![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 9 of 9. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by cheesesteak on August 18, 2006, at 16:22:54
It occurs to me that the civility debate will continue ad nauseum until something is significantly changed. My take is that Bob, et al refuse to admit that something is wrong, something isn't working. Instead, they appear to dig their heels in and up the ante, with no apparent benefit to this forum or its participants. I find it very unfortunate when people cannot or will not consider ideas other than their own. Like the "drug war" or the "war on terror", pouring more effort into the current mindset does not help. Perhaps a willingness to experiment with other approaches is in order. Try something different. Remember that popular definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Posted by SLS on August 18, 2006, at 19:50:08
In reply to Digging one's heels in, posted by cheesesteak on August 18, 2006, at 16:22:54
> My take is that Bob, et al refuse to admit that something is wrong, something isn't working.
What do you see as being wrong? What isn't working?
Just thought I'd ask.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 18, 2006, at 20:27:38
In reply to Digging one's heels in, posted by cheesesteak on August 18, 2006, at 16:22:54
Friends,
It is written here,[...untill something is..changed...Dr. Bob, et al refuses to admit that something is wrong...no apparent benifit to this forum or its participants. I find it.. unfortunate when people.. will not consider ideas other than their own...pouring more efffort into the current mind-set does not help...a willingness to experiment with other approaches is in order.Try something different...].
I think that the post is saying the following and if I am wrong, anyone can correct me.
I think that the poster's position is that the 3 consecutive post rule is
A. is needing to be changed
B. has no benifit to the forum or the members
C. that it is unfortunate that people will not consider other ideas
D. that the admin is pouring effort into maintaining something that does not help, like the war on drugs
E that the administration is unwilling to experiment with other options, perhaps what I have suggested
Now if someone is connecting these statement to think otherwise, I would appreciate their response to what they think that the the poster means.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 18, 2006, at 20:52:34
In reply to Lou's response to cheesesteak's post, posted by Lou Pilder on August 18, 2006, at 20:27:38
Friends,
I think that the poster brought up some good observations. I would like to add some others
A.There have been many instances where people have used more than 3 consecutive posts and they have not been sanctioned since the conception of the rule. There are some from a few months ago and back and even one, I think,last week. I can email with you to show you these.
Although Dr. Hsiung has not sanctioned them, the rule could now become discriminatory or caprecious by applying the rule unequally if someone is now sanctioned, because of the allowing of the previous posters to go unsanctioned.
B. Then there is the fact that accidents can happen, and interpretations could be different and there are still cases that could be needing to be defined.
Lou
Posted by cheesesteak on August 18, 2006, at 21:03:21
In reply to Lou's response to cheesesteak's post, posted by Lou Pilder on August 18, 2006, at 20:27:38
Actually, I'm referring to the civility interference in the form of PBCs and blocks.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 18, 2006, at 21:09:54
In reply to Re: Lou's response to cheesesteak's post » Lou Pilder, posted by cheesesteak on August 18, 2006, at 21:03:21
CS,
You wrote,[...the civility interference in the form of PBCs and blocks...].
Do you mean any of the following?
A. The PBCs and blocks interfer with civility
B. PBCs and blocks facillitate civility
C. something else?
Lou
Posted by SLS on August 18, 2006, at 21:32:20
In reply to Re: Lou's response to cheesesteak's post » Lou Pilder, posted by cheesesteak on August 18, 2006, at 21:03:21
> Actually, I'm referring to the civility interference in the form of PBCs and blocks.
I imagine you feel that there is a restraint upon free and creative communication. Too constricted?
Been there, done that...
It must be an acquired taste.
- Scott
Posted by cheesesteak on August 18, 2006, at 22:41:28
In reply to Lou's reply to cheesesteah » cheesesteak, posted by Lou Pilder on August 18, 2006, at 21:09:54
I feel that the PBC/blocks, etc. interfere with communication and that the civility rules are far from universally agreed upon.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2006, at 7:15:33
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to cheesesteah, posted by cheesesteak on August 18, 2006, at 22:41:28
cheesesteak,
You wrote,[...PBCs and blocks interfere with communication...far from universally agreed on...]
There are many ways that rules can and do interfere with communication. Could any of the following, in your opinion, be in what you percieve is interfereing ith communication?
A The rules are not well-defined
B.The rules are not applied equally
C.The rules are self-made to harass some individuals
D. The rules are self-made to create an atmosphere of intimidation
E.The rules have made the posting of quotes that could have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings to stand, without sanctioning with a PBC or block
F.The rules allow Jews to be attacked by allowing a clique of christiandom posters to post anti-Jewish quotes from their bibles and statements that defame Jews, such as statements like,[...No non-Christian can enter heaven...and Jews are filthy, full of abominations..killed Christ....crucify him..his blood be upon us and our children...the top ten worst reasons for a religion is if they have their agenda not centered in Christ...Jewish b*tch...etc..]
E. The rules allow an indoctrination of the leader's thinking, rather than a place where critical thinking and a balanced examination of ideas is promoted.
F.a combination of the above
G. none of the above
H. All of the above
K. something else
Lou
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.