![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 7 to 31 of 74. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on October 6, 2003, at 16:55:11
In reply to Re: OK, a suggestion. » Dr. Bob, posted by Tabitha on October 6, 2003, at 16:43:29
I dunno Tabitha. Under that set of guidelines I'd be kicked out of Sunday School class.
Posted by Chicklet on October 6, 2003, at 20:27:45
In reply to Re: Hi Bob- can we chat?, posted by Dinah on October 6, 2003, at 14:23:07
Dinah- once again you make many good pints. (Ok, i'm keeping that typo because it's funny). So have you ever brewed your own beer in your basement? :D
>>Here are people who we have a relationship with, good or bad, and they know it but we don't.
Ya, it's an honesty issue and it stinks. because yeah, it's the internet and we really don't know who's doing what. But it's making me defensive and surly because I really trust and admire many people here. And I believe that they are who they say they are. But there are others that are sort of spoiling the party for the rest of us. I understand that this is partly the nature of a board like this. But....
>>Kristen ever did to me was to ask me if I were sleeping with you.
!! eek- I don't remember that!
> I don't know what the extent of the offenses against others were, because the majority of them took place in private communications and on another board.
They were extensive. And really hurtful. Especially on Jay's board. it's a shame because he was just trying to provide another outlet for babblers.
>>but everything to do with the principle involved.
Yup.Take care dear Dinah
Posted by Chicklet on October 6, 2003, at 20:40:37
In reply to Re: starting over under a new name, posted by Dr. Bob on October 6, 2003, at 16:12:34
> > Can you tell us why you allowed K to post under an assumed name? People (who haven't been deceiving anyone) get banned when they post under another name...
>
> Because I've considered it OK, in general, to assume a new name. And she wasn't posting under more than one name at the same time. And wasn't blocked any longer.>>>>>yes, but you monitor the board pretty diligently. And you could see what was going down. Right? Why couldn't you put some sort of kibosh on it? You didn't.
> > So many on this board were hurt 6 months ago or whenever it was.
>> I know. Maybe this can be a healing process?>>>>>Excuse me? What??? That sounds as if you're trying to disregard what's happened. This is not about 'healing'. This is about changing some of the rules of the board and protecting people that come here solely for support. I don't need an experiment to teach me about the healing process. Really, I don't. Your answer just feels like a cop out to me.
>instead of taking up your customary stance...
>> Are you thinking I encouraged her to change names?
>>>>Doesn't matter. I assume of course, that you didn't. but you were privy to all of it. No we don't know for how long or for what purpose. but I feel that it was wrong of you.
> Being contacted would constitute "helping them along"?
>
>>Of course not! And that, I don't think, is what Dinah meant. Why won't you just be straight with us? Please?> Also, I'm open to revising these policies, in case anyone has any suggestions...
>>yeah I think we have suggestions
Karen
Posted by Chicklet on October 6, 2003, at 20:49:18
In reply to Re: OK, a suggestion. » Dr. Bob, posted by Tabitha on October 6, 2003, at 16:43:29
>lot of bad feelings among a lot of people, *****repeatedly*****, regardless of whether they manage to skirt the civility rules?
Yeah, repeatedly is right...it would be a good measure of the offense.
>could you judge some posters to be more of a group liability than an asset and act accordingly?
Makes good sense, Tabitha.
>why not look at eliminating the ones that cause the most damage, instead of just uniformly sanctioning everyone for curse words and insults?
Exxxactly. It's Bob's board. if it's designed for support, maybe he could step back and see that in some cases, things just spin out of control. And as he really DOES observe and respond to many of the posts, cutting out the rifraf would be safer, kinder and more comforting for the members that were threatened or hurt or whatever.
You are a wise woman. Even when you don't eat your veggies.
karen
Posted by Tabitha on October 6, 2003, at 23:57:17
In reply to Re: OK, a suggestion. » Tabitha, posted by Dinah on October 6, 2003, at 16:55:11
I can't imagine you being the pariah of your sunday school class. Launching debate and tenaciously hanging onto your beliefs, yes-- but pariah? Can't picture it.
Posted by Tabitha on October 7, 2003, at 0:38:39
In reply to Re: Chuckle » Dinah, posted by Tabitha on October 6, 2003, at 23:57:17
hmm... 'pariah' seems like a poor choice of words to me now. Seems to connote someone unfairly persecuted like Frankenstein's monster. I meant-- I can't imagine you leaving a trail of hurt feelings.
Posted by gabbix2 on October 7, 2003, at 1:30:56
In reply to Re: P.S. Dinah, posted by Tabitha on October 7, 2003, at 0:38:39
*
Posted by Chicklet on October 7, 2003, at 1:57:26
In reply to Re: P.S. Dinah, posted by gabbix2 on October 7, 2003, at 1:30:56
tabitha- all I can say re: Dinah is that you have severely underestimated her powers. her evil. Her, her, her...well, you know- se just might not be the sweet Dinah we all thought she was. I hear she's posting under a different name too: SundaySchoolTrouble.
Look everyone!!!!! Gabbi's back!!!
But it's been so long since she's been allowed to post that all she seems to be able to post now is an asterisk...
*
It's a crying shame.Let's keep it administrative here, gang.
I got it- Gabbi seems to be having difficulty postin any more than an asterisk. Any ideas why?
I am going to pay for this sarcasm.
Soon enough.
Posted by Sabina on October 7, 2003, at 3:58:11
In reply to Re: P.S. Dinah, posted by gabbix2 on October 7, 2003, at 1:30:56
Posted by Chicklet on October 7, 2003, at 6:24:28
In reply to Re: Brevity is the soul of wit. ;) (nm) » gabbix2, posted by Sabina on October 7, 2003, at 3:58:11
Posted by Dinah on October 7, 2003, at 7:36:27
In reply to Re: P.S. Dinah, posted by gabbix2 on October 7, 2003, at 1:30:56
Posted by Dinah on October 7, 2003, at 7:37:50
In reply to Re: Chuckle » Dinah, posted by Tabitha on October 6, 2003, at 23:57:17
Posted by Chicklet on October 7, 2003, at 7:42:58
In reply to Re: Same thing :) (nm) » Tabitha, posted by Dinah on October 7, 2003, at 7:37:50
Have a good day, Dinah
*
Posted by Dinah on October 7, 2003, at 11:48:16
In reply to Re: starting over under a new name, posted by Dr. Bob on October 6, 2003, at 16:12:34
Have changing names, without good reason and without notice on admin be against the rules. Ask anyone who you discover to have switched names to contact you by email. Find out if it is a safety issue, and if not, have the rules be that you will at least disclose that the fact that they are a new identity will be disclosed on Admin.
Posted by Dinah on October 7, 2003, at 12:46:55
In reply to Re: Another proposal » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on October 7, 2003, at 11:48:16
Further clarification. We already have a rule discouraging a poster from posting under two names at once. If it happens, you post "please choose a name and stick with it". The new rule could be discouraging changing identities, with exceptions being allowable with administrative approval (that puts you on the hook too Dr. Bob). So if you discover that someone has changed names (and I know that you won't always know, but if you find out) you could post a generic "please email me about a problem with your registration". At that point, if administrative approval is not forthcoming, you could post a "Please inform others when changing posting names." You wouldn't actually have to rat anyone out, any more than you currently tell us the identity of people who are posting while blocked. We have to figure it out the old fashioned way, but dividing the block by two, and seeing who was currently blocked for that period.
I know it's a bit more trouble for you, but I bet it would make for a more welcoming place for genuine newcomers, and would leave the rest of us feeling less betrayed by you.
And it would be interesting to see what you would consider to be exceptions. Personal safety is clear. But what about "I said and did such hurtful things before that if anyone knew who I was, no one would talk to me."
Posted by Susan J on October 7, 2003, at 12:52:34
In reply to Hi Bob- can we chat?, posted by Chicklet on October 6, 2003, at 13:19:32
>>Does accepting count as sanctioning?
<<Yeah, I think so. Implicit sanctioning. But I was going to suggest the same thing Dinah did. If someone changes their name here on the board, could you require full disclosure of the name change?
From what to what.... how about setting up yet *another* board for the disclosures so people could check them easily? :-)
Posted by Tabitha on October 7, 2003, at 14:02:58
In reply to Re: Another proposal » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on October 7, 2003, at 11:48:16
it's nice when people disclose the change. Why not make it a requirement? It can't be good for the community to allow people to hide their past.
Posted by Sabina on October 7, 2003, at 14:04:57
In reply to Re: I second Dinah's suggestion, posted by Tabitha on October 7, 2003, at 14:02:58
Posted by galkeepinon on October 7, 2003, at 14:25:24
In reply to Re: Another proposal, posted by Dinah on October 7, 2003, at 12:46:55
Posted by lil' jimi on October 7, 2003, at 15:10:33
In reply to Re: starting over under a new name, posted by Dr. Bob on October 6, 2003, at 16:12:34
too angry to comment now
......
...
...
what do we call someone who allows the wolf to put on the sheep's clothing the better to frolic in the flock?
... and what if that someone was the shepherd?
... i ... ...
(... being civil ...) !!!!
Posted by Chicklet on October 7, 2003, at 15:24:28
In reply to re: starting over under a new name » Dr. Bob, posted by lil' jimi on October 7, 2003, at 15:10:33
Is that your new posting name, Jim?
:D>> ... and what if that someone was the shepherd?
metaphorical genius.
Scary though, huh?
I'm mad too.This is kinda like a G. Dubya situation. The administration used to be a little ittle bit funny because of the silliness and all- (you know, with the naughty swear words like ass and shit) but now, none of it is funny anymore. It's ludicrous. I can't laugh about GW's actions anymore either.
Posted by lil' jimi on October 7, 2003, at 15:53:18
In reply to To: Too angry 2 comment » lil' jimi, posted by Chicklet on October 7, 2003, at 15:24:28
oh, babe !
... you're calling the gendarmes down on yourself again ... please don't ... for me?my new posting name would have to be
... "Late For Supper" ...
... if only because i always tell folks to call anything they please, just don't call me late for supper ...
... but i have to keep my "lil' jimi" for a while longer . ..
~ jim
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 7, 2003, at 16:41:43
In reply to To: Too angry 2 comment » lil' jimi, posted by Chicklet on October 7, 2003, at 15:24:28
> (you know, with the naughty swear words like *ss and sh*t)
Please don't use language that could offend others. The last time you were blocked, it was for 2 weeks, so this time, it's for 4.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on October 7, 2003, at 17:17:16
In reply to Re: blocked for 4 weeks » Chicklet, posted by Dr. Bob on October 7, 2003, at 16:41:43
Posted by lil' jimi on October 7, 2003, at 17:42:03
In reply to Is that your only comment? (nm) » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on October 7, 2003, at 17:17:16
... to threads they've contributed to
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.