![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 160 to 184 of 193. Go back in thread:
Posted by tealady on January 13, 2004, at 6:35:03
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks, posted by Jai Narayan on January 7, 2004, at 23:31:03
> > Do you feel you stayed within the bounds of the civility guidelines?
> <Dear poster, I have stated what I thought was going on for a while. I was worried about the legal ramifications about Larry's postings.Is that so bad to question?
> I think it is not.
> To question is not that same as to make statements. Do you not agree?
>
No..DON'T AGREE To question anyone's posts just after they have been blocked so they cannot reply for themselves is not something I would agree with.To question is fine..so why didn't you question Lar at the time of his postings since you were so concerned about the legal ramifications of them.
You said,
"I too thought he was a wonderful and thoughtful person ..
OK, so why didn't you question his postings then at that time??? and directly question him and express your concerns?
I'm assuming here you do have some knowledge of the legal ramfications and were concerned about someone you thought was "wonderful and thoughtful"I have been hurt and assaulted by his attitudes and the people who think Larry " can do no wrong".
I do not know to whom you are referring to here..but speaking for myself, I assure you I have no illusions that anyone is perfect.
I'm not even going to comment on your use of the word ASSAULTED
Posted by gabbix2 on January 13, 2004, at 10:33:31
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Jai Narayan, posted by tealady on January 13, 2004, at 6:35:03
Tealady, considering the timing of these "concerns" appeared only after Lar's request that Jai not post to him, I think what's happening here is pretty transparent, especially because it has nothing to with topic of the thread, except that it involves Larry's name.
A Dr. would have to prescribe any medication taken anyway so the point is moot.
Posted by gabbix2 on January 13, 2004, at 11:24:52
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks, posted by Jai Narayan on January 7, 2004, at 22:38:05
Jai You Said:
>> To question is not that same as to make statements. Do you not agree?
> I have to say Larry Hoover is not as he seems, I have been hurt and assaulted by his attitudes and the people who think Larry " can do no wrong".I am not suprised at all that he has overstepped his bounds.
Sometimes I thought he could have been sued for the claims he made about products he uses.He sometimes behaves like a pdoc....telling all what they should take and not take.
I was repeatedly surprised that this was *okay*. If he decided what someone should take then he would give a dose level...
.well that sure looked like perscribing to me.
I am amazed how he got as far as he got. I have seen people sued for less. I guess I have wondered how this site was exempt from the legal rules. It sure looked risky.
I saw not one question there Jai
And it is quite different suggest than to be able to prescribe. You may want to look at all the other posters doing similar "prescribing" on the site if it is a true concern
Posted by gabbix2 on January 13, 2004, at 11:32:52
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Jai Narayan, posted by gabbix2 on January 13, 2004, at 11:24:52
I'm curious, who have you seen sued for less?
Posted by Jai Narayan on January 14, 2004, at 21:45:13
In reply to BTW. Jai?, posted by gabbix2 on January 13, 2004, at 11:32:52
> I'm curious, who have you seen sued for less?
<thanks for the question. Honestly I have never sued anyone ever. My father was a lawyer....I watched many a struggle. People are sue crazy....it's disconcerting. but thanks for asking.
Posted by Larry Hoover on January 20, 2004, at 11:24:55
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks, posted by Jai Narayan on January 7, 2004, at 22:38:05
> I have to say Larry Hoover is not as he seems, I too thought he was a wonderful and thoughtful person till I came up against *his* strict rules. I have been hurt and assaulted by his attitudes and the people who think Larry " can do no wrong". I am not suprised at all that he has overstepped his bounds. Sometimes I thought he could have been sued for the claims he made about products he uses. He sometimes behaves like a pdoc....telling all what they should take and not take. I was repeatedly surprised that this was *okay*. If he decided what someone should take then he would give a dose level....well that sure looked like perscribing to me. I am amazed how he got as far as he got. I have seen people sued for less. I guess I have wondered how this site was exempt from the legal rules. It sure looked risky.
> IMHOFrankly, I can only react with amazement that anyone would display morals/ethics that would lead to a post such as this one, while in full knowledge that the other party could not possibly reply.
Perhaps, reference to the FAQ, with respect to the keyword "trust", might be in order.
Should anyone ever have wondered how it is that I came to say what I did, about anything, let me assure you that I check and double-check my references prior to posting detailed opinions about substances, doses, and so on. One need only ask, and I would provide supportive materials. In the interest of brevity, I do not always provide such background. Moreover, some of it is exceedingly complex, utilizing language and concepts that are not commonly part of people's lives. A reference is of no use, if it is not understood by the reader. So, I make judgment calls all the time.
I am an environmental toxicologist. I have studied and understand the behaviour of organisms responding to exogenous (from outside) chemicals. I must utilize comprehension of intake (e.g. oral, percutaneous, inhalation), metabolism (liver enzymes, membrane transport, etc.), excretion (e.g. bile, urine, exhalation), concepts such as half-life, tissue storage, and so on. You will see that many of those same concepts are relevant to pharmacology. I feel qualified to proved informed opinion. You may feel otherwise, as is your right.
As to legalities....I do not pretend to prescribe anything. Ideas I present must pass through the same interpretive process that would be initiated by conversations with prescribing physicians along the line of "Doctor, I read in a book that...."
Frankly, I don't know how your post got past the civility censor. Rather than "Larry 'can do no wrong'", I believe I have been held to a far higher standard than others here. Again, you may disagree with that, as is your right.
In any case, the issue is somewhat moot, now.
Lar
Posted by henrietta on January 20, 2004, at 18:32:43
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Jai Narayan, posted by Larry Hoover on January 20, 2004, at 11:24:55
"in any case, the issue is somewhat moot now"
Exactly.
Posted by Ron Hill on January 20, 2004, at 19:33:23
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks, posted by henrietta on January 20, 2004, at 18:32:43
> > in any case, the issue is somewhat moot now
> > <Larry>
> Exactly.> <henrietta>
Hi Henrietta,I don't understand what you meant by your reply to Larry's post. Can you help me out and tell me the point that you are trying to make?
Thanks.
-- Ron
Posted by shar on January 20, 2004, at 21:32:08
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Jai Narayan, posted by Larry Hoover on January 20, 2004, at 11:24:55
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2004, at 1:03:14
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Jai Narayan, posted by Larry Hoover on January 20, 2004, at 11:24:55
> I can only react with amazement that anyone would display morals/ethics that would lead to a post such as this one
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. It may be somewhat moot, but the last time you were blocked it was for 2 weeks, so this time it's for 6.
Bob
Posted by sienna on January 21, 2004, at 1:09:08
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » Larry Hoover, posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2004, at 1:03:14
I feel that this is a complete load of CRAP.
How come Jais post is ok? WELL??????
Sienna
P.S. Larry, I totallly understood what you were saying and I value your intellect and the content of your posts, as do many people. I hope you will come back at the end of this utterly ridiculous block.
Posted by tealady on January 21, 2004, at 4:09:10
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » Larry Hoover, posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2004, at 1:03:14
Dr Bob,
I posted a long post to Jai earlier today too. I thought it got here, but on later looking it looks like it didn't make it. Did it get moved/deleted? , or have a problem arriving.
Unfortunately I didn't keep a copy.Jan
Posted by tealady on January 21, 2004, at 4:15:32
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » Larry Hoover, posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2004, at 1:03:14
Do I have to rewrite it? I doubt if I can quite repeat it.
Jan
Posted by tealady on January 21, 2004, at 4:54:55
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » Larry Hoover, posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2004, at 1:03:14
Dr Bob,
I was going to comment on your excellent example here of the application of civil rules..but it appears that your post has been edited?
Probably it's just my poor short term memory again or perhaps I misread it the first time?
When will I learn to keep copies.
Jan
Posted by tealady on January 21, 2004, at 6:31:08
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by tealady on January 21, 2004, at 4:54:55
Sorry. my mistake..guess I'm just upset my post disappeared.
Perhaps you should just block me now to save me rewriting it.
Jan
Posted by gabbix2 on January 21, 2004, at 12:01:03
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks, posted by tealady on January 21, 2004, at 6:31:08
Someone tell me this is a joke? Please?
Well I guess we can all breathe a sigh of relief,
and feel safer knowing that Larry is no longer a part of Babble.Well done!
Posted by Ron Hill on January 21, 2004, at 14:07:17
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » Larry Hoover, posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2004, at 1:03:14
Dear Fellow PB Participants and Dr. Bob:
Please take time to post your answer to the question presented at the end of this post.
I would like your opinions regarding the incident which began when Jai Narayan said the following about Larry Hoover while Mr. Hoover was blocked from posting:
> > I have to say Larry Hoover is not as he seems, I too thought he was a wonderful and thoughtful person till I came up against *his* strict rules. I have been hurt and assaulted by his attitudes and the people who think Larry " can do no wrong". I am not suprised at all that he has overstepped his bounds. Sometimes I thought he could have been sued for the claims he made about products he uses. He sometimes behaves like a pdoc....telling all what they should take and not take. I was repeatedly surprised that this was *okay*. If he decided what someone should take then he would give a dose level....well that sure looked like perscribing to me. I am amazed how he got as far as he got. I have seen people sued for less. I guess I have wondered how this site was exempt from the legal rules. It sure looked risky.
IMHO
Link to Jai Narayan’s post: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031120/msgs/297882.html
Jai Narayan received a PBC for these comments about Larry. In fairness, please note that Dinah (acting as deputy administrator) issued the PBC and I don’t think she has the site-access requirements to implement a block. However, Dr. Bob most certianly could have elevated the PBC to a block if he deemed the post worthy of a more than a PBC.
Link to PBC post: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031120/msgs/297910.html
After his block was over, Larry replied to Jai Narayan’s comments as follows:> Frankly, I can only react with amazement that anyone would display morals/ethics that would lead to a post such as this one, while in full knowledge that the other party could not possibly reply.
Link to Larry Hoover’s post: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/303226.html
Larry was blocked for six weeks for his reply.Please consider Jai Narayan’s words and the associated punishment and compare it to Larry Hoover’s words and the associated punishment. Is this just, or is the PB justice system broken? I’d like to hear your opinion. Broken or just?
-- Ron
Posted by Dinah on January 21, 2004, at 14:57:03
In reply to Re: Survey Question on PB Justice System » All PB » Dr. Bob, posted by Ron Hill on January 21, 2004, at 14:07:17
To be fair, I can issue blocks. But I don't have records on cumulative administrative actions, so I always start with a PBC unless I see that a PBC has already been given on the same thread or on the same page on the board. Or unless I know a poster is currently blocked.
Perhaps because I had already issued a PBC, and Jai had already apologized in response to it, Dr. Bob felt that further action wasn't needed?
Sigh. Admittedly the system isn't perfect. But I made a judgement call that the facts fit the narrowly subscribed deputy guidelines and issued a PBC. Perhaps Dr. Bob would have acted differently. Perhaps I should have called the decision differently.
I hate to quote Dr. Bob, and thereby risk incurring the wrath of all, but I did the best I could under the circumstances.
Posted by Ron Hill on January 21, 2004, at 17:55:57
In reply to Re: Survey Question on PB Justice System » Ron Hill, posted by Dinah on January 21, 2004, at 14:57:03
Dinah,
It was not my intent to make you feel bad. I have the highest regard for you, Dinah. You are a sweetie.
> To be fair, I can issue blocks. But I don't have records on cumulative administrative actions, so I always start with a PBC unless I see that a PBC has already been given on the same thread or on the same page on the board. Or unless I know a poster is currently blocked.
Then the system must be fixed! It is absolutely essential that you be supplied with records on cumulative administrative actions. For the system to be credible, the rules must be applied equally in all cases, and that's not possible unless you have the records.
Dinah, I would value your response to the survey question. When you consider Jai Narayan’s words (and the associated punishment) and compare it to Larry Hoover’s words (and the associated punishment) do you feel a sense of justice or injustice?
-- Ron
Posted by Dinah on January 21, 2004, at 18:41:03
In reply to Re: Survey Question on PB Justice System » Dinah, posted by Ron Hill on January 21, 2004, at 17:55:57
Well, the "check" on the balance of the system is Dr. Bob. He can, and has, gone back and increased the duration of a block or gone from a PBC to a block on my administrative actions. He could also decrease a deputy's actions, which I always try to make clear if I block someone. His is the final word, and deputies are just an interim measure. But in this case, the fact that Jai had already apologized for a PBC given probably weighed on his decision.
Don't I remember recently an occasion on Babble (maybe the meds board) where someone self-corrected a potentially uncivil remark before Dr. Bob got to the board, so Dr. Bob didn't do anything but thank them?
Dr. Bob frequently errs on the side of mercy and issues more than one PBC before a block, or a PBC after a block. I can't really object to that... And if deputies had an administrative list and instructions to use that, we probably wouldn't feel as free to use judgement since we're supposed to follow instructions, so overall there would be less mercy shown, unfortunately.
I can't really answer your question, because I don't recall the administrative actions prior to this one. In an ideal world, both posters would receive the next step in their administrative action progression. And perhaps I short-circuited that by making the decision that this was an escalating situation and that I should intervene. But I don't think Dr. Bob should take a lot of heat for any inequities that resulted from my decision (assuming there were inequities).
I still think the problematic block was the prior one. I have looked at that post upside down and sideways and don't really think that it deserved a PBC. Lar was clearly attempting to remain within the civility guidelines. And there's where I disagree with Dr. Bob. I see a difference between an obviously uncivil post and a post that could have been worded a bit better. Moreover, in the past Lar had been willing to do a Please Rephrase in a way that allowed him to maintain his integrity (which is clearly, and to his credit, important to him) while satisfying Dr. Bob's guidelines. I think, in fact, that he went to a great deal of effort to do so on one occasion at least that I recall. So my opinion is that on the last block, it would have been more appropriate to give a Please Rephrase, which probably Lar would have been happy to comply with, as he had no intent to be uncivil, and all this could have been averted.
I thought so and said so at the time.
But I will say this. Just as trying to decide when a situation is escalating, it's also tough sometimes to decide what merits a PBC. There have been posts I would have PBC'd if the situation had escalated, but Dr. Bob didn't and everything was just fine. I would have made an error if I had PBC'd them. And there are times when Dr. Bob PBC's something that I wouldn't even notice. It's harder than it looks. I think maybe part of it is that people read things differently. Perhaps Dr. Bob put the emphasis on a different word and came up with a completely different meaning than I did.
I do think, however, that when a majority of posters seem to feel a PBC or block was unwarranted, possibly by reinstating the poll process he had at one time so it would be anonymous, he should give serious thought to using the poll, or the admin board, as the equivalent of a pardon or appeal recommendation and seriously reconsider his decision.
But what I think doesn't matter a whole lot. :) I don't plunk down the cash or take the responsibility for this site.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2004, at 23:58:20
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks, posted by tealady on January 21, 2004, at 6:31:08
> Sorry. my mistake..guess I'm just upset my post disappeared.
> Perhaps you should just block me now to save me rewriting it.Sorry about your post. Maybe you're not meant to be blocked? :-)
Bob
Posted by Elle2021 on January 22, 2004, at 2:06:15
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » Larry Hoover, posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2004, at 1:03:14
Let me get this straight, did Larry Hoover just get assigned another 6 week block, as of January 21, 2004, or am I mistaken???
Elle
Posted by rosmarin on January 22, 2004, at 5:05:57
In reply to Re: Survey Question on PB Justice System » Ron Hill, posted by Dinah on January 21, 2004, at 18:41:03
In Dinah's post:
> But what I think doesn't matter a whole lot. :) I don't plunk down the cash or take the responsibility for this site.
Is the fear that Dr Bob will stop financing and taking responsibility for this site part of its shadow? If so, is there a danger that this unexpressed fear could breed an infantile sense of dependence on Dr Bob on the part of people who benefit from access to this community? Would this be healthy for Dr Bob and for the members of this community?If any member of the community were to become concerned about this happening, how would they articulate their concern in a way which was civil?
Posted by Dinah on January 22, 2004, at 7:32:57
In reply to Re: Survey Question on PB Justice System, posted by rosmarin on January 22, 2004, at 5:05:57
Well, I'm not a huge fan of Jung, nor do I particularly like the phrase "infantile dependence". But I do subscribe to Dr. Laura's theory that the person taking the responsibility has the authority. Is that infantile dependence or a realistic assessment of the world? If someone comes to my house, they don't smoke while they're in it. If they do, I ask them to leave.
If I open my own site, pay for it, and take legal and moral authority for it, I expect that it would be run according to the ideas I have of what I want a site I set up, pay for, and take legal and moral responsibility for should be.
Even if I were to pay a fee, I'd still consider this Dr. Bob's site. Because if someone came to my motel, I'd still expect them to consent to the posted rules. If they broke the rules, I'd have security escort them right out. And I don't see anything infantile about that.
Posted by Dinah on January 22, 2004, at 7:56:04
In reply to Re: Survey Question on PB Justice System, posted by rosmarin on January 22, 2004, at 5:05:57
Wait, I see that my original reading was incorrect, and it was the fear that Dr. Bob would close this site, not the obvious fact that he has the authority to make the rules here, was the thing that would lead to infantile dependence in this theory.
I still don't in any way see that as being true. I would be terribly sad if Dr. Bob closed Babble. And I really don't understand why he hasn't closed it many many dustups ago. I would have. But it doesn't appear to keep me or anyone else from saying what we think. And if Dr. Bob were to implement rules for this site that I couldn't in all conscience live with, as I stated below in another post, I would leave sadly but resolutely. And that also appears to be the general feeling here. Certainly enough people have left.
So again, instead of "infantile dependence", I would consider it a very adult and healthy cost/benefit analysis that each of us do.
But I can't speak for anyone else. Does anyone else feel an infantile dependence on Dr. Bob that keeps you from expressing your opinions? Now that the "shadow" has been brought to your attention?
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.