:54:54
And for God's sake, we're actually talking about a handful of silly and sophomoric brassiere jokes, here. I can hardly believe I've put as much time and effort into having to defend myself over doing something so g*ddamned trivial. Jesus wept. I won't be responding to any further posts from either you or Gabbix if this is what I can expect. I'll just take the hit, thank you, however much I may disagree with it. Atticus
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 21, 2005, at 23:14:33
In reply to chili with Lou » Fallen4MyT, posted by gardenergirl on January 21, 2005, at 22:56:48
lol but i like beans....no beans :(
> > I think highly of Lou and would have chili with him any day :)
>
> Oh lordy, you don't know what you are in for with the chili that's the specialty around here. Sorry, Lou. I just can't get used to chili without beans. And Goetta? Gotta pass.
>
> ;)
>
> gg
>
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 21, 2005, at 23:16:44
In reply to Re: jokes are funny but not in admin or under Lou's » Fallen4MyT, posted by Atticus on January 21, 2005, at 22:54:54
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 21, 2005, at 23:20:12
In reply to Re: jokes are funny but not in admin or under Lou's » Atticus, posted by Atticus on January 21, 2005, at 23:00:31
.> And for God's sake, we're actually talking about a handful of silly and sophomoric brassiere jokes, here. I can hardly believe I've put as much time and effort into having to defend myself over doing something so g*ddamned trivial. Jesus wept. I won't be responding to any further posts from either you or Gabbix if this is what I can expect. I'll just take the hit, thank you, however much I may disagree with it. Atticus
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 22, 2005, at 1:54:30
In reply to Re: jokes are funny but not in admin or under Lou's » Atticus, posted by Atticus on January 21, 2005, at 23:00:31
> And for God's sake, we're actually talking about a handful of silly and sophomoric brassiere jokes, here. I can hardly believe I've put as much time and effort into having to defend myself over doing something so g*ddamned trivial.
Why on earth did you think you had to defend yourself when I posted once and then apologized before you even responded?
Whatever...
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 22, 2005, at 3:55:58
In reply to Re: jokes are funny but not in admin or under Lou's » Atticus, posted by Atticus on January 21, 2005, at 23:00:31
> you insist on being offended on his behalf... I feel like you're trying to start a disagreement here
> for you to accuse me of derailing the post is disengenuous... your defense of Lou went, IMHO, over the top.
> silly and sophomoric brassiere jokes
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, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by malthus on January 22, 2005, at 5:02:18
In reply to Re: list of criteria » malthus, posted by Atticus on January 21, 2005, at 22:42:26
Thank you for your kind response Atticus. I can see why some posters in the past have stated they intentionally steer clear of Admin. I think I'll "stick to writing".
malthus
Posted by malthus on January 22, 2005, at 5:04:37
In reply to Re: -list of criteria- » malthus, posted by gardenergirl on January 21, 2005, at 18:42:18
Thank you GG for reaching out to me. Sometimes at PB I feel like the new girl at school in the cafeteria and nobody wants to sit with me. Thanks for sitting with me!
malthus
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 22, 2005, at 9:30:32
In reply to Re: jokes are funny but not in admin or under Lou's » Atticus, posted by Atticus on January 21, 2005, at 23:00:31
I am seeking a reply from the forum at large as to what the replyer thinks the phrase,[....Jesus wept...]could mean in relation to the context of the post in consideration. If anyone could offer their explanation , I would appreciate it.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 22, 2005, at 9:40:08
In reply to Lou's request to an aspect of a post-rqatlrg, posted by Lou Pilder on January 22, 2005, at 9:30:32
I think Atticus is English Lou (though I'm not sure). Over here its a common statement of frustration.. Infact, seeing Atticus post it really made me grin, as it was one of my Dads favourite expressions *grins* And reminders of my Dad are always nice.
I hope that makes things clearer for you
Nikki xx
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 22, 2005, at 14:48:12
In reply to Re: Lou's request to an aspect of a post-rqatlrg » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on January 22, 2005, at 9:40:08
NikkiT2,
You wrote,[...over here its a commom statement of frustration...]and, [...I hope that makes things clearer for you...].
Could you clarify why the phrase is used commomly in England for when someone is frustrated rather than another phrase to indicate frustration? If you could give me any background as to this, I would appreciate it.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 22, 2005, at 15:11:07
In reply to Lou's reply to NikkiT2 » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on January 22, 2005, at 14:48:12
I've never studied this kind of thing Lou, so sorry, I have no idea of the background of why that phrase is used.
I'm sure Google could help you out. I just know its used a fair amount.
Nikki
Posted by Atticus on January 22, 2005, at 16:45:32
In reply to Re: list of criteria » Atticus, posted by malthus on January 22, 2005, at 5:02:18
Think I'll follow your lead, luv. Christ! Two PBCs in three days. That's fast work even for me. I'm headin' for the sunnier climes of Social and Writing. Ta! ;) Atticus, who still really likes your cats, but didn't notice the magnet on the fridge. Ah well, thanks to the miracle of boxties and museums, I've got James Joyce and Oscar Wilde up on mine, along with my boarding pass to the Titanic. Catch you in friendlier territory!
Posted by Atticus on January 22, 2005, at 16:56:20
In reply to Lou's request to an aspect of a post-rqatlrg, posted by Lou Pilder on January 22, 2005, at 9:30:32
Since I said it, I guess I ought to explain it, Lou. It is emphatically NOT anti-Semetic in any way. I despise bigotry as much as you. On the night before his trial and execution, Jesus and the Apostles slept in the Garden of Gesthemene. According to the New Testament, he had the gift of prophecy and knew that Judas was about to turn him in to the Roman authorities, who didn't like troublemakers in their conquered territories. He also knew that one of the Apostles was going to be so scared of the Romans, that this long-time friend and confidante would deny that he even knew Jesus three times before the cock crowed at dawn. He even asked God if he might be spared the torment to come, and received no answer. The full phrase from the Christian Bible (King James version) is "Jesus wept. He felt abandoned." In many countries, Ireland included, "Jesus wept!" is used as a mild epithet. It's a bit like shouting "Jesus Christ!" in anger or frustration, but, to my mind, seems less blasphemous. Atticus the Answer Man
Posted by Atticus on January 22, 2005, at 17:03:01
In reply to Re: Lou's request to an aspect of a post-rqatlrg » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on January 22, 2005, at 9:40:08
I'm of Irish descent, actually, Nikki, co-raised by my mom and my Irish grandmom (whom I called "Na"). I picked up an odd New York/Irish patois under these circumstances, and the tiniest traces of Na's thick brogue emerge at times, as do many of her expressions. She also taught me that using "bloody," while not desirable, was infinitely preferable to using one of my countrymen's favorite words: "f*ck." (The bar of soap in my mouth convinced me of the validity of her argument -- she was very old skool ;)). I tend to use it a lot, unless I'm around people who I know are extra sensitive about using Jesus as a substitute for a curse world. Ta. ;) Atticus
Posted by gardenergirl on January 22, 2005, at 17:43:28
In reply to Re: -list of criteria- » gardenergirl, posted by malthus on January 22, 2005, at 5:04:37
My pleasure. But warning...I tend to spill food all over myself. You might want to maintain assured clear distance!
:D
gg
This is the end of the 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.