![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 186 to 210 of 222. Go back in thread:
Posted by Shar on June 19, 2004, at 20:10:44
In reply to re: About Zen, posted by Dr. Bob on June 19, 2004, at 19:50:14
Maybe I misunderstood what you're saying, Dr. Bob. She can't whistle here because she's blocked. And, I believe she has whistled already, off the board (have you checked your email?). I can't blow the whistle on her, because I'm not positive that she whistled to you, but I know she can't whistle here. UNLESS, that is, in your most excellent and wonderful wise ways, you grant a request to reduce her block OR let one of us proxy for her last week of time-2-B-served.
Hoping like crazy,
SharP.S. To all who responded, y'all are just great! And, I love getting squished! Thanks!
> > Also it would be nice if he gave us a whistle should(when) Zen make(s) her request.
>
> I'm afraid the whistle will need to come from her, sorry...
>
> Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 19, 2004, at 20:39:22
In reply to re: About Zen » Dr. Bob, posted by Shar on June 19, 2004, at 20:10:44
> > > Also it would be nice if he gave us a whistle should(when) Zen make(s) her request.
>
> She can't whistle here because she's blocked. And, I believe she has whistled already, off the boardSorry, what I meant was, whistles to you all should come from her. And no, they can't be here, so they'd need to be off the board.
Bob
Posted by TofuEmmy on June 19, 2004, at 22:12:24
In reply to re: About Zen, posted by Dr. Bob on June 19, 2004, at 20:39:22
Bob - Would you please tell the sitdown strikers to stop it? It just can't be swaying your judgement if they can't insert their comments into the fray! Please tell them to stand back up and type. And, I miss them all too much. Thank you. Emmy
Posted by Shar on June 20, 2004, at 1:21:41
In reply to re: About Sit down strikers » Dr. Bob, posted by TofuEmmy on June 19, 2004, at 22:12:24
Did I miss something (or many things)?
Am I a sit-down striker? What are they (what am I) supposed to *not* be doing?
TE, your post totally went (whoooosshh) right over my head! What did you mean? (In 8th grade language, if you're willing.)
Confusedly yours,
Shar
> Bob - Would you please tell the sitdown strikers to stop it? It just can't be swaying your judgement if they can't insert their comments into the fray! Please tell them to stand back up and type. And, I miss them all too much. Thank you. Emmy
Posted by lil' jimi on June 20, 2004, at 2:50:54
In reply to re: thoughts (not too long for me) » lil' jimi, posted by AuntieMel on June 18, 2004, at 12:15:02
Hi, Mel,
Forgive me, but I must ignore your double entendre subject line. We need to keep it administrative here, you know.
Allow me to offer that as exhibit number one that I am not a good enough person to deserve your beautiful praise.
> Very well written.
Thank you. You make me feel good to think something I wrote has helped someone.
> It is interesting that you can see logic in your own block when that logic escaped many of us.
My loving friends don't know that they cut me more slack than they should. And I kind of tricked us. Well, I tricked myself and some good people who like me fell for it.
I posted something(s) that could make a person feel accused. That’s all the logic to my block. In my past I had received PCBs. Those are for the noobs who are afforded some leniency for being unfamiliar with the axiom of the “civil” universe.
There is escalation of the severity of sanctions for each poster’s civil violations’ repetitions sorta: Rephrase, Be Civil, then Block 1 week, Block 2 weeks, et cetera.
On the particular subject I touched, I had been banned twice before already, and should therefore reasonably expect to be banned for going there after my previous experience. I called this “complicated”. It is not complicated if I don’t go there. I felt I should make that parallel with Dr. Bob’s handling of the reduction of Lar’s block. They are the only two times we have been informed of block reductions.
Then I let myself believe that what I was posting was below the radar for being able to possibly make someone feel accused. (“It’s not that bad, Jim.”) I was wrong, in more ways than one of course, but besides my indulgent self-deception, I had not understood the nature of “civil” here. Here, “civil” is an absolute. There are no degrees of “civil”. Almost every statement either could or could not make a person feel accused. It is either possible or it is not. If something is capable of making a person feel even the slightest accused, it is not “civil”. What I posted was not “civil” and I was blocked. Trying to make the comparison and contrast to Larry’s virtuousness was too tempting to avoid. This made it seem “complicated”.
You also wrote:
> So, to put a positive spin on it:
The brutal truth (about people) is nearly always uncivil.
>> but the simple truth doesn't need to beIndeed. “Civil”’s limitation on the truth only disallows accusations and insults, no matter how true or justified those accusations or insults may be. This still leaves a vast territory for truth(s) to work.
> The truth is like any other powerful tool: it can be used as a weapon
>> but it doesn't have to be.Indeed, again. No tool has to be a weapon. It is hoped that here in the land of “civil”, weapons would not be necessary. Since offense is illegal, no offensive weapons are allowed. However I keep my defensive weapons sharp. That would be my skepticism. Very little is what it seems.
> Welcome back
Thank you.
> - you are a shining star on a foggy night.
I wouldn’t want to make anyone feel accused or put down, you know, but I feel we need to work on your night there or I am going to really have to get cracking on my shining here. I mean, I am not worthy. And thanks.
~ jim
Posted by lil' jimi on June 20, 2004, at 3:34:19
In reply to re: thoughts (not TOOOOO long for me either.....), posted by spoc on June 18, 2004, at 13:35:44
Hi Spoc,
> ....but everything's relative.
I *think* we are referring to the ... "not too long" part?
> I just wanted to add that from my vantage point, the issue was not whether it is safe to deliver truths.
Okay.
> That the essence ... was the very variance in interpretation of what passed and didn't pass itself; occurring in patterns either for or against; and not always related to any identifiable degree of offense or nature of offense. And that whether someone had received previous admonishments or even numerous previous admonishments did not consistently get used as the foundation for future administrative actions. That of course there will be some degree of oversight and some degree of inconsistency, as administration is not performed by a computer program. But that the degree of variance could be seen to be considerably greater than that explainable by chance.
Yeah, some people feel Dr. Bob has been unfair, right?
> Now, ok, like Jimi said, I *can* see where the subject matter being handled at the time of his block could be seen as hazardous under the principles he has just espoused. And in that way, that it could be concluded that that kind of thing is best avoided. But that is only one of many types of subjects or purposes being engaged in at the times blocks or reprimands are handed down -- or aren't, inexplicably. Sense can be made there but not so easily elsewhere; and trying to deliver a truth to someone -- brutal OR simple -- is not always involved at all.We could just forget about my situation. And each situation is different, but in Larry's case, he was arguably delivering the truth when he was blocked. And Larry's case is very different from mine. It is both more complicated and more involved. We are thankful that he may plead his own case now, so I won't.
There is a risk for pB veterans with histories of "civil" violations or even one "civil" violation, when they come into conflict with a newbie ... ... an equal, less-than-"civil" exchange is going to result in unequal sanctions with the vet coming out looking at the short end of the stick. Of course, the vet should have learned better, while the noob will get the benefit of the doubt.
I think that nothing I have posted here exnorates all questionable blocks from criticism. Far from it.
I just feel we may grasp a better understanding of some blocks by considering how sanctions can not follow the equal punishment for equal violation/ expectation of consistency rule.
> Ya know, you'd think there would have been a psychological study by now on the effect of randomness on the efficacy of punishment! ;- )
I believe that the behavoirists did this sort of research on animals.
And the people with the unmuzzled dogs include this as a interrogation technique too. But you were making a point. What did I miss this time?> Know that I was encouraged by the recent evidence that change is possible (while I would enjoy hearing something about what, if any, general impact it will have, because that has implications too. But I'm just not curious or motivated enough to ask). And I appreciate the apologies given in some senses. So I don't want to take away from any of that and I'm even satisfied to say that I'll have faith for now that something did happen here and things will indeed get more consistent. But I just wouldn't feel quite right leaving this at having been a matter of realizing what the causative factor almost always is, and the simplicity of now being able to avoid it. I think there was more to it than that.
Again, Spoc, I think there may well remain real issues to be discussed about the application of sanctions. But we should be at pains to separate the real ones from the explicable ones. If just to cut down on the distractions.
And I in no way beleive that my explication resolves issues that Larry has/had/may have/continues to have/ whatever with the administration.
Now, are we hearing each other here, Spoc? I can miss some things... lots of things.
take care pal,
~ jim
Posted by lil' jimi on June 20, 2004, at 3:54:29
In reply to re: thoughts (not long at all.....), posted by spoc on June 18, 2004, at 17:48:48
i think you are right.
~ j
Posted by lil' jimi on June 20, 2004, at 4:09:56
In reply to re: thoughts, posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2004, at 19:56:07
Hi Dr. Bob,
you wrote:
> Isn't this a great group of people? :-)Yes.
> > it is easy to imagine perfectly justified ... ...
> > [ ... ]
> > ... ... sense and that's cool.
>
> I really appreciate your reflecting on all this and sharing your insights, thanks.You're welcome.
> > I could imagine that it might be helpful if posters could be informed of time frames for an administration response, if only provisionally or even very speculatively.
>
> That's a good point. I'll try to respond within a couple days?Okay.
> But I get tied up sometimes, and run into technical difficulties sometimes, and need time to think about it sometimes.
Easily understood.
> If you don't hear back from me, bug me about it?
And easily done. The offer to bug you is appreciated.
I was really imagining you posting something about your time frame expectations/ limitations when posters are anticipating an administrative response, even if in the vaguest of terms, but this will work too.
> Welcome back,
>
> BobThank you,
~ jim
Posted by lil' jimi on June 20, 2004, at 4:32:13
In reply to re: About Zen, posted by Dr. Bob on June 19, 2004, at 20:39:22
Hi, Dr. Bob,
Larry's Block Reduction was broached here ... ... because ...
Was Larry's Block Reduction broached here because of his request for his block to be reduced? Something else?
Anyway, Shar, I, et al want to know how consideration of reducing Zen's block can be initiated now. If, as Shar has implied, Zen has asked for your consideration of reducing her block, what is the administrative process for ... ...
What's the next step?
What else can we do I get Zen's block reduced?Once again being presumptive, presumming Zen has made the initial request to you and presumming this IS the next step in the consideration of reducing her block:
I think it would be really great to exercise the moderator's flexibility to Zen's benefit and allow her to come back right away. Please.
Alternatively, please show us the way to the next step.
Thanks,
~ jim
Posted by spoc on June 20, 2004, at 5:52:24
In reply to re: thoughts (not TOOOOO long for me either.....) » spoc, posted by lil' jimi on June 20, 2004, at 3:34:19
> Hi, Mel,
>
> Forgive me, but I must ignore your double entendre subject line. We need to keep it administrative here, you know.
>
> Allow me to offer that as exhibit number one that I am not a good enough person to deserve your beautiful praise.> Hi Spoc,
>
> > ....but everything's relative.
>
> I *think* we are referring to the ... "not too long" part?<<<< Yes Jimbo, heavens to Betsey (who the h-e-double-toothpicks WAS Betsey anyway)! Remember your "discomfort zone," wherein even innocuous banter about hot tubs is seen to disparage wife, baby, and the institute of marriage. Surely the alarms will be tripped and the dogs let out on anatomical innuendo! ;- )
>> Sense can be made there but not so easily elsewhere; and trying to deliver a truth to someone -- brutal OR simple -- is not always involved at all.
>
> We could just forget about my situation. And each situation is different, but in Larry's case, he was arguably delivering the truth when he was blocked. ...<<<<<< True.
> There is a risk for pB veterans with histories of "civil" violations or even one "civil" violation, when they come into conflict with a newbie ... ... an equal, less-than-"civil" exchange is going to result in unequal sanctions with the vet coming out looking at the short end of the stick. Of course, the vet should have learned better, while the noob will get the benefit of the doubt.>
> I think that nothing I have posted here exnorates all questionable blocks from criticism. Far from it.
>
> I just feel we may grasp a better understanding of some blocks by considering how sanctions can not follow the equal punishment for equal violation/ expectation of consistency rule.<<<<<< Good point. Setting up a difficult but required equation, wherein a vet cannot safely respond in kind to various stimuli, or to be cautious, may have to dilute or avoid a response completely. Ouch (I'm more of a given-context-favoring type). But while it does frame things in a way I can understand better, I would add "Ok, fine. As long as everyone is required to or not to (to an extent greater than that attributable to chance oversights), rather than just some."
So, point indeed taken. But as I gather you are not disputing, other vets do end up reaping for the most part pbcs only, at the point they should have run out long before. Since we can't have it all, it's just consistency that I'm prioritizing on the wish list. Whichever way it leans, towards lenient enforcement or the opposite if that "must" be (whether that should be seems a separate issue to me, that I would also have opinions about). Then even those who are especially sensitive and most at risk for taking a block hard could at least be consoled by the fact that the same application can be seen at work everywhere, lessening all upset in all camps.
> > Ya know, you'd think there would have been a psychological study by now on the effect of randomness on the efficacy of punishment! ;- )
>
> I believe that the behavoirists did this sort of research on animals.
> And the people with the unmuzzled dogs include this as a interrogation technique too. But you were making a point. What did I miss this time?<<<<< Oh, just referring to the irony of the fact that this is a psych board, and one where the fostering of civility and increased civility is absolutely paramount; and such psych studies on the likelihood of randomness to facilitate that are indeed rampant; yet that taking the time or making the effort to increase consistency has not been seen as a priority.
> Again, Spoc, I think there may well remain real issues to be discussed about the application of sanctions. But we should be at pains to separate the real ones from the explicable ones. If just to cut down on the distractions.
<<<<< Agreed. And I do see where some of the lines are. For example, regarding your own block, I do see your point about the bottom line being that you indeed did risk having someone end up feeling accused. And no matter if I may feel that that may be excusable at times, admittedly it does open a very subjective door. So I can process that prohibition better (I just like to be able to see the logic in things, but then even more importantly, the consistent application of them). So while at the time of your block, I stated that I had seen "stronger references to the same thing pass muster," I didn't mean that I couldn't understand why you got blocked. Of course I still didn't want you to be unhappy, but I understood what had gone down and it didn't set off my sense of unfairness, except to the extent that as mentioned, I'd seen stronger get under the wire. But that was awhile ago, when possibly there was a tug between enforcement and realizing that when people are freshly shocked they will be more likely to emote, and may sometimes deserve to.
> Now, are we hearing each other here, Spoc? I can miss some things... lots of things.
<<<<< I believe so. I am in agreement about how you processed your block. And for those same reasons, I wouldn't argue for the reduction of all blocks (again, consistency is my chosen platform here, not whether I condone blocking or blocking for some of the reasons we see, *only* because I doubt we can get everything we'd like to addressed). Even when I thoroughly enjoyed and/or agreed with the statement eliciting the block, and may prefer that some such things be allowed. I had just initially thought you were speaking in general terms when you came back, that the same sequence and logic could be seen behind all/most blocks or lack of them.
Thanks for clarifying. And again, having at least a layperson's grasp of reinforcement and the honey vs. vinegar principle, I want to reiterate my appreciation for the recent proof that change is possible, and my intended faith in what that will mean generally.
> i think you are right.
>
> ~ j<<<<< And I think you are brilliant and astute. ;- )
Good to see you, and you take care too! :- D
Posted by TofuEmmy on June 20, 2004, at 8:40:49
In reply to re: About Sit down strikers » TofuEmmy, posted by Shar on June 20, 2004, at 1:21:41
I misunderstood....there is apparently ONE sweet sitter named KK.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20040619/msgs/358111.html
Can you imagine a more wonderful use for that seat? Em
Posted by Shar on June 20, 2004, at 22:24:56
In reply to re: About Sit down strikers » Shar, posted by TofuEmmy on June 20, 2004, at 8:40:49
TE,
Thanks for the link; I don't go to social too often so I missed it. I also hope Bob sees it.And, I agree, KK is a sweetie of the first order and a valuable asset to us Babblers. What an original and compassionate way to express solidarity and support for Zen.
Thank you, KK!
And, TE!Shar
Posted by lil' jimi on June 21, 2004, at 1:37:00
In reply to re: thoughts (word count assessment relative) » lil' jimi, posted by spoc on June 20, 2004, at 5:52:24
Hi Spoc,
Earlier I had written:
> > Hi, Mel,
> > Forgive me, but I must ignore your double entendre subject line. We need to keep it administrative here, you know.You have replied:
> <<<< Yes Jimbo, heavens to Betsey (who the h-e-double-toothpicks WAS Betsey anyway)! Remember your "discomfort zone," wherein even innocuous banter about hot tubs is seen to disparage wife, baby, and the institute of marriage. Surely the alarms will be tripped and the dogs let out on anatomical innuendo! ;- )Your wink is much appreciated. I must hope Auntie Mel is not offended. Joking is a delicate thing in the land of "civil". Humor here has to not let anyone feel accused nor put down. There are a great many things which are funny which are not "civil", nor civil.
Please don't say "anatomical".
Ha!> > There is a risk for pB veterans with histories of "civil" violations or even one "civil" violation, when they come into conflict with a newbie .an equal, less-than-"civil" exchange is going to result in unequal sanctions with the vet coming out looking at the short end of the stick. Of course, the vet should have learned better, while the noob will get the benefit of the doubt.>
> <<<<<< Good point. Setting up a difficult but required equation, wherein a vet cannot safely respond in kind to various stimuli, or to be cautious, may have to dilute or avoid a response completely. Ouch (I'm more of a given-context-favoring type). But while it does frame things in a way I can understand better, I would add "Ok, fine. As long as everyone is required to or not to (to an extent greater than that attributable to chance oversights), rather than just some."
>
> So, point indeed taken. But as I gather you are not disputing, other vets do end up reaping for the most part pbcs only, at the point they should have run out long before.I did leave that open to misinterpretation. "Civil"-experienced posters can and do receive PCBs. On my model of "civil", this can happen when the vet's infraction either:
1) Involves a new subject or thread for the vet;
2) Is somehow an especially technical or possibly inadvertent transgression;
3) Or so much time has elapsed since the previous infraction that everyone has forgotten it.
4) The moderator may be feeling flexible?This is where my "A poster’s history determines their rating and details of a poster's history with a specific subject impacts the poster's rating with that subject." includes the part about "a specific subject" see? A new subject can start it's own new poster rating and begin with newbie sanctions for the vet violator.
....
> > > Ya know, you'd think there would have been a psychological study by now on the effect of randomness on the efficacy of punishment! ;- )
> > ... ... the effort to increase consistency has not been seen as a priority.Oh, I think it is a priority.
> > Again, Spoc, I think there may well remain real issues to be discussed about the application of sanctions. But we should be at pains to separate the real ones from the explicable ones. If just to cut down on the distractions.
>
> <<<<< Agreed. And I do see where some of the lines are. For example, regarding your own block, I do see your point about the bottom line being that you indeed did risk having someone end up feeling accused. And no matter if I may feel that that may be excusable at times, admittedly it does open a very subjective door. So I can process that prohibition better (I just like to be able to see the logic in things, but then even more importantly, the consistent application of them). So while at the time of your block, I stated that I had seen "stronger references to the same thing pass muster," I didn't mean that I couldn't understand why you got blocked. Of course I still didn't want you to be unhappy, but I understood what had gone down and it didn't set off my sense of unfairness, except to the extent that as mentioned, I'd seen stronger get under the wire. But that was awhile ago, when possibly there was a tug between enforcement and realizing that when people are freshly shocked they will be more likely to emote, and may sometimes deserve to.I see one of the challenges in trying to assess consistency of enforcement is trying to make these comparisons among different "civil" infractions. It is all too easy to compare apples to oranges. Say a total tyro signs on and proceeds to go off on one of my favorite subjects. This newbie will get a PCB. If I were to say the same thing, I will be banned for 4 weeks. This is fair because I have been warned and banned before about our imaginary subject and the newbie is just learning the ropes. To know how consistent , how fair any given pB sanction is would require a thorough rundown of the given posters' past babble sanctions. I am not vigorous enough to do that myself.
> > Now, are we hearing each other here, Spoc? I can miss some things... lots of things.
>
> <<<<< I believe so. I am in agreement about how you processed your block. And for those same reasons, I wouldn't argue for the reduction of all blocks (again, consistency is my chosen platform here, not whether I condone blocking or blocking for some of the reasons we see, *only* because I doubt we can get everything we'd like to addressed). Even when I thoroughly enjoyed and/or agreed with the statement eliciting the block, and may prefer that some such things be allowed.I hear you. It is imaginable that folks here would see the effort I have made here, maybe decide I'm a nice, well-meaning guy, maybe like me, want to pull for me, whatever, and then read what I post and don't really detect any malicious intent nor attack mentality in an otherwise reasoned argument. I get blocked. It seems precipitious, severe, merciless. And people want me to be cut some slack because I'm a nice guy and I didn't do that much harm.
With my humblest apologies to every one of my sweet supporters, it doesn't work that way here. And, I have a history. And, I have (have had) every reason to know better.
**Could** someone feel accused by what I posted? Yes. *Poof!* I get banned. In the pB Universe, "civil" is that simple.
> I had just initially thought you were speaking in general terms when you came back, that the same sequence and logic could be seen behind all/most blocks or lack of them.
Yeah, I failed to make that clear. I think that offended some of my friends. I can see where that interpretation was possible and I regret that.There are some aspects to this analysis of the consistency of enforcement which are generally applicable. Nothing about anything I said resolves everybody's issues. I'd like to offer them as tools for analyzing issues of enforcement fairness. They may not work. But they have resolved any controversy about my blocks.
But these tools not only fail to be any absolution for unfairness issues in any general terms, but there may well be issues about fairness at babble that my consistency analysis does not address at all.
There is much to be done yet.
> Thanks for clarifying. And again, having at least a layperson's grasp of reinforcement and the honey vs. vinegar principle, I want to reiterate my appreciation for the recent proof that change is possible, and my intended faith in what that will mean generally.
excellent!
>
> > i think you are right.
> >
> > ~ j
>
> <<<<< And I think you are brilliant and astute. ;- )
>
> Good to see you, and you take care too! :- DYou're going to have to teach me about the emoticons. I have always avoided them before. Thanks for your compliments. You flatter me.
see ya,
~ jim
Posted by AuntieMel on June 21, 2004, at 8:15:15
In reply to re: thoughts (word ... relative) » spoc, posted by lil' jimi on June 21, 2004, at 1:37:00
>>I must hope Auntie Mel is not offended.
Not a bit. This one had slipped by me, which means I'm out of practice. Until this "episode" I would quite often say something innocently that could be taken other ways. Then watch for reaction.
Posted by spoc on June 21, 2004, at 10:40:03
In reply to re: thoughts (word ... relative) » spoc, posted by lil' jimi on June 21, 2004, at 1:37:00
> Hi Spoc,
>
> Earlier I had written:
> > > Hi, Mel,
> > > Forgive me, but I must ignore your double entendre subject line. We need to keep it administrative here, you know.
>
> You have replied:
> > <<<< Yes Jimbo, heavens to Betsey (who the h-e-double-toothpicks WAS Betsey anyway)! Remember your "discomfort zone," wherein even innocuous banter about hot tubs is seen to disparage wife, baby, and the institute of marriage. Surely the alarms will be tripped and the dogs let out on anatomical innuendo! ;- )
>
> Your wink is much appreciated. I must hope Auntie Mel is not offended. Joking is a delicate thing in the land of "civil". Humor here has to not let anyone feel accused nor put down. There are a great many things which are funny which are not "civil", nor civil.
>
> Please don't say "anatomical".
> Ha!
>
----------------
<<<<<< Note, fyi, I meant that such a reference would surely trip the alarms in your own previously noted "discomfort zone," not the civility alarms. I hadn't even given the latter type a passing thought.-------------------
> I hear you. It is imaginable that folks here would see the effort I have made here, maybe decide I'm a nice, well-meaning guy, maybe like me, want to pull for me, whatever, and then read what I post and don't really detect any malicious intent nor attack mentality in an otherwise reasoned argument. I get blocked. It seems precipitious, severe, merciless. And people want me to be cut some slack because I'm a nice guy and I didn't do that much harm.
>
> With my humblest apologies to every one of my sweet supporters, it doesn't work that way here. And, I have a history. And, I have (have had) every reason to know better.-------------------------
<<<<< I'm not shocked, nor disillusioned, nor saddened in the least. I'm pretty strong and (usually) perceptive, with a good blend of realism and idealism, that usually keeps occasional extremes of either from doing any real damage. But any beliefs I might have had here were just nicely in the middle, and not formed beyond making simple adjustments.-------------------------
> > I had just initially thought you were speaking in general terms when you came back, that the same sequence and logic could be seen behind all/most blocks or lack of them.
>
> Yeah, I failed to make that clear. I think that offended some of my friends. I can see where that interpretation was possible and I regret that.----------------------------
<<<<< Not an issue for this respondent. It wouldn't be a matter of "offense." Everyone really really does have a right to their own opinion, including to change it. Over certain things at certain times I do appreciate it if the other-opinion holder will discuss the thing with me, and if doing so, show that they thought about it by citing how it was reached. And, preferably not reply to specific issues only with general statements. But even if I genuinely can't see their point nor they mine, it probably wouldn't come down to taking offense just at not being agreed with.Now, being told not to discuss something at all (if it's reasonable for the venue); or being disagreed with just for disagreeing; those could be frustrating. But other than that, I hadn't predetermined that I wouldn't try to see other points if they were offered. I may still not agree, but it would be genuine, after a decent amount of thought, and hopefully offense wouldn't have to come into it for either party.
In your case, I was "scratching my head" (that's what I meant anyway, I later noticed I said "scatching...) over what I thought you were saying, only given the tomes we had all been writing which had theorized on some of those same things already (which you have now shed more light on). But it was only curiosity and non-bothersome confusion, not offense. And I hope no one who may be reading but not participating, or who has offered a differing view, would think I necessarily feel that way either.
So fret not, no problems here anyway. I jumped in immediately behind Larry when he made his entrance, so I would have been here regardless, believing what I already believed.
===================
P.S. to all: Looking forward to meeting Zen and having her around!! Hope you are feeling zippy and zesty and well Zen! :- )
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 22, 2004, at 1:58:03
In reply to re: About Zen » Dr. Bob, posted by lil' jimi on June 20, 2004, at 4:32:13
> What else can we do I get Zen's block reduced?
Sorry, but I don't think there's anything. But I'm sure she appreciates all the support!
Bob
Posted by lil' jimi on June 23, 2004, at 1:24:41
In reply to re: thoughts (relatively short) » lil' jimi, posted by AuntieMel on June 21, 2004, at 8:15:15
hi Auntie Mel
> >>I must hope Auntie Mel is not offended.
>
> Not a bit. This one had slipped by me, which means I'm out of practice. Until this "episode" I would quite often say something innocently that could be taken other ways. Then watch for reaction.i ususally miss these things and have to have them pointed out to me.
it is much more rare for me to get one first.
and i am grateful that my presumption on your good humor is as well-founded as i knew it would be.and i enjoyed that we do-si-doed with your entendre.
thanks,
~ jim
Posted by lil' jimi on June 23, 2004, at 2:06:37
In reply to re: thoughts (words included) » lil' jimi, posted by spoc on June 21, 2004, at 10:40:03
hi spoc,
<<<<<< Note, fyi, I meant that such a reference would surely trip the alarms in your own previously noted "discomfort zone," not the civility alarms. I hadn't even given the latter type a passing thought.
me:
yeah, i knew we were on me about my Personal Babble Disclosure Policy.
you are right ... it is not consistently enforced ... ... i like to be flexible sometimes ...besides, you and auntie mel are different ... ... you, i couldn’t get out of the hot tub, whereas auntie mel let one slip accidentally ... ... this fits into different provisions of my PBDP ... ... you, i had to be careful with (he teases his sweet spoc) ...
you post:
> I hear you. It is imaginable that folks here would see the effort I have made here, maybe decide I'm a nice, well-meaning guy, maybe like me, want to pull for me, whatever, and then read what I post and don't really detect any malicious intent nor attack mentality in an otherwise reasoned argument. I get blocked. It seems precipitous, severe, merciless. And people want me to be cut some slack because I'm a nice guy and I didn't do that much harm.
>
> With my humblest apologies to every one of my sweet supporters, it doesn't work that way here. And, I have a history. And, I have (have had) every reason to know better.and you wrote:
<<<<< I'm not shocked, nor disillusioned, nor saddened in the least. I'm pretty strong and (usually) perceptive, with a good blend of realism and idealism, that usually keeps occasional extremes of either from doing any real damage. But any beliefs I might have had here were just nicely in the middle, and not formed beyond making simple adjustments.me:
cool.
and thanks for that.
i was also thinking of some of my other teammates and their possible reaction(s) to my whole deal here.you:
> > I had just initially thought you were speaking in general terms when you came back, that the same sequence and logic could be seen behind all/most blocks or lack of them.
>
> Yeah, I failed to make that clear. I think that offended some of my friends. I can see where that interpretation was possible and I regret that.<<<<< Not an issue for this respondent. It wouldn't be a matter of "offense." Everyone really really does have a right to their own opinion, including to change it. Over certain things at certain times I do appreciate it if the other-opinion holder will discuss the thing with me, and if doing so, show that they thought about it by citing how it was reached. And, preferably not reply to specific issues only with general statements. But even if I genuinely can't see their point nor they mine, it probably wouldn't come down to taking offense just at not being agreed with.
me:
here i was concerned that other teammates might have previously felt i was not respecting their separate consistency/fairness issues, given that you showed me that was a possible interpretation, and i would not want to leave that impression.you have brought me to trust that you’ll be a good sport for us.
You:
Now, being told not to discuss something at all (if it's reasonable for the venue); or being disagreed with just for disagreeing; those could be frustrating. But other than that, I hadn't predetermined that I wouldn't try to see other points if they were offered. I may still not agree, but it would be genuine, after a decent amount of thought, and hopefully offense wouldn't have to come into it for either party.me:
that’s cool.you:
In your case, I was "scratching my head" (that's what I meant anyway, I later noticed I said "scatching...) over what I thought you were saying, only given the tomes we had all been writing which had theorized on some of those same things already (which you have now shed more light on). But it was only curiosity and non-bothersome confusion, not offense. And I hope no one who may be reading but not participating, or who has offered a differing view, would think I necessarily feel that way either.me:
way cool.
i like making things clear too.you:
So fret not, no problems here anyway. I jumped in immediately behind Larry when he made his entrance, so I would have been here regardless, believing what I already believed.me:
no fretting with me.
i have confidence in you.
we’re cool.
talk to you soon.peace, love and understanding,
~ jim
Posted by lil' jimi on June 23, 2004, at 2:17:37
In reply to re: About Zen, posted by Dr. Bob on June 22, 2004, at 1:58:03
Hi Dr. Bob,
> > What else can we do to get Zen's block reduced?
>
> Sorry, but I don't think there's anything. But I'm sure she appreciates all the support!
>
> BobOkay.
Well, thanks for the reply. Replying is much appreciated.
Even when the message is not what we would have hoped for.Can you tell us anything about how we are distinguishing between cases where Block Reduction can be considered and cases where is can't?
What would be the relevent distinctions?
Please,
~ jimp.s. ... and thank you.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 23, 2004, at 21:30:52
In reply to re: About Zen » Dr. Bob, posted by lil' jimi on June 23, 2004, at 2:17:37
> Can you tell us anything about how we are distinguishing between cases where Block Reduction can be considered and cases where is can't?
IMO, it can be *considered* in all cases...
Bob
Posted by lil' jimi on June 24, 2004, at 0:50:41
In reply to re: distinguishing between cases, posted by Dr. Bob on June 23, 2004, at 21:30:52
Hi, Dr. Bob,
> > Can you tell us anything about how we are distinguishing between cases where Block Reduction can be considered and cases where is can't?
>
> IMO, it can be *considered* in all cases...
>
> BobThat's cool.
Especially since your opinion is particularly relevant.(i am not intending to refer to my block reduction request for myself.
i do not object to your handling of my case.
even though you turned me down.
i appreciated your reply.)How are we distinguishing between those Block Reduction cases which are to be discussed at Admin
versus those which are not going to be?
How's that getting sorted out?(i understand how time constraints can limit options for Block Reduction discussion.
and that makes sense in my case since there was less than a week left.)Anyway, what criteria do we apply when deciding whether to run a request for Block Reduction past the folks at Admin?
Since all Block Reduction requests can be considered, which ones merit broaching here?thanks again,
~ jim
Posted by karen_kay on June 24, 2004, at 13:15:35
In reply to re: distinguishing between cases » Dr. Bob, posted by lil' jimi on June 24, 2004, at 0:50:41
now, things are getting rather strange here. karen did math. with a pencil. and counted the number of days in the months of january, february (this was tricky due to leap year), march, april, may and june. yes, all this time we've been without our beloved zen.
now, i figured out that zen had to sit out 24 weeks, which is 168 days (anyone want to check my math?). then, figured out that since zen was blocked on january 8, her anticipated return date would be today, at 19:08 if we are going to be technical about it....
now, should i or should i not, mr bob, expect to see that fun-loving gal back and posting again at 19:09 tonight? or, is there something you aren't telling us?
do tell please. i think i've kept quiet long enough!
(and if my math is wrong, please correct me. i'm always up for correcting, as long as it's not harsh....
here's the block link
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031120/msgs/298314.html
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 24, 2004, at 18:42:26
In reply to more about zen (because she's so lovely), posted by karen_kay on June 24, 2004, at 13:15:35
> now, i figured out that zen had to sit out 24 weeks, which is 168 days (anyone want to check my math?). then, figured out that since zen was blocked on january 8, her anticipated return date would be today, at 19:08 if we are going to be technical about it....time of day is part of the deal, based on my experience....
>
> now, should i or should i not, mr bob, expect to see that fun-loving gal back and posting again at 19:09 tonight? or, is there something you aren't telling us?I have come to the identical conclusion; expiration about a half an hour before this post.
Lar
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 24, 2004, at 18:56:33
In reply to re: distinguishing between cases » Dr. Bob, posted by lil' jimi on June 24, 2004, at 0:50:41
> How are we distinguishing between those Block Reduction cases which are to be discussed at Admin versus those which are not going to be?
>
> Since all Block Reduction requests can be considered, which ones merit broaching here?I guess my idea was that if a blocked poster wants to request a reduction, he or she should email me. If I'm open to it, I'll post something here, there can be discussion, and I'll make a decision. How does that sound?
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 24, 2004, at 18:57:25
In reply to more about zen (because she's so lovely), posted by karen_kay on June 24, 2004, at 13:15:35
> now, should i or should i not, mr bob, expect to see that fun-loving gal back and posting again at 19:09 tonight?
That's the right idea, but it actually comes out to:
Thu Jun 24 2004 20:05:41 GMT-0500 (CDT)
I think because (1) the clock starts when I actually apply the block, which is usually a little before I post about it and (2) the time change?
Bob
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.