![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 44 to 68 of 73. Go back in thread:
Posted by karen_kay on April 27, 2004, at 19:56:54
In reply to Re: note to all!! i'm rude! » karen_kay, posted by rainyday on April 27, 2004, at 13:52:33
well, (clearing throat) if you must know, i was so concerned about the babble etiquette, that i started a thread on it a while back.... while it doesn't apply to answering posters, it applies to answering those who reply to you (which is even a concern i have, see i have a hard time doing even that.... i don't discriminate...i just have a hard time answering people... and ducky... if you are reading, i know, i have yet to get back to you too :( that's next on my list!!!
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20040324/msgs/327868.html
Posted by Fallen4MyT on April 27, 2004, at 19:57:34
In reply to out on a civility limb on cliques and invisable, posted by Fallen4MyT on April 27, 2004, at 19:18:41
Posted by spoc on April 27, 2004, at 20:06:33
In reply to Re: please be civil » Fallen4MyT, posted by Dr. Bob on April 27, 2004, at 19:42:26
> I'm glad Spoc's getting support, and I'm sorry if you've felt neglected here...
I am not comfortable with it being assumed that this is all about me. I would like to know where you get that -- you don't usually express conclusions about *why* you think a poster is expressing a certain viewpoint. I wouldn't claim I haven't felt any of this but it's the kind of thing I'd post to regardless, and that's in fact how I ended up here in the first place. I hold positions and make observations everywhere I look and go, even if they are unrelated to me. Maybe this assumption is what triggered the incivility call -- that something which is only beefing for one's own sake may lead to reading things into the tone.
> .. but I also need to ask you not to post anything that could lead others to feel accused -- which can happen even if names aren't named. >
<<<<< Can we watch for uniform application of this now? That neither the board nor poster habits in general may be discussed in negative or "room for improvement" lights? If not an explanation would be helpful.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on April 27, 2004, at 20:07:46
In reply to Re: Invisibility, posted by spoc on April 27, 2004, at 19:51:27
WELL SAID..I GOT IT AND POSTED CLOSE TO THE SAME NOT AS SMOOTH AND SMART AS YOU
> I also wanted to make sure people know that not as much attention to all posters was being suggested as some may have gathered. And much of the point is “posting around” people -– not posting, leaving, and forgetting; but staying on a thread and going around them during it. And if it’s someone you haven’t ‘spoken’ to yet, and they are popping up (maybe in several places), and perhaps at times trying to talk to you in particular (they may not even know the ins and outs of that), it’s just nice to try to be aware of it. And I’d think people would want to be, so it didn’t seem like a bad idea to point it out.
>
> I could see where going beyond that could feel at times like "mercy posting" that some may not always be up to (and I do not mean that sarcastically). And it's of course discretionary (but, it *is* the way to get to know different people; and as much as we may feel we've already found them all, realistically we know there are other great ones for us out there). Either way, it would be courteous to always watch out for the "go-around" mentioned above.
>
> It wasn't implied that people have a duty to remember every place all over the entire board they have posted, so they can check back; nor that they should respond to every single person who ever posts to them, especially if they know each other. And infrequent posters should of course never be expected to change and post more or to more people. No one meant it that way. I don’t have expectations on that level here or in real life, and it’s feeling rather foreign at this point, and wasn't supposed to be all about me in particular at all.
>
> It was supposed to be only about a simple principle of human nature and a suggestion that as part of the largely poster-perpetuated “value added” community here, people may want to be cognizant of this kind of thing. It would be too bad if everything gets attributed exclusively to things like over-sensitivity, overreaction, or attachment to one's own posts. Those as well as everything else mentioned so far are true at times, but there are other aspects, and it could have just been enlightening and useful to look at. But it may be too complicated for many reasons, from people not being able to see it if it is there, to those in agreement being hesitant that discussing it could exacerbate things.
>
> I have more thoughts on it all, but am not sure how much more I should or will post to this. The subject may fall flat and just upset or irritate, maybe including Dr. Bob. And it's uncomfortable to proceed under that, especially if it just isn’t going to be seen as a possibly constructive thing. But either way, just wanted to clarify that the issue wasn’t expectations of the kind of exceptional attentiveness mentioned above, in case that is what continues to be addressed.
>
> Thanks everyone for posting your comments and interpretations.
>
>
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 27, 2004, at 20:29:14
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Fallen4MyT on April 27, 2004, at 19:55:34
> wouldn't saying to me, spoc, underethics and some other posters what we see and feel is not the case or real also uncivil and kind of gaslighting???..
Your feelings are your feelings, it's hard for others to argue with how you feel. Which is one of the advantages of I-statements. Disagreeing with what you see, however, I'd consider to be having a different point of view, which in general I think would be fine.
Sorry, I know it gets complicated here sometimes, knowing what's OK to say how...
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 27, 2004, at 20:30:35
In reply to Re: Invisibility, posted by spoc on April 27, 2004, at 19:51:27
> much of the point is “posting around” people -– not posting, leaving, and forgetting; but staying on a thread and going around them during it.
Keeping in mind that the idea here is not to post anything that could lead others to feel accused, could you please rephrase that?
If you have any questions or comments about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
or redirect a follow-up to Psycho-Babble Administration.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by spoc on April 27, 2004, at 20:34:07
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Fallen4MyT on April 27, 2004, at 19:55:34
<<<< First, remember that things were going smoothly and no one was upset until calls were made that make it seem like people should be upset.
> Maybe they are,,,and maybe it is them and then maybe it isn't. So wouldn't saying to me, spoc, underethics and some other posters what we see and feel is not the case or real also uncivil and kind of gaslighting???..
<<<< And again acknowledging human nature that exists everywhere, we know the people reading all this and agreeing with it would mostly be afraid to get involved if they are uncomfortable already. And that is not an insult to anyone, we shouldn't have to deny natural (and general) laws here.
> I feel ATTACKED when I am told "this is not so" to me on something I and others *see AND FEEL* and post about. I do not see civil flags in those cases. Those posts DO lead me to feel put down. ..The subject does seem taboo as no matter how one replies on THIS end it gets tagged >
<<<<< This kind of subject is easy to take the path of least resistance on, because it *is* uncomfortable to many. Bouts of good-intentioned, unconscious white-washing of any subsequent points could easily lead to a final spin that everyone feels bad for the oversensitive posters who assessed things inaccurately just because their feelings were hurt. Think about it.
The position taken here *is* the minority position, or at least the minority *vocalized* opinion. And by definition those are hard positions to get equal consideration for, but that doesn't mean the points are invalid.
Posted by spoc on April 27, 2004, at 20:55:08
In reply to Re: what we see and feel, posted by Dr. Bob on April 27, 2004, at 20:29:14
> Your feelings are your feelings, it's hard for others to argue with how you feel. Which is one of the advantages of I-statements. Disagreeing with what you see, however, I'd consider to be having a different point of view, which in general I think would be fine. >
<<<<< I think we genuinely want help understanding why if it's flipped the other way, you don't see it as the exact same thing -- different points of view, each saying "I don't see it that way myself, and here's why;" and each indeed arguing from that person's own feelings. Please tell us. The FAQS can't address a nuance like this, why a given disagreement can at times only go in one direction.
Posted by Dinah on April 27, 2004, at 21:02:17
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by spoc on April 27, 2004, at 20:34:07
And I'm sorry if it falls short. But I can't do better than my best. I have some friends here, that's true. But I'm never averse to making more. And most of my friends here now measure their time in months here, not years.
I also did my best on this thread, offering hints and alternate reasons that responses might not be plentiful. People can take them for whatever they are worth and discard the rest. As they can for all my posts, really.
As I said, I do my best, and I'm just not going to feel guilty if that's not good enough.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on April 27, 2004, at 22:02:20
In reply to Re: what we see and feel, posted by Dr. Bob on April 27, 2004, at 20:29:14
Dr Bob as always no disrespect but I named no names and *disagreed the same way others did on the other side of the coin shall we say*..in I STATEMENTS and MY feelings....If say 8 different people posted they feel ignored in here and I agreed ..then someone posted that is not the case to ME that poster is the uncivil one...we ARE feeling ignored and the lack of replies is the proof...and we FEEL that ...Now why would some saying you do not have a valid reason to feel that way be civil but by my saying the same from a different angle its uncivil for me and NOT as it was/is a disagreement? This is odd
> > wouldn't saying to me, spoc, underethics and some other posters what we see and feel is not the case or real also uncivil and kind of gaslighting???..
>
> Your feelings are your feelings, it's hard for others to argue with how you feel. Which is one of the advantages of I-statements. Disagreeing with what you see, however, I'd consider to be having a different point of view, which in general I think would be fine.
>
> Sorry, I know it gets complicated here sometimes, knowing what's OK to say how...
>
> Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on April 27, 2004, at 22:42:32
In reply to Re: Invisibility, posted by spoc on April 27, 2004, at 19:51:27
To all: This certainly is a bit of a slippery slope as we do each have our own perceptions and feelings about our Babble experience. I know that the risk of a PBC can sometimes make it difficult to post on this, and I understand that there are more thoughts and concerns out there than are posted. Just wanted to offer my email address if anyone wants to talk more about it with me off the board.
gardenergirl88 at yahoo dot com
Please note it sometimes takes me a day or two to respond to emails, but I am interested in hearing more thoughts if anyone wants to.
And I think if one of the hopes for this thread was to stimulate thought about individual posting habits, that certainly seems to have been accomplished. :)
Take care,
gg
Posted by spoc on April 27, 2004, at 22:45:46
In reply to Well, I do my best., posted by Dinah on April 27, 2004, at 21:02:17
Dinah, please remember that you weren't upset before. We were all communicating fine until a different light was cast. That's an important aspect for people not to overlook.
I lament that the opportunity to continue discussing it nicely, calmly and usefully concluded prematurely. Last night you even requested that it continue, as you wanted to be open to possibilities, but the moment may be lost and both camps probably need to retire. It hasn't been good for you or anyone to end up feeling this way, and I don't think it had to happen. I am sorry to see that it did. But, whatever the realities of the dynamics here are, people may be so aware now that some good is bound to come of it! : )
---
> And I'm sorry if it falls short. But I can't do better than my best. I have some friends here, that's true. But I'm never averse to making more. And most of my friends here now measure their time in months here, not years.
>
> I also did my best on this thread, offering hints and alternate reasons that responses might not be plentiful. People can take them for whatever they are worth and discard the rest. As they can for all my posts, really.
>
> As I said, I do my best, and I'm just not going to feel guilty if that's not good enough.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on April 27, 2004, at 23:03:59
In reply to Re: Invisibility, posted by gardenergirl on April 27, 2004, at 22:42:32
GG, That was exactly my point in joining this thread and some other threads like it when they came up ..Thanks for the email addy I will save it :) and use it when I have time
GG said
<<And I think if one of the hopes for this thread was to stimulate thought about individual posting habits, that certainly seems to have been accomplished. :)Take care,
gg
>>
Posted by Fallen4MyT on April 27, 2004, at 23:08:33
In reply to Re: Well, I do my best. » Dinah, posted by spoc on April 27, 2004, at 22:45:46
At the risk of sounding like your monkey Spoc I agree again....we were ALL civil IMO and I do not see how those of us who pointed this issue out werent./.I really dont..when I am wrong I admit it but I am not on this one. Some of us see it..some dont..some may now....but the FACT is there have been MANY threads started and NOT by me..I did one way back....on being overlooked so it was to have some merit
> Dinah, please remember that you weren't upset before. We were all communicating fine until a different light was cast. That's an important aspect for people not to overlook.
>
> I lament that the opportunity to continue discussing it nicely, calmly and usefully concluded prematurely. Last night you even requested that it continue, as you wanted to be open to possibilities, but the moment may be lost and both camps probably need to retire. It hasn't been good for you or anyone to end up feeling this way, and I don't think it had to happen. I am sorry to see that it did. But, whatever the realities of the dynamics here are, people may be so aware now that some good is bound to come of it! : )
>
> ---
> > And I'm sorry if it falls short. But I can't do better than my best. I have some friends here, that's true. But I'm never averse to making more. And most of my friends here now measure their time in months here, not years.
> >
> > I also did my best on this thread, offering hints and alternate reasons that responses might not be plentiful. People can take them for whatever they are worth and discard the rest. As they can for all my posts, really.
> >
> > As I said, I do my best, and I'm just not going to feel guilty if that's not good enough.
>
Posted by gardenergirl on April 27, 2004, at 23:14:30
In reply to Re: Invisibility » gardenergirl, posted by Fallen4MyT on April 27, 2004, at 23:03:59
Posted by NikkiT2 on April 28, 2004, at 6:02:00
In reply to Well, I do my best., posted by Dinah on April 27, 2004, at 21:02:17
Another thing for me.. if I post to one person, I feel I should be posting to everyone.. Theres simply not enough words for me, or time, to respond to every singel post.. yet if I reply to one, I get guilt about the other 200... Its a wierd thing *lol* But, I guess, its easier for to reply to none (other than the odd one that leaps out at me) than all..
I admit there are posters I reply to more.. as an example, slinky, as she is pretty local to me geographically, and so I understand alot of her frustrations with the health system here better.. And if someone posts that I've known 4 or 5 years, its obviously easier for me to reply as I understand them better than someone I know nothing about.
Its hard to feel an outsider.. and that is how I feel here these days.. I'm not blaming anyone or anything.. We would all love to be included in everything, and not being included does leave you feeling left out and maybe slightly hurt..
I dunno.. I guess I'm just trying to say that you don't have to be a newbie to feel the way some of you feel!
Nikki x
Posted by Dinah on April 28, 2004, at 8:45:27
In reply to Re: Well, I do my best. » Dinah, posted by spoc on April 27, 2004, at 22:45:46
Nothing I posted last night had anything to do with any of his actions.
Posted by spoc on April 28, 2004, at 10:51:55
In reply to Re: To be utterly fair to Dr. Bob » spoc, posted by Dinah on April 28, 2004, at 8:45:27
> Nothing I posted last night had anything to do with any of his actions.
Goodmorning! And ok, I had thought you sounded frustrated by the end of the evening, and wanted to help leave things on an amiable note by considering different dynamics. The kinds of things you had been saying when we were all still in a reflection mode were, Here are some thoughts -- I often assume (nm)s don't require a response; I try not to get attached to my posts because waiting can cause anxiety; interesting to analyze these things, etc. The quick subsequent change in the tone of the thread wasn't soothing for anyone involved, but came from emotions that never would have been felt or expressed spontaneously. Anyway the bottom line is that I hope to leave the air all clear with us. : )
If at some point (not even necessarily now because my brain is crispy over all this too!) you could help Fallen and me understand some of the 'whys', I think we'd sincerely appreciate it. You're as good at interpreting that stuff as possible! Why the positions of the two camps and right to express them weren't equally valid and the same in their underlying identification of inaccurate perceptions as the cause; and why there have been innumerable passionate historical debates over some general board or poster pattern/trend, with the heated exchanges allowed to flow freely unless and until someone made it personal to another party.
I know life isn't always utterly fair and no one should expect it to be -- most posters asking to have sense made of the discrepancies over time have had to do without, and sometimes this has pained you too. I think it's a good idea to at least try asking first before rolling over. I would like to think that of course the greater good of the board is vital, but that the lot of individuals (in this application, more fragile individuals) counts too. At its root, a PBC is the preliminary notion that you could be the type who is bad for a community. That's painful, so comprehensible justification and help with seeing the uniformity in it is only fair, especially as this is a mental health board concerned with people getting the right messages from their environments to the extent possible.
Consistency, benefit of the doubt, the whole "Better that a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man is convicted" thing. Even if the innocent man's circumstance hasn't endeared him. As a matter of fact, if we can't get help with seeing where the consistency is, our chances for not repeating the offense are greatly decreased, and we won't know when it's ok for us to join in future discussions in which the same kinds of things are going on but no one is being reprimanded or thought to be upsetting by anyone involved.
Ok, enough philosophizing! Boy do I wish I could be "in person" sometimes; the "in writing" thing sure does have its limits! ;- )
Posted by spoc on April 28, 2004, at 11:11:12
In reply to Guilt, posted by NikkiT2 on April 28, 2004, at 6:02:00
Hi Nikki! I appreciate the balance you give by expressing that you know what it's like to be in all positions that have been discussed. But just in case you feel bad about anything, going by your post title, I wanted to say again that shy and/or infrequent posting isn't a bad thing for anyone or something that the person should have to struggle to change! I have seen your posts going back a long time and time enjoyed them, and without even thinking about it have realized that you just pop in and out and may prefer a low profile sometimes. And none of this is my call to begin with, I do know that, I had only meant to participate in a discussion of a facet of group dynamics that may simply have been of interest and use. That really is all, but boy, that "in writing" thing!
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts! :- )
Posted by spoc on April 28, 2004, at 11:33:38
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » spoc, posted by Dr. Bob on April 27, 2004, at 20:30:35
> > much of the point is “posting around” people -– not posting, leaving, and forgetting; but staying on a thread and going around them during it. >
> Keeping in mind that the idea here is not to post anything that could lead others to feel accused, could you please rephrase that? >
Ok, I know my sentiments on the calls are already lodged, so I'll skip right to trying to perform the above. It really isn't easy, because it may be more the principle than the words that is being referred to, but I'll try:
"What I meant was the times that it has appeared to me that posting goes on above and below a person who is attempting to participate, while a thread is in progress. Please know that I didn't mean to say that I think people should remember to come back to every thread they've been on and may be done with, just to check."
----
Also, please note that I do believe now that the whole original matter should just be retired as a friendly "agree to disagree" situation. As it should be, bountiful viewpoints and possibilities have been provided by all camps, and have been appreciated. I really don't want or need to continue with it at all, or if anyone else does it looks like it may be better done in another format. At this point or at some point, if possible, I just wanted some help understanding application of the rules.
Posted by TexasChic on April 28, 2004, at 12:42:28
In reply to Re: Invisibility, posted by spoc on April 27, 2004, at 19:51:27
Um, I don't really want to get into this whole thing, but I thought as one of the newer people I might share my feelings. I came to this site knowing it was an internet forum and that there would be already established relationships here. I felt that rather than it being the responsibility of the people already here, it was up to me to try to get to know people. And that has worked out fine for me.
I don't feel anyone should feel *obligated* to respond to me at anytime. There are posts I don't respond to because I'm either uncomfortable or unknowlegable about the subject matter. But I don't feel bad about that because I know others who are more knowledgable will respond. If I started a thread that got no responses, I would think that maybe I need to reword it or just try again in order to make people want to respond.
I think its really nice when people welcome a newcomer, but I don't think anyone should feel bad because for whatever reason they missed welcoming someone. I just don't feel we could have the *genuine* support I see around here if people felt these things were *required* of them somehow.
Anyway, that's my two cents, and I didn't read all the posts in this thread because its so long, so if I'm way off track, please forgive me.
Posted by spoc on April 28, 2004, at 15:03:01
In reply to Re: Invisibility, posted by TexasChic on April 28, 2004, at 12:42:28
> Um, I don't really want to get into this whole thing,
---<<<<< I won't and don't consider you to be, honestly, even if I respond to the general and good points. This role is difficult when a discussion has certain aspects to it; in the study of logic and/or debating I think there is even a name for it; when a position sounds so blanketly correct that it's uncomfortable and may feel foolish to even try to oppose, similar to deciding to go up against political correctness. But, underlying the thing are valid points from another school, that may be in the minority but are still valid.
Then, pursuing those points and how to do so goes back to the heart of whether it's ok to say someone's perceptions are incorrect or possibly show only unreasonable desires/expectations. So regarding this topic and thread in general, it may be better to say Your point may be valid, but it would be the exception, not the rule. Rather than saying it is wrong or nonexistent. I do say that in a general sense, not to you.
---> I came to this site knowing it was an internet forum and that there would be already established relationships here. I felt that rather than it being the responsibility of the people already here, it was up to me to try to get to know people. And that has worked out fine for me. >
---<<<<< This topic was raised and anticipated to be welcome for reasons such as how it relates to the very purpose of the Newbie board kind of thing, and the same reasons that that was discussed. Some people are naturals and would have no need for clarifications, tips, training wheels with which to get it. We thought this feedback and angle would be helpful, possibly welcome, that's all, I really really really mean that. Because a lot of people care a lot about all that stuff and say they want to know. Sorry to all if the intentions didn't come across right.
Along those lines, it was meant to be just a "Hey, would be great if people could keep this in mind, just thought they may not have thought of it and find it interesting or worthwhile" kind of thing. It could be easy to spot when someone is indeed trying to participate, but probably also easy not to see, so just one thing to point out, merely point out, in case anyone would want to know, just in case. But yes, discretionary of course.
---> I don't feel anyone should feel *obligated* to respond to me at anytime. >
---<<<<< I do agree. Just pointing something out, for those who'd want to know, because they are out there, and would *like* to keep it in mind. Not necessarily because they were wrong before, but because this is just the way they like to do things.
---> There are posts I don't respond to ...but I don't feel bad about that because I know others who are more knowledgable will respond.
---<<<<< Not necessarily true, but so be it, yes. Also, it's kinda different in a request for concrete information, because often not much was put out there, and clearly not everyone or even anyone *will* know the answer. I referred more to attempts to connect and also share relief over what is being talked about in a thread. To use a random scenario for illustration, like if people are sharing healthy laughter over how their depression or issues affect their habits. Maybe they are seeing the "light side" of something like how it can lead them sometimes not to bathe or brush their teeth. And even though it's embarrassing and maybe you don't 'know them,' you jump in and say "Hi you guys! I do that too, here's another funny way to look at it..." and at some point maybe also say "Hey so-and-so (>>), I particularly related to how you just expressed it, and here's why...." And all around you, the >>'s to each other but not you continue. I agree, it's no one's responsibility, but in cases like that, I honestly believe many people would want to have had this heads-up given, rather than take a "You're on your own" position. And that it's plenty likely they weren't aware of it, but there's no way they ever will be, if someone doesn't risk putting it out there.
--> If I started a thread that got no responses, I would think that maybe I need to reword it or just try again in order to make people want to respond.>
---<<<<< Just FYI, my own focus here wasn't so much about actual starting of threads. I admitted my own tendencies regarding this, which are to spend too much time online/onboard and then panic and either not scroll down the whole current boards at all, or do so at 60 MPH, unconsciously seeing only clusters of activity. I even missed a thread Karen Kay started with my name on it last night, during these debates!
---> I think its really nice when people welcome a newcomer, but I don't think anyone should feel bad because for whatever reason they missed welcoming someone. I just don't feel we could have the *genuine* support I see around here if people felt these things were *required* of them somehow. >
---<<<<< Solid reasoning, I again do agree. I/we were just using possibly injudicious words to convey a "fun fact" about things that may occur, for and only for those who'd like, and even enjoy, keeping them in mind. It's great and ideal when things come to and evolve naturally for people like they did you; thank God more people don't have trouble with it! But just giving a perspective from when it doesn't. It was conceded going back to the beginning of this that everything is discretionary and everyone is on their own, wouldn't dream of seeking mandates. Just saying, to those interested in hearing about and weighing various possible challenges, there it is.
Thanks for posting, I've enjoyed 'talking' with you in the past, and wouldn't expect you to respond -- I did so myself here only for the usefulness of using the general points as platforms. I respect that you don't want to be involved, don't think you are, and I envy that at this point actually! ;- )
Posted by TexasChic on April 28, 2004, at 15:55:16
In reply to Re: Invisibility » TexasChic, posted by spoc on April 28, 2004, at 15:03:01
Just so you know, I wasn't responding directly to you or anything (not that you said anything to reflect that, I just realized it could have looked that way after I made the post). I was just throwing in my thoughts and experiences concerning the general discussion.
I've enjoyed 'talking' to you too! :-)
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 28, 2004, at 19:16:14
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » Dr. Bob, posted by spoc on April 28, 2004, at 11:33:38
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 28, 2004, at 21:59:27
In reply to Re: what we see and feel » Dr. Bob, posted by Fallen4MyT on April 27, 2004, at 22:02:20
> [A] If say 8 different people posted they feel ignored in here and I agreed ..then someone posted that is not the case to ME that poster is the uncivil one...we ARE feeling ignored
Right...
> Now why would ... my saying the same from a different angle its uncivil for me and NOT as it was/is a disagreement? This is odd
I assume this is an example of what you're referring to as the same from a different angle:
> [B] I could name about 7 people's screen names ... who never miss a reply to one another's posts ... yet they miss or ignore a post STARTED by another poster
I think I see what you mean, A is about people feeling ignored by others, and B is about people doing the ignoring.
But the "different angle" makes it a civility issue. A is an I-statement, "I feel ignored", and is about your feelings. B is a they-statement, "they ignore others", and is about the behavior of other people -- and so could lead other people to feel accused of that behavior.
Does that make any sense?
Bob
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | 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.