![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 26 to 50 of 50. Go back in thread:
Posted by Elle2021 on November 28, 2003, at 1:00:21
In reply to Re: Please be aware of the civility rules, posted by pixygoth on November 27, 2003, at 10:26:36
> but if it's ignorance I can't let it pass.
The inability to spell does not necessarily imply ignorance. Of course, one might refer to a dictionary, but who really takes the time for that when posting on here? I know I don't. If it's something of importance like a resume, then I am compulsive about spell-checking. I must admit that at times I can be quite lazy about my spelling on here, but I do not consider myself to be ignorant. I also might add that spellings differ in countries. I have noticed that I am starting to pick up British spellings, which is quite amusing to my fellow Americans when I am typing emails to them!
Elle
Posted by Elle2021 on November 28, 2003, at 1:03:22
In reply to Re: Beastiality actually spelt bestiality » pixygoth, posted by Phil on November 27, 2003, at 10:47:47
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 28, 2003, at 6:55:26
In reply to Re: Please be aware of the civility rules » pixygoth, posted by Phil on November 27, 2003, at 12:32:21
> Can't shows an 'inability to resist' hurting others... You 'won't' let an opportunity to belittle someone pass you by.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused, thanks.
Bob
Posted by pixygoth on November 28, 2003, at 7:14:40
In reply to Re: please be civil » Phil, posted by Dr. Bob on November 28, 2003, at 6:55:26
Well thank you Dr Bob.
I think the response to my post has been a bit disproportionate. And I know Phil can spell, looking at his other posts, so i thought that he would appreciate the fix. If not, fine. Continue to spell it wrong, if it makes you feel better.
And finally, for the last time, I wasn't saying he had little credibility, just saying that some would think so.
S
Posted by Elle2021 on November 28, 2003, at 7:28:16
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by pixygoth on November 28, 2003, at 7:14:40
> I think the response to my post has been a bit disproportionate.
I disagree. I think many people are insecure about their spelling/grammar. If someone were to correct my spelling on this board, I think my feelings would be hurt, especially if I were already upset over something else.
>Continue to spell it wrong, if it makes you feel better.Why would it, how would it make someone feel better?
Elle
Posted by Elle2021 on November 28, 2003, at 7:36:05
In reply to Re: mention of illegalities, posted by pixygoth on November 27, 2003, at 6:18:08
> Can I just add in here... to Elle... look at Babble substance use.
Good point.
> Offensiveness is another matter, and I agree that graphic sexual stuff is not good...
I agree with you; I find graphic sexual content offensive also.
Elle
Posted by zenhussy on November 28, 2003, at 12:59:21
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by pixygoth on November 28, 2003, at 7:14:40
> Well thank you Dr Bob.
> I think the response to my post has been a bit disproportionate. And I know Phil can spell, looking at his other posts, so i thought that he would appreciate the fix.Pixy,
Next time you think someone would appreciate a service you have to offer why not TRY ASKING before forcing it upon them? Like you said, and I know how you hate to repeat yourself, you thought he would appreciate it. Obviously he did not and a great deal of other posters have expressed why it is that correction of their spelling is taken as a put down or a form of slighting.
>If not, fine. Continue to spell it wrong, if it makes you feel better.
Thanks for the permission to spell incorrectly should we all want too, need too, or do so out of our diseased brains or funky medications!
> And finally, for the last time, I wasn't saying he had little credibility, just saying that some would think so.
SAnd I am saying that I sense a lack of understanding in the above "I" statement. I, personally, still read it as containing a slight. Is there anyway you could rephrase the part you tacked on about "some would think so"? How about putting those some into an "I" statement?? Try again?
zenhussy
Posted by mair on November 28, 2003, at 19:27:05
In reply to Re: please be civil » pixygoth, posted by zenhussy on November 28, 2003, at 12:59:21
This thread has unfortunately drifted in a different direction from where it began. I think Phil's initial point, about the need to peremptorily ban certain people or remove certain posts was a good one. Periodically, there are certain posters (usually not regulars) who post stuff the only possible goal of which is to offend greatly and generate an extreme reaction. Their basic MO is a little akin to crying fire in a crowded theater just so they can enjoy watching the ensuing panic.
I don't think it's all that hard to distinguish these posts from those posted by someone who is rude or cranky or uncivil in their reaction to other posts. The "bestiality" post is a perfect example. I'm sure whoever posted it has had a great time watching the development of this thread.
Mair
Posted by Phil on November 28, 2003, at 23:22:30
In reply to Getting off track, posted by mair on November 28, 2003, at 19:27:05
Well said mair.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 1, 2003, at 9:43:02
In reply to Getting off track, posted by mair on November 28, 2003, at 19:27:05
> Periodically, there are certain posters ... who post stuff the only possible goal of which is to offend greatly and generate an extreme reaction.
>
> I don't think it's all that hard to distinguish these posts from those posted by someone who is rude or cranky or uncivil in their reaction to other posts.I still think intent is hard. Being rude when replying to another post is different than being rude when starting a thread?
Bob
Posted by Phil on December 1, 2003, at 10:09:37
In reply to Re: please be civil » Phil, posted by Dr. Bob on November 28, 2003, at 6:55:26
Dr Bob, You are totally wrong on this.
I came here with an ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUE. By here "inability" to stop spellchecking every time she sees incorrect spelling, she hijacked the thread and I never got an answer to my post!!!!
If everyone here saw it, why can't you?
How is my psych 101 question uncivil when she obviously has control over her obnoxious habit of
trolling for bad spellers?Have I said anything about her punctuation?
I'm just writing here, I am not looking for results in my favor.
Posted by Phil on December 1, 2003, at 13:30:35
In reply to Re: Getting back on track, posted by Dr. Bob on December 1, 2003, at 9:43:02
sorry for being pedantic (but come on... spelling is important to credibility.)
What does she know about my credibility? Also, like was mentioned, sentences beginning w/ sorry are usually followed by criticism.
Here's how it feels: Cmon Dr Bob, being able to read is important to moderating a board. You are losing credibility.
Posted by mair on December 1, 2003, at 16:59:22
In reply to Re: Getting back on track, posted by Dr. Bob on December 1, 2003, at 9:43:02
I acknowledge that intent is hard to prove. If memory serves, you've been criticized in the past for issuing sanctions for posts which most found uncivil only if viewed in a void and not in the actual context. However, what I think Phil was talking about are those posts which are so blatantly offensive and really without a particular context which might explain them in any acceptable way. I don't think there are a lot of these and I don't think it's difficult to distinguish them from all the other objectionable posts which fall into the gray area of discretion. Why should those remain, and what is the point of issuing a PBC to a person who has posted such material? What if someone used the subject line to insult another poster in a graphically offensive way? Would those to only merit a PBC?
I can see no reason why a post, such as the one on bestiality should remain. However, of more importance to me is that such posts not receive the same treatment as all of the other more marginally uncivil posts which really are at least addressing some subject at hand. Otherwise, this forum isn't so different from shock radio, where it seems to be ok to say anything at all as long as it's only said once.
FWIW, I also take some issue with the PBC you issued to Phil. When I was in middle school, I made a fairly earnest attempt one day to have a more than peremptory conversation with my father. After listening to me try to explain something of importance, his only response was to point out to me how many times I used the word "uh." I felt pretty deflated and my guess is that Phil's reaction to the response he got was much the same. I thought his response was restrained. If you didn't see fit to issue a PBC for the response to Phil's post, I don't think you should have issued one to him either.
Mair
Posted by justyourlaugh on December 1, 2003, at 17:44:17
In reply to Getting off track, posted by mair on November 28, 2003, at 19:27:05
i read all the posts in this topic today..
i want to add:
i am not flawed because i cant spell or have sinned...differences make us human , not numbers.
i am credible because what i think matters , even if i am totally mad..even if i am 3 year old..or 103..
"i think theirfour i am"...
oh yah,,
maybe a post viewed in bad taste by others ,
is funny as hell to someone else..
i guess its all about timing..
and placement..
i got a christmas card from my neighbour who cant speak english well..my name was spelled wrong so was holiday..should i throw it out...?
Posted by mair on December 1, 2003, at 17:46:10
In reply to Re: Getting back on track » Dr. Bob, posted by mair on December 1, 2003, at 16:59:22
Bob:
I just wanted to clarify that I think issuing a PBC to someone who's posted blatantly offensive material is pointless and that those posters should be blocked from the outset.
Also, let's remember that this is for all intents and purposes operated like a dictatorship, no matter how benevolent. We can all chime in, but you ultimately make all decisions and there is no appeal. You use your untrammeled discretion all the time. I don't see why it can't be used to block people (without a prior PBC) in the most offensive cases. If you wanted, you could do this a few times at first without deleting the post. This would at least give people some opportunity to react.
Mair
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 1, 2003, at 18:38:53
In reply to Re: Huh? » Dr. Bob, posted by Phil on December 1, 2003, at 13:30:35
> I came here with an ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUE... I never got an answer to my post!!!!
Sorry about that. I'm still not convinced it would be better to have automatic lifetime blocks. More on this below...
> If everyone here saw it, why can't you?
Sorry, saw what? A reason to block someone for life?
> her obnoxious habit of trolling for bad spellers?
Keeping in mind that the idea here is not to post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, could you please rephrase that? Thanks...
> Here's how it feels: Cmon Dr Bob, being able to read is important to moderating a board. You are losing credibility.
I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm doing my best...
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 1, 2003, at 19:19:45
In reply to a clarification and another point, posted by mair on December 1, 2003, at 17:46:10
> Why should [posts which are so blatantly offensive] remain, and what is the point of issuing a PBC to a person who has posted such material?
> > When posters are considered by the author not to have been civil, messages to that effect are posted. Others would do this privately, by email, and that would have the advantage of being less embarrassing. If done with sensitivity, however, posting [and not deleting the uncivil posts] offers the advantages of clarifying the limits for others, modeling conflict resolution, diminishing any paranoia about activity "behind the scenes," and allowing others to contribute to the process.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/research.html#Best> You use your untrammeled discretion all the time. I don't see why it can't be used to block people (without a prior PBC) in the most offensive cases.
What difference would it have made to issue a block instead? IMO, the less trammeled I am, the more discretion I should show...
> of more importance to me is that such posts not receive the same treatment as all of the other more marginally uncivil posts which really are at least addressing some subject at hand.
This isn't always easy. In general, I try to err on the side of having as few restrictions as possible. I'm open to suggestions, but "blatantly offensive" I think would be a little too subjective...
> When I was in middle school, I made a fairly earnest attempt one day to have a more than peremptory conversation with my father. After listening to me try to explain something of importance, his only response was to point out to me how many times I used the word "uh." I felt pretty deflated and my guess is that Phil's reaction to the response he got was much the same.
I'm sorry if he felt deflated, especially if my not responding myself was a contributing factor, but I think it would be asking a lot to insist that people always stick to the point...
Thanks for the input, seriously,
Bob
Posted by stjames on December 1, 2003, at 20:56:54
In reply to Re: a clarification and another point, posted by Dr. Bob on December 1, 2003, at 19:19:45
This isn't always easy. In general, I try to err on the side of having as few restrictions as possible. I'm open to suggestions, but "blatantly offensive" I think would be a little too subjective...
You are receiving input from the users here as to
the fact this is offensive, but in effect saying that what they felt was not valid.
Posted by stjames on December 1, 2003, at 20:58:19
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » Phil, posted by Dr. Bob on December 1, 2003, at 18:38:53
> I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm doing my best...
>
> BobYou keep on saying that.
Posted by stjames on December 1, 2003, at 21:00:07
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » Phil, posted by Dr. Bob on December 1, 2003, at 18:38:53
> I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm doing my best...
>
> BobYou keep on saying that & now it is loosing it's meaning. It seems automatic, now. It used to not.
Sad.
Posted by mair on December 1, 2003, at 21:02:56
In reply to Re: please rephrase that, posted by stjames on December 1, 2003, at 21:00:07
Please check out a message I left for you on Social. I didn't think it belonged here.
Mair
Posted by kara lynne on December 2, 2003, at 2:31:16
In reply to Re: a clarification and another point, posted by stjames on December 1, 2003, at 20:56:54
I wanted to post about grief but I can't open the page. It's too disturbing knowing that that post is there.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 2, 2003, at 15:13:30
In reply to Re: please rephrase that, posted by stjames on December 1, 2003, at 21:00:07
> I'm open to suggestions, but "blatantly offensive" I think would be a little too subjective...
>
> You are receiving input from the users here as to the fact this is offensive, but in effect saying that what they felt was not valid.Sorry, that's not what I meant at all. What I'm trying to say is I think that's too subjective a criterion to base a general guideline on.
> > I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm doing my best...
>
> You keep on saying that & now it is loosing it's meaning. It seems automatic, now. It used to not.Well, it's still true...
Bob
Posted by stjames on December 2, 2003, at 15:52:54
In reply to Re: a clarification and another point, posted by Dr. Bob on December 2, 2003, at 15:13:30
> Sorry, that's not what I meant at all. What I'm trying to say is I think that's too subjective a criterion to base a general guideline on.
>I think we suffer because you are unable to make a decision.
Posted by stjames on December 2, 2003, at 15:53:37
In reply to Re: a clarification and another point, posted by Dr. Bob on December 2, 2003, at 15:13:30
> Well, it's still true...
It reads false out here.
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.