![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 15 to 39 of 47. Go back in thread:
Posted by floatingbridge on January 30, 2011, at 19:58:28
In reply to Re: Omg. why I don't have a t.v. » floatingbridge, posted by europerep on January 30, 2011, at 15:19:11
Because you are one of PB's invaluable European representatives, I must protest this act, however humorous, of throwing yourself on your noble sword for the mere sake of preserving personal freedom and integrity in a corrupt and compass-less world.
(Can you actually figure out your block in advance?)
Really, don't leave for a month :(
fb
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2011, at 20:12:36
In reply to Re: Omg. why I don't have a t.v., posted by europerep on January 30, 2011, at 19:57:38
> As for the asterisking.. I don't get it, really. Would it have been fine had I written "sh*t"?
Yes.
> If a person is offended by words that you'll find in every Webster, they have *serious* issues, and it's not my job to accommodate their absurd sense of decency.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person, and I'm sorry if this hurts you.
I do hope that you choose to remain a member of this community and that members of this community help you, if needed, to avoid future blocks. If you want to be proactive, you could ask another poster to be your civility buddy:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#buddies
floatingbridge, thanks for trying to help this time.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express yourself, including a link to a nice post by Dinah on I-statements, are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
PS: This block is the result of one action, but its length is the result of a pattern of actions. The block length formula:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
takes into account how long the previous block was, how long it's been since the previous block, and how uncivil the current post is:
duration of previous block: 2 weeks
period of time since previous block: 11 weeks
severity: 2 (default) + 1 (uncivil toward particular group) = 3
block length = 4.60 rounded = 5 weeks
Posted by sigismund on January 30, 2011, at 23:51:40
In reply to Re: blocked for 5 weeks » europerep, posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2011, at 20:12:36
Is consistency in board moderation desirable?
Because if so, we have a problem.
No one was hurt with this, whereas with the previous thing......
Maybe Bob was, maybe he doesn't want this kind of language on his board?
Doesn't like back talk?
Some cultural thingo?
Posted by Phillipa on January 31, 2011, at 11:21:19
In reply to Re: blocked for 5 weeks, posted by sigismund on January 30, 2011, at 23:51:40
Oh no what happened? I should have posted to the redirect will have to read. Phillipa
Posted by SLS on January 31, 2011, at 13:46:53
In reply to Re: please be civil » europerep, posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2011, at 19:55:40
Dr. Bob.
The moratorium does not end until tomorrow. Give us one more day of peace.
Thank you.
- Scott
Posted by ed_uk2010 on January 31, 2011, at 15:59:51
In reply to Re: blocked for 5 weeks » europerep, posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2011, at 20:12:36
> > As for the asterisking.. I don't get it, really. Would it have been fine had I written "sh*t"?
>
> Yes.
>Not sure why? Everyone knows what it means.
It's very American, like when you show the breast but blank out the nipple.
Posted by sigismund on January 31, 2011, at 16:46:51
In reply to Re: blocked for 5 weeks, posted by ed_uk2010 on January 31, 2011, at 15:59:51
I don't even understand this asterisking thing.
You can turn it off?
Not that I want to, not that I care, it's such a load of
Posted by jane d on January 31, 2011, at 18:22:57
In reply to Re: blocked for 5 weeks » ed_uk2010, posted by sigismund on January 31, 2011, at 16:46:51
> I don't even understand this asterisking thing.
>
> You can turn it off?Yes. Or maybe you can fail to turn it on. I'm not sure whether it's opt in or out out and I don't feel like checking. I wonder if there really is anything you can say that the auto asterisking would censor but which would not be uncivil. If there isn't then the option really is pointless.
>
> Not that I want to, not that I care, it's such a load of
Posted by 10derheart on January 31, 2011, at 21:35:49
In reply to Asterisks » sigismund, posted by jane d on January 31, 2011, at 18:22:57
I know one for sure: "My daughter is a cheerleader and uses p*m p*ms when she cheers." It's a cultural thing we Americans often haven't heard about....some of our UK or Aussie Babblers can explain far better than I can, I'm sure...although I do remember the historical roots. Learn something all the time here ;-) Every time I see that pomegranate juice brand 'P*M" in stores, it makes me smile because of Babble.
I *think* it may have been gg who ran afoul of the nasty ole p*ms...but I could be wrong.
It is automatically on unless you affirmatively turn it off. If folks would just leave it on.....but hey, freedom is what it is and comes with its consequences, good, bad and indifferent. Indiffernt may well be the word of the day when it comes to all this, although Dr. Bob was not indifferent, apparently.
So, although I pretty much agree with your post above on the issue, I also recognize over the years Dr. Bob often comes down on the side of as much freedom of choice as possible. Maybe that's why he leaves it as a choice, since a segment of posters has/have/will always complain[ed] about too much restricted speech.
I always thought maybe it was just a device (used by many sites, not just here...although most I've seen won't allow the words *at all* asterisked or not, and either remove the words entirely or the posts entirely) to get a poster to stop and think if s/he wants to use that language or not...{shrug}
PS - No English, Australian, or any other peoples were meant to be disparaged in the making of this post, specifically by any uses of the expression "p*m." okay? OK.
Posted by 10derheart on January 31, 2011, at 21:44:07
In reply to thank you :) and ? » 10derheart, posted by floatingbridge on January 30, 2011, at 19:57:28
I don't think it does, although Dr. Bob seems to have always encouraged and appreciated apologies.
When I was a deputy, I saw a PBC as exactly what its acronym describes: a request to Please Be Civil with a link pointing to the rules in the FAQs so posters could learn what I/we meant by that here. Nothing more or less - and an apology was just gravy and often quite humble, classy and lovely, IMO. Particularly when the poster did not agree with the rules but wanted to promote peace and harmony...
Many people seemed to just naturally do it, especially when they 1) didn't understand/know about the civility policy, and/or 2) they hadn't ever considered that the thing they wrote could or might lead someone to feel accused or put down.
Does any of that make sense, fb? I am not all that coherent these days....
Posted by sigismund on January 31, 2011, at 22:35:21
In reply to ooo..ooo....I remember one! » jane d, posted by 10derheart on January 31, 2011, at 21:35:49
>My daughter is a cheerleader and uses p*m p*ms when she cheers
This is to save the feelings of the English? Wow.
The kinds of profanities I grew up with, meaning the creative juxtaposition of unusual elements suitable for yelling at sheepdogs.......it makes me laugh to imagine how they would sound to American ears.
Posted by morgan miller on January 31, 2011, at 23:10:14
In reply to Re: blocked for 5 weeks, posted by ed_uk2010 on January 31, 2011, at 15:59:51
> > > As for the asterisking.. I don't get it, really. Would it have been fine had I written "sh*t"?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
>
> Not sure why? Everyone knows what it means.
>
> It's very American, like when you show the breast but blank out the nipple.
>It's a Puritan thing. I'm not sure people from other countries realize that the majority of America no longer follows many of the more rigid Puritan values and ways that were set in place 3 hundred years ago.
Posted by jane d on February 1, 2011, at 0:07:39
In reply to ooo..ooo....I remember one! » jane d, posted by 10derheart on January 31, 2011, at 21:35:49
> I know one for sure: "My daughter is a cheerleader and uses p*m p*ms when she cheers." It's a cultural thing we Americans often haven't heard about....some of our UK or Aussie Babblers can explain far better than I can, I'm sure...although I do remember the historical roots. Learn something all the time here ;-) Every time I see that pomegranate juice brand 'P*M" in stores, it makes me smile because of Babble.
Who knew. I will never look at cheerleaders the same way. P*m p*ms huh? Frankly I can't see how asterisks don't make it worse.Pompoms seems to pass muster however.
Posted by sigismund on February 1, 2011, at 0:15:36
In reply to Re: ooo..ooo....I remember one! » 10derheart, posted by jane d on February 1, 2011, at 0:07:39
The reason for the pompom thing must be the particular racial situation in the US, just like civility is the substitute for gun control. Visitors from the US have been appalled by Australian naivety on the public speech angle of race relations. I was never impressed by these reservations...it seemed there was no end of shame to go around.
It's not true though that Americans do not know how to swear. That (and the language generally) was the attraction of Deadwood.
Posted by morgan miller on February 1, 2011, at 0:24:54
In reply to Re: ooo..ooo....I remember one!, posted by sigismund on January 31, 2011, at 22:35:21
>The kinds of profanities I grew up with, meaning the creative juxtaposition of unusual elements suitable for yelling at sheepdogs.......it makes me laugh to imagine how they would sound to American ears.
You may have a false view of what much of America is really like. Yes, I am sure there is less use of profanity in the homes of America compared to other certain countries in Europe and also Australia. But honestly, the constant use of profanity is often a sign of anger, instability, and a lack of respect. So where there is a lot of cursing, there are typically bad elements that that you would not want children to be exposed to. I'm not articulating my point well. What I'm trying to say is that a household full of cursing is also likely a place that is lacking in the proper love and nurture that children need in order to develop healthy minds.
Posted by sigismund on February 1, 2011, at 0:47:57
In reply to Re: ooo..ooo....I remember one!, posted by morgan miller on February 1, 2011, at 0:24:54
Cursing is an interesting word, don't you think?
That's the puritan influence. I know what the word means, but it's not one I hear much.
In my experience (as a child) the politest most well bred people were the cruelest, pretty much.
I was much more comfortable with the people who swore like troopers.
Posted by jane d on February 1, 2011, at 2:21:19
In reply to Re: ooo..ooo....I remember one!, posted by sigismund on January 31, 2011, at 22:35:21
> The kinds of profanities I grew up with, meaning the creative juxtaposition of unusual elements suitable for yelling at sheepdogs.......it makes me laugh to imagine how they would sound to American ears.
This is such a tantalizing image. I wish there were some way of getting a demonstration.
I've realized that my own vocabulary is very boring.
Posted by sigismund on February 1, 2011, at 2:31:52
In reply to Re: ooo..ooo....I remember one!, posted by jane d on February 1, 2011, at 2:21:19
>I wish there were some way of getting a demonstration.
This was in the late 1950s and early 60s before all that feminist nonsense :)
Suffice it to say that sh*t was not part of it.
Anyway, the idea was to swear for as long as possible without repeating yourself.
I was a kid and just listened really.
Posted by jane d on February 1, 2011, at 3:08:31
In reply to ooo..ooo....I remember one! » jane d, posted by 10derheart on January 31, 2011, at 21:35:49
> So, although I pretty much agree with your post above on the issue, I also recognize over the years Dr. Bob often comes down on the side of as much freedom of choice as possible. Maybe that's why he leaves it as a choice, since a segment of posters has/have/will always complain[ed] about too much restricted speech.
Sorry. I meant to reply to this part of your post but got sidetracked by the cheerleader accoutrements.I'm a fan of free speech too though I won't go to the mat to defend any particular words. And there are even a few words I find fairly offensive myself. But this seems to me to be an unnecessary minefield. Some of the prohibited words are not going to be obvious to everyone. I wouldn't have thought there was a problem with this one and I'm pretty good at editing my written words (if not what I say aloud). So, as it stands, we have a system where people risk getting blocked for accidental use of possibly offensive words (which will then get edited anyway) so that other people can have the freedom to say p*m p*ms without having asterisks inserted. What kind of choice is that?
>
> I always thought maybe it was just a device (used by many sites, not just here...although most I've seen won't allow the words *at all* asterisked or not, and either remove the words entirely or the posts entirely) to get a poster to stop and think if s/he wants to use that language or not...{shrug}The most disconcerting use of this I've seen is in some chat software - where it edits your words immediately. When it happened to me my first reaction was to look at where my hands were on the keyboard. Several times. Strangely enough I've seen this associated with a forum which doesn't edit words at all on the forum.
Maybe the posts here should be blocked at the time of posting. That seems fairer than letting someone use a word that will automatically get them warned or blocked. And anyone who's really just trying to say pompoms can surely figure out a way to get it past the software anyway.
Posted by Toph on February 1, 2011, at 12:47:47
In reply to Re: please be civil » europerep, posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2011, at 19:55:40
And language restrictions have apparently evolved on Babble. Just Google @ss spelled correctly at the bottom of the page to see how frequently that puportedly vulgar word has been used with impunity here.
Posted by sigismund on February 1, 2011, at 14:10:16
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by Toph on February 1, 2011, at 12:47:47
I have always felt that is the correct way to spell it too.
Posted by sigismund on February 1, 2011, at 14:14:21
In reply to Re: please be civil » Toph, posted by sigismund on February 1, 2011, at 14:10:16
Otherwise the Bible would be a bit of a mess with people packing up their camels and *ss*s.
Posted by floatingbridge on February 1, 2011, at 15:35:32
In reply to Re: thank you :) and ? » floatingbridge, posted by 10derheart on January 31, 2011, at 21:44:07
Hi 10erheart,
Yes, your post made sense :) I'm sorry you're having a rough time, though....
Then, though, if the apology is suggested, did europrep get blocked?
So the old days were different?
I'm still unsure, but heck, I'm a wreck.
Thanks 10erheart. Be well.
Posted by floatingbridge on February 1, 2011, at 15:37:58
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by sigismund on February 1, 2011, at 14:14:21
Sigi, you did it again. You made me smile and almost lol--no mean feat.
:o)
Posted by floatingbridge on February 1, 2011, at 15:41:02
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on January 31, 2011, at 13:46:53
Moratorium? I don't read admin often.
Scott or anyone? Did we have an amnesty day?
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.