![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 6 of 6. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by shellie on February 11, 2001, at 0:25:16
Dr. Bob, I feel the need to defend pat123 here. I really think you were much to harsh in your criticism. Rzip had asked for feedback on why she preceived no one was taking her seriously. Then she presents a statement about "most therapists wearing blue" without explaining where she got that notion and it sort of coming out of the blue (no pun intended). I don't think that pat123 was inaccurate or uncivil in her response, because it was a response to a factual statement that had been made, not to an opinion. If Zrip had said "why is the sky always green, it would have struck me about the same. Maybe Zrip really meant, why does Dr. Bob wears a blue shirt. Or something else that she only knows.
Your response came across to me as an premature effort to protect Zrip, rather than thinking about the logic or non-logic of what she said. And the fact that Zrip had requested the feedback should have been considered.
I haven't always agreed with all your warnings, but generally I didn't disagree, just felt more ambivalence. This seems the most like you are beginning to ask everyone to really tip toe on the board. Zrip could have come back with her own response. And I don't believe it would have gotten out of hand.
FWIW, Shellie
Posted by pat123 on February 11, 2001, at 1:39:34
In reply to Re: Civility Dr. Bob, posted by shellie on February 11, 2001, at 0:25:16
>
> Your response came across to me as an premature effort to protect Zrip, rather than thinking about the logic or non-logic of what she said. And the fact that Zrip had requested the feedback should have been considered.
>
>Anyone who has been on the internet has been through this; I take a post one way, you take it another and sometimes the author ment it another way ! I still think I erred and should of asked "what do you mean" before I assumed.
Shellie you are correct, I found Rzip's statement weird (taken literally) and really would not of said anything had Rzip not have just asked for feedback. I see an arugment as plasuable or not and I don't see calling a poorly constructed argument not logical a put down. It is more a statement of fact. Facts are not rude, they are correct. I've come up with some real mess myself, though ! At work I have to sift through, parse and analyze a lot of data, I'm a database programmer, so I see an argument as true or false; the data either predicts the result or not. I do realize this clarity is seen as blunt to some; that is why I feel I should of asked first.
Pat
Posted by allisonm on February 11, 2001, at 9:06:30
In reply to Re: Civility Dr. Bob, posted by shellie on February 11, 2001, at 0:25:16
> > I don't think that pat123 was inaccurate or uncivil in her response, because it was a response to a factual statement that had been made, not to an opinion.< <
>
> Your response came across to me as an premature effort to protect Zrip, rather than thinking about the logic or non-logic of what she said.< <
>
> >This seems the most like you are beginning to ask everyone to really tip toe on the board.< <----------------------
I guess I disagree. I do think Pat123's response was a bit of a harsh judgment (not that I haven't made harsh judgments myself).
The opinion on whether Rzip's post was logical is as subjective as the opinion on whether Pat123's post was harsh.
From my reading of the post, Pat was saying that Rzip's post was rather silly for someone who had been claiming that no one took her seriously. I have seen posts on PSB that seemed silly or illogical to me. Just looking at the last archived PSB for examples, threads on watching the Oprah show, on fur-covered pills (pets), on Dr. Bob's new picture, and on fashion for the depressed and maniacally depressed, seem about as lightweight to me as a post on why (or whether) psychiatrists wear blue shirts, but that's just me. However, PSB is the place for those things.
To suggest that Rzip's question was invalidated and deserved Pat123's response because she phrased her question as though it were a fact instead of an opinion is a scary proposition, in my opinion.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 11, 2001, at 9:52:04
In reply to Re: Civility Dr. Bob, posted by pat123 on February 11, 2001, at 1:39:34
> Anyone who has been on the internet has been through this; I take a post one way, you take it another and sometimes the author ment it another way ! I still think I erred and should of asked "what do you mean" before I assumed.
Thanks for being open to feedback! :-)
Bob
Posted by shellie on February 11, 2001, at 12:58:53
In reply to Re: Civility Dr. Bob, posted by allisonm on February 11, 2001, at 9:06:30
> To suggest that Rzip's question was invalidated and deserved Pat123's response because she phrased her question as though it were a fact instead of an opinion is a scary proposition, in my opinion. <
Allison,When you start out by stating that you disagree with my opinions, fine, I have no problem with that. But when you end suggesting that my opinions (not my actions) are scary, I feel that you've crossed the boundary into an attack at me, not merely disagreement.
Shellie
Posted by allisonm on February 11, 2001, at 17:52:49
In reply to Re: Civility Dr. Bob » allisonm, posted by shellie on February 11, 2001, at 12:58:53
Rzip: "I noticed a dressing trend among psychiatrists...they usually like to wear a dark or light blue shirt with an accompanying tie. Why is that?"
Pat: "You asked the question 'why don't most of you take me seriously ?'; if this post is like the others I can see why. There is no logic here. Given that there are hundreds of thousands of psychiatrists there is no way you have seen enough to spot a trend. Blue is a very common color, and goes with everything."
Shellie: "Dr. Bob, I feel the need to defend pat123 here. I really think you were much to harsh in your criticism. Rzip had asked for feedback on why she preceived no one was taking her seriously. Then she presents a statement about "most therapists wearing blue" without explaining where she got that notion and it sort of coming out of the blue (no pun intended). I don't think that pat123 was inaccurate or uncivil in her response, because it was a response to a factual statement that had been made, not to an opinion. If Zrip had said "why is the sky always green, it would have struck me about the same. Maybe Zrip really meant, why does Dr. Bob wears a blue shirt. Or something else that she only knows."
Allison: "To suggest that Rzip's question was invalidated and deserved Pat123's response because she phrased her question as though it were a fact instead of an opinion is a scary proposition, in my opinion."
Shellie: "When you start out by stating that you disagree with my opinions, fine, I have no problem with that. But when you end suggesting that my opinions (not my actions) are scary, I feel that you've crossed the boundary into an attack at me, not merely disagreement."
-----------------------
Shakespeare: "Nothing is either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
------------------------
Shellie,
I am sorry that you feel that I was attacking you personally. I did not mean for my post to be a personal attack. In fact I tried to choose my words carefully.
Let me try and rephrase what I am trying to say (hopefully without putting my foot in deeper). Please correct me if I am mistaken, but from what I understood from your post, you thought it was OK for Pat to say what she did to Rzip because what Rzip said was a statement and not an opinion. I disagree with this assertion. It troubles me to think that the way a person phrases a thought as simple and uncontroversial as (I'm paraphrasing here) "I have noticed that psychiatrists usually like to wear blue shirts" merits a response as strong and as personal as "I can see why no one takes you seriously; your post has no logic in it" because the way the thought was put into words -- as a statement instead of an opinion -- was incorrect. By this standard, every irreverent post on these boards would warrant a personal attack. And who is to be the judge of what is logical? Were this standard used, it would disturb me and I think would cause a chilling effect on this board because I suspect this type of sentence construction occurs often, and because defining the logical is subjective. I would leave quickly were my posts held up to this rule.
It is my opinion that personal attacks should not happen here at all because it is not conducive to a supportive environment, which is part of the mission of this board.
It is for these reasons that I disagree with your opinion. I admit that I have made personal attacks in the past and knew it when I wrote them or soon after. I believe they were in response to more controversial posts than the ones above. Thinking back, I regret having written those critical posts. They usually are borne of emotion and I see now that I should have walked away from the issues. However, to say that your proposition scares me, in my opinion, is not a personal attack. As I said at the start, I did not mean for my post to be a personal attack. If "scary" conjures the wrong impression, maybe I should have said "troubling," "unsettling," or "disturbing." If any of those words is less offensive to you, please substitute it for "scary." Any one of them would accurately express what I was trying to say.
Best regards,
Allison
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.