Posted by Dr. Bob on July 5, 2002, at 22:47:22
In reply to Redirected: Sandra's blocking, posted by Dr. Bob on July 5, 2002, at 0:43:11
> > > Also, she may have felt pressured with the continued "push" of the "city of gates". It gets very frustrating to swim through the thick mystery Lou has written about.
> >
> > No one has to to swim though anyone else's posts here.
>
> Well, no one has to post at all here, frankly... But it's a good site and good people do. And often we'll try to get through threads because there's something of value in there for us - it just may be hard to find.People may of course *choose* to swim through posts. But then that's their decision...
> perhaps Sandra did feel ... as if he were proselytizing. But now she can't defend her stance.
She can email me. And she may have felt as if he were proselytizing, but we had already discussed (and I had already decided) that.
> If we have to check and recheck the wording so carefully, how can a conversation go on at all?
I know rechecking can inhibit a conversation. But so can incivility.
> From my experience, changing subject lines is something that is difficult to remember and, as a new poster, something Sandra may not be aware of. Would another pbc for a newcomer have helped?
Maybe. There's always that possibility. But the current policy is one. Since it doesn't take much to get something started. Like in a really dry forest...
> Again, I worry that she'll get frustrated and not come back.
>
> - kkMe, too. I hope she does come back.
----
> What you're doing is censoring SandraDee, not for what she's saying, but for not changing the subject line instead.
I'm "censoring" her for what she said because she didn't change the subject line.
> And what "two wrongs" are you referring to?
Sorry, that wasn't very clear. What I was referring to was:
> > Beardy wasn't reprimanded by Dr. Bob, so I assumed her post was considered okay. But now SandraDee just clicked on Beardy's post & never bothered changing the subject line & she was blocked.
And what I meant was, even if Beardy "got away" with posting something, that wouldn't have made it right for SandraDee to post it, too.
> Can't you see that Sandra hasn't been putting Lou down? She hasn't been unsupportive but has been trying her best to clarify just what Lou's trying to say... She was feeling frustrated with asking, she wasn't attacking Lou or putting him down. Can't you see that?
Did I say she attacked him or put him down? I had already told her that I didn't think it was supportive to tell someone she didn't want to hear what they had to say:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020527/msgs/302.html
IMO, frustration doesn't justify being unsupportive.
> I normally try to stay out of these sort of discussions because nothing productive happens but I find it really incredible that you've come down on Sandra for this... Honestly, it's like a parent jumping in to "fix" any small dispute that their children may have that their kids would've straightened out by themselves without the parents getting all excited.
I wasn't so sure this particular fire would go out by itself...
> have you ever admitted that you've made an mistake here? ... Personally, I have issues with people who can't say they're wrong from time to time & not feel ashamed or afraid to admit it. It doesn't belittle them but increases their stature in my eyes.
>
> IsoMI've decreased how long someone's been blocked, but I may never have just cancelled a block. But I dislike blocking people, so I don't unless I'm pretty convinced that I should. Now that doesn't mean that I'm necessarily "right". You may think I'm wrong. I may *be* wrong. I know I'm not perfect, etc....
I do appreciate your input, and I'm willing to discuss why I do what I do and to reconsider it, so feel free to try to point out something I'm not taking into account. Just remember that I'm already going to have given it some thought myself.
----
> I have asked Dr. B.... if including phrases such as "in my opinion" could 'allow', well, almost anything to be said and he never responded...
>
> - kkSorry if I missed that. No, phrases like that do not allow almost anything to be said. Because I don't want almost anything to be said.
----
> All she did was ask to know his feelings without 1000 word essay on his experience.
>
> NikkiDidn't we just have a long discussion here about how important it was for people to be able to express themselves the way they wanted?
----
> It is against Bob's policy to reconsider blocks,
> which is exactly why the policy doesn't work. For us. It works FOR BOB, and I guess you go along with his policies to the extent you believe that a site should work for the Admin--and the feedback of its members doesn't matter. And it is Bob's feeling that to allow the appeal blocks would be "opening a can of worms."
>
> What some of us are asking of Bob means genuine inconvenience for him.
>
> ZoSee above regarding what is or isn't my policy. I do think there are lots of cans of worms, but did I say that about appealing blocks? The site needs to work for us both. If I just wanted it to be convenient for me, I would just let everything go.
----
> Smarminess wins in the end, it seems.
>
> IsoMI hope you don't go, but if you stay, please be civil, thanks.
----
> Fuck you, Lou...
>
> krazy katSorry, but I've asked you before to be civil, so I'm going to block you for a week. But I hope you don't stay away.
Bob
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:5947
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6027.html