![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 21 to 45 of 55. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on June 11, 2005, at 18:26:02
In reply to Re: so's request for Robert Hsiung -- hypcrt.pthtc » so, posted by alexandra_k on June 11, 2005, at 18:24:55
By the way...
My post was a joke.
Trying to be funny - sorry.
Posted by Phillipa on June 11, 2005, at 18:50:55
In reply to Re: so's request for Robert Hsiung -- hypcrt.pthtc, posted by alexandra_k on June 11, 2005, at 18:26:02
Here we go again. How about a Board for a few chosen people? Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Phillipa on June 11, 2005, at 18:51:56
In reply to Re: so's request for Robert Hsiung -- hypcrt.pthtc, posted by alexandra_k on June 11, 2005, at 18:26:02
And no I won't clarify what I meant. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 11, 2005, at 18:59:57
In reply to this is a fun thread (nm), posted by crushedout on June 11, 2005, at 0:47:02
Okay, I had to laugh at that..
Posted by so on June 11, 2005, at 19:20:09
In reply to Re: so's request for Robert Hsiung -- hypcrt.pthtc, posted by Phillipa on June 11, 2005, at 18:50:55
> Here we go again. How about a Board for a few chosen people? Fondly, Phillipa
The matter of separate boards for a few chosen people, as proposed by the administrator, is being discussed in a separate thread on this admin board.
In recognition of your subsequent statement that you will not further disclose what you meant by "here we go again" I will decline at this time to disclose how I felt when I read the statement, even though a person's feelings might generally warrant certain protections under the published guidelines of this forum and my disclosure might tend to inform application of those guidelines.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 11, 2005, at 20:09:53
In reply to Re: so's request for Robert Hsiung -- hypcrt.pthtc, posted by so on June 11, 2005, at 19:20:09
> The matter of separate boards for a few chosen people, as proposed by the administrator, is being discussed in a separate thread on this admin board.
Did he propose this?
I don't recall that?
Where?
I don't recall him saying he was going to choose people...
Posted by so on June 11, 2005, at 21:00:11
In reply to Re: so's request for Robert Hsiung -- hypcrt.pthtc » so, posted by alexandra_k on June 11, 2005, at 20:09:53
> Did he propose this?
Yes.
> I don't recall that?
> Where?http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050517/msgs/503043.html
> I don't recall him saying he was going to choose people...
Nor do I, nor am I asserting he would make the choice. But someone would have to make the choice, even if the choice were first come first served. I was responding to a suggestion that some chosen few be permitted access to a board, without saying anything about any proposed method of selection of who gets to participate in which board.
Posted by jay on June 11, 2005, at 22:34:21
In reply to Seems you already have (nm) » so, posted by gardenergirl on June 11, 2005, at 17:28:00
Posted by so on June 11, 2005, at 23:04:03
In reply to Re: Seems you already have..I agree (nm) » gardenergirl, posted by jay on June 11, 2005, at 22:34:21
Have you read my post subsequent to GG's post in which I explicitly explained how I am not refering to any specific government policies using the terms in question, but instead am asking if it would be permissible to post such statements similar to those that were posted on the Political board?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/511143.htmlIf not, could you please read that post, and consider this supplementary explanation:
I could as well ask is it permissible for me to call the drug war "hypocritical", "pathetic" and "a joke" in the same way that others have been permited to call the drug war "hypocritical", "pathetic" and "a joke", but so far I have exposed no feelings or opinions that I hold about the drug war one way or the other.
Having read the post subsequent to GG's and now this supplementary explanation, do you still hold that I "already have" made such statements? If so, how do you reach that conclusion contrary to my explicit explanation that I am not making such a statement?I am not sure it is permissible for me to say, as others have been permitted to say, that "I am offended" or that "I am very much offended". If I understood the extent to which I might be permitted to make such statements, I might be willing to further expose my feelings regarding a statement that attributes meaning to my writing which I have denied and which is contrary to the meaning I have carefully explained.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 11, 2005, at 23:46:16
In reply to Re: Seems you already have..I agree » jay, posted by so on June 11, 2005, at 23:04:03
"I am very much offended".
You are certainly permitted to say that. What is is "iffy" (depending on Dr. Bob's stickiness) is saying "Ï find that offensive" (pardon the umlaut, I can't figure out which keys I accidentally hit to make them appear ) because of course, saying "it is offensive", even with "I find" preceding it, is technically a judgement of the persons statement, not an expression of your own reaction. And, for what it's worth, I thought you were using those statements soley for the sake of comparison, I've asked similar questions of Dr. Bob, without controversy.
Posted by crushedout on June 12, 2005, at 0:11:05
In reply to Re: this is a fun thread » crushedout, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 11, 2005, at 18:59:57
Posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 1:10:00
In reply to I agree » so, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 11, 2005, at 23:46:16
> "I am very much offended".
>
> You are certainly permitted to say that. What is is "iffy" (depending on Dr. Bob's stickiness) is saying "Ï find that offensive" (pardon the umlaut, I can't figure out which keys I accidentally hit to make them appear ) because of course, saying "it is offensive", even with "I find" preceding it, is technically a judgement of the persons statement, not an expression of your own reaction.
Thanks for the reality check, Gabbi. Though I more often am the one defining reality than querrying, in this context it can be helpful.Technically, and according to some of what I've been directed to read here about "I statements", "I am offended" is a statement of fact declaring that a particular act caused a feeling, moreso than an opinion or a declaration that one "feels" offended perhaps as a result of their own propensities. In popular usage, "I find that offensive" in reference to something directed at the speaker is usually equivilant to "I am offended." Use of the verb "offend" in the transitive sense doesn't convey any more information about what standard has been offended or what caused a feeling of resentment than does use of the adjective "offensive".
In law, the state might claim "I am offended" but a judge can declare "no you're not" because the judge abritrates compliance with a more or less objective standard. I suppose a person can hold any standard they want and if that personal standard is violated, they would be in fact be offended. But in that case, a statement that they were offended (caused to feel vexation or resentment) would be the same as saying the statement was offensive (causing displeasure or resentment).
"I feel offended" technically specifies a subjective feeling as compared to a statement of fact about what caused a feeling of vexation, displeasure or resentment.
I'm not sure either what keyboard macro makes a diæresis but Ï know how to make them in decimal. Now, to find out what they mean ...
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 12, 2005, at 9:01:19
In reply to Re: I agree » Gabbi-x-2, posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 1:10:00
In popular usage, "I find that offensive" in reference to something directed at the speaker is usually equivilant to "I am offended."
Yes, I made that exact point to Alex who corrected me when I the former. I find the two are interpreted the same way by most, unless someone wants to find a reason to well, be offended! Unfortunately sometimes that's the way it seems to be.
And you are very welcome.
Posted by jay on June 12, 2005, at 12:00:11
In reply to Re: Seems you already have..I agree » jay, posted by so on June 11, 2005, at 23:04:03
Sorry, but my view still stands.
Jay
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 12, 2005, at 13:37:55
In reply to Re: Seems you already have..I agree » so, posted by jay on June 12, 2005, at 12:00:11
> Sorry, but my view still stands.
>
> JayYou can read minds--amazing.
Posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 14:22:32
In reply to Re: Seems you already have..I agree » so, posted by jay on June 12, 2005, at 12:00:11
> Sorry, but my view still stands.
>
> JayWould you like to expand on why you are sorry?
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 13, 2005, at 23:37:45
In reply to let's keep it administrative :-) no laughing! (nm) » Gabbi-x-2, posted by crushedout on June 12, 2005, at 0:11:05
> let's keep it administrative
Thanks for posting that. I'd like to redirect follow-ups regarding other topics. Here's a link:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050610/msgs/512370.html
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2005, at 1:03:27
In reply to so's request for Robert Hsiung -- hypcrt.pthtc, posted by so on June 11, 2005, at 15:39:38
> You replied by asking me if those statements encouraged me to feel put down.
Well, not exactly, I asked if you felt put down:
> > > > > Do you feel put down upon reading [such posts]?
And you replied with a dependent clause:
> Not because I agree with one side or other, but because as a citizen, my laws are being put down and I feel I am being associated with something called "pathetic", "hypocrisy" and "a joke" if I don't aggressively oppose those particular laws.
> I am now requesting that you clarify what other public policies I may call "hypocritical" and "pathetic" in the context of writing to this forum.
Just don't post anything that could lead others here to feel accused or put down. Sorry, it does depend to some extent on your audience.
Bob
Posted by so on June 14, 2005, at 22:00:56
In reply to Re: so's request, posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2005, at 1:03:27
> > You replied by asking me if those statements encouraged me to feel put down.
>
> Well, not exactly, I asked if you felt put down:
>
> > > > > > Do you feel put down upon reading [such posts]?
>
> And you replied with a dependent clause:I probably replied with a sentence fragment because I felt that if I post a direct statement, even in response to your question, you might reply that I am accusing someone of something.
Do you understand how I might not trust that my expression of my feeling might not be treated the same in the context of this forum as might somebody else's identical expression of the same feeling?
Posted by so on June 14, 2005, at 22:14:16
In reply to Re: so's request » Dr. Bob, posted by so on June 14, 2005, at 22:00:56
Just in the event my indirect answer was not clear,
> > > > > > > Do you feel put down upon reading [such posts]?
Yes.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 15, 2005, at 0:23:57
In reply to Re: so's request » Dr. Bob, posted by so on June 14, 2005, at 22:00:56
> I probably replied with a sentence fragment because I felt that if I post a direct statement, even in response to your question, you might reply that I am accusing someone of something.
>
> Do you understand how I might not trust that my expression of my feeling might not be treated the same in the context of this forum as might somebody else's identical expression of the same feeling?I understand you might not trust me to treat you fairly. A lot of this has to do with I-statements. Thanks for the direct response.
Bob
Posted by so on June 15, 2005, at 0:37:31
In reply to Re: so's request, posted by Dr. Bob on June 15, 2005, at 0:23:57
> > Do you understand how I might not trust that my expression of my feeling might not be treated the same in the context of this forum as might somebody else's identical expression of the same feeling?
>
> I understand you might not trust me to treat you fairly. A lot of this has to do with I-statements. Thanks for the direct response.
>
> BobNot to be gratuitous with your attention, and I would understand if you don't entirely trust me, either, but ...
I was thinking, the call for "I statements" and the encouragement for expressions of personal feelings is probably an artifact of your preferences -- which others of course share with you -- but not necessarily the only or the proven best way for humans to relate. Indirect statements, minimizing feelings and general avoidance of attention to the first person can also be very useful approaches to maintaining mental health and social accord.
Posted by gardenergirl on June 15, 2005, at 1:41:50
In reply to Lou's response to gardenergirl-yualrdyhv » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on June 11, 2005, at 17:58:04
>"You already have {what}?"
...posted those statements.
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on June 15, 2005, at 1:46:32
In reply to so's reply to gardenergirl -- yualrdyhv » gardenergirl, posted by so on June 11, 2005, at 18:08:38
> Are you saying it seems the questions I am requesting clarification about are in fact statements of my beliefs?
I'm saying that by framing the statements as a question of whether you are allowed to post it or not does in fact put the statement in your post. The words are there. Seems to me that by asking can I say ____, you just did say ____.
>I am attempting to learn if that permission is based on the context of their statement, on an administrative presumption of the accuracy of their statement, or on permissions granted to some group members but not to others.
How 'bout you ask that question instead of posing hypotheticals? Seems to me you would get a generalizable answer versus one that applied just to the statements in question.
gg
Posted by so on June 15, 2005, at 8:21:01
In reply to Posting hypotheticals » so, posted by gardenergirl on June 15, 2005, at 1:46:32
> > Are you saying it seems the questions I am requesting clarification about are in fact statements of my beliefs?
>
> I'm saying that by framing the statements as a question of whether you are allowed to post it or not does in fact put the statement in your post. The words are there. Seems to me that by asking can I say ____, you just did say ____.
Neurolinguistics attends to the value of embedded language, but gramatics clearly distiguishes between a declaration and an inquiry.
> >I am attempting to learn if that permission is based on the context of their statement, on an administrative presumption of the accuracy of their statement, or on permissions granted to some group members but not to others.
>
> How 'bout you ask that question instead of posing hypotheticals?What do you mean by "how 'bout"? I'm mostly familiar with the phrase as a colloquial demand.
>
> Seems to me you would get a generalizable answer versus one that applied just to the statements in question.
Science has gained much from empirical inquiry. It took some time, but I learned something about about what I wanted to know.
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.