![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 11 to 35 of 193. Go back in thread:
Posted by Sabina on January 5, 2004, at 11:13:52
In reply to Board not a safe place, posted by stjames on January 5, 2004, at 10:58:14
apparently, the ruling is that we can ask for proof one or two times.
four, as larry discovered, is quite unacceptable.
would anyone like to try for three? i don't think that's been tested yet.
Posted by stjames on January 5, 2004, at 11:25:16
In reply to Re: Board not a safe place, posted by Sabina on January 5, 2004, at 11:13:52
>
> would anyone like to try for three? i don't think that's been tested yet.
>
>Better that the moderator do his job and post when folks are making inflamitory claims, that way
no one has to ask over and over.Many times it seems Dr Bob protects the trouble makers and the rest of us have or resolve tested to no say anything. The majority is punished in the name of the rights of the few.
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 5, 2004, at 11:32:36
In reply to Re: Board not a safe place, posted by Sabina on January 5, 2004, at 11:13:52
Could you clarify your statement please?? I don't know where you got your facts on this from.
regards
Nikki
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 5, 2004, at 11:35:34
In reply to Re: Board not a safe place, posted by stjames on January 5, 2004, at 11:25:16
The thing is james, was maxx actually breaking any of the rules??
The clarification rule was bought in when one certian poster asked *constantly* for clarification, so we all know why its here, and it was bought in because we (the posters) wanted it.
OK, Dr Bob has used this in a manner that seems outlandish here, but it was a rule. I can't see, looking at it toally neutrally, what rule maxx could have broken in order to get banned / pbc'd etc.I'm not saying I agree with this at all, I'm just looking at facts.
Nikki
Posted by Dinah on January 5, 2004, at 12:00:23
In reply to Board not a safe place, posted by stjames on January 5, 2004, at 10:58:14
Posted by Sabina on January 5, 2004, at 12:05:22
In reply to Re: Board not a safe place » Sabina, posted by NikkiT2 on January 5, 2004, at 11:32:36
i "got my facts on this" from the contents of the above thread. mostly, i was attempting to make a point that obviously missed the mark, for which i apologize.
1. bob said it was okay to ask for clarification "once or twice"
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031120/msgs/296542.html2. larry was pbc'd for asking for proof he'd been assured existed four times (over several posts) http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20031231/msgs/296194.html
3. i was suggesting, in an allegedly clever manner, that i felt like things had perhaps gotten too microscopically focused and subjectivly oblique to be doing anyone good service, civility-wise.
____________________________________
1 .apparently, the ruling is that we can ask for proof one or two times.
2. four, as larry discovered, is quite unacceptable.
3. would anyone like to try for three? i don't think that's been tested yet.
Posted by stjames on January 5, 2004, at 12:10:56
In reply to Re: Board not a safe place » stjames, posted by NikkiT2 on January 5, 2004, at 11:35:34
> The thing is james, was maxx actually breaking any of the rules??
Dr Bob often asks people not to over-generalize
or jump to conclusions. Have not you seen this before ?
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 5, 2004, at 12:11:27
In reply to Re: Board not a safe place » NikkiT2, posted by Sabina on January 5, 2004, at 12:05:22
(ooops, I missed off the wink at the end of my post to you.. I was gonna try for the magical 3 *laughing* I must remember my Dr Bobesque emoticons!! *l*)
Nikki xxx *winking most sincerely*
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 5, 2004, at 12:17:21
In reply to Re: Board not a safe place, posted by stjames on January 5, 2004, at 12:10:56
yes, I have.
But like zenhussy said, it is hard to know how he is going to interpret the rules.. I missed that bit.
But my point was, that Larry "broke" a rule that was put in place due to us asking.. I feel that he was proper in the way he asked - he only responded to maxx asking for each statement to be verified.
But maxx did claim to have a specific source, and was talking about that. He believed what he was saying it seems, and as such I don't understand how it makes this place so unsafe. And I don't see where he was over generalising either.
Nikki
Posted by stjames on January 5, 2004, at 12:20:38
In reply to Re: Board not a safe place » stjames, posted by NikkiT2 on January 5, 2004, at 12:17:21
> But maxx did claim to have a specific source, and was talking about that. He believed what he was saying it seems, and as such I don't understand how it makes this place so unsafe. And I don't see where he was over generalising either.
>
> Nikki"wiping hardware" and "deep destruction" are
over generalising. Period.
Posted by Dinah on January 5, 2004, at 12:36:54
In reply to Re: Board not a safe place, posted by stjames on January 5, 2004, at 12:20:38
Posted by stjames on January 5, 2004, at 12:46:45
In reply to Re: But he was *blocked* (nm), posted by Dinah on January 5, 2004, at 12:36:54
The block has nothing to do with what we are talking about:
Please don't use language that could offend others, post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, or use this site to exchange information that could be used to obtain prescription medication without a prescription. The last time you were blocked it was for 1 week, so this time it's for 3.
Posted by gabbix2 on January 5, 2004, at 13:04:07
In reply to Re: Board not a safe place » stjames, posted by NikkiT2 on January 5, 2004, at 12:17:21
How can it BE considered safe? Theoretically anyone who wanted to make a stir can make frightening comments about a drug-- state opinion as fact-- claim to have "hundreds of sources" to back up such a claims and yet be protected from having to substantiate anything.
More importantly when someone cares enough about other posters to take the time to get to the truth (before Dr. Bob has a chance to look at the thread and decide whether a poster is "overgeneralizing" or not) they get their fingers slapped.BTW..Maxx was not blocked for over-generalizing
Though wasn't someone given a weeks block a while ago for calling Effexor a demon drug?
Posted by stjames on January 5, 2004, at 13:16:10
In reply to Re: Board not a safe place » NikkiT2, posted by gabbix2 on January 5, 2004, at 13:04:07
Thanks gabbix2, for understanding my point.
Are we like sheep, unable to be defended everytime
someone makes outragious claims ? Yes we can refute them, but when someone makes these claims over and over again, the moderator should (and has in the past) spoken and asked folks not to generalize. So, if you want to make these genetal claims you need to give proof.Again it seems to me the rights of a few (to inflame) are supported over the rights of the rest of us to feel safe.
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 5, 2004, at 16:51:38
In reply to Re: Board not a safe place » NikkiT2, posted by gabbix2 on January 5, 2004, at 13:04:07
OK, I guess I have mis understood between scary and safe. To me, safe is where it can damage me (or who ever) in some way.. Someone posting about bad drug reactions or what ever, can be very scary, of course, but to me, it wasn't unsafe in my definition. I never say my opinion is the right one, its just my own.
And I *know* that maxx wasn't blocked for over generalising, I was just saying why I thought he hadn't been is all. That he hadn't broekn the rules so to speak.
And that while Larry's PBC was a very rough decision, and one I don't think is fair, I can understand why it was done.Thats all I was saying. Not what was right or wrong. Just my thoughts on it
Nikki
Posted by stjames on January 5, 2004, at 17:03:23
In reply to Re: Board not a safe place » gabbix2, posted by NikkiT2 on January 5, 2004, at 16:51:38
> OK, I guess I have mis understood
Glad you figured it out !
Posted by stjames on January 5, 2004, at 17:12:01
In reply to Re: please don't pressure others » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on January 5, 2004, at 10:33:00
Posted by Dinah on January 5, 2004, at 17:14:34
In reply to Re: But he was *blocked* so what !, posted by stjames on January 5, 2004, at 12:46:45
> The block has nothing to do with what we are talking about:
>We don't know that. When someone has committed multiple blockable offenses, Dr. Bob doesn't necessarily elucidate every one of them when handing out the block.
The only way you would know if Dr. Bob would have let overgeneralizations go is if that was the *only* thing the poster had done, and nothing was done about it. I find that hard to believe, since poor Clayton was blocked for a mild bit of hyperbole about Effexor. Mind you, I objected to the block over Effexor, so I'm not sure how I feel about blocking someone for their opinions about drugs.
Posted by stjames on January 5, 2004, at 17:20:33
In reply to Re: But he was *blocked* so what !, posted by Dinah on January 5, 2004, at 17:14:34
> > The block has nothing to do with what we are talking about:
> >
>
> We don't know that. When someone has committed multiple blockable offenses, Dr. Bob doesn't necessarily elucidate every one of them when handing out the block.AGAIN you are missing my point. Could you read my
posts ? I am not talking about blocks..you are.
I was not asking for a block, just a statement
from dr bob to not generalize.
Posted by stjames on January 5, 2004, at 17:21:49
In reply to Re: But he was *blocked* so what !, posted by Dinah on January 5, 2004, at 17:14:34
> > The block has nothing to do with what we are talking about:
> >
>
> We don't know that. When someone has committed multiple blockable offenses, Dr. Bob doesn't necessarily elucidate every one of them when handing out the block.We do have dr bob's statement as to why he was blocked. So I will go by the hard facts.
Posted by Dinah on January 5, 2004, at 17:41:10
In reply to Re: But he was *blocked* so what !, posted by stjames on January 5, 2004, at 17:21:49
Peace, St. James. You're right. I didn't understand, and probably still don't. I'll get out of Dodge.
Posted by henrietta on January 5, 2004, at 19:38:21
In reply to Re: please don't pressure others » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on January 5, 2004, at 10:33:00
"And I can't believe I even have to say that."
Why not? Everybody else has to spell it out.
These are the rules. Play or don't.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 5, 2004, at 23:41:35
In reply to Re:saying horrific things isn't pressuring others? » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on January 5, 2004, at 8:04:31
> It is perfectly reasonable to want to examine the data/research/information used to arrive at such a conclusion
Sure. But if no data/research/information are forthcoming?
> claims of "wiping hardware" and "deep destruction" are more than just simple opinion. They are provocative and threatening.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused. Sorry, but the last time you were blocked, it was for 1 week, so this time it's for 2.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on January 5, 2004, at 23:45:30
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Larry Hoover, posted by Dr. Bob on January 5, 2004, at 23:41:35
Posted by mair on January 6, 2004, at 12:01:39
In reply to Re: Oh, Dr. Bob...... (nm), posted by Dinah on January 5, 2004, at 23:45:30
The direction of this whole thread seems unfair. I think Larry and St. James raised some very legitimate questions about the administration of the site, or perhaps more appropriately the lack of active administration. The statement for which you blocked Larry mostly contained Maxx's own words and Larry repeated them to express the opinion that when someone does make these sweeping uncorroborated generalizations and then fails to back them up when asked several times, the moderator should not sanction someone for doing what the moderator should have done to begin with.
From the vantage of someone who was not a part of the initial thread, it seems to add insult to injury that Maxx, while blocked, was never called to task for the conclusions and opinionated generalizations he made, and that you have not addressed the points raised by Stjames, Larry, and others in this thread. Maybe from your perspective it makes no difference since yes, in fact, maxx was blocked and maybe you feel your rules speak for themselves. I think, however, at times, appearances are important as well. From all appearances, you've run the wrong guy out of Dodge, and by blocking Larry while ignoring the context, you've sanctioned Larry in what seems to be a rather imperious way.
Mair
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.