![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 5 to 29 of 38. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 13:13:02
In reply to Excellent points, very well expressed - thank you (nm) » Dinah, posted by Racer on July 27, 2008, at 13:04:37
Posted by 10derHeart on July 27, 2008, at 13:59:38
In reply to Note regarding Admin policies, posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 12:45:01
Posted by gardenergirl on July 27, 2008, at 14:26:53
In reply to Note regarding Admin policies, posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 12:45:01
Way more effective than idealistic, and much less ambiguous "tone". An excellent model and excellent post.
Thanks,
gg
Posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 14:52:35
In reply to Ah, there's the pragmatic I lack » Dinah, posted by gardenergirl on July 27, 2008, at 14:26:53
Dinah "Pragmatic"
Posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 16:31:35
In reply to thanks so much, Dinah - you write SO clearly (nm), posted by 10derHeart on July 27, 2008, at 13:59:38
Posted by toph on July 27, 2008, at 17:11:54
In reply to Ah, there's the pragmatic I lack » Dinah, posted by gardenergirl on July 27, 2008, at 14:26:53
> Way more effective than idealistic, and much less ambiguous "tone". An excellent model and excellent post.
>
> Thanks,
> ggThe use of quotation marks is unnecessary and exactly the kind of attitude to which I was referring gg. Its a style that someone could find provocative, annoying and uncivil, but probably not the adminstration.
Posted by 10derHeart on July 27, 2008, at 17:27:06
In reply to Re: Ah, there's the pragmatic I lack, posted by toph on July 27, 2008, at 17:11:54
You're correct. As Dinah was saying, it wouldn't matter here if any deputies did or didn't find a certain use of quotation marks, or other things you and others (and no doubt some/all of us at times, too) describe as 'attitude' to be annoying, or even provocative.
The guidelines don't require anyone to not be annoying or provocative. We only try to do as Dr. Bob would if he were here, the best we can, and he just doesn't sanction for these things.
Thank goodness. Drawing those lines, making those distinctions would be......I can't even think of a description.
I just know I couldn't begin to take it on. The discussing, weighing and often agonizing to be sure we do what Dr. Bob would likely do and what's best for the community under the current rules is quite sufficient. Not that I'm complaining - I know I am voluntarily a deputy.
Posted by 10derHeart on July 27, 2008, at 17:29:02
In reply to Re: Ah, there's the pragmatic I lack » toph, posted by 10derHeart on July 27, 2008, at 17:27:06
...if I misrepresented, misinterpreted, etc., your post in writing mine, *please* feel free to correct me.
You know I won't mind in the least :-)
Posted by Lemonaide on July 27, 2008, at 18:05:22
In reply to Note regarding Admin policies, posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 12:45:01
Thank Dinah for writing this, it needed to be said.
I believe support can be shown in many ways, including someone posting to a thread, even if they don't have anything helpful or meaningful at the time, but just showing a presence can be comforting to many posters. I am noticing a drop off of hugs. (((hugs))) are sometimes used when one doesn't know what to say other than show they care.
Posts don't have to read if one finds them to be bothersome. A reader has a choice, if a reader reads a post they know will find annoying, then is it the poster's fault because one read the post?
I believe tolerance and kindness towards each other is something that Babble needs if it wants to thrive.
Posted by gardenergirl on July 27, 2008, at 18:51:58
In reply to Re: Ah, there's the pragmatic I lack, posted by toph on July 27, 2008, at 17:11:54
> > Way more effective than idealistic, and much less ambiguous "tone". An excellent model and excellent post.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > gg
>
> The use of quotation marks is unnecessary and exactly the kind of attitude to which I was referring gg. Its a style that someone could find provocative, annoying and uncivil, but probably not the adminstration.Thanks for pointing that out so, well, pointedly. I still recall your earlier remarks on this topic, and I'm not disagreeing with you. Well, except for this part: the use of quotes was necessary for me, as I was quoting your word choice instead of using my own. In this case, it also indicates that I read your post. I had a reaction to it just as you appear to have had a reaction to mine.
I think the more interesting and perhaps, dare I say, pragmatic issue, instead of debating, discussing, characterizing, talking about, intimating, judging the behavior of others, is what will our behavior choice be? That's all we have under our own control, after all.
gg
Posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 18:53:28
In reply to Re: Ah, there's the pragmatic I lack, posted by toph on July 27, 2008, at 17:11:54
Toph, this *is* an example of what I was talking about. I suppose it could be read as attitude or sarcasm. But it can also be read exactly as it appears on its face. I have no reason to believe that gg meant it as anything but a very gracious statement to me. And perhaps an even more gracious acknowledgment on her part.
Or maybe even as a feeling of hurt at believing herself referred to as having tone? I think were I to use quotation marks, it would likely be a mark of the fact that I felt hurt.
If you aren't sure how to read it, perhaps you can very politely ask? You might find out that there is merely a misunderstanding.
As I've said, I've been on both sides of a misunderstanding. It isn't fun either way. People may think that the civility rules don't allow a frank discussion and reflection of what one person hears to make sure it is what the other person means to say. I don't think that's true. I've had misunderstandings that I've cleared up on board. It may be easier in chat, where it's real time, but it is possible on board. It just requires that we use a certain amount of restraint and tact.
Posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 18:54:37
In reply to And Dinah...., posted by 10derHeart on July 27, 2008, at 17:29:02
No correction needed, 10der. :)
Posted by gardenergirl on July 27, 2008, at 19:01:04
In reply to Re: Ah, there's the pragmatic I lack, posted by toph on July 27, 2008, at 17:11:54
Seeing another side, challenging or testing our thinking, feeling or experiencing something outside of our routine, looking through a different lens, changing our perspective...these are bad things? Oy, I feel my brain hardening and becoming a static entity.
Now, someone please bring me a bucket? ;)
gg
Posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 19:29:15
In reply to And 'provocative' is a bad thing?, posted by gardenergirl on July 27, 2008, at 19:01:04
Well, perhaps my view is skewed because I really don't like to have to hand out PBC's. But I think I prefer nonprovocative methods of encouraging a change of perspective in this particular venue. The internet is just too two dimensional. It doesn't allow for any of the softening that a real life provocation might involve. A smile or body posture can really help in real life to indicate that no harm is meant. It's like with my dogs. Behavior that could provoke a tussle in other circumstances can be made playful by the play bow invitation.
And for me personally, a topic introduced provocatively is more likely to harden my heart and turn my mind than persuade.
Still, what's civil is civil.
Posted by fayeroe on July 27, 2008, at 19:57:06
In reply to Re: And 'provocative' is a bad thing?, posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 19:29:15
Posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 20:06:09
In reply to ''smoke and mirrors'' (nm), posted by fayeroe on July 27, 2008, at 19:57:06
I'm sorry. I don't quite understand. Were you trying to communicate something to me?
What is smoke and mirrors? It's a phrase used to refer to a magician's trick, isn't it? Do you see something in my post as a trick or sleight of hand?
I was being boringly earnest, I assure you. As is my boringly earnest custom.
Posted by zenhussy on July 27, 2008, at 20:09:20
In reply to Re: And 'provocative' is a bad thing?, posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 19:29:15
>>>Still, what's civil is civil.<<<
perhaps what is civil here is merely Dr. Bob's definition of civil?
the definitions of civility experienced by this poster IRL and elsewhere online have been vastly different from this site's definitions.
civility is not a universal concept. if it were maybe there would be no more war.
Posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 20:14:27
In reply to 'what's civil is civil' » Dinah, posted by zenhussy on July 27, 2008, at 20:09:20
Well, that's what I meant. What's allowable is allowable. I meant civil in the babble defined guideline sense.
Goodness only knows that I get annoyed at times. But not everything that annoys me is uncivil under Babble guidelines. And my best attempts to convince Dr. Bob that it should be fail as much as anyone's.
Posted by fayeroe on July 27, 2008, at 20:14:45
In reply to Re: ''smoke and mirrors'' » fayeroe, posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 20:06:09
> I'm sorry. I don't quite understand. Were you trying to communicate something to me?
>
> What is smoke and mirrors? It's a phrase used to refer to a magician's trick, isn't it? Do you see something in my post as a trick or sleight of hand?
>
> I was being boringly earnest, I assure you. As is my boringly earnest custom.
No, Dinah, I wasn't replying to you. There is no name on my heading. pat
Posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 20:16:16
In reply to Re: ''smoke and mirrors'' » Dinah, posted by fayeroe on July 27, 2008, at 20:14:45
Ah, ok.
I just noticed that it was in reply to my post (technically at least), and I didn't want to ignore you if you were talking to me.
Posted by fayeroe on July 27, 2008, at 20:28:21
In reply to Re: ''smoke and mirrors'' » fayeroe, posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 20:16:16
> Ah, ok.
>
> I just noticed that it was in reply to my post (technically at least), and I didn't want to ignore you if you were talking to me.
it is cool.
Posted by gardenergirl on July 27, 2008, at 21:32:12
In reply to Re: And 'provocative' is a bad thing?, posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 19:29:15
All good things to keep in mind, thanks.
Going back to a recent conversation about regrets, as I've said before, never for quitting. I'll add now, if I haven't said it before, absolutely for ever starting. Clearly you can't go back. There's no shuffling off that admin coil once it's attached. :(
Thanks,
gg
Posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 21:56:11
In reply to Re: And 'provocative' is a bad thing? » Dinah, posted by gardenergirl on July 27, 2008, at 21:32:12
:(
Do you think that's because of how other people treat you? Or how you feel yourself?
Turnover is so high here that a lot of people might not even know. But maybe the link is always in some people's minds. And maybe they expect more of you?
I'd be interested in knowing your thoughts on the topic.
I know that my posting style changed when I became a deputy, especially as Dr. Bob backed off. I don't think, overall, that I mind that. But I can think of a lot of ways that it might be a problem to be an ex deputy. Do you think that's a factor in what's going on now?
I'm sorry you have regrets about becoming a deputy. And glad you have no regrets about quitting being a deputy. I have no regrets that you chose to become a deputy, other than that it continues to cause you pain.
Posted by Toph on July 28, 2008, at 10:45:15
In reply to Re: Ah, there's the pragmatic I lack » toph, posted by gardenergirl on July 27, 2008, at 18:51:58
I apologize if I read something into your post gg. As far as this whole tone thing goes I think as we get to know posters and their styles of expression we "hear" (oops, quotes) tone in their written speech. And since we somehow got engaged in this discussion, when I met you in Chicago gg, I was struck by how pleasantly we disagreed about the implimentation of the civility rules on PB. Our discussion was not contentious and I left thinking that you seemed bright and articulate and non-judgmental about someone who didn't share your same views. Maybe that's why when I witnessed some of your encounters with others here over the years I was surprized to sense a tone/attitude/curious choice of phrasing that led me to believe that you were being sarcastic, critical or condescending towards someone who disagreed with you. We were going to discuss this once privately but somehow never got around to it. I don't mind that you express your reaction honestly BTW, it just seems unfortunate to me when two people get testy with each other that usually only one gets sanctioned because they were less deft at communicating within the rules.
But, again, if I have unfairly ascribed tone to some of your posts, I am sorry.
Posted by fayeroe on July 29, 2008, at 19:38:48
In reply to Re: 'what's civil is civil' » zenhussy, posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 20:14:27
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.