![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 81 to 105 of 187. Go back in thread:
Posted by shar on April 6, 2003, at 21:55:15
In reply to Re: alternatives and a last resort, posted by Dr. Bob on April 6, 2003, at 11:13:37
ok, I have to admit I got pretty mixed up with the A's and B's, but I think the idea is sound. It seems reasonable that someone could make a civil request not to hear from someone. And, that someone could respond on the board if they had other things to say.
If I ask Sweet Sue (not a real person that I know of) not to respond to me--direct a post to me specifically--then Sweet Sue could address the topic at hand if she wanted, stating her own opinion using "I" statements and all that good communication stuff. She just wouldn't be pointing directly at me. I have no doubt that she could do so indirectly, this is a pretty sharp crew here.
If I changed my mind, and said I'm sorry to Sweet Sue, and wanted to discuss things after all, I always have that option. And, I guess I feel Sweet Sue should have the option to post a "hey, Shar, wanna talk?" post if she later stopped hating me. (tongue firmly in cheek)
Or, things could just be left the way they are, and people could learn to just ignore the known posts and/or posters that cause them problems. There are several posters that I don't read at all, and don't respond to, even though I may read and respond to other posters in that thread.
All this A and B and Sweet Sue and Posters and Posting and Responders and Threads is making me dizzy.
Shar
> > Perhaps there is some way here to start a meaningful dialogue about hurt and frustration and communication... it seems to me that there is a core of truth here that we're all bypassing. A common ground that can be reached if we could just get past the misunderstandings on all sides.
> >
> > Perhaps we can all try to think of some alternatives?
> >
> > Dinah
>
> Some creative alternatives would be great, thanks for suggesting that.
>
> > It really just amounts to harassment, IMO.
> >
> > shar
>
> OTOH, that might be one way to approach it, too... We could say A is considered to harass B if A directs uninvited and unwelcome posts to B. "Uninvited" means not in response to posts directed by B to A. "Unwelcome" means B has already asked A not to direct posts to him or her.
>
> A could still reply to posts by B as long as those replies weren't directed back specifically to B. The request by B not to have posts directed to him or her should of course be civil.
>
> If you request that someone not direct posts to you, please save that URL. Then if they do, let me know the URLs of your post to them as well as theirs to you.
>
> How about that? I'd rather lines of communication stayed open, but if someone doesn't want that -- and there aren't any alternatives -- maybe it would help to have a policy like this as a last resort.
>
> Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2003, at 3:46:44
In reply to Re: alternatives and a last resort » Dr. Bob, posted by beardedlady on April 6, 2003, at 13:36:18
> But I do have one concern about it. Sometimes there is a misunderstanding that may lead a poster to request no further communication from another poster. To not be able to answer that post would not allow any room to clear the misunderstanding.
Yes, that's true, and hopefully the first poster understands that.
> If you could incorporate that possibility into the policy somehow, I think it would be a good last resort. It could be pretty hurtful to be asked that, and that degree of hurt *should* be a last resort.
I think the policy would need to be that "none" means "none". But the request doesn't *have* to be for "none"...
I'm afraid people are going to be hurt, too, that's why I said specifically that the request should be civil.
> Perhaps the request should be thread specific or topic specific? "I don't want to discuss xxxx with you further", rather than "I don't want to ever hear from you again". It would also be easier administratively I think?
>
> DinahThose are also good alternatives. Actually, administratively, the more black and white, the easier...
----
> > We could say A is considered to harass B if A directs uninvited and unwelcome posts to B.
>
> Now it is my understanding that your use of the word {AND} means that {both} have to occurYes.
> and asking for clarification to a statement by another poster to remark(s) to that poster that have the potential to be accusitive or defaming to that poster, is simply accepting the invitation to reply
I don't know about "simply", but yes, that request for clarification would be considered invited.
> Are you saying that anyone here can direct potential defaming or accusitive stements to another poster...
>
> LouNo, civility is just as important as before.
----
> But Shar and Iso and I have already posted, numerous times and at least once on this thread, that we usually don't read or respond to Lou's requests for clarification.
>
> So you want us to go on record, officially? How much more official can you get than Shar's "no read, no reply policy"?
>
> Lou's requests for clarification from me (the others should speak for themselves) are unwelcome.
>
> beardyNot reading or replying to posts doesn't necessarily mean those posts aren't welcome. To communicate that, you need to "go on record, officially". Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 7, 2003, at 7:07:58
In reply to Re: a last resort, posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2003, at 3:46:44
Dr. Bob,
I welcome any administrative policy that could further the goals of this forum. I will await your written policy to appear here concerning allowing or not allowing one to request clarification from another poster that writes a statement that has the potential to be accusitve or defaming to the one that is requesting the clarification.
But before you construct your policy, could you consider if there is anything in the policy that could have the potential to allow your policy to be arbitrary, caprecious, or descriminatory? If you could, then I feel that the policy could further the goals of this forum, and if there are any parts of the policy that are not {well-defined}, then that could lead to the administration of your policy to have the potential to be applied in an arbitrary, or caprecious, or descriminatory manner which would , IMO, degrade the goals of the forum.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 7, 2003, at 7:26:24
In reply to Re: a last resort, posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2003, at 3:46:44
Friends,
The following is my suggestion to those that object to me, or anyone else, requesting clarification from those that write statements to me or others that have the potential to be accusitive or defaming.
1. Before you send your statement to me,or anyone else, could you examine it and take out anything that has the potential to be included in the following code for writing statements here?
[...please be sensitive to the feelings of others and don't jump to conclusions about them or post anything that could lead them to feel accused or put down or exaggerate or overgeneralize or be sarcastic...].
If you could, then the possibility for one to request that you clarify your statement will be greatly reduced, for it is those type of statements that prompt me, at least, to request that you clarify what you wrote.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2003, at 10:01:25
In reply to Lou's response to Dr. Bob's post-LR » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 7, 2003, at 7:07:58
> I welcome any administrative policy that could further the goals of this forum. I will await your written policy to appear here concerning allowing or not allowing one to request clarification from another poster that writes a statement that has the potential to be accusitve or defaming to the one that is requesting the clarification.
If A asks B not direct posts to A, yet directs a post to B, B still may request clarification from A. If, however, the post by A isn't directed to B, B should not request clarification from A -- but still may email me with their concerns about the civility of the post by A.
> before you construct your policy, could you consider if there is anything in the policy that could have the potential to allow your policy to be arbitrary, caprecious, or descriminatory?
For example? Do you have something particular in mind?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 7, 2003, at 10:29:22
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dr. Bob's post-LR, posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2003, at 10:01:25
Dr. Bob,
You wrote that your policy for requesting clarification is that:
[...if A posts to B, then B can request clarification from A {regardless if A wrote that B was not to reply, or that they would not reply to B}...]?
If that is the case, then is what you are saying is that :
A. no one here can [requier] another to {not} request clarification from them {if they directed a post to them}?
B. A statement by a poster, to a poster that {they directed a statement to}, to not reply to them would be considered {uncivil} here?
C. anyone can reqquest clarification {unlesss the other poster writes that {no one can} request clarification from them? And this is overrulled if the statement is directed to the person that is requesting the infomation?
C-2. a poster can discriminate by writing that {anyone can respond to them},except Lou? (or someone else)
D. something else which is______
E. none of the above
F. All of the above,
some of the above , but not_____
Lou
Posted by Ron Hill on April 7, 2003, at 15:11:55
In reply to Re: Lou's respomse to Dinah's post-CP-2 » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on April 6, 2003, at 16:14:11
Posted by OddipusRex on April 7, 2003, at 17:09:46
In reply to Re: a last resort, posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2003, at 3:46:44
Was my post to Beardedlady in acceptable form? Do I need to specify all posts, particular thread or anything? I'm willing to be a test case.
> > But I do have one concern about it. Sometimes there is a misunderstanding that may lead a poster to request no further communication from another poster. To not be able to answer that post would not allow any room to clear the misunderstanding.
>
> Yes, that's true, and hopefully the first poster understands that.
>
> > If you could incorporate that possibility into the policy somehow, I think it would be a good last resort. It could be pretty hurtful to be asked that, and that degree of hurt *should* be a last resort.
>
> I think the policy would need to be that "none" means "none". But the request doesn't *have* to be for "none"...
>
> I'm afraid people are going to be hurt, too, that's why I said specifically that the request should be civil.
>
> > Perhaps the request should be thread specific or topic specific? "I don't want to discuss xxxx with you further", rather than "I don't want to ever hear from you again". It would also be easier administratively I think?
> >
> > Dinah
>
> Those are also good alternatives. Actually, administratively, the more black and white, the easier...
>
> ----
>
> > > We could say A is considered to harass B if A directs uninvited and unwelcome posts to B.
> >
> > Now it is my understanding that your use of the word {AND} means that {both} have to occur
>
> Yes.
>
> > and asking for clarification to a statement by another poster to remark(s) to that poster that have the potential to be accusitive or defaming to that poster, is simply accepting the invitation to reply
>
> I don't know about "simply", but yes, that request for clarification would be considered invited.
>
> > Are you saying that anyone here can direct potential defaming or accusitive stements to another poster...
> >
> > Lou
>
> No, civility is just as important as before.
>
> ----
>
> > But Shar and Iso and I have already posted, numerous times and at least once on this thread, that we usually don't read or respond to Lou's requests for clarification.
> >
> > So you want us to go on record, officially? How much more official can you get than Shar's "no read, no reply policy"?
> >
> > Lou's requests for clarification from me (the others should speak for themselves) are unwelcome.
> >
> > beardy
>
> Not reading or replying to posts doesn't necessarily mean those posts aren't welcome. To communicate that, you need to "go on record, officially". Thanks,
>
> Bob
Posted by OddipusRex on April 7, 2003, at 18:56:38
In reply to I'm trying it out for you » Dr. Bob, posted by OddipusRex on April 7, 2003, at 17:09:46
Possible modifications might include the requirement of not making accusations or insulting interpretations of another person's behaviour prior to requesting that he no longer post to you. Good luck with your procedure.
> Was my post to Beardedlady in acceptable form? Do I need to specify all posts, particular thread or anything? I'm willing to be a test case.
>
>
> > > But I do have one concern about it. Sometimes there is a misunderstanding that may lead a poster to request no further communication from another poster. To not be able to answer that post would not allow any room to clear the misunderstanding.
> >
> > Yes, that's true, and hopefully the first poster understands that.
> >
> > > If you could incorporate that possibility into the policy somehow, I think it would be a good last resort. It could be pretty hurtful to be asked that, and that degree of hurt *should* be a last resort.
> >
> > I think the policy would need to be that "none" means "none". But the request doesn't *have* to be for "none"...
> >
> > I'm afraid people are going to be hurt, too, that's why I said specifically that the request should be civil.
> >
> > > Perhaps the request should be thread specific or topic specific? "I don't want to discuss xxxx with you further", rather than "I don't want to ever hear from you again". It would also be easier administratively I think?
> > >
> > > Dinah
> >
> > Those are also good alternatives. Actually, administratively, the more black and white, the easier...
> >
> > ----
> >
> > > > We could say A is considered to harass B if A directs uninvited and unwelcome posts to B.
> > >
> > > Now it is my understanding that your use of the word {AND} means that {both} have to occur
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > and asking for clarification to a statement by another poster to remark(s) to that poster that have the potential to be accusitive or defaming to that poster, is simply accepting the invitation to reply
> >
> > I don't know about "simply", but yes, that request for clarification would be considered invited.
> >
> > > Are you saying that anyone here can direct potential defaming or accusitive stements to another poster...
> > >
> > > Lou
> >
> > No, civility is just as important as before.
> >
> > ----
> >
> > > But Shar and Iso and I have already posted, numerous times and at least once on this thread, that we usually don't read or respond to Lou's requests for clarification.
> > >
> > > So you want us to go on record, officially? How much more official can you get than Shar's "no read, no reply policy"?
> > >
> > > Lou's requests for clarification from me (the others should speak for themselves) are unwelcome.
> > >
> > > beardy
> >
> > Not reading or replying to posts doesn't necessarily mean those posts aren't welcome. To communicate that, you need to "go on record, officially". Thanks,
> >
> > Bob
>
>
Posted by OddipusRex on April 7, 2003, at 19:00:51
In reply to Re: I'm trying it out for you, posted by OddipusRex on April 7, 2003, at 18:56:38
Or after the request for that matter.
> Possible modifications might include the requirement of not making accusations or insulting interpretations of another person's behaviour prior to requesting that he no longer post to you. >
>
>
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2003, at 21:32:44
In reply to I'm trying it out for you » Dr. Bob, posted by OddipusRex on April 7, 2003, at 17:09:46
> Was my post to Beardedlady in acceptable form? Do I need to specify all posts, particular thread or anything?
It's acceptable, though I regret that it's come to that.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2003, at 23:23:21
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dr. Bob's post-LR-2 » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 7, 2003, at 10:29:22
> A. no one here can [requier] another to {not} request clarification from them {if they directed a post to them}?
If A directs a post to B, B may direct a reply back to A. Which means A may not require B not to request clarification.
> B. A statement by a poster, to a poster that {they directed a statement to}, to not reply to them would be considered {uncivil} here?
If A directs a post to B, B may direct a reply back to A. A could ask B not to, but B still could if he or she wanted.
> C. anyone can reqquest clarification {unlesss the other poster writes that {no one can} request clarification from them? And this is overrulled if the statement is directed to the person that is requesting the infomation?
If A directs a post to B, C may direct a reply to A unless A has asked C not to. But B may even if A has asked B not to.
> C-2. a poster can discriminate by writing that {anyone can respond to them},except Lou? (or someone else)
Posters are free to decide whom they ask not to direct posts to them.
But I'd like the requests to be reasonable. Since if nobody can post to anybody, it won't be very supportive here. And I'd consider a request that no one reply to be unreasonable.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 7:46:44
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dr. Bob's post-LR-2, posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2003, at 23:23:21
Dr. Bob,
I asked you if:
[...could a poster write that, lets say, Lou, or someone else, can not reply to their post, but others can...].
Your reply to me was:
[...posters are {free to decide who they want to exclude from posting to them}, by asking them not to reply to their post...].
Are you saying that the following situation here would be permitted?
Example:
Beardedlady: The best herb for seasickness is licorish.
Iso M: I live by the sea and grow great licorish.
Lou: I read that licorish has some bad effects, beadedlady.
beardedlady: I am invoking that you, Lou, are not allowed to respond to this thread.
Are you saying that this situation could be permissible here? If you could reply, I will reply accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 8, 2003, at 11:19:20
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dr. Bob's post-LR-3 » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 7:46:44
> Are you saying that the following situation here would be permitted?
> Example:
> Beardedlady: The best herb for seasickness is licorish.
> Iso M: I live by the sea and grow great licorish.
> Lou: I read that licorish has some bad effects, beadedlady.
> beardedlady: I am invoking that you, Lou, are not allowed to respond to this thread.
> Are you saying that this situation could be permissible here?No, that would not be permissible. A poster could ask that you not direct a post to her, but you could still reply to her post (if you didn't direct it to her).
Bob
Posted by Dinah on April 8, 2003, at 12:05:48
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dr. Bob's post-LR-3, posted by Dr. Bob on April 8, 2003, at 11:19:20
It might get a bit confusing to remember who has requested me not to speak to them. Can you attach a flowchart or something?
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 12:36:07
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dr. Bob's post-LR-2, posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2003, at 23:23:21
Dr. Bob,
You wrote,[...posters are free to decide whom they ask not to direct posts to them...].
I disagree with your conclusion, for I feel that the aspect of [supportivness and education] is violated by the poster that writes that [so-and- so] is not to ask them something about what they wrote, {even [if]} the statement that the origianal poster wrote was not directed to the poster requesting clarification.
Let us consider the following example:
beardedlady: The best herb for seasickness is licorice
IsoM: I live on the coast and grow some wicked licorice.
Lou: beardedlady, Have you compared licorice with dramamine
beardedlady: I told you, Lou, not to ever write to me, last week. I'm going to get Dr. Bob to block you for writing to me.
Now, is this what you are saying could happen here? The refusal to the request for clarification , in this case, denies support, for the posters accomodation of [their wanting to exclude another poster here from being a {full} participant}] becomes more important than the goal of this site , which is for support and education. If this is so, could you reply and I will reply accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 12:51:29
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dr. Bob's post-LR-2, posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2003, at 23:23:21
Dr. Bob,
You wrote,[...since if {nobody} can post to {anybody}, it won't be very supportive here...].
Could you clarify the above statement of yours? If you could, then I could then incorperate your clarification with the rest of what you wrote.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 13:06:38
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dr. Bob's post-LR-4 » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 12:36:07
Dr. Bob,
Let us consider this example:
beardedlady: The best herb for seasickness is licorice.
IsoM: I grow some wicked licorice. Is it good for diarrhea?
beardedlady: I use other things that are better for diarrhea, IsoM
NikkiT2: Here in the United Kingdom,seasickness is a serious problem.
Lou: How do people in the UK deal with seasickness, Nikki?
NikkiT2: I told you several months ago not to ever reply to me.
Now in the above case, the person requesting clarification is {not} the person that originated the topic. Could you clarify if the policy here would include, or not include, this situation? If you could, then I could respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by OddipusRex on April 8, 2003, at 13:22:02
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dr. Bob's post-LR-3, posted by Dr. Bob on April 8, 2003, at 11:19:20
Dear Bob,
How are you? I am fine. By the way here are some of my thoughts about a post from someone I'm on nospeakers with. Thought you might be interested. (Are you sure this is a good idea?)
>
> Here's what I see:
> Someone wrote a post asking for help because she was addicted to war coverage. She couldn't get going or motivated to do anything and would just sit all day watching the war. I suggested she use the telly as a reward for getting other things done. She absolutely couldn't watch the war coverage unless she accomplished certain things, and then she could allow herself a little bit of time, but she'd have to do other things to get more time.
>
> Oddipus Rex posted something to me that wasn't exactly kind. How could I call watching the war a reward, she wanted to know. It's as if her radar zoomed in on a word without zooming in on a context.
_______________________
I posted that I couldn't imagine anyone using watching the war as a reward. I can't imagine that. Simple statement of fact.
______________________
> A week or so later, on PB, I was talking about how people who are crying for help will usually leave clues about suicide or talk about plans for it. I mentioned that my neighbor didn't do those things, but she tried it in her house and left the stereo blasting so someone would have to come in. I added something to the effect of, "Of course, she tried it with Tylenol." My meaning was that she wouldn't die quickly, so the girl's mom would find her when her mom got home from work.
>
> Oddipus posted that she didn't know what I was "implying" with that "comment."
__________________________________________________________________________
I posted about how dangerous Tylenol ODs were because you need to get help before it becomes obvious that you need help. My point was that although someone may think she will be found in plenty of time there is damage being done from a relatively short time after the OD is taken. My thought was that someone reading the board might take a Tylenol OD and think she was not in any danger because she was not feeling any symptoms. I said in my post that I didn't mean any offense to B as I wasn't sure what she meant by her remark. And I didn't. Was she meaning there was a long window of opportunity for rescue or did she mean exactly what I meant? (That the girl thought she would be rescued undamaged but of course she took Tylenol which is more dangerous than a teenager might realize)She posted back that she never took offense. And "Remark what Remark? I didn't make any Remark. "
I took her at her word that she wasn't offended. I was baffled by the Remark Remark. I looked it up in the dictionary but I still didn't know what she meant. She had posted to me on admin that she was more interested in grammar than ideas so I supposed she was making some arcane point about language usage. I was just trying to convey an idea and wasn't interested in having my grammar/vocabulary critiqued so I didn't respond.
_________________________________________________________________
looking for an apology from Dr. Bob, a man who never apologizes. I'm with her on this, of course. So I say, "You're kidding, right?" because none of us has ever seen Bob go back on or apologize for a PBA or a comment he's made.
>
> And then I'M told not to post to HER again.
______________________________________________________________-
I thought of it as a request. I just didn't think I wanted to defend myself to her. I'm tired. I misinterpreted her remark this time but from the interpretation she's been giving some of my other posts......It was probably an even better idea than I thought at the time. If somebody wants to think the worst of you you just can't stop them can you? And I don't think I'm depriving myself of her wit and wisdom I think of it more as enjoying it from a safe distance. And she'll probably like me better if I don't post to her. At least now I can be pretty sure she won't like me any less.__________________________________________________________________________>
> Maybe I'm the one who doesn't get it. Here I am thinking she constantly accuses me of having some other meaning, of being underhanded, of bei> ng a cheerleader for televised death, of who knows what with Tylenol, and now I'M being told to lay off.>
_________________________________________________
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 8, 2003, at 13:24:01
In reply to Lou's response to Dr. Bob's post-LR-6 » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 13:06:38
> Let us consider the following example:
> beardedlady: The best herb for seasickness is licorice
> IsoM: I live on the coast and grow some wicked licorice.
> Lou: beardedlady, Have you compared licorice with dramamine
> beardedlady: I told you, Lou, not to ever write to me, last week. I'm going to get Dr. Bob to block you for writing to me.
> Now, is this what you are saying could happen here?Yes.
> Let us consider this example:
> beardedlady: The best herb for seasickness is licorice.
> IsoM: I grow some wicked licorice. Is it good for diarrhea?
> beardedlady: I use other things that are better for diarrhea, IsoM
> NikkiT2: Here in the United Kingdom,seasickness is a serious problem.
> Lou: How do people in the UK deal with seasickness, Nikki?
> NikkiT2: I told you several months ago not to ever reply to me.
> Now in the above case, the person requesting clarification is {not} the person that originated the topic.If A asks B not to direct any posts to them, B shouldn't, even in a thread started by C.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 14:14:16
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dr. Bob's post-LR-2, posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2003, at 23:23:21
Dr. Bob,
You wrote,[...posters here can declare that a particular poster is not to reply to them...].
Let's consider the following example;
beadedlady: the best herb for seasickness is licorice.
IsoM: I grow somw wicked licorice.
Lou: Have you compared licorice to dramamine, beadedlady?
beadedlady: I have designated that you can not request an answer from me about what I write.
coral: I would like to know if you have compared licorice with dramamine, beadedlady, for I am going on a sea-cruise.
beadedlady: I'll answer you, coral, but not Lou. The answer is that I am in the process of making that comparison, so I won't know untill I get seasick again.
Are you saying that you will allow this situation here?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 17:09:11
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dr. Bob's post-LR-2, posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2003, at 23:23:21
Dr. Bob,
You wrote,[...a request that no one reply is unreasonable...].
Well, I agre with that, but I also disagree with you in the sense that you say that posters can tell another poster here that they can not respond to them unless they direct a stement to them in particular. The way I feel is that if it is unreasonable for one to invoke that no one replys to them, then I feel it is just as unreasonable for a poster to tell just one poster to not reply to them.
Let us consider the following example:
Jeanie: I have been reading this board and you're all psycho-babble hypocrites. And don't anyone respond to me.
Now the above case, if your policy was followed, would that mean that anyone that replied to Jeanie, would be in violation of your rule?
Now let us consider another case:
Lou: There is a new drug out that will stop depression permanatly and free you from any addiction just by taking one pill, and I am invoking that the following be not allowed to ask me anything:
coral
Jonathan
NikkiT2
beadedlady
shar
noa
IsoM
Dinah
Dr. Bob
St.James
jay
OCDDitty
trouble
CamW
3-beers
lostboy in Boston
paxvox
Fi
rayww
Dena
Miller
Wendy B
Would this type of post be permitted her?
Lou
Posted by coral on April 8, 2003, at 18:12:18
In reply to Lou's response to Dr. Bob's post-LR-8 » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 17:09:11
What Coral says is to please leave my name out of this.
Coral
P.S. I realize there are other Corals in the world but I believe I'm the only one on here.
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 20:21:39
In reply to What Coral says . . . , posted by coral on April 8, 2003, at 18:12:18
coral,
I am always willing to accomodate any reasonable request here. For instance, NikkiT2 wanted me to quote to her instead of paraphrase, and I thought that that was a reasonable request and I have made a note to respond to her in that way that she preferrrs. But I feel that it is grossly unreasonable for someone here to request for me to not ask them to clarify something that they wrote. The example that I gave was to examine it to see if that is a type of post that could be posted here under the proposed policy that this administrative board is discussing. I included your name because I have been in discussions with you and it appears to me that you also agreed with the poster here that wanted to make a policy that, in effect, could deny me the opportunity to respond to another poster when I needed clarification of what they wrote, if the other poster invoked that I could not ask for clarification.
So I asked in my example if I could exclude those in the list, as to whether it would be acceptable here. But I would never even have my mind entertain such a thought as to tell someone that they can't ask me to clarify what I wrote, so you do not have to be concerned about that, if that was a concern of yours. I feel that to tell one to not be involved with me in a discussion on a public forum is an insult to the purpose of the advancement of mental-health and is a cruel and demeaning method that could have the potential to stigmatize and segregate and/or [ostracize] the one that is being told that they can't request clarification from them from what they wrote, and I consider any attempt to ostracize someone, and more so on a mental health board, to be extreamly cruel to the person that is being ostracized.
Lou
Posted by paxvox on April 8, 2003, at 20:44:08
In reply to Re: putting people on the spot, posted by Dr. Bob on April 4, 2003, at 11:33:49
Unless you hold the pen.
PAX
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.