![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 18 to 42 of 104. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2003, at 11:43:26
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dinah's post (2) » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on February 21, 2003, at 11:34:53
Dinah,
You wrote, [...you know my postion on racism...] . It is my undestanding that you are against racism in any form.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2003, at 12:30:29
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dinah's post, posted by Dinah on February 21, 2003, at 10:21:39
Dinah,
You wrote,[...I have a problem with people trying to shut this place down because they don't like it here...]
It is my understanding that there could be people that [don't like it here] for [various] reasons, one being their disagreement with the operation of the site in reference to decisions made by Dr. Bob in refeerence to [discipline], and another reason could be that some could feel that the site {fosters} anti-Semitism. I base this obsevation on several recent posts here that speak to some's questioning the way that some posts that use ant-Semitic language have been handled by Dr. Bob.
Now their are some people that believe and feel that sites that foster racism, [should] be shut down. I have communicated with the Islamic Society in Washington DC about sites that advocate genocide to Islamic people. They told me that they have been successsfull in shutting down those type of sites. Now there are some people that would want those type of sites shut down and some that would just do nothing, or some that would write a letter and some that would do other things.
I was successfulll at getting a web site to change their policy about racism. They wrote me and said that they agreed with me and would not allow anti-Semitic language to be posted on their site and said to me, "We agree with you, Mr. Pilder, for we do not want our site to become {a haven for anti-Semites."}. I was not trying to shut that site down, but to give them due-process to change their moderation of their site.
In the post that you wrote,[...I have a problem with people trying to shut this place down because they don't like it here...],could you clarify if you are saying that you have a problem with those that want to shut down this site who are of the class of posters [that feel that this site fosters ant-Semitism], or if you have a problem with those posters that do not like [decisions on discipline] or you have a problem with both? If you could , then I could have a better understanding of what you wrote and be better able to reply to your post.
Lou
Posted by shar on February 21, 2003, at 13:06:26
In reply to Lou's response to Arthur Gibson's post » ArthurGibson, posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2003, at 9:46:00
> A. A poster that breaches the expectations here could be subject to a limiting of their posts for a period of time instead of being expelled.
>For instance, if someone breaches the rules, they will be permitted only to post 2 posts per day for the next 5 days.
..........10 potentially offensive, racist, sexist, rude, crude, etc. posts
>If they are in breach of the rules again, then they will be allowed only one post per day for the next 5 days.
.........5 potentially offensive etc. posts
>And if they breach the rules again, they will be allowed only one post per day for 2 weeks.
........14 potentially offensive etc. posts
>And if they breach the rules again, they would only be allowed one post per day for 4 weeks...
.........28 potentially offensive etc. posts
.........And what if they breach the rules again? And again after that? And again after that? And again after that? And again after that?
.........Since people already do get a warning before being blocked (which I liken to a "time out"), and they ignore the warning and breach the rules in order to get blocked, why should they be rewarded for that behavior with more opportunities to post?
> B. A poster that breaches the rules will be fined $0.25 (U.S.). They must pay by credit card to be allowed to post. The next time they are in breach, they are fined $0.75. The next time, $1.00 the next time, $1.25...Along with the fine, they are restricted to make only 3 posts per day for 3 days following a fine.
.........Are you saying, Lou, that only people with money should be allowed to post here?
.........And what about the time after the $1.25 fine? And the time after that? And the 20 times after that? I think this idea definitely discriminates against people with little or no money, and people unlikely to have a credit card.
> C. A poster in breach could be limited in ther posts to 10 words or less for the next 3 days in their posts. The next time they are in brech, they would be limited to 5 words or less in their posts for the next week. The next time, 5 words or less for 2 weeks...
..........And the next time? And the next time? And the next 10 times?
............Lou, if you could provide additional details in response to my questions to your proposed solutions, and clarify what you meant and the possible outcomes, I'd be much better able to consider your alternatives and give them the thought they deserve.
Many thanks,
Shar
Posted by IsoM on February 21, 2003, at 14:43:12
In reply to Re: Blocks---and Please Be Civil policies » Dr. Bob, posted by ArthurGibson on February 21, 2003, at 6:11:59
I feel so strongly about this. I’m glad Arthur spoke up. I get upset that any one who criticizes Bob's policies is viewed as subversive. We're too often thought of as trying to break up something that (in their opinion) is working perfectly fine. Any dissident voices are thought of as somehow wrong or evil - out to get the "nice Dr, Bob". We’re thought of as somehow “unsafe”,
I wish others could see that those who disagree with Bob's policies aren’t a bunch of left-wing wackos. We're very normal, nice, loving, helpful people too. We WANT these boards to work to the benefit of all - not just those who don’t complain or speak up about what they perceive as injustices. We don’t all have to agree all the time on issues to get along, do we? And those of us who do speak up aren’t “out to get” the rest of you. Because you don’t see a problem doesn’t mean there is none.
Many view the Psycho-Babble community as a big family - one they can turn to in times of difficulty for acceptance and reassurance. But in any family there’s bound to be some friction - even in the most loving and stable of families. But it’s talked out so each can understand the others better and it’s made stronger by doing so. By squelching any signs of friction, the opportunity to grow and learn is taken from us. How can we learn how to get along if every little misdemeanour gets someone sent away for a week or more? How can the problem get talked out?
I think the need for moderation and reproofs are needed, especially when someone is purposely unkind and vulgar. But blocks are being handed out for far too flimsy a pretence in most cases. And if we try to reason with Bob about it, we get the stock answer - “it’s my board so you’ll have to let me decide what’s best”. While that may be true, why can’t Bob REALLY listen to our ideas (some of them are excellent) and incorporate some of them into his policies. And I don’t just mean some of the window dressing that’s been done either. Give this community a chance to grow and please stop treating us all like little children who don’t know what’s good for us. We’re NOT out for each other’s throat.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2003, at 15:03:17
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Arthur Gibson's post » Lou Pilder, posted by shar on February 21, 2003, at 13:06:26
Shar,
You wrote, [...if you could provide additional details...].
Another aspect to create constructive change would be so that a {Bill of Rights} be established here. I base this on the concept that [The majority rules, but they can not take away the rights of the minority].
I propose that the following notice be posted on the opening page to this site and I believe that it could be of benifit to posters here in referrence to the subject discussed in this thread.
DR. Bob's Amendments to the rules
1) your amendment here
2) your amendment here
3) your amendment here
4) and so forth...
Now if people wrote in what their concerns are here, and wrote an amendment that they thought would be of benifit here, then please do so as a response to this post for further discussion. I would propose the following amendment.
1)All posters here have an equal opportunity to post and no poster will recieve favoritism from the administration in regards to established rules, such as using racist language in any part of their post.
Lou
Posted by ~alii~ on February 21, 2003, at 15:06:18
In reply to THANK YOU for saying it and nicely too » ArthurGibson, posted by IsoM on February 21, 2003, at 14:43:12
A hearty thanks to IsoM and Arthur Gibson for their views.
~Alii
> I feel so strongly about this. I’m glad Arthur spoke up. I get upset that any one who criticizes Bob's policies is viewed as subversive. We're too often thought of as trying to break up something that (in their opinion) is working perfectly fine. Any dissident voices are thought of as somehow wrong or evil - out to get the "nice Dr, Bob". We’re thought of as somehow “unsafe”,
>
> I wish others could see that those who disagree with Bob's policies aren’t a bunch of left-wing wackos. We're very normal, nice, loving, helpful people too. We WANT these boards to work to the benefit of all - not just those who don’t complain or speak up about what they perceive as injustices. We don’t all have to agree all the time on issues to get along, do we? And those of us who do speak up aren’t “out to get” the rest of you. Because you don’t see a problem doesn’t mean there is none.
>
> Many view the Psycho-Babble community as a big family - one they can turn to in times of difficulty for acceptance and reassurance. But in any family there’s bound to be some friction - even in the most loving and stable of families. But it’s talked out so each can understand the others better and it’s made stronger by doing so. By squelching any signs of friction, the opportunity to grow and learn is taken from us. How can we learn how to get along if every little misdemeanour gets someone sent away for a week or more? How can the problem get talked out?
>
> I think the need for moderation and reproofs are needed, especially when someone is purposely unkind and vulgar. But blocks are being handed out for far too flimsy a pretence in most cases. And if we try to reason with Bob about it, we get the stock answer - “it’s my board so you’ll have to let me decide what’s best”. While that may be true, why can’t Bob REALLY listen to our ideas (some of them are excellent) and incorporate some of them into his policies. And I don’t just mean some of the window dressing that’s been done either. Give this community a chance to grow and please stop treating us all like little children who don’t know what’s good for us. We’re NOT out for each other’s throat.
>
Posted by Arthurgibson on February 21, 2003, at 15:11:08
In reply to Re: Blocks---and Please Be Civil policies, posted by Dr. Bob on February 21, 2003, at 11:37:40
>Plus, here, it's not just my personal preferences, but what I think will be good for this community as a whole.<
This statement gets to the root of what I am objecting to in Dr. Bob's behaviour towards us, its patronisation and authoritarianism taken too far for his own good or ours. He attempts to deflect criticism directed against his actions, by claiming that he is not acting according to his own "personal preferences" but instead he is transcending those "personal preferences" and acting for the greater good of the community instead. This is obvious nonsense. His judgement of what is right or wrong for this community is obviously determined by his own understanding of civility and morality, which are his "personal preferences."
"Power corrupts" and in a virtual community overwhelming "power" lies with the person who administers and moderates the site. This site is unusual and different to most other "virtual communities" because many of the contributors are mentally ill to some degree or other. I myself have suffered from severe depression. Therefore careful moderation is essential to protect the sensitivities of those who may be in a weak and relatively defenceless frame of mind. However I repeat my complaint that in general the moderation of this site is starting to stifle spontaneity, extrovert behaviour, humour, dissention and lively discussion. We have even seen contributors banned for saying that another contributor’s view is “wrong.” LB in NYC was banned for thirty-two weeks for “putting someone down” even though he repeatedly wrote in the same piece that it was NOT his intention to “put (the other writer) down.”
Dr Bob, we are not your clones and we refuse to be coerced to accept your “personal preferences.” You did a great service starting this site and you do a great job moderating it. But please, “back off” a little more than you have done in the past. Thanks.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2003, at 15:13:36
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Arthur Gibson's post » Lou Pilder, posted by shar on February 21, 2003, at 13:06:26
Shar,
You wrote,[...clarify ...possible outcomes...]
In reference to [limiting the poster's number of posts per day], you wrote that ,[...there is the potential for more offending posts by that same poster...]
Although that is a [potential] occurance,it does not mean that it is absolutly going to occur. In the restraint of the posters ability to post, the limiting of the posts {could} be a deterrant to the poster to {not} continue with the same offense.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2003, at 15:27:51
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Arthur Gibson's post » Lou Pilder, posted by shar on February 21, 2003, at 13:06:26
Shar,
You wrote [...additonal details about proposed solutions...]
In the proposed solution by using a [fine], you wrote,[...fines could discriminate to those that are broke or no credit card...].
I thought that the [fines] were deminimus, but that is relative. And there would be administrative problems. But could we not have a way for the indigent to have a [hardship bank] here that they could borrow from? And when they are able to repay, they could without interest?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2003, at 15:41:15
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Arthur Gibson's post » Lou Pilder, posted by shar on February 21, 2003, at 13:06:26
Shar,
You wrote,[...clarify outcomes...]
In the proposed [limiting the post to 10 words or less...], you wrote that [..and the next time.... and the next time...?]
Well, let us examine that situation. Suppose a poster posts,[...you are a stupid idiot for telling me to take cojak...it is addictive...].
Now in this case, the poster would be limited to posting in 10 words or less for a week. [Also, there would be a limit of 2 posts per day or the posts could be connected]. So the poster write again, [...you are a stupid idiot,telling me to take cojac..]. Now that is within the 10 word limit. But the poster now is in breach again and goes to the next sanction , which is to limit him/her , now, to 5 words per post. So then the poster writes,[..You are a stupid idiot] but can not post beyond the 5 word limit. But the poster is now in breach for the offending language and goes to the next sanction which is the limiting to 2 words per post. So the poster writes,[You are].
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2003, at 15:57:48
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Arthur Gibson's post » Lou Pilder, posted by shar on February 21, 2003, at 13:06:26
Shar,
You wrote, [...and the next 10 times?...]
Let us examine that possibility. In refference to the last example, suppose the poster that is limited to 2 words, posts,[...{expletive} you.]. Now the poster is in breach again for the profanity and is now limited to just [yes or no] for 2 weeks. Is there a way for this poster to be in breach again if he/she is limited to only writing either "yes" or "no"? If so, could you give an example?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2003, at 16:09:27
In reply to Double speak » Dr. Bob, posted by Arthurgibson on February 21, 2003, at 15:11:08
AG,
You wrote,[...there are those that are weak and in a defenceless state of mind...].I agree
Lou
Posted by ~alii~ on February 21, 2003, at 16:51:48
In reply to Double speak » Dr. Bob, posted by Arthurgibson on February 21, 2003, at 15:11:08
> >Plus, here, it's not just my personal preferences, but what I think will be good for this community as a whole.<
>
> This statement gets to the root of what I am objecting to in Dr. Bob's behaviour towards us, its patronisation and authoritarianism taken too far for his own good or ours. He attempts to deflect criticism directed against his actions, by claiming that he is not acting according to his own "personal preferences" but instead he is transcending those "personal preferences" and acting for the greater good of the community instead. This is obvious nonsense. His judgement of what is right or wrong for this community is obviously determined by his own understanding of civility and morality, which are his "personal preferences."
>
> "Power corrupts" and in a virtual community overwhelming "power" lies with the person who administers and moderates the site. This site is unusual and different to most other "virtual communities" because many of the contributors are mentally ill to some degree or other. I myself have suffered from severe depression. Therefore careful moderation is essential to protect the sensitivities of those who may be in a weak and relatively defenceless frame of mind. However I repeat my complaint that in general the moderation of this site is starting to stifle spontaneity, extrovert behaviour, humour, dissention and lively discussion. We have even seen contributors banned for saying that another contributor’s view is “wrong.” LB in NYC was banned for thirty-two weeks for “putting someone down” even though he repeatedly wrote in the same piece that it was NOT his intention to “put (the other writer) down.”
>
> Dr Bob, we are not your clones and we refuse to be coerced to accept your “personal preferences.” You did a great service starting this site and you do a great job moderating it. But please, “back off” a little more than you have done in the past. Thanks.
>Thank you for continuing to raise your voice Arthur Gibson. It is far too infrequent that any discussion takes place regarding the tone of the moderation/administration of these boards.
I admire your ability to clearly state your opinions and I am happy to see a non-clone speaking up! ;)
~Alii
Posted by stjames on February 21, 2003, at 17:08:11
In reply to Double speak » Dr. Bob, posted by Arthurgibson on February 21, 2003, at 15:11:08
LB in NYC was banned for thirty-two weeks for “putting someone down” even though he repeatedly wrote in the same piece that it was NOT his intention to “put (the other writer) down.”
For whatever reason you have chosen to ignore the facts here, as I have pointed them out to you before.
Lost boy was blocked so long, not for on incident, but many insidents. He also came back
while blocked under another name, so that added
more weeks to his block.
Posted by shar on February 21, 2003, at 22:05:28
In reply to THANK YOU for saying it and nicely too » ArthurGibson, posted by IsoM on February 21, 2003, at 14:43:12
What I dislike is the aim of shutting the boards down. There are, in fact, people who want these boards shut down--not improved, not modified, not more accepting of differences, not better about blocking people (or, I suppose, not blocking people), not dedicated more to open discussion of differences.
There are people who want these boards not to exist at all because in their view these boards are dangerous or harmful or too annoying or whatever. There are people who want disagreements reported to authorities with the hope of stopping what dr. bob is doing here.
That's what I have a problem with.
With respect to other things you said, I can only speak for myself, but I do not feel that people who disagree with dr. bob or his policies are:
>subversive.
>trying to break up something
>wrong or evil -
>out to get the "nice Dr, Bob".
>“unsafe”
>left-wing wackos
>“out to get” the rest of you
>out for each other’s throat.In fact, I disagree with the policies here at times and say so.
As a sort of aside, I'm not crazy about a bunch of assumptions being made about me because I do not dissent as much as others do at times, or about the same issues.
But, to be straightforward, the bottom line is, I believe that by and large these boards are run appropriately when considering the community as a whole. In fact, I think giving people (adults) a warning that their behavior is just this side of unacceptable is PLENTY generous, and if one can't restrain oneself from doing the same type of thing again, a block for a period of time is very mild.
And, if it happens again and again, and more and more time is added to the time away from the board, so be it. We are grown ups here, and should be able to express ourselves in a civil manner--even when annoyed or in disagreement with each other.
As for making known our disagreements with admin issues, I say, have at it! But, if someone's aim is to shut down this forum, I will always strongly express my disagreement with that idea, and try to be very clear about my position, and focused on that issue, and civil.
Shar
Posted by shar on February 21, 2003, at 22:08:18
In reply to Lou's response to Shar's post RE A. Gibson's post » shar, posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2003, at 15:03:17
Lou,
I don't really understand this post. And, I don't think it is a good idea to post over and over to the same person about the same or simmilar issues, so I won't respond to the rest of your posts to me on this thread.If you care to put all your points into one post, I will be happy to read it, and if I understand it, to reply.
Thanks,
Shar> Shar,
> You wrote, [...if you could provide additional details...].
> Another aspect to create constructive change would be so that a {Bill of Rights} be established here. I base this on the concept that [The majority rules, but they can not take away the rights of the minority].
> I propose that the following notice be posted on the opening page to this site and I believe that it could be of benifit to posters here in referrence to the subject discussed in this thread.
> DR. Bob's Amendments to the rules
> 1) your amendment here
> 2) your amendment here
> 3) your amendment here
> 4) and so forth...
> Now if people wrote in what their concerns are here, and wrote an amendment that they thought would be of benifit here, then please do so as a response to this post for further discussion. I would propose the following amendment.
> 1)All posters here have an equal opportunity to post and no poster will recieve favoritism from the administration in regards to established rules, such as using racist language in any part of their post.
> Lou
>
Posted by Dinah on February 22, 2003, at 4:18:15
In reply to Re: THANK YOU for saying it and nicely too » IsoM, posted by shar on February 21, 2003, at 22:05:28
I struggled this afternoon with saying the same thing and gave up.
Posted by Arthurgibson on February 22, 2003, at 5:02:09
In reply to Re: Blocks---and Please Be Civil policies, posted by Dr. Bob on February 21, 2003, at 11:37:40
This guy is spamming this thread yet you don't act. Why?
Posted by Arthurgibson on February 22, 2003, at 5:24:56
In reply to Re: Double speak, posted by stjames on February 21, 2003, at 17:08:11
I used to enjoy reading LB in NYC's posts. Like all New Yorkers he was somewhat brusk in his manner, but then that's how they all are in New York. That's one of the reasons that they overcame 911 without missing a step. We need people like that in our world.
He was not banned for coming back under a new name, although he did, and I don't blame him for doing so. He was banned for "putting down" another contributor whom he repeatedly told in the same post that he did not wish to "put down." For a New Yorker that's real polite.
Moreover 32 weeks was an insult to a valued contributor to the board, who doubtless helped others with his efforts to understand and overcome depression. We are the poorer as a virtual community for of his banning.
If "coming back under another name" merits a 32 week ban under your code of morality I wonder what punishment you would meet out to pickpockets in Saudi Arabia if you ruled as King. Presumably they would get their hands chopped off? Rather an extreme example I agree, but you see my point. The punishment does not fit the crime and that in itself is a wrongdoing.
Lou Pilder on the other hand is viciously spamming this thread and he is allowed to get away with it.
So now I suppose I’ll be given a two week ban for “putting down” Lou Pilder. Well I’ll be back in 14 days time to continue my efforts to assist those suffering from the depression that I have managed to overcome, urge a less repressive moderation policy on these boards and to oppose anyone who tries to make a mockery of what we are doing by spamming.
See you all on 9 March.
Posted by Arthurgibson on February 22, 2003, at 5:37:22
In reply to Lost Boy in New York City and others, posted by Arthurgibson on February 22, 2003, at 5:24:56
I used the wrong word in my last two posts. Lou is spamming, but more to the point he is "trolling." At least that's what we call it in the UK, I suppose it has the same name in the US.
Posted by Dinah on February 22, 2003, at 5:59:03
In reply to Lost Boy in New York City and others, posted by Arthurgibson on February 22, 2003, at 5:24:56
Arthur,
Posting again while blocked is an automatic doubling of the block period. It doesn't matter if you come on and say the sweetest things imaginable. Because registering under another name while you're blocked is akin to a payroll violation. It is a deliberate flouting the administrative decision. To do otherwise than respond would make the blocking process laughable.
As for the other, I could give you some links that provide some background, although I prefer not to stir all that up again. And I'd give them to you privately in an email, but attempting to speak kindly in an email was a large part of what caused that particular mess, and I prefer not to do so again. It would be a great kindness to me if you would quit reciting this particular incident over and over, since I found it a rather hurtful thing given the entire context of my relationship with the poster in question. You don't have to of course, I just wanted to let you know that the frequent references to the matter were causing me pain.
And it really is moot, since I assure you that posting while blocked really does double the blocking time.
Dinah
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 22, 2003, at 6:39:08
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Shar's post RE A. Gibson's post » Lou Pilder, posted by shar on February 21, 2003, at 22:08:18
Shar,
You wrote,[...I really don't understand this post...].
Could you clarify what it is that you do not understand about [this post]? If you could, then I could reply and possibly clear up anything that you do not understand.
You then wrote, [...I don't thonk it is a good idea to post over and over to the same poster about the same issues ...]
Could you clarify if [the same poster] is {yourself}? If it is, then could you clarify why it is not a [good idea] to {reply to you} about what you have requested me to do? I base this on what you wrote ,ie: [Lou, if you could provide additional details in response to my questions to your proposed solutions, and clarify...]...
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030221/msgs/202511.html
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on February 22, 2003, at 7:00:31
In reply to Re: Double speak » Arthurgibson, posted by ~alii~ on February 21, 2003, at 16:51:48
have the board exist as it is, or shut down??
I know you might not value my opinion, just being a "clone", but I do believe every person has a right to an opinion, and a right to voice it.(and yes, I am offended by the fact I am only a clone of everyone else, going along with others opinions. This is NOT true. My opinion is based on my experiences, and my experiences alone.
OK, so Dr Bob isn't perfect, and at times he is a little too heavy handed. But, all in all, this is a pretty safe place to come. I have been using the internet for about 10 years now, and have been a member of many many boards. I am currently a memeber of 4 other boards that deal with mental health issues. This is the one I come to for help though, as I know I will be protected against vicious posts.
As one example.. a board I use that is for BPD sufferers... We recently had anew guy join.. we have few rules at this board, and he has been repeatedly rude and abusive to alot of us. But there is nothing that can be done, as we are "un-moderated". I am leaving the BPD board as I simply don;'t feel safe there anymore, even though I have been a memeber for 3 years.Atleast here you know you are safe. I have never recived an abusive email from anyone of this site (could be cos I don;t post my email addy though! *lol*), and when I have been abused, I have felt OK cos I know Dr Bob will deal with the abuser.
There are hundreds of boards out there dealing with Mental Health.. some less moderated, some more moderated. This, at the end of the day, is Dr Bobs site, and I;m sure anyone can find other places to go if this one doesn't meet your needs. If a pub I drunk in no longer met my needs I would simply change to go to another pub, I wouldn't insist on complaints being made to the owner.
I am willing to make a list of alternative sites to this if anyone would like them.
Nikki
Posted by JohnV on February 22, 2003, at 7:26:33
In reply to THANK YOU for saying it and nicely too » ArthurGibson, posted by IsoM on February 21, 2003, at 14:43:12
> I feel so strongly about this. I’m glad Arthur spoke up. I get upset that any one who criticizes Bob's policies is viewed as subversive. We're too often thought of as trying to break up something that (in their opinion) is working perfectly fine. Any dissident voices are thought of as somehow wrong or evil - out to get the "nice Dr, Bob". We’re thought of as somehow “unsafe”,
>
> I wish others could see that those who disagree with Bob's policies aren’t a bunch of left-wing wackos. We're very normal, nice, loving, helpful people too. We WANT these boards to work to the benefit of all - not just those who don’t complain or speak up about what they perceive as injustices. We don’t all have to agree all the >time on issues to get along, do we? And those of >us who do speak up aren’t “out to get” the rest >of you. Because you don’t see a problem doesn’t >mean there is none.
Wow..I am really surprised and even a bit impressed at the responses in this thread, and even if I may not agree with all of you, it shows people care. I too feel quite strongly about this topic. I'd like to honestly ask Dr. Bob if there is this much concern, is it not time that we can rethink different methods around blocks and 'civility'??There are many excellent alternatives to dispute resolution, and I think with the size and needs of this board and it's members, we need to look at alternatives. I am not fond of the "2 strikes you are out for a week; 3 strikes it's doubled.." etc. That's a hardline conservative justice approach, and as jails have proven, punishment is "not" the answer. Sorry for making it political, but it is a political situation. There are some (likely many) of us on here who are broke, likely have little or no family or friends, and this is one fo the few places we can come for some respite and support. Poverty, despair, and mental illness often go hand-in-hand. I'd like to think Dr. Bob, as a provider of human care and services above all else, will consider the egalitarian and empathetic nature of giving people on the board as many options as possible before blocking them.
I don't see any reason why alternatives can't be made in place of blocks. Not everybody on here comes from a nice home where all is spoken politely, from a nice middle-upper class. Please, I beg you, take some time to really think about these considerations Dr. Bob. We are not making "demands", but asking for sincere consideration to possible alternatives. Dr. Bob, you use (part) of a Nietzsche quote on the main page...so you must also recognize the phrase "Human-all-too-Human".
Thanks.
JohnV.
Posted by JohnV on February 22, 2003, at 7:35:59
In reply to Blocks---and Please Be Civil policies, posted by JohnV on February 19, 2003, at 7:28:14
OK, another idea. In order to "argue" and speak for their cases in a democratic fashion, I think blocked posters should still be able to post to this PBAdmin board. This would allow them the chance to have their arguments heard. This board seems to be somewhat the pivotal cornerstone of launching democratic right and freedom concerns. Any thoughts?
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.