![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 18 to 42 of 92. Go back in thread:
Posted by gardenergirl on July 28, 2006, at 9:21:10
In reply to Re: finally..., posted by Dinah on July 28, 2006, at 8:14:04
> >
> > What about just trusting people to excercise "common sense" and "common courtesy"- allowing them chances to excuse and to try to correct their own errors as they might come up in civilized discussion,I think people are trusted to do this, and when someone apologizes for a behavior there's usually no action taken by admin. Unfortunately, this trust is broken at times.
> Or, taking a moment to consider, "did that person say something "off" because they are sliding and need help, not more punishment or embarressment?" What's the goal? Humilate the real sufferer, or reward the person mildly or righteously offended by what might even be a rather trivial rule infraction?
I don't see how giving a PBC or block for *behavior* precludes understanding about a person's *state* or need for compassion. I think it's possible to admonish a behavior while still maintaining empathy, compassion, and positive regard for the person as a whole.
If someone IRL feels justifiably angry about something, and you can understand and relate to their anger, does that mean you should excuse or overlook a problematic behavior related to the anger? What if they do something such as breaking a valued object, hitting someone, or yelling obscenities and insults to someone? Does that go unremarked because you can understand their anger or even if not, because you can see they are "in a state"?
> I personally would prefer Dr. Bob to stick to behavior and not try to figure out who is a "real sufferer".I agree.
gg
Posted by laima on July 28, 2006, at 11:08:21
In reply to Re: finally..., posted by gardenergirl on July 28, 2006, at 9:21:10
On this very page, and on the previous (didn't look further back), within the current threads, there appear to be discussions about some genuine, obvious offenses, but also a few that appear dubious, trivial- or just plain confusing. I gather from the comments that some others have a few concerns, too. I hesitate to point out precise examples of course, but many of the threads I am bothered by are on this very page, in plain view.
> I don't see how giving a PBC or block for *behavior* precludes understanding about a person's *state* or need for compassion.
? Not sure if I understand this comment, in practice, for some cases.
>I think it's possible to admonish a behavior while still maintaining empathy, compassion, and positive regard for the person as a whole.
Of course, though...perhaps it's a matter of tone and what sort of emphasis is used then? In some of the cases I read about, I sincerely wonder which was more highly valued: punishment, or education/correction/guidance?
In at least one case discussed right above this thread- more attention is paid to a term casually used by the poster, than to considering what sort of self-image *difficulty* might have caused that person to use that particular term (a common though unfortunate one, tossed around all over the media, in lots of conversations in many places, etc.) in the first place.
Another case looks to involve someone looking in on a conversation between two people who were joking with each other, misunderstanding them?
> If someone IRL feels justifiably angry about something, and you can understand and relate to their anger,
Justifiably- of course!
>does that mean you should excuse or overlook a problematic behavior related to the anger?
Of course not. It is, again, trivial and ultra-zealous cases that are of concern. What's to stop, theoretically speaking, someone from zipping all over the site, being offended by everything, and turning everyone in? They'd get a lot of attention, I gather.
> > I personally would prefer Dr. Bob to stick to behavior and not try to figure out who is a "real sufferer".
I hope he has the time to examine and carefully consider each and every post then, on this massive website. Is the website his full-time job? Or did I gather he has other important appointments, too?
My main point was meant to be- I am concerned that some people, who might post a plea for help or while obviously in trouble, might either disparage themselves or inadvertently (or purposefully), use questionable or vague phrases, (words open to various readings), attract enourmous attention about whether or not there was a real infraction of rules-even if no one speaks up to honestly say, "I was genuinely offended and upset by what I read", and meanwhile, the original poster's core concern gets ignored, and plausabley, this person ends up feeling even worse, perhaps at a loss as to where to turn, should they end up lacking adequate mental health care or outside support system. Meanwhile, anyone, even if only mildly offended, can be rewarded for their behavior-that is-discovering a rule that technically was broken.
Which leads to next point: I gather, from all that is posted around the site, plenty of folks are expressing that they feel skittish to post, lest they accidently break a rule or accidently offend someone. So, contructive discussions that try to (even politely) explore more *controversial*, yet very valid topics--such as the ups and down of the pharmaceuitical industry, the vageries of diagnosises --can't happen--because yes, of course, someone is guarenteed to take offense, or even if no one does, punishments might be doled out freely anyway.
None of us are perfect, we all say things that require more clarification, and written texts are notoriously very open for interpretation and various readings- witness grad schools, philosophy classes, etc. Anyone looking to be offended, likely will be.
Perhaps there could be an area for dicier discussions, "use at your own risk", where people promise to be on their best behavior, yet acknowledge someone could end up offended?
-But no, it's not my site-
...and I choose to not spend any more of my time trying to be a "good" rule follower anymore. I just don't think reality is so clear and simple, and rule adherence does not equal ethics.
Posted by Tabitha on July 28, 2006, at 11:38:04
In reply to Re: finally... » gardenergirl, posted by laima on July 28, 2006, at 11:08:21
The guidelines were chosen so that when posts are civil, people are less likely to be offended, but 'offending someone' isn't the criteria for a post being civil. A civil post may offend someone, and an uncivil post may not offend anyone. The amount or degree of people offended is not supposed to be the deciding factor determining whether a post is uncivil.
I would be very hesitant to participate if 'offending anyone' was a blockable offense, because of course you can't control or predict others' reactions.
Personally I find the definition of 'civil' to be fairly clear and fairly predictable. And I also think learning to speak in a civil way is a valuable skill to have in general, so it doesn't irk me so much to be constrained by the rules here.
Posted by laima on July 28, 2006, at 12:17:51
In reply to Re: finally... » laima, posted by Tabitha on July 28, 2006, at 11:38:04
And I also think learning to speak in a civil way is a valuable skill to have in general, so it doesn't irk me so much to be constrained by the rules here.
>But...in person, when conversation is informed with body language, voice, and expression- it's a bit easier, don't you think? If you are friends or know the person you are writing, it's still not so hard. But, many of us may be penpals of sorts, but have never met in real life. Technically, dare I say, *strangers*?
Posted by laima on July 28, 2006, at 12:34:14
In reply to Re: finally... » laima, posted by Tabitha on July 28, 2006, at 11:38:04
Perhaps, we have different philosophies, pointless to hash out, for we appear to be going in circles. I am a very firm believer in "civility" and kindness, politeness, if anyone is harbouring a doubt about that. Sometimes hashing out differences openly can result in both parties learning and growing, even if there are some rocky moments. That doesn't necessarily mean "uncivility" is happening. (Again, witness grad school...or "experts" or "politicians" who argue, then shake hands in the end.) I value peace and justice, but don't agree that the rules, as I understand them to be defined or used here, are necessarily the best way. I'll try not to be a hypocrite- meaning, I'll keep up an effort to respect your point of view- and the site's point of view. It's not my site. Might not be the place for me, if I disagree with such a major philosophy of it.Best wishes.
> The guidelines were chosen so that when posts are civil, people are less likely to be offended, but 'offending someone' isn't the criteria for a post being civil. A civil post may offend someone, and an uncivil post may not offend anyone. The amount or degree of people offended is not supposed to be the deciding factor determining whether a post is uncivil.
>
> I would be very hesitant to participate if 'offending anyone' was a blockable offense, because of course you can't control or predict others' reactions.
>
> Personally I find the definition of 'civil' to be fairly clear and fairly predictable. And I also think learning to speak in a civil way is a valuable skill to have in general, so it doesn't irk me so much to be constrained by the rules here.
>
Posted by cloudydaze on July 28, 2006, at 15:45:52
In reply to Re: finally..., posted by gardenergirl on July 28, 2006, at 9:21:10
> I think people are trusted to do this, and when someone apologizes for a behavior there's usually no action taken by admin. Unfortunately, this trust is broken at times.
***maybe we should stop and ask people "were you offended by this post" before jumping up and saying "that's uncivil" (unless it is very obviously trying to cause offense). Sometimes I think people aren't as easily offended as some think.
> I don't see how giving a PBC or block for *behavior* precludes understanding about a person's *state* or need for compassion. I think it's possible to admonish a behavior while still maintaining empathy, compassion, and positive regard for the person as a whole.***I think blocks are harsh, in general, and should be saved for circumstances when obvious harm is done. Blocks do more harm then good, I think. They hurt people. Aren't the rules enfored to protect people? I think it's unfortunate that strict order is more important than people's feelings (seems that way to me).
> If someone IRL feels justifiably angry about something, and you can understand and relate to their anger, does that mean you should excuse or overlook a problematic behavior related to the anger? What if they do something such as breaking a valued object, hitting someone, or yelling obscenities and insults to someone? Does that go unremarked because you can understand their anger or even if not, because you can see they are "in a state"?
>
****People "get out of" crimes all the time because of "insanity". The legal system writes them off as not being accontable for their mistakes. I am accountable for my actions, more so than a lot of adults much older than me, but I shouldn't be accountable for someone elses feelings IF I DON'T INTEND TO CAUSE THEM. The rules of this board *seem* to say that *I* should be held accountable for how someone else feels.
>
> > I personally would prefer Dr. Bob to stick to behavior and not try to figure out who is a "real sufferer".
>
> I agree.
>
> gg
***Obviously, we have conflicting views.
Posted by cloudydaze on July 28, 2006, at 16:33:51
In reply to Re: finally... » laima, posted by Tabitha on July 28, 2006, at 11:38:04
> The guidelines were chosen so that when posts are civil, people are less likely to be offended, but 'offending someone' isn't the criteria for a post being civil. A civil post may offend someone, and an uncivil post may not offend anyone. The amount or degree of people offended is not supposed to be the deciding factor determining whether a post is uncivil.
>
> I would be very hesitant to participate if 'offending anyone' was a blockable offense, because of course you can't control or predict others' reactions.
>
> Personally I find the definition of 'civil' to be fairly clear and fairly predictable. And I also think learning to speak in a civil way is a valuable skill to have in general, so it doesn't irk me so much to be constrained by the rules here.
>
In the paragraphs about civility is states "Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down...or language that offends others."It seems offense IS a big part of it. So really, this is part of the never-ending discussion of "what is offensive". I believe its kind of like the question "what is beautiful?" It's not a question I believe can be answered.
Another definition of uncivil (from the same link as Dr. Bob's definition) is "lacking in courtesy".
It seems that laima is much better at expressing things than I am :)
Maybe I should stick to poetry?
I agree with everything laima has said.
Posted by laima on July 28, 2006, at 17:38:28
In reply to Re: finally... » Tabitha, posted by laima on July 28, 2006, at 12:17:51
> And I also think learning to speak in a civil way is a valuable skill to have in general, so it doesn't irk me so much to be constrained by the rules here.
To attempt to clarify, regarding the above comment: I still don't see how mastering the ability to write "civilily" per rules of a blog, on the blog, has anything to do with speaking civilily or courteously in *real life* face-to-face interactions. I wish I could somehow express myself more lucidly.
I also hope this:
>learning to speak in a civil way
isn't intended to infer stupidity or some kind of inferiority.
Posted by laima on July 28, 2006, at 19:15:25
In reply to Re: finally... » laima, posted by laima on July 28, 2006, at 17:38:28
Ok. This thread is obviously getting awkward.But I think despite the disparate views, we all obviously want for people to be able to communicate decently, fairly, politely and respectfully here. (I didn't use the word "civil" because it's starting to feel loaded and confusing, just for now, here.) Considering what a diverse group we are, and that conversational norms and word usage and such vary from region to region, I concede that yes, some sort of guidelines are needed to maintain a little order on the site.
I just still wish that there was more flexability, that so many people weren't afraid to write stuff out of fear of accidently causing offense or breaking a rule, and also that it could be ok to constructively discuss valid and pertinent topics such as:
"is my diagnosis legit?"
"is there a such thing as fad diagnosis?"
"am I overmedicated?"
"is my doctor being influenced by that pharmaceutical rep who just took him/her out to lunch?"
etc.We could probably learn a lot more from each other, or broaden our views, if not so afraid of accidental or unintentional offenses, and if we were somehow able to solve/manage misunderstandings that inevitably would arise from such topics without automatically resorting to punishments or premature admonishments from outside the conversation.
Seems inexplicabley hard enough even with non-controversial topics. And odd that so many intelligent and well-meaning people are running into trouble with the allegedly clear and simple civility rules.
Intentionally rude or mean-spirited cases are another story, and I am not talking about them here.
Posted by gardenergirl on July 28, 2006, at 20:01:46
In reply to Re: finally..., posted by cloudydaze on July 28, 2006, at 15:45:52
> > If someone IRL feels justifiably angry about something, and you can understand and relate to their anger, does that mean you should excuse or overlook a problematic behavior related to the anger? What if they do something such as breaking a valued object, hitting someone, or yelling obscenities and insults to someone? Does that go unremarked because you can understand their anger or even if not, because you can see they are "in a state"?
> >
>
>
> ****People "get out of" crimes all the time because of "insanity". The legal system writes them off as not being accontable for their mistakes. I am accountable for my actions, more so than a lot of adults much older than me, but I shouldn't be accountable for someone elses feelings IF I DON'T INTEND TO CAUSE THEM. The rules of this board *seem* to say that *I* should be held accountable for how someone else feels.You're not accountable for other's feelings. In the case I write about above, I asked about accountability for the *behaviors* associated with the anger, not the *feeling* of anger. Should a behavior such as shouting obscenties or insults at someone be considered acceptable behavior? Isn't this behavior separate from how anyone might respond to it, either IRL or here on the board? Maybe not a single person queried would feel offended. Does that make it an acceptable behavior?
That's what I'm asking. I can't argue or judge anyone's feelings. They are not mine to assess. But behavior is separate from feelings. Related in many cases. But a separate construct.
>
>
>
> ***Obviously, we have conflicting views.
>
On that we do agree. :)gg
Posted by laima on July 28, 2006, at 20:14:02
In reply to Re: finally... » cloudydaze, posted by gardenergirl on July 28, 2006, at 20:01:46
> Maybe not a single person queried would feel offended. Does that make it an acceptable behavior?
I hope you believe me that I am sincere in trying to understand what you are saying- if someone, say, uses a word or term technically "uncivil" on the site, but no one perceives it as "uncivil", no one is offended, and it was not meant "uncivily"- do you consider it to be an offense?
Posted by Jakeman on July 28, 2006, at 20:24:19
In reply to Re: question/comment, posted by notfred on July 28, 2006, at 9:00:50
> > I respectfully disagree. Laima made some well thought out and fundamental points about how this board is run how it could better serve our needs.
> >
> > warm regards, Jake
> >
>
> But it will not matter, will it ?
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060622/msgs/668867.htmlProbably not, from what I've observed.
warm regards, Jake
Posted by Jakeman on July 28, 2006, at 20:52:09
In reply to question » gardenergirl, posted by laima on July 28, 2006, at 20:14:02
There's a balance to be maintained. Sometimes moderators get too caught up in enforcing the "rules" and lose the big picture. One should consider if the block or PBC will do more harm than good. Especially those trival offenses that no one cares about, and the block comes across as paternalistic.
warm regards, Jake
Posted by gardenergirl on July 28, 2006, at 21:28:21
In reply to Re: question, posted by Jakeman on July 28, 2006, at 20:52:09
Interesting ideas.
> There's a balance to be maintained. Sometimes moderators get too caught up in enforcing the "rules" and lose the big picture.
So how exactly does one define what "the big picture" here is? And who gets to define it?
> One should consider if the block or PBC will do more harm than good. Especially those trival offenses that no one cares about, and the block comes across as paternalistic.
Who measures harm versus good? And how would you measure it? How do you know what anyone does or does not care about in order to decide that "no one cares" about something?
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on July 28, 2006, at 21:54:12
In reply to question » gardenergirl, posted by laima on July 28, 2006, at 20:14:02
> I hope you believe me that I am sincere in trying to understand what you are saying- if someone, say, uses a word or term technically "uncivil" on the site, but no one perceives it as "uncivil", no one is offended, and it was not meant "uncivily"- do you consider it to be an offense?
Well, if it's "technically" uncivil, then it's established as uncivil by Dr. Bob, so there's no question. Whether anyone actually *is* offended is not the point. And there's really no way to know that no one is offended, because you can't prove a negative.
But my example was actually about behavior in real life. If someone is angry, and say you can understand why they are angry. Maybe you even feel angry, too. But they choose to, oh say maybe throw a heavy object at you. You're not hit. You understand the anger. You forgive the person. But is the behavior (the throwing of the heavy object) in and of itself acceptable behavior?
I would say no. I know it's not behavior that was acceptable to my parents (of course, that's a huge can o' worms all by itself). And I'll likely teach any kids I might have that such behavior is not acceptable to me. I'm sure that others have different opinions on this, though.
So I guess I don't see the *absolute* connection between behavior that is not consistent with the site's rules and whether anyone in particular was offended or hurt by that behavior.
I could be wrong, but that might be the best I can do at trying to answer your question. I appreciate that you asked me to explain and the dialog. It's got me thinking about some of the ways I was brought up and how it shows up in me today. :)
gg
Posted by laima on July 28, 2006, at 22:05:11
In reply to Re: question » Jakeman, posted by gardenergirl on July 28, 2006, at 21:28:21
>Who measures harm versus good? And how would you measure it? How do you know what anyone does or does not care about in order to decide that "no one cares" about something?
What if...if someone is genuinely offended, they speak up? I imagine the offender might even be horrified and apologize profusely.
> So how exactly does one define what "the big picture" here is?
Doesn't it have to do with something like being nice and helpful for each other, sharing information and support, honestly, in the interest of strengthening each others' mental health?
> Who measures harm versus good? And how would you measure it? How do you know what anyone does or does not care about in order to decide that "no one cares" about something?
Again, can't we trust each other to speak up if we feel hurt, offended, or confused in those vaguer cases? Or do I just put too much hope and faith, naively, into believing in peoples' good intentions and abilities to talk and work matters out peacefully?
Posted by laima on July 28, 2006, at 22:16:24
In reply to Re: question » laima, posted by gardenergirl on July 28, 2006, at 21:54:12
Thank you, gg, for your response.
I agree 100000000% about your example regarding violence and such. Nothing ambiguous there!
> Well, if it's "technically" uncivil, then it's established as uncivil by Dr. Bob, so there's no question.
Yes, can't argue.
> Whether anyone actually *is* offended is not the point. And there's really no way to know that no one is offended, because you can't prove a negative.
Here's where I get a little confused or even slightly disagree- while simultaneously respecting your view. The reason-I just keep wondering why not, in the more ambiguous cases, see if someone speaks up? I don't understand. The warnings almost appear pre-emptive sometimes.
> I could be wrong, but that might be the best I can do at trying to answer your question. I appreciate that you asked me to explain and the dialog. It's got me thinking about some of the ways I was brought up and how it shows up in me today. :)
Again, thank you, too: for sharing and for the dialog.
You have me thinking quite a bit as well.
Posted by Jakeman on July 28, 2006, at 22:27:46
In reply to Re: question » Jakeman, posted by gardenergirl on July 28, 2006, at 21:28:21
>> So how exactly does one define what "the big >>picture" here is? And who gets to define it?
The big picture is mental health, wellness. I think that's on Bob's home page. It's defined by those who run this board. It requires reasonable judgement. BTW, I'm a moderater, i.e. regulator, for a government agency which has strict rules. But when the rules defeat the purpose of our intent, (to serve the public interest), we waive them.
> Who measures harm versus good? And how would >you measure it? How do you know what anyone >does or does not care about in order to decide >that "no one cares" about something?Again I say use common sense and judgement when measuring rather than being tied to set rules. I don't have time to search for all the numerous examples but I remember this one person who told a r*dneck joke. It was something like: "you might be a r*dneck if you go to the dump and take more than you took.." This person got blocked or PBC'ed.
No one said they were offended, but several posted their opposition to the block.
My main point is that we need to lighten up.
GG I understand your position and appreciate your volunteer efforts here to maintain civility. And please don't take exception if I don't continue this thread. I've got some work emails to deal with, some of them requesting a waiver from rules.
warm regards, Jake.
Posted by Jakeman on July 28, 2006, at 22:43:18
In reply to Re: question » gardenergirl, posted by Jakeman on July 28, 2006, at 22:27:46
That's interesting that the r*dneck word in my message was censored with an asterick. Some of us here in cajun country call each other coonasses. Is that uncivil? Lighten up.
~Jake
Posted by Estella on July 28, 2006, at 23:05:28
In reply to question/comment, posted by cloudydaze on July 26, 2006, at 1:42:27
> My theory is that it's rarely unawareness of what "civil" means that leads to uncivil posts. I think either (1) posters lose their cool, (2) they know they're being uncivil but feel it's justified (for example, as "tough love"), or (3) their primary intention is just to provoke.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20001124/msgs/490.html
> I personally feel, and have said before, that your trigger finger is a bit quick. Maybe you need to take a deep breath before you admonish folks to see if what appears to be an issue really just dies.
>After not checking in for a while, it is in fact wonderful to see a problem arise and then just die or, even better, be resolved. But I think I'd rather be too quick than not quick enough. And it's a given that I'm going to be one or the other...
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20001124/msgs/467.html
>I agree, it's sad, but these boards can't be all things to all people. And it's not like there aren't alternative sources of support...
>Part of my idea is that if I have the hard heart, yours can all stay soft. :-)
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20001124/msgs/91.html
>But those who contribute more may be treated more leniently, and those who contribute less, more strictly.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20010315/msgs/1168.html
>> I'm just curious why a 'newbie' would be treated more strict than lenient.... I mean, wouldn't you expect more from someone who's been around for awhile, knows the rules, and what kind of things that make you block people?
>That's an interesting way to look at it... I guess what it comes down to is that what's better for the community is a higher priority than what's more "fair" for individuals. Or at least that's been my philosophy so far...
Posted by laima on July 28, 2006, at 23:16:15
In reply to Re: conversations with bob..., posted by Estella on July 28, 2006, at 23:05:28
> My theory is that it's rarely unawareness of what "civil" means that leads to uncivil posts. I think either (1) posters lose their cool, (2) they know they're being uncivil but feel it's justified (for example, as "tough love"), or (3) their primary intention is just to provoke.
Respectfully, I utterly disagree. I think rather, people can mix up their normal, everyday "civility" with the "rules" meant to keep order on the board.
Posted by Estella on July 28, 2006, at 23:33:53
In reply to Re: conversations with bob... » Estella, posted by laima on July 28, 2006, at 23:16:15
> The dictionary definition is something like "conducive to civic harmony and welfare", but remember also the mission of this site, support and education, and the golden rule.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Posted by Estella on July 28, 2006, at 23:50:50
In reply to Re: conversations with bob... » Estella, posted by laima on July 28, 2006, at 23:16:15
Sorry. I wasn't going to post.
I agree with you.
I don't think (very many) people are meaning to say that they think the boards would be better if we were allowed to be incivil in the sense of accusing / judging / attacking other people.
I think that what most people are saying is that people seem to get blocked for things that aren't incivil in the dictionary sense.
Posted by Deneb on July 28, 2006, at 23:52:05
In reply to Re: conversations with bob..., posted by Estella on July 28, 2006, at 23:05:28
> > My theory is that it's rarely unawareness of what "civil" means that leads to uncivil posts. I think either (1) posters lose their cool, (2) they know they're being uncivil but feel it's justified (for example, as "tough love"), or (3) their primary intention is just to provoke.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20001124/msgs/490.htmlDr. Bob, I don't think what you said above was civil. It's not always civil to express what you think. If you think one of the reasons why people are uncivil is because they intend to provoke, I don't think that is a civil thing to say. What if you said, "I think you are being uncivil to hurt others". Would that be civil? That's basically what you are saying though, isn't it? I don't know anymore Bob, is it civil? What if you said, "I think you are provoking people into anger on purpose". Would that be civil?
> >But those who contribute more may be treated more leniently, and those who contribute less, more strictly.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20010315/msgs/1168.htmlDr. Bob, I have a problem with that. I think everyone should be treated the same way, no matter what they have contributed. Different rules for different people?
> >That's an interesting way to look at it... I guess what it comes down to is that what's better for the community is a higher priority than what's more "fair" for individuals. Or at least that's been my philosophy so far...
Oh, I see...harmony above all else eh? What is your idea of what an ideal community is? Do you think being unfair to individuals is better for the community?
<shakes head> Oh Bob, you disappoint me.
Deneb*
Posted by laima on July 29, 2006, at 0:56:12
In reply to Re: conversations with bob... » laima, posted by Estella on July 28, 2006, at 23:50:50
Oh-Thank you for clarifying. I was confused, and appreciate your explaination.
Warmly,Laima
> Sorry. I wasn't going to post.
>
> I agree with you.
>
> I don't think (very many) people are meaning to say that they think the boards would be better if we were allowed to be incivil in the sense of accusing / judging / attacking other people.
>
> I think that what most people are saying is that people seem to get blocked for things that aren't incivil in the dictionary sense.
>
>
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.