![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 104 to 128 of 187. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by paxvox on April 8, 2003, at 20:50:47
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
Lou, I must say I am damned touched to have made your list. I will further clarify this statement so that even a board could understand it: WHY?
Are you THAT messed up man? I don't think any further clarification would do. You don't WANT clarification, you want amplification and escalation to the degree of exasperation. Sometimes a freaking cigar is just a cigar!
Have a nice day,Your pal
PAX
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 20:53:55
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dr. Bob's post-LR-8, posted by paxvox on April 8, 2003, at 20:50:47
paxvox,
You wrote,[...Why are you that messed up?...]
I was born that way.
Lou
Posted by paxvox on April 8, 2003, at 21:08:52
In reply to Lou's response to paxvox's post-LR-8b » paxvox, posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 20:53:55
At last. A straight response. Now I'll be happy to discuss issues with you. Just don't over-analyze every post for substrata. Some things ARE just black or white. You draw criticism because your comments are perceived by others as attempts to draw them into a mindless spin. You are obviously rather intelligent. Sometimes that means thinking twice and speaking (writing) once. I have no malice for you, but I must admit, you have frustrated me at times. I would gladly respond to your inquiries if I thought they were not just mazes. I don't need more than just A)what's your question and B)here's my response.
I feel that you would be much better received by the boards if you approached things more simply and directly without the circuitous meandering you solicit. Now, I write this without any anger toward you, just as a suggestion. There need not be clarification.
PAX
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 21:21:22
In reply to Re: Lou's response to paxvox's post-LR-8b, posted by paxvox on April 8, 2003, at 21:08:52
paxvox,
You wrote,[...you are criticized by others (because they {perceive} what you wrote as an attempt to draw them into a mindless spin}...].
What would you be baseing that conclusion on, for could there be an alternitive to your thought on why others criticize me ? Perhaps could it be that others criticise me in an attempt to defame me?
Lou
Posted by noa on April 8, 2003, at 22:09:49
In reply to Lou's response to paxvox's post-LR-8c » paxvox, posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 21:21:22
Lou, I honestly don't think anyone is out to defame you. I think that sometimes disagreements happen, and people get mad and nasty exchanges happen. But I don't think the motivation is defamation.
I think that the frustration we see from all the posters who are asking you not to request so much clarification is not about defamation. It is truly frustration, and wanting the conversation to flow more normally and less like being cross examined in a trial.
Let me clarify one thing--by what I've said here, I mean to express my impressions of others' motivations, and I'm generalizing. I am obviously not a mindreader, so I cannot vouch for every single poster's motivations. But I really believe that on the whole, the motivation is not anything like defamation.
For example, if you notice, there is another set of threads here on this admin board lately, that has nothing to do with you, and which clearly involves a lot of angry and hurt feelings and misunderstandings. But I don't think anyone set out to defame anyone else. Sure, in anger, people said things that hurt others. But I really don't see defamation as driving any of it.
Just my impressions.
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 22:22:08
In reply to Re: Lou's response to paxvox's post-LR-8c, posted by noa on April 8, 2003, at 22:09:49
noa,
You wrote,[...I don't think that the motive is defamation ...].
Would you consider the following, as prima facie that the motivation {could} be to defame?
Example:
[..Lou, you disagree with Dr. Bob's rules here and those that disagree with his moderation of the board are troublmakers and have emotional problems...].
Lou
Posted by noa on April 8, 2003, at 22:58:45
In reply to Lou's response to noa's post-LR-8c-d » noa, posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 22:22:08
I can't say what the motivation is, but it certainly seems like a hostile comment. True, it could be that it is somehow out of context, and if so, one clarification question might be able to clear it up.
But once I got a sense of whether i thought the comment was intentionally hostile or totally a mistake, I think I wouldn't press for clarification any more. First of all, if a person isn't going to respond to one clarification request, they seem unlikely to respond to subsequent ones. Second, if it was totally inadvertant, they would like tell you so.
Also, if I determined that the hostile remark was intentional, I would probably not want to be continuing to converse with the person who is hostil toward me. If it was a misunderstanding, I think I'd probably get a response right away if I stated something like,
"Did you mean to imply that I am a trouble maker with emotional problems? First of all, It wouldn't be unique to have emotional problems here--that is what this board is about. but secondly, if you are implying that disagreeing with Dr. Bob's rules means that I'm an emotionally disturbed troublemaker, I don't agree with that and I am hurt and offended by that."
But I wouldn't want to continue a back and forth of hostile posts. I would want to drop it and move on. And, if the person didn't answer me, so be it. It might be hard, but it would be time to let go of that one.
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 23:23:08
In reply to Re: Lou's response to noa's post-LR-8c-d, posted by noa on April 8, 2003, at 22:58:45
noa,
You wrote,[...one clarification question might clear it up...].
I agree with you on that and that is why I ask for clarification, to clear it up, not to {...put people on the spot...]. Generally, they do not respond to my request with an answer to my request for clarification. So ,in general, ther is usually only one request for clarification from me and if there is an answer given that also needs to be clarified, then I usually ask only once for additional clarification which is pretty much as you have written as to what you would do,[...in my shoes...].
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 9, 2003, at 0:25:39
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dr. Bob's post-LR-8, posted by paxvox on April 8, 2003, at 20:50:47
> Are you THAT messed up man?
Please be sensitive to the feelings of others and don't post anything that could lead them to feel accused or put down. This has come up before, so I'm going to block you from posting for two weeks again.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 9, 2003, at 1:02:03
In reply to Lou's respomse to coral's post-LR » coral, posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 20:21:39
> 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?Yes.
> > 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.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030404/msgs/217289.html> 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?No, people could respond to her, because I'd consider her request (that people not respond to her) to be unreasonable (and her post to be uncivil).
> 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:
> ...
> Would this type of post be permitted her?Yes, that type of post would be permitted, since it isn't uncivil, but those people could still respond to you, because I'd consider your request also to be unreasonable. Since there's no apparent reason for it.
----
> a policy that, in effect, could deny me the opportunity to respond to another poster when I needed clarification of what they wrote
>
> 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]1. I think it's more important for people not to feel harassed than for people to be able to ask questions.
2. The issue here is one person asking a second person not to post to them, not the first person asking others not to post to the second person.
3. Unfortunately, I do think people who are asked not to post to others could end up stigmatized.
4. For someone who wanted to preserve their freedom to post to someone else -- to maintain their relationship with them -- I think it would go a long way to take into account that person's feelings.
Bob
Posted by OddipusRex on April 9, 2003, at 5:22:22
In reply to Lou's response to paxvox's post-LR-8b » paxvox, posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 20:53:55
> paxvox,
> You wrote,[...Why are you that messed up?...]
> I was born that way.
> LouYou're not messed up Lou.
Posted by NikkiT2 on April 9, 2003, at 8:17:43
In reply to (((((((((((((((Lou))))))))))))))))) » Lou Pilder, posted by OddipusRex on April 9, 2003, at 5:22:22
This is only from my own personal perspective, so I am not talking for everyone here.. but I think others might share my view.
When you ask fro clarification, you very rarely just post one simple post asking for this. You post a whole list of posts, often asking the same question but in different words. This makes me feel very pressured, and makes me very anxious, which in turn makes me angry. I don't deal very well with pressure at all.
Maybe if you could simplify your requests, into one post, that clearly states which part of a post you wish to be clarified, and just ask "did you mean xxx, as my understanding of it is yyy"Its when you post 4 or 5 replies, asking for one part of apost to be clarified, that my mind just gives in. I also find them very hard to follow, and end up not knowing what it is you're asking.
I think it is also important to remember that we *all* have problems of some kind here, else we wouldn't be posting here.
Your mind obviously works in complex ways, but would it be possible to try and simplify your posts please.. would hopefully cause less problems, and make life easier for everyone.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 9, 2003, at 9:09:28
In reply to Lou, posted by NikkiT2 on April 9, 2003, at 8:17:43
NikkiT2,
You wrote, "When you ask fro clarification, you very rarely just post one simple post asking for this."
Now it would take a great endevor to categorize all of the posts, relevant to your conclusion, to determine the accuracy of your statement. There are two types of requests for clarification in question, one being a one-sentance request, and the other the list of choices. I feel that the [list of choices] is a good way to separate possible things in order to facilllitate clarification, not for any other reason, and I feel that the list makes it simpler for one to reply so that clarification could be given.
However I feel that if I ask for clarification, that the one being asked could ask me to clarify my request for clarification if they need assistance to comprehend the request and then we could continue after that was clarified. My goal in asking for clarification is to further the goals of this forum , which is for support and education, and I feel that clarification is a good way to foster this.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 9, 2003, at 9:58:26
In reply to (((((((((((((((Lou))))))))))))))))) » Lou Pilder, posted by OddipusRex on April 9, 2003, at 5:22:22
OddipusRex,
You wrote,[...you are not messed up, Lou...].
Well, being messed up is in the eye of the bemesseder?
Lou
Posted by OddipusRex on April 10, 2003, at 10:48:00
In reply to Lou's response to Oddipus Rex's post-LR » OddipusRex, posted by Lou Pilder on April 9, 2003, at 9:58:26
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 13, 2003, at 12:18:04
In reply to Re: Lou's respomses, posted by Dr. Bob on April 9, 2003, at 1:02:03
Dr. Bob,
I asked if one could declare that particular people not to be permitted to respond to the one's post and you replied that one could do that. But you also stated that even though one could declare that some others be not permitted to reply to them that they still could do so because as you wrote, [...the request for declaring that some others not be allowed to respond could be unreasonable because...{there is no apparent reason for it}...].
Are you saying that there must be an [...apparent reason...], {that can be seen}, for one to be allowed to make the declaration that someone not be allowed to post to them and that ther is the possibility that their declaration could be ignored because [there is no apparent reason] for their declaration? If so, then would there have to be , first, an understanding here as to whether or not a poster has [an apparent reason], or not, to declare that another person to not post to them in order for their demand to be allowed here? And if so, could you list some reasons that would make those reasons acceptable here to allow someone to declare that another poster can not post to them? If you could, then we could see what these [accptable, apparent] reasons are, or are not, so that we could respond, or not respond, by having knowlege of the full disclosure of those reasons, without the potential of {entrapment} being used here, for if one knows in advance that there are posters that can, or can not, declare that one not post to them and if there is [no apparent reason] for them to make the declaration to the other to not post to them, then one could either post to them , or not post to them, without having to guess as to if there posting to them is OK because they do, or do not, have an [...apparent reason ...] to exclude the other poster from posting to them.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 13, 2003, at 14:08:56
In reply to Re: Lou's respomses, posted by Dr. Bob on April 9, 2003, at 1:02:03
Dr. Bob,
You wrote,[...I feel it is more important for people to not feel harrased than for people to be able to ask questions...].
I do not believe that a question to another poster constitutes [harrassment]. Harrasment is ruled out when a request for clarification is a result of what the poster being asked to clarify had directed to the one requesting clarification.
If a person feels harrased, that feeling that they have may be a result of an {internal} condition that they have, and not a result of being asked a question by another poster, and I think that it is better to not allow a poster to declare that another poster to not be allowed to respond to them, thus allowing to create stigmatization here on a public forum to that poster that responds to that poster.
If a person writes that they feel harrased, that may not necessarily be the real reason that they are declaring that another poster can not respond to what they wrote, for others could respond to what they wrote and that is permiissible here, so they may have an ulterior motive to declare that another poster can not respond to them. They could be attempting to defame the other poster and want to try and prevent the other poster from correcting the potentually defaming statement. They may be predudiced to the other poster. They may hate the other poster. They may be trying to conceal their unjustfied ill -feelings to the other poster by preventing them from exposing them by requesting clarification from them. After all, the complaint that is seen here that is used to attempt me from requesting clarification is that the request,[...put them on the spot...], not that they consider a request for clarification to constitute harrassment.
If a person declares that another can't post to them because they claim that they are being harrassed by the other poster, it could be that , in actuallity, that the poster claiming harrassement is harassing the one that is responding to what they wrote, for the statement in question that one is responding to may allude to being an accusatory or defaming statement to another poster that would like clarification of what they wrote.
I do not belive that it is harrasment to be a discussant on a public forum and be able to freely request clarification from a poster about what they wrote, for if what they are writing is in violation of the code here, then the moderator could always intercede, thus making any such decaration to [...don't post to me...] to be unecessary.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 13, 2003, at 14:24:53
In reply to Re: Lou's respomses, posted by Dr. Bob on April 9, 2003, at 1:02:03
Dr. Bob,
You wrote,[...If a persom wants to be able to post to another person, they should take account of the other poster's feelings...].
I always take account of people's feelings, if they are ligitamate and reasoanable. But I feel that it is unreasonable to take in accout any feelings of another if the post has the potential to be defaming or accusatory or needs to be clarified for identification or for some other good or just cause. I do not feel that a public forum should allow people's {ill}-feelings toward another poster to render them to declare that another poster can not respond to them. I feel that if people's feelings are more important than the purpose of this board, that they should not be posting statements that have the potential to hurt my feelings, or hurt other people's feelings. My suggestion, if {I} was the moderator of a public internet mental -health forum, would be not to favor a person's want to keep anyone from posting to what they posted. Instead, I would requier a poster to answer a request for clarification if their statement had the potential to be defamatory or accusitve, so that any offensive statement is addressed for its potential to defame another poster,[and not left on the board unclarified .]
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 13, 2003, at 14:34:31
In reply to Re: Lou's respomses, posted by Dr. Bob on April 9, 2003, at 1:02:03
Dr. Bob,
You wrote that a person can declare another to [...not to post to me...].
I am requesting that you direct me to some link that identifies to me the posters here that have made that decalration that I am not to respond to them. Then I would like for the reason(s) that they have made this decaration to deny me to post to them be published here so that I could have the opportunity to chalenge such reasons, for I do not believe that I am a person that deserves to be stigmatized by this forum of people in any way, for my requests for clarification are reasonable and just, and if you are going to allow any one here to decalre that I can not post to them, then I would like them identified so as to defend myself againt the stigmatization that could occure as a result of your allowing this practice here.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 13, 2003, at 15:27:06
In reply to Re: Lou's respomses, posted by Dr. Bob on April 9, 2003, at 1:02:03
Dr. Bob,
Let us consider the following example:
ObstreporousTex: All people that like the Kentucky Derby are in need of psychotropic drugs and are troublemakers.
Weirdedbeardo: Yes, If they like horses to run fast so that they could die, they have no respect for animals.
Lou: I am in the class of people that like the Kentucky Derby, ObstreporousTex, so could you clarify what your rational is for making your conclusion?
Drippy2: Lou, don't you know that ObstreporousRex has declared that you are not to respond to him?
Lou: I am in that class, so I am responding to a post that is directed to me, even though my name is not mentioned.
boozman: Can you drink Bourbon at the Kentucky, Derby, ObstreporousRex?
OCDDitty: Horse racing is an obsession.
Lou: I am requesting that Dr. Bob make a determination as to whether it is allowed in this case forObstreporous Tex to delare that I can not post to him.
Dr. Bob, in this case , could I have posted, under your policy of [...do not post to me...] to ObstreporousTex?
Lou
Posted by noa on April 13, 2003, at 17:04:53
In reply to Lou's response to Dr. Bob's post-VC-3 » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 13, 2003, at 14:24:53
> I always take account of people's feelings,
Lou, did you take people's feelings into account when you used these insulting distortions of people's names to illustrate your point?
ObstreporousTex:
Weirdedbeardo:
Drippy2:
boozman:
Posted by noa on April 13, 2003, at 17:09:29
In reply to Lou's response to Dr. Bob's post-VC-3 » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 13, 2003, at 14:24:53
> I always take account of people's feelings, if they are ligitamate and reasoanable.
How exactly does one determine what feelings are "legitimate and reasonable"?
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 13, 2003, at 20:08:52
In reply to Re: Lou's respomses, posted by Dr. Bob on April 9, 2003, at 1:02:03
Dr. Bob,
You wrote,[...no apparent reason...].
Let us look at this example:
Drippy2: Does anybody here know of a good OTC medicine for sinus trouble?
Weirdedbeardo: I had seeenus trouble once.
Drippy2: What do you mean seenus trouble? I have sinus trouble.
Lou: Well, Drippy2, could you explain the diiference between sinus trouble and seenus trouble?
Drippy2: I'm declaring that you are to not post to me. I am a recently new poster here and I have never communicated with you, but I am exercising my right here to declare that you not post to me anyway.
Wierdedbeardo: I was out with this girl and my girlfriend seenus, and boy did I have trouble.
Dr. Bob, would Drippy be allowed to invoke the declaration that I was not to respond to him/her under the fact that there was [...no apparent reason...]?
Lou
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.