![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 153 to 177 of 187. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 14, 2003, at 14:52:06
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post-DPTM, posted by NikkiT2 on April 14, 2003, at 10:51:22
NikkiT2,
You wrote that my communication is terrible and that no one ever really knows what I am trying to say.
Well, if you are not sure of what I am trying to say, you, or anyone else, could ask me for clarification to have a better understanding so that you could have the opportunity to respond accordingly. I have not declared that anyone could not respond to me, and you have responded more to me than most others here, so it appears to me that at least you have some idea as to what I am talking about, except I do not beleive that you have a proper foundation to make the kind of remarks and conclusions that you have made to me in your post here that I am taking the opportunity to respond to.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 14, 2003, at 15:07:13
In reply to Re: Lou's respomses » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 13, 2003, at 15:27:06
> Let us consider the following example:
> ObstreporousTex:
> Weirdedbeardo:
> Drippy2:
> boozman:Please be sensitive to the feelings of others and don't post anything that could lead them to feel accused or put down, thanks. I know you're concerned about what the effect of this policy might be, so I'd like to repeat:
> 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 [other] person's feelings.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030404/msgs/217675.htmlBob
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 14, 2003, at 15:17:18
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post-DPTM, posted by NikkiT2 on April 14, 2003, at 10:51:22
NikkiT2,
You wrote, "But no, you have to harrass me and make me feel so angry that you couldn't just let one simply typo go."
If you are refering to a recent post of yours to me, then my reply to you is not harrassment, for when one poststo another, there is an invitation for the other to respond. And if I remenber correctly, that post of yours had grammer that was not giving a clear idea of what you were trying to say, as well as there being a typo. But my request was only to give you an opportunity to clarify what you wrote to me, and that is not uncivil, or to be constituted as harrassment to you. If there is a recent post that is different from the post of yours that I am describing, and there is a post of yours with only a typo in it, could you repost that and we could examine it? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly. Are you also saying that I intentinally tried to make you angry by asking for clarification? If so, you could dispell that from your consideration for it is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, my intention to make someone angry.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 14, 2003, at 15:20:23
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post-DPTM, posted by NikkiT2 on April 14, 2003, at 10:51:22
> you have been so openly offensive
>
> you are a nasty piece of work. You deliberately, and yes, I mean deliberately, wind people up, again and again and again.
>
> Your grammer is appalling. Your use of ]'s and the like make your posts virtually impossible to read and understand, and your spelling is terrible
>
> your communication is terriblePlease be sensitive to the feelings of others -- even if yours are hurt -- and don't jump to conclusions about them or post anything that could lead them to feel accused or put down, thanks.
> you have to harrass me and make me feel so angry
The whole idea of this new policy is to allow you, if you feel harassed by someone, to ask them not to direct any more posts to you...
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 14, 2003, at 15:35:44
In reply to Lou's response to Dr. Bob's post-VC-4 » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 13, 2003, at 14:34:31
> 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
Yes, the idea is to keep people from feeling harassed, so that should be the reason.
> 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
That's true. But who's to say what the "real" reason is?
> the statement in question that one is responding to may allude to being an accusatory or defaming statement
Accusatory and defaming statements aren't civil, so I'll do my best to deal with them.
> I feel that if people's feelings are more important than the purpose of this board
The feeling of being supported is itself one of the purposes of this board...
> 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
1. I'm not going to try to keep track of these requests. Please note any that are directed to you.
It's partly for this reason that "blanket" requests would be a problem; everyone might not see them.
2. If someone requests that you not direct any posts to them and you want to challenge that, you can email me or, as long as you're civil, post to me about it here, but please respect their request not to post to them, thanks.
Bob
PS: I'm not replying to posts with distorted names.
Posted by NikkiT2 on April 14, 2003, at 15:36:22
In reply to Lou's response to NikkiT2's post-HRF, posted by Lou Pilder on April 14, 2003, at 15:17:18
Lou, I made one reply. Out of that one reply you have sent me 10 replies. To me, that number of messages generated to get clarification, feels like harrassment.
I must leave this thread now. I'm sorry for doing that, but it is not healthy for me to continue.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 14, 2003, at 16:13:11
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post-HRF » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on April 14, 2003, at 15:36:22
NikkiT2,
You wrote, "To me, the number of messages generated to get clarification feels like harrassment."
Each of my posts to you addresses one spacific part of your post to me, and there were many, many accusations and conclusions that I feel were false that you made about me that I felt hurt about that I wanted to have the opportunity to respond to, and the whole is equal to the sum of its parts. Are you saying that there is a quota to the parts of your post that I can respond to and not have the opportunity to respond to all of your post to me? If so, I feel that would be terribly unfair, for then I could be limited in my response to you so that not all of the parts could be responded to and could leave what I feel are accusations toward me unanswered. I feel that when a poster directs either statements that I feel are accusatory or defamatory to me, that it would be better for me to answere those statements than to leave them unanswered, and if there are many by the same poster, then there could be many replys from me and I do not consider that harassment, but just defending myself aginst what I feel is defamation directed at me. I forgive those that write defaminfg posts about me, but I also feel that I have an obligation to let posters that make satements that I feel are defaming to me be aware of the hurt that those statements could cause, and address them accordingly.
You wrote that you are sorry for leaving. I am sorry that you are leaving also. perhaps we could continue this discussion in the future, for I have not ever, and will not ever, and could not ever, tell someone not to post to me.
Lou
Posted by noa on April 14, 2003, at 18:01:23
In reply to Lou's response to NikkiT2's post-DR-WB » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on April 14, 2003, at 11:35:18
Lou, there is a principal in law called "man on the street". Or, there is the old adage, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....or the story of the judge who said, "I can't define pornography but I know it when I see it"....
Most reasonable people, I believe, would be able to see that you did not just dream up the names you used and that they bear enough resemblance to names of posters as to be referring to them in an indirect way.
When you deny that responsibility, you lose credibility with me. I can't speak for others.
Do you want to be a part of this community and to retain some credibility and good will in this community? I think you actually do. I don't know. That is just my intuition.
If you do want to interact with this community in a way where people will want to have civil discourse with you, then please take some advice from our reactions to your posts.
Posted by noa on April 14, 2003, at 18:03:13
In reply to Lou's response to NikkiT2's post-4YON, posted by Lou Pilder on April 14, 2003, at 11:56:47
Lou, for my part, for once I would be able to answer one of your multiple choices:
If you were asking me, I would say the answer is B--you are accused of acting innocent.
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 14, 2003, at 19:48:31
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post-DR-WB, posted by noa on April 14, 2003, at 18:01:23
noa,
You wrote,[...most reasonable people...would say that you did not dream up the names...they referr to posters in an indirect way...]
I disagree with you on that, for to make that conclusion, one would have to sample a great amount of reasonable people and that has not been done. There could be differant opinions based on other factors and you have not included that the names were in a hypothetical example and that the posters were not real. Drippy2 has no resemblance to any poster here unless ther is a poster here with extreme sinus problems. ObstreporusTex is a cantankerous Texan that doesn't listen to anybody, hence he is obstreporous, and I know of no counterpart here. Weirdedbeardo is a man that was caught with another girl and his girlfriend seen them, hence he had seenus trouble. I know of no counterpart here. Boozmzn was a person at the Kentucky Derby that was interested in getting bourbon while he was there. I know of no counterpart here. If 10,000 reasomable men were given the opportunuty to know all of the facts to determine your conclusion, perhaps the conclusion would be differant from yours.
Lou
Posted by IsoM on April 15, 2003, at 0:48:30
In reply to Lou's respomse to noa's post-QAK » noa, posted by Lou Pilder on April 14, 2003, at 19:48:31
Posted by Rach on April 15, 2003, at 3:24:21
In reply to Do You Really Think You're Proving Anything? (nm) » Lou Pilder, posted by IsoM on April 15, 2003, at 0:48:30
If Loo Piddler went up to NobleT2 and babbled on about how he considers proposed policies to be unsound mental health practices, but the input from the posters suggests discussion has a better intention, would he be classified as uncivil?
Would 10 times in a row classify him as uncivil?
Please note:
As feelings are internally generated, I do not feel I am responsible for anyone else's reaction -- for their reaction could be irrational in respect to the subject at hand.Now, if the aforementioned Piddler could match up the right frontal lobe with less hypothetical white matter, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 15, 2003, at 6:56:46
In reply to Do You Really Think You're Proving Anything? (nm) » Lou Pilder, posted by IsoM on April 15, 2003, at 0:48:30
IsoM,
You wrote,[...do you really think you are proving anything?...].
Could you clarify what it is that you observe that could have promted you to ask me that? If you could clarify that, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Best wishes,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 15, 2003, at 7:03:30
In reply to Oh dear..., posted by Rach on April 15, 2003, at 3:24:21
Rach,
You wrote,[...if the...Piddler could...match up frontal lobe...less white matter...then I could respond acordingly...].
I am always open to provide any clarification so that the opportunity to respond is made available. Could you write what you would request from me so that you could repond accordingly? If you could, then we could have a disscussion about the topic that you are addressing.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 15, 2003, at 8:50:05
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post-DR-WB, posted by noa on April 14, 2003, at 18:01:23
noa,
You wrote,[...if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...].
Are you saying that your statement here about the duck could be completed to include,[...it is a duck...]?
If you are, then if we examine my post in question , you will see that there is not a duck in the post.
Could you clarify what it was that caused you to write the duck analogy? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by tina on April 15, 2003, at 10:10:16
In reply to Lou's response to Rach's post » Rach, posted by Lou Pilder on April 15, 2003, at 7:03:30
> Rach,
> You wrote,[...if the...Piddler could...match up frontal lobe...less white matter...then I could respond acordingly...].
> I am always open to provide any clarification so that the opportunity to respond is made available. Could you write what you would request from me so that you could repond accordingly? If you could, then we could have a disscussion about the topic that you are addressing.
> Lou
>Why would you assume that Rach was asking YOU anything? Did you think that 'the piddler" could possible be you? If that's so, then you should be able to see that YOUR use of "fictitious" names in YOUR posts such as Drippy2 could be seen as a reference to existing posters.
give it up Lou
later......much much later..........God, I swore I wouldn't ever address any of Lou's posts. But I just can't supress the urge to point out hypocrisy.
Posted by tina on April 15, 2003, at 10:11:16
In reply to Oh dear..., posted by Rach on April 15, 2003, at 3:24:21
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 15, 2003, at 10:15:59
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post-DR-WB, posted by noa on April 14, 2003, at 18:01:23
noa,
You wrote,[...when you deny that responsibility...do you want to be a part of this community...?...then take some advice from our reactions to your post...]]
Are you saying that:
I must accept the accusations made to me here, that I consider to be false and defaming to me, as a condition to be a member of this community?
Are you the same noa that has posted what I consider to be defaming remarks directed to me on the 2000 board that OddipusRex has posted on this board? If so, could you explain how people that make those type of remarks could be considered to be members of this community that [...have credibility and good will...]? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by noa on April 15, 2003, at 11:47:44
In reply to Lou's respomse to noa's post-COND » noa, posted by Lou Pilder on April 15, 2003, at 10:15:59
Lou, I wrote the remark that O.R. reported below. Here is the entire sentence:
"I really do have this idea that Lou's brain is locked in the loops of neverending detail, and he can't help it."
I take full responsibility for it. But I did not intend it to be defaming.
I meant it to express an impression, my very own, internally generated, that your posts have given me. It is merely an impression. I thought that sharing it with a poster who is angry at you might help them to be a bit more forgiving of you and to disengage from being hostile toward you. I am sorry if you received it as defaming. It was simply an honest reflection of an impression I have developed from your posts.
I apologize for any hurt I might have caused you.
I will not post to you or about you any more.
And, I request that you not direct any further posts to me, nor post about me.
Thank you.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 15, 2003, at 13:31:42
In reply to Lou's respomse to noa's post-QAK » noa, posted by Lou Pilder on April 14, 2003, at 19:48:31
> Drippy2 has no resemblance to any poster here unless ther is a poster here with extreme sinus problems...
Sorry, but I just asked you not to post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, so I'm going to block you from posting again. Last time it was for 8 weeks, so this time it's for 16.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 15, 2003, at 13:39:18
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Rach's post » Lou Pilder, posted by tina on April 15, 2003, at 10:10:16
> Now, if the aforementioned Piddler could match up the right frontal lobe with less hypothetical white matter, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
>
> Rach> But I just can't supress the urge to point out hypocrisy.
>
> tinaPlease be sensitive to the feelings of others and don't post anything that could lead them to feel accused or put down, thanks.
Bob
Posted by OddipusRex on April 15, 2003, at 14:49:21
In reply to Re: please be civil » Rach » tina, posted by Dr. Bob on April 15, 2003, at 13:39:18
There goes Bob.
Once again.
But it's never worked before.
Do you really think they're going to like you now and be good compliant passive posters? Do you really think it will make you popular with the posters for very long?
I don't think many people will respect your decisions. At least not for long.
I feel sorry for you Bob. And I don't mean that as a put down. You must not have much of a life yourself if you can devote so many hours to PB.
I absolutely do not give anyone permission to post anything about me after I am gone. Please respect my privacy.Best Wishes
Posted by Dinah on April 15, 2003, at 20:08:49
In reply to I WOULD BE HONORED TO BE BLOCKED » Dr. Bob, posted by OddipusRex on April 15, 2003, at 14:49:21
Gone? Oddipus, admittedly my mind is not at a hundred percent, and reading posts is difficult at the moment, but why would you be gone? Lou did persist in doing the very thing Dr. Bob asked him not to do, and as you know, that's a surefire method to get yourself a discplinary action.
Of course, I may be completely off base here, and I may have missed something completely.
I can't quite imagine you getting blocked though, Oddipus. I suspect civility is a point of honor with you, and has nothing to do with Dr. Bob's rules.
Posted by shar on April 16, 2003, at 23:32:10
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post-DPTM, posted by NikkiT2 on April 14, 2003, at 10:51:22
> You can never simply reply with one post, but, take this thread as an example, you go over and over the same things time and time again. People are just pushed to the edge of distraction by you.
Nikki--
Resistance is futile. The only way to win is not to play.Shar
P.S. Anyone that can name the movies those two lines are from wins a new screen name!
Posted by IsoM on April 17, 2003, at 1:00:41
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post-DPTM » NikkiT2, posted by shar on April 16, 2003, at 23:32:10
I can't resist - first one is from Star Trek's "First Contact" & the other one is from "War Games". C'mon, you gotta make them tougher. So what's my new name now?
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.