![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 21 to 45 of 62. Go back in thread:
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 14, 2005, at 20:16:13
In reply to Lou's reply to Minnie-useofidioms-- » Minnie-Haha, posted by Lou Pilder on June 14, 2005, at 16:09:27
> You wrote that in my vision that the use of idioms would be a challenge of some sort for the moderators.
> Well, how about a list published of Ok and not Ok idioms and a list of not Ok ways any idiom could be used such as if it degrades another person and such? Could not this be like the dictionary feature that appraises words as offensive or not?Do you really believe this practical and that it would make for a forum that most people would want to participate in? I can tell you that I wouldn't be likely to be an active member of a forum that requires me to look up every figure of speech I might use to be sure I'm using it properly.
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 14, 2005, at 21:06:22
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Minnie » Lou Pilder, posted by Minnie-Haha on June 14, 2005, at 20:11:33
Minnie,
You wrote,[...I felt spied upon...]
Could you feel the same way if another poster here requested that Dr. Hsiung make a determination for acceptability?
And, since that was the only post involved like this, are you saying that it is not the number of requests by me that you want lessend?
Lou
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 14, 2005, at 22:38:00
In reply to Lou's reply to Minnie-restrcinvlv » Minnie-Haha, posted by Lou Pilder on June 14, 2005, at 17:21:53
> > And could you please answer how you’d feel about guidelines on this forum in the meantime like this:
> >
> > 1) A person can only make unlimited (so to speak) requests for determinations on posts that are either A) in response to a post he/she has made, B) is about him/her or something he/she has posted, or C) is in a thread that he/she has been actively involved in? (“Actively” in this case to be defined by Dr. Bob, or a vote, or whatever.)
> >
> > 2) That a person can only make limited requests for determinations on posts that are A) not in response to something he/she has posted, B) not about him/her or something he/she has posted, and C) not in a thread that he/she has been actively involved in? (“Limited” to be defined by Dr. Bob, or a vote, or whatever.)
> >
> > 3) That when someone’s post is being questioned, they must receive a notice, so that they may, if they choose, defend what they’ve said.
> >
>
> In your questions to me above, there are many restrictions that you would advocate to be implimented when a request for determination is made.
> It is my vision that a forum could have no restrictions for one to post as much as they want. I would not want anyone's voice to be stilled here.But the guidelines I’ve proposed are easy to administer, with no ambiguity. They are quantifiable. Also, I don’t see how having 20 people checking every post on every board every 5 minutes around the clock is any less restrictive.
> But I will answer as to why I would not want restrictions imposed on posters here.
> One of your proposed restrictions is that one could only post in response to a thread that you are activly involved in.No, that’s not true. One could question posts on threads they’re not actively involved in (or not the subject of), but they could not make such requests more often than is defined as acceptable by the forum guidelines without facing a penalty. Besides, such requests could be made privately to the moderator as often as wanted (as far as I’m concerned, though others may disagree). I’m talking about public requests.
> In my requests, they are to give more definition or to have comparison or to show past practic,etc. As to if I am a discussant in the thread or not, my concern for the determination is not dependant on my being a discussant for my request is to get a reply from Dr. Hsiung that could be relevant to all the posters in the community.
My guess is that you’ve made hundreds of such requests. Could you please tell me of three specific requests you’ve made that had replies that were relevant to the whole community?
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 14, 2005, at 22:49:26
In reply to Lou's reply to Minnie-~#ofpots? » Minnie-Haha, posted by Lou Pilder on June 14, 2005, at 21:06:22
> You wrote,[...I felt spied upon...]
> Could you feel the same way if another poster here requested that Dr. Hsiung make a determination for acceptability?Sure. Especially if they made a habit of posting such requests (about me or others).
> And, since that was the only post involved like this, are you saying that it is not the number of requests by me that you want lessend?
I'm not sure what you mean by "the only post involved like this." Do you mean it was the only public post you made about me? That it was the only post you made about that figure of speech? Either way, it's not just the number of requests that YOU make I want lessened. I don't think anyone should be able to post such requests (especially when they're not involved in the thread and the questioned posts are not about them or something they've said) in such numbers. (I have not asked that these guidelines be applied to you alone.)
Could you please answer my other questions?
Posted by so on June 15, 2005, at 0:29:35
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Minnie » Lou Pilder, posted by Minnie-Haha on June 14, 2005, at 22:49:26
>I don't think anyone should be able to post such requests (especially when they're not involved in the thread and the questioned posts are not about them or something they've said) in such numbers.
If I made such a request, it would more likely be about myself and those who might share my perspective than it would be about the person whose post I cited. Such interests arise from wondering about whether I may write in the same manner that others may write.
Posted by gardenergirl on June 15, 2005, at 4:06:28
In reply to Lou's reply to Minnie-iflouruldthebrd » Minnie-Haha, posted by Lou Pilder on June 14, 2005, at 12:32:56
> Minnie,
> You asked if the forum was moderated 24/7, would there be a decrese in requests.
> I have explained that I think that they would.Lou,
Many of your requests for determination result in Dr. Bob saying he thinks the post in question is acceptable. If there were more moderators online more often, I'm not sure why requests for determination would go down. Are you saying that if you knew there were a moderator reading posts right away, and the moderator took no action about a post which you had a question about, you would not ask? What would prevent someone from making a request for determination regardless of when the moderators were online or not?gg
Posted by JenStar on June 15, 2005, at 18:19:34
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Minnie » Lou Pilder, posted by Minnie-Haha on June 14, 2005, at 22:38:00
As an FYI,
none of the requests for determination, or the answers from deputies and/or Dr. Bob, were useful to me as a part of this community. I did not derive any new learning or understanding from the posts or the answers to them. (Minnie had asked if Lou could show some posts that he believed had a beneficial effect for the community here.)Does anyone have a different experience?
thanks,
JenStar
Posted by JenStar on June 15, 2005, at 18:30:09
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Minnie » Lou Pilder, posted by Minnie-Haha on June 14, 2005, at 20:16:13
folks,
I believe that posters have a certain responsibility to write things that to the best of their knowledge are not deliberately offensive.HOWEVER -- (and this is a big however!) -- READERS also have a responsibility to read "smart" and try to interpret what is being written. Whether or not English is our first language here, and whether or not we enjoy dissecting language and grammar, we need to try to understand what the OTHER person means.
Also -- as in real life, we have to be a bit flexible. WE have to ask questions if we're confused - and ask them of the person who's writing the message. We're all adults here, and we should (I believe) be capable of interacting with each other on a one:one level without additional supervision.
When I say we "have" to do this, I mean that we "should", because it's the kind of interaction and communication that seems to make business, personal relationships and society as a whole moving forward without too much analysis.
Lou, I wish you were able to read and post here without needing to ask for so many determinations. You have never explained -- to me, to Minnie, or to anyone, WHY you want so many of them, at least not in a way that I understood well.
I believe there is a duty that YOU have, Lou, to censor yourself, try to interpret what people really mean, and then to talk directly to a person if you have a concern. Of course, this is a duty EVERYONE here has, in my opinion. I"m bringing it up to you because you mentioned in a previous post that you don't want/like to address people directly. But I think that's what this forum is meant for, and I don't think you're interacting in a way that meets the standards of the others here if you consistently refuse to do that.
And I don't mean "censor" in a Nazi-ish or any other way. I censor myself a lot of the time. sometimes when I read posts, my first instinct is something like "WHat???!!!" or, "I can't believe this!" But I try to read it again, and ask a question if I need to. I'm not always pefect, as you know. :) But I think that it's important for us to internalize first before we react here.
It's my opinion only, of course. But I'm trying to explain to you why so many of us really want you to interact on a personal level, and to stop the multiple requests for determination.
JenStar
Posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 18:52:44
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Minnie » Minnie-Haha, posted by JenStar on June 15, 2005, at 18:30:09
Jenstar, Lou used to ask for clarification directly from posters, but the posters involved didn't necessarily appreciate that. So his current posting style was an attempt by him to comply with their desires.
A search of the archives might yield further insight.
I think Lou is to be credited for attempting to change his style to conform with community desires.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 15, 2005, at 22:01:38
In reply to Re: so's further observation, posted by so on June 15, 2005, at 0:29:35
> >I don't think anyone should be able to post such requests (especially when they're not involved in the thread and the questioned posts are not about them or something they've said) in such numbers.
>
> If I made such a request, it would more likely be about myself and those who might share my perspective than it would be about the person whose post I cited. Such interests arise from wondering about whether I may write in the same manner that others may write.I kinda see what you're saying, but if I'm reading you right, you're not saying that such a request is NOT about a particular poster. Therefore, I don't see why a particular poster couldn't be offended and ask to have such requests limited, if not stopped. If you question someone else's post, even if it is ruled civil, there it sits on the record as having been questioned and therefore, at least in one person's eyes, questionable. And all this without even asking the "offender" what he/she meant.
Once again, I could accept such challenges without limit if they were about the challenger, or something the challenger has said, otherwise, I don't think there's anything untoward about limiting them.
Also, IMO, we're starting to step into the behavior vs. intention debate. I think it is much easier to enforce rules that are based on behavior. Some think I'm uncharitable for suggesting this, but intentions are so much harder to know than behavior.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 15, 2005, at 22:17:06
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Minnie » Lou Pilder, posted by Minnie-Haha on June 14, 2005, at 22:49:26
You seem to have abandoned this thread. Quite a few questions are left unanswered. Would you please answer the two that I'd like answered most?
1. Could you please tell me of three specific requests you’ve made that had replies relevant to the whole community?
2. Do you know that your requests lead some to feel accused or put down? (Note that I am not asking why you think your posts aren’t offensive, but whether or not you know that they are offensive to some.)
Thanks so much for sharing here. Like others, I've appreciated the non-multiple-choice responses. They seem a little warmer.
Posted by JenStar on June 16, 2005, at 0:01:02
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Minnie » JenStar, posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 18:52:44
Yes, and I do appreciate it too. Lou, even though I may still disagree with some of your ideas (and v.v., I'm sure at times!), I really do enjoy your new style of posting. It's easier for me to understand, and it feels more personal. I like it. Thanks! :)
JenStar
Posted by so on June 16, 2005, at 0:13:47
In reply to Re: so's further observation, posted by Minnie-Haha on June 15, 2005, at 22:01:38
> Once again, I could accept such challenges without limit if they were about the challenger, or something the challenger has said, otherwise, I don't think there's anything untoward about limiting them.
>
> Also, IMO, we're starting to step into the behavior vs. intention debate. I think it is much easier to enforce rules that are based on behavior. Some think I'm uncharitable for suggesting this, but intentions are so much harder to know than behavior.
I'm sorry, my mind just blanked on this -- I almost thought I had a handle on why people want posts questioning propriety of other people's posts limited, but then I realized I had no idea why, I am just acquiescing to the fact that some people want that, because acquiescence can sometimes be courteous and help resolve conflict.If ever there came a time people were no longer free to question what I write, I should probably unplug my keyboard, run a large magnet over my hard-drive, have somebody place all of my pens out of reach and find something else to do. It is people's questions that have made me a better writer.
As to the questions about compliance in this forum -- I don't think I'm going manic, but I just realized something dramatic about the dialectic nature of this forum --- this place is called "Psychobabble". Except with the possible exception of this forum, "Psychobabble" is a term used, as far as I can tell, solely to criticize ineffectual psychological discussion. In my thinking at this moment, I don't think it will ever be possible to reach some sort of stable discourse among people discussing psychology under the banner of a word with such connotations.
We can't call anything on any of these pages "psychobabble" within what I perceive to be the guidelines of the site, but everything here is psychobabble? If ever I did, I no longer get it.
With such a shaky rhetorical foundation as a site name that seems to contravene expecations of the site, any effort to stabilize interpersonal relationships with new rules might be geared for failure. The site needs a more supportive name to model the kind of supportive behavior the administrator expects. Maybe some people will say it doesn't matter, or it shouldn't matter. But those people will also need to say nothing about my participation has ever bothered them, because I think the dichotomy between that term with its hypercritical implications for psychology and the expectations put forward by the administrator of this site might be a large part of why I am perplexed by the unusually high dialectic expectations on this site.
Posted by JenStar on June 16, 2005, at 9:19:19
In reply to Re: so's further observation, posted by so on June 16, 2005, at 0:13:47
So, when I read your posts, I try to wonder just what you are trying to accomplish here. Here are my thoughts. Please tell me if I'm right or not.
I suspect you're not perplexed at all. I suspect you enjoy toying with language, and somehow you found PB and have decided it to be your new "toy". I don't think you're here for support. I think you're interested in seeing if you can stir up debate.
Am I right?
JenStar
Posted by JenStar on June 16, 2005, at 9:23:53
In reply to Re: so's further observation, posted by so on June 16, 2005, at 0:13:47
I also think that many of your posts contain "hidden" sarcasm, which you cleverly couch in big words, dependent clauses, and long sentences. For example, your use of "I'm perplexed" in your post about the title of PB seemed extremely sarcastic to me. I suspect that you are having fun taking "secret" digs at PB, that you think yourself to be smarter than many other people here.
Am I right?
JenStar
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 16, 2005, at 10:36:30
In reply to Re: Lou? Are you still there?, posted by Minnie-Haha on June 15, 2005, at 22:17:06
> You seem to have abandoned this thread. Quite a few questions are left unanswered. Would you please answer the two that I'd like answered most?
>
> 1. Could you please tell me of three specific requests you’ve made that had replies relevant to the whole community?
>
> 2. Do you know that your requests lead some to feel accused or put down? (Note that I am not asking why you think your posts aren’t offensive, but whether or not you know that they are offensive to some.)
>
> Thanks so much for sharing here. Like others, I've appreciated the non-multiple-choice responses. They seem a little warmer.I'm getting ready to quit posting for a while, so please consider the do-not-post-to-me request back in force. (With the exception of these two questions, which once again... if I don't reply, it does not mean I concede any points you're trying to make.)
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 16, 2005, at 10:44:39
In reply to Re: so's further observation, posted by so on June 16, 2005, at 0:13:47
> > Once again, I could accept such challenges without limit if they were about the challenger, or something the challenger has said, otherwise, I don't think there's anything untoward about limiting them.
> >
> > Also, IMO, we're starting to step into the behavior vs. intention debate. I think it is much easier to enforce rules that are based on behavior. Some think I'm uncharitable for suggesting this, but intentions are so much harder to know than behavior.> I'm sorry, my mind just blanked on this -- I almost thought I had a handle on why people want posts questioning propriety of other people's posts limited, but then I realized I had no idea why, I am just acquiescing to the fact that some people want that, because acquiescence can sometimes be courteous and help resolve conflict.
>
> If ever there came a time people were no longer free to question what I write, I should probably unplug my keyboard, run a large magnet over my hard-drive, have somebody place all of my pens out of reach and find something else to do. It is people's questions that have made me a better writer.I thought we were starting to understand each other too. Have you actually followed this debate from its genesis? I am talking about limiting (not stopping altogether) a very specific kind of behavior: the habitual, public questioning before Admin of the civility of other posters.
For example, I once used the figure of speech "with a grain of salt" in a way that Lou felt compelled to question. It was not about him or something he'd said, and he was not actively involved in the thread my post was in. But rather than ask me to clarify what I meant, he asked Admin if my use of the term was OK. If the question wasn't about me, but rather just about the term "with a grain of salt," why point to my post? Why not just ask "Is the use of the term ‘with a grain of salt’ acceptable on this forum?"
I'm only using my post as an example -- you can find dozens, if not hundreds, of similar examples. IMO, these requests are attempts to point out a bias that Lou perceives in the "system." If that is his point, that's his right. I just don't think if the posts are not about him or something he has said that he should keep making a public display of dozens, if not hundreds, of other posters.
Here is his original post questioning my post: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050219/msgs/461232.html
Here is my response (once I found out my post had been questioned):
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050219/msgs/461399.html
Here is where I first tried – in admittedly poor fashion – to do something about habitual posting: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050323/msgs/484197.html (I got blocked, after only ever receiving one PBC – actually for the “grain of salt post” 1-2 months earlier, but not for using that idiom, if I remember correctly.)
Here’s where I tried to discuss the topic again, more diplomatically, I thought, and within the guidelines of the forum: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050417/msgs/487910.html (In this thread, at one point I mentioned the “grain of salt” idiom as an example of the kind of post I was talking about, and Lou felt it necessary to discuss its meaning all over again. I got blocked again near the end of this thread, which I thought was unfair – but I’m not the first person to feel that way, so I don’t feel completely singled out.)
And finally, here is where I addressed the idiom for a final time: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050417/msgs/497858.htmlYou know, like me, IMO, you seem to have some reservations about the fairness of how this forum is run. Like maybe some people get more lenient treatment than others? But you know what’s funny? IMO, Lou is untouchable here. Others besides myself have tried to address this issue and ended up leaving, all for just wanting to at least modify (if not squelch) a behavior they find accusatory and offensive. If they don’t leave, they learn to just bite their tongues, because this is a subject that is sure to get you blocked sooner or later if you persist. I admire your sticking up for Lou. I think Lou should have the same rights as the rest of us. But I actually feel he has additional rights that we don’t have.
For instance, the 3-complaint, as proposed by Dr. Bob, would allow Lou to keep questioning others’ posts virtually without end, but would silence me in my “mission” to simply make this kind of habitual, public behavior, whoever does it, unacceptable. And Dr. Bob won’t even rule on whether or not Lou’s behavior is civil. (He said he’d rather not label it, though he seems to have labeled me as a troublemaker.)
> As to the questions about compliance in this forum -- I don't think I'm going manic, but I just realized something dramatic about the dialectic nature of this forum --- this place is called "Psychobabble". Except with the possible exception of this forum, "Psychobabble" is a term used, as far as I can tell, solely to criticize ineffectual psychological discussion. In my thinking at this moment, I don't think it will ever be possible to reach some sort of stable discourse among people discussing psychology under the banner of a word with such connotations.
>
> We can't call anything on any of these pages "psychobabble" within what I perceive to be the guidelines of the site, but everything here is psychobabble? If ever I did, I no longer get it.
>
> With such a shaky rhetorical foundation as a site name that seems to contravene expecations of the site, any effort to stabilize interpersonal relationships with new rules might be geared for failure. The site needs a more supportive name to model the kind of supportive behavior the administrator expects. Maybe some people will say it doesn't matter, or it shouldn't matter. But those people will also need to say nothing about my participation has ever bothered them, because I think the dichotomy between that term with its hypercritical implications for psychology and the expectations put forward by the administrator of this site might be a large part of why I am perplexed by the unusually high dialectic expectations on this site.You lost me here, but I admire your mental prowess.
I won't be posting here for awhile, so take care!
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 16, 2005, at 10:52:08
In reply to furthermore... » so, posted by JenStar on June 16, 2005, at 9:23:53
Friends,
There are things written here about "so" that I would like you to consider some other things about those things before you reply to this thread.
A. could you consider that in some forums there are policys against "personal attacks" toward another person and could you make a determination, for yourself, before you post, to if you think that you could be writing something that could be considered to fall in the catagory of persanally attacking someone even though the definition of such may vary?
B. could you consider that this forum is moderated in a manner that perhaps many hours could go past untill either Dr. Hsiung or Dinah addresses a post, so that just because it is not addressed within , let's say, five hours, does not mean that what is written is acceptable here?
C. could you consider that just because Dinah, the deputy, is posting that that does not mean that since she has not addressed the post that it is acceptable for she writes that there are other conditions that , if they occur, then will she address a post.
D. could you consider that there are laws against defamation and that just because a person uses another name, that is not their real name, that that does not allow one legally to defame another on the internet in many jurisdictions?
E. could you consider that any response that agrees with statements by another here that have the potential to defame another could have the potential to be considerd that you wrote the same?
F. could you consider the above when you read the following and you decide to post to these statements?
1. [...you'r not perplexed at all...]
2. [...toying with language...]
3.[...I don't think you are here for support...]
4. [..you're interested in stirring up debate...]
5.[...hidden sarcasm...]
6. [...cleverly couched...]
7. [...you are having fun taking {secret digs} at PB...]
8. [...you think yourself to be smarter than many other people here...].
Lou
Posted by JenStar on June 16, 2005, at 17:20:33
In reply to Lou's responseto an aspect of this thread-prsnlat? » JenStar, posted by Lou Pilder on June 16, 2005, at 10:52:08
Lou, I understand that my post as written to so IS probably inappropriate given the forum guidelines. But I wanted to post it anyway in the hopes that so will read it and respond to me. I DO suspect those things. And I wanted to get it "out there" for a response. I could probably have made the lanugage prettier, but the meaning behind it would still have been the same. Those are things I've come to suspect over the course of reading so's posts. He is welcome to respond as he chooses.
In general, I try not to post such messages. In general I really want to be kind and supportive, funny and nice. Over on social, I think I *am* that way! Something about admin seems to really get me all riled up. I know that's doesn't necessarily make it "ok" but this is something I feel strongly about. I feel a bit protective of babble, even though I'm by no means one of the longest-term members, or a so-called "VIP."
But I really LIKE babble, and I want it to be a place where we can all just get along and hang out and chat without bickering too much about the rules & regulations. To ME, that's what's fun about Babble. Obviously it's ironic, then, that I have chosen to post a few questionable posts. In the future I will try to avoid doing it again.
But like so, writing is part of my life too, and certain trends and phrases in the way he writes just makes me wonder about his motives. And I just don't know a "nice" way to ask about it.
thanks for listening & pointing things out.
JenStar
Posted by Phillipa on June 16, 2005, at 17:51:26
In reply to Re: Lou's responseto an aspect of this thread-prsnlat? » Lou Pilder, posted by JenStar on June 16, 2005, at 17:20:33
Did I miss something? I didn't know that it was disclosed that so is a male. For some reason I thought so was female. Don't know why. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by JenStar on June 16, 2005, at 17:57:19
In reply to Re: Lou's responseto an aspect of this thread-prsnlat? » JenStar, posted by Phillipa on June 16, 2005, at 17:51:26
good point... for some reason I thought so had said he/she was a male. I may be confusing him/her with someone else!
Sorry if I got it wrong.
JenStar
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 16, 2005, at 18:05:06
In reply to Re: Lou's responseto an aspect of this thread-prsnlat? » Lou Pilder, posted by JenStar on June 16, 2005, at 17:20:33
Jen Star,
You wrote,[...inappropriate...wanted to post it anyway...that "so" would read it...].
My concern was that others could write similar posts about "so", so I wanted to make some attempt to not have that happen since the deputy writes that her intervention here could be dependant on other things happening so that an "escalation" could be decerned,and I thought that I could prevent the escaltion from happening with my post. I am not a deputy here, but a concerned "citizen".
But when you post things like that publically, I belive that we all have a responsibility to head off potential confrontations between others, if we can.
As far as "so's" motives, I can only see what can be seen and I find no fault with her/him.
Lou
Posted by so on June 17, 2005, at 0:12:56
In reply to furthermore... » so, posted by JenStar on June 16, 2005, at 9:23:53
> I also think that many of your posts contain "hidden" sarcasm, which you cleverly couch in big words, dependent clauses, and long sentences. For example, your use of "I'm perplexed" in your post about the title of PB seemed extremely sarcastic to me. I suspect that you are having fun taking "secret" digs at PB, that you think yourself to be smarter than many other people here.
> Am I right?
> JenStarNo sarcasm intended at all. I am totally perplexed that I write to a forum where my work appears under the headling "psychobabble" and I am perplexed that I managed for some period of time to avoid considering the common meaning of the term and what it might mean about my writing. My words are not offered as babble in the least. To the contrary, my effort is an attempt to find meaning, and to make my thoughts more coherent.
Havign confronted this realization, I am trying now to find meaning in a unique colloquial use of the term babble, but the dictionary doesn't offer much leeway. Alexandra_K did a fair job of summarizing what redeeming values might be found in the term as it is used here, but can you see how I would feel put down if my writing appeared anywhere else or even eventually feel put down that my participation here is described as follows:
Main Entry: bab·ble
Pronunciation: 'ba-b&l
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): bab·bled; bab·bling /-b(&-)li[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English babelen, probably of imitative origin
intransitive senses
1 a : to talk enthusiastically or excessively b : to utter meaningless or unintelligible sounds
2 : to make sounds as though babbling
transitive senses
1 : to utter in an incoherently or meaninglessly repetitious manner
2 : to reveal by talk that is too free
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=babble
and from dictionary.com
bab·ble ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bbl)
v. bab·bled, bab·bling, bab·bles
v. intr.
To utter a meaningless confusion of words or sounds: Babies babble before they can talk.
To talk foolishly or idly; chatter: “In 1977 [he] was thought of as crazy because he was babbling about supply side” (Newt Gingrich).
To make a continuous low, murmuring sound, as flowing water.v. tr.
To utter rapidly and indistinctly.
To blurt out impulsively; disclose without careful consideration.n.
Inarticulate or meaningless talk or sounds.
Idle or foolish talk; chatter.
A continuous low, murmuring sound, as of flowing water.
Posted by gardenergirl on June 17, 2005, at 11:14:52
In reply to Re: furthermore..., posted by so on June 17, 2005, at 0:12:56
I'm a bit confused about how someone might feel put down for having their writing associated with a certain word after independently choosing to post on a site with that word as the name.
Are you saying you feel you put yourself down by posting here?
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 17, 2005, at 11:51:02
In reply to Re: furthermore... » so, posted by gardenergirl on June 17, 2005, at 11:14:52
Friends,
An aspect of this thread is about the title ,or name, of this forum,"Psychobabble".
I did wonder about if it is appropriate to call this forum by that name. Dr. Hsiung has a disclaimer in his FAQ and reading it really does not alleviate my concerns.
My concern is if the name has the potential for others to think that people that post here for suuport and education are in some way not to be taken seriously as to what they write. And I am concerned that the name could have the potential to stereotype those that post here.
Was not Abe Lincoln a person with depression disorder? And Winston Churchill? and Ted Turner? and Michelangelo? and Patti Duke? and Howard Hughes (OCD)? And how about Issac Newton? and Earnest Hemmingway? and F. Scott Fitzgerald? and numerous others that have made such great contributions to the human race.
Is the Gettysburg Address "psychobabble"?
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.