![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 81 to 105 of 154. Go back in thread:
Posted by zeugma on August 31, 2004, at 18:11:15
In reply to Re: blocked from posting » chemist » flmm » TomG, posted by Dr. Bob on August 31, 2004, at 7:51:34
> > let me be sure i understand you correctly: there are certain foods and vitamins i can take that will enhance my self-esteem? i am always interested in bettering myself, and if you can provide the appropriate references/etc. that bolsters your claim, i will be in your debt...
> >
> > chemist
>
> > Chemist, please, you drip of sarcasm! You are far to anylitcal for your own good! It is difficult to function in the world for you I understand.
> >
> > flmm
>
> > I wish I had a robot's voice coming out of my PC speakers to read the chemist's posts.
> >
> > TomG
>
> Please don't be sarcastic, jump to conclusions about others, or post anything that could lead them to feel accused or put down. I've asked you to be civil before, so now I'm going to block you from posting. For 4 weeks, 1 week, and 1 week.
>
> Sharing something about your own issues and their possible role in your reaction might be an interesting exercise -- and might help others respond to you supportively.
>
> If you or anyone else has questions about this or about posting policies in general, or is interested in alternative ways of expressing oneself, please see the FAQ:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
>
> Thanks,
>
> BobDr.Bob, it seems that the post from chemist here is more an example of irony than sarcasm. An ironic utterance is inherently ambiguous so it seems difficult to use this particular comment as grounds for blocking. If it stood on its own and received no response would he have been banned?
-z
Posted by zeugma on August 31, 2004, at 18:13:55
In reply to Re: blocked from posting » Dr. Bob, posted by zeugma on August 31, 2004, at 18:11:15
Or if it had received literal responses about the merits of various supplements, nutritional products, etc., as many posters are happy to give?
Posted by karen m. on August 31, 2004, at 18:30:57
In reply to Re: this is a petition to GET CHEMIST BACK--karen, posted by alesta on August 31, 2004, at 16:00:29
> karen, i'm so sorry...totally misunderstood you...i've been having a bad couple of days and am really emotional right now...and it just gets worse as we speak...please accept my apology...
>
> amy :)i'm sorry too...i was just so angry i didn't make myself clear.
Posted by Shadowplayers721 on August 31, 2004, at 18:50:27
In reply to Re: blocked from posting, posted by zeugma on August 31, 2004, at 18:13:55
It seems a common problem on Babble world that a debate issue comes up. Maybe, I should say a difference of opinion. Well, that's fine.
However, the problem comes in when people start saying things like one must be a potatoe head or look like 4 headed monster or be talking out of a smelly tuna can. Those type of stmts just hurt the other poster. Of course, if someone stated that I stunk like smelly tuna dish and had the brains of a potatoe head and looked like an ignorant 4 head monster from mud city, I would want to lash out and say, "No, I am a 3 headed cotton candy smelling" ... Well, you get the idea.
So, what was the topic? The topic got lost and the character of the person(s) involved got attacted indirectly or directly. I feel that if the board was perhaps more carefully monitored that these slights wouldn't grow into full blown attacks on a group or one person. I am glad that Dinah clarified the role of the deputy. It just gives me even more respect for the job she has done.
It is quite apparent that an intervention in this system of Babble world is needed. But, it is needed by the creator himself. We can only keep doing so much to point out the situations.
In regard to Chemist, I feel that many are taking up for him, because they have come to know his personality. It is no secret on Babble that Chemist is a valuable poster to many. He appears to be an analytically personality to me. To some that may come across as indifferent. To those that are very familiar with him, we know that he means the best. His absence will be missed.
As for myself, to new people... well, you will find out that I am just plain unexplainable.
I believe all are welcome. We can share view points without telling each other they may be from a smelly tuna can. Wait! I am feeling like eating a grilled tuna sandwich.
Posted by Sad Panda on August 31, 2004, at 20:19:03
In reply to Re: this is a petition to GET CHEMIST BACK--karen, posted by mike lynch on August 31, 2004, at 15:40:03
> > let me be sure i understand you correctly: there are certain foods and vitamins i can take that will enhance my self-esteem? i am always interested in bettering myself, and if you can provide the appropriate references/etc. that bolsters your claim, i will be in your debt...
> >
> > chemist
>
> So apparently He got blocked for this statement?? I'd express my opinion about this..but I'd fear that I to would get blocked..
>
>Hi Mike,
I think 3 dots at the end of a sentence marks it as being sarcasm. You only have 2, so I think your post will scrape through. :)
I think poor old Chemist has received the rough end of the pineapple here. :(
Cheers,
Panda.
Posted by AuntieMel on August 31, 2004, at 21:15:18
In reply to Re: blocked from posting » chemist » flmm » TomG, posted by Dr. Bob on August 31, 2004, at 7:51:34
Hopefully I can word it so that I get an answer to the question asked. (Not an indictment of you, just an admition that sometimes what I type isn't what I mean)
Just what in this is a blocking offense. And if the answer is 'sarcasm' what do you see here that is sarcastic:
> let me be sure i understand you correctly: there are certain foods and vitamins i can take that will enhance my self-esteem? i am always interested in bettering myself, and if you can provide the appropriate references/etc. that bolsters your claim, i will be in your debt...
Especially since he was responding to a poster that told him "You should eat some food or vitamins or meds that will help you with your self esteem."
Posted by KaraS on September 1, 2004, at 1:25:22
In reply to kara, chemist, everyone..., posted by alesta on August 31, 2004, at 5:24:05
>
> kara, thank you!! i couldn't agree more with what you said! well done! you've summed up what i wanted to add. i am so glad that you made it clear how vicious flmm's response was...i wanted to make it clear to everyone that i in *no* way support flmm's views...i genuinely like chemist and find him knowledgeable and intelligent and nice (to me) and i hope if chemist is reading this he knows that...i just feel that personal attacks on others cloud the issues and do nothing to prove your point (and are harmful). flmm was looking for a fight here, practically, and if chemist had just stuck to the issues, he would have come through this in spades...i'm just trying to encourage more effective interaction...but i absolutely detest flmm's hostility and it makes me very angry...i suppose i'm trying to prevent this type of thing from happening in the future, because it *really* upsets me...chemist, i hope you know that...
>
> i definitely, in the future, am staying completely out of all arguments. this is just too much stress.
>
> amy
>
>Thanks and I hear you. I'm going to try to stay out of it in the future myself (notice I said "try"?). It's just a no-win situation.
Kara
Posted by KaraS on September 1, 2004, at 1:43:10
In reply to Re: blocked from posting » chemist » flmm » TomG, posted by Dr. Bob on August 31, 2004, at 7:51:34
> > let me be sure i understand you correctly: there are certain foods and vitamins i can take that will enhance my self-esteem? i am always interested in bettering myself, and if you can provide the appropriate references/etc. that bolsters your claim, i will be in your debt...
> >
> > chemist
>
> > Chemist, please, you drip of sarcasm! You are far to anylitcal for your own good! It is difficult to function in the world for you I understand.
> >
> > flmm
>
> > I wish I had a robot's voice coming out of my PC speakers to read the chemist's posts.
> >
> > TomG
>
> Please don't be sarcastic, jump to conclusions about others, or post anything that could lead them to feel accused or put down. I've asked you to be civil before, so now I'm going to block you from posting. For 4 weeks, 1 week, and 1 week.
>
> Sharing something about your own issues and their possible role in your reaction might be an interesting exercise -- and might help others respond to you supportively.
>
> If you or anyone else has questions about this or about posting policies in general, or is interested in alternative ways of expressing oneself, please see the FAQ:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob
Dr. Bob,
I think Chemist showed incredible restraint in not saying a lot worse to flmm and company when they insulted him so viciously. He clearly stopped the escalation of insults on his end by holding his tongue when truly horrible, hurtful things were said about him. I wonder if I could have managed such restraint under the circumstances. By not recognizing that and penalizing him so harshly, I think you're sending a message that you might as well go all out and fight to the finish whenever a dispute arises because you're going to be severely punished anyway.Kara
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 1, 2004, at 2:13:14
In reply to Re: blocked from posting » Dr. Bob, posted by KaraS on September 1, 2004, at 1:43:10
> they insulted him so viciously
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused.
If you or anyone else has questions about this or about posting policies in general, or is interested in alternative ways of expressing oneself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by SLS on September 1, 2004, at 7:50:35
In reply to Re: please be civil » KaraS, posted by Dr. Bob on September 1, 2004, at 2:13:14
Hi.
> > they insulted him so viciously
> Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused.I'm not sure this is so much a characterization as it is an observation based on the most common definitions of the word "insult". Oh well, I guess it still necessarily depends on a subjective judgment to determine what is or isn't an insult based upon a conclusion of intent. The intent seemed pretty clear to me, though.
I must agree that Dr. Bob had no choice but to block Chemist if he was to block anyone else. Unfortunately, Chemist posted the following:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040717/msgs/384535.html
This lay the groundwork for speculation that sarcasm was the motivation behind his previous post:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040717/msgs/384535.html
It is hard to blame Chemist for becoming emotionally involved in the discourse, and I doubt I could have restrained myself from saying anything inflammatory. It is so easy to get caught up in a conflict, especially when it becomes "viscious". :-)
I think it would have given the appearance of impropriety, therefore, for Dr. Bob to toss out the other two posters without doing the same with Chemist. Again, I find that the doctor has acted with precision in an effort to maintain the goal of objectivity. Note that precision doesn't always guarantee justice, but it does help to promote equal protection.
I like Chemist, and agree that his contributions here are unique, invaluable, and irreplaceable. I know he will be back. He has a sufficiently strong ego and adult perspective. I don't think his self-esteem was ever at risk.
- Scott
Posted by alesta on September 1, 2004, at 11:36:26
In reply to Re: please be civil - insults - judgment calls., posted by SLS on September 1, 2004, at 7:50:35
I respectfully disagree, scott. what is offensive about chemist saying:
<"hi mel, kudos to larry: he's way cooler than i...although once i get my hands on those esteem-building foods/vitamins, i am going to be a really cool guy.....all the best, chemist"
i don't think chemist could've been any cooler. At this point he is merely defending himself! I don’t know ***ANYBODY*** who would just sit there and take what flmm had to say. (see flmm's quote below) It is BRUTAL. if that was grounds for banishment, then none of us should be here....
I don’t think Dr. bob himself would have been that cool. here is the comment flmm made to chemist to illustrate my point:
<"You don't know squat! You should eat some food or vitamins or meds that will help you with your self esteem. You can still be the old, great chemist that you were. Maybe some people will even listen to you! Just not me, I have lost all respect for the great chemist and long for the old days, when I could trust what I heard."
Now, I ask you, or anyone, would you just sit there and take it??? Be honest...and remember, too, that these outrageous insults are made in a public forum.
There is nothing civil about a forum that will not allow you to defend yourself. The “attacker” should be banned, not the attacked.
Posted by alesta on September 1, 2004, at 11:47:29
In reply to Re: please be civil - insults --to sls and dr. bob, posted by alesta on September 1, 2004, at 11:36:26
my point here is that i see *no* offensive output from chemist after the warning to "please be civil". only *defensive* (he was defending himself from an abominable character assault, as *anyone* in his position would do).
Posted by SLS on September 1, 2004, at 14:38:42
In reply to Re: please be civil - insults --to sls and dr. bob, posted by alesta on September 1, 2004, at 11:36:26
> I respectfully disagree, scott. what is offensive about chemist saying:
>
> <"hi mel, kudos to larry: he's way cooler than i...although once i get my hands on those esteem-building foods/vitamins, i am going to be a really cool guy.....all the best, chemist"
It was a close call, to be sure. I won't presume to know Chemist's intent.
- Scott
Posted by alesta on September 1, 2004, at 15:20:39
In reply to Re: please be civil - insults --to sls and dr. bob, posted by SLS on September 1, 2004, at 14:38:42
his intent was what anyone's intent would be who's just had the worst insults you can think of directed at them in front of a lot of people....to defend himself!
jeez, put yourself in his shoes...
Posted by KaraS on September 1, 2004, at 15:29:38
In reply to Re: please be civil » KaraS, posted by Dr. Bob on September 1, 2004, at 2:13:14
> > they insulted him so viciously
>
> Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused.
>
> If you or anyone else has questions about this or about posting policies in general, or is interested in alternative ways of expressing oneself, please see the FAQ:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob
OK, let me rephrase that to:They made comments that 99.999 percent of the thinking, feeling, breathing human population would interpret as being "viscious". I honestly don't wish to be rude here but there's just no way that a reasonable person could argue otherwise. I think your response to give me a PBC begs the question at hand.
I have reread that entire post in question here and I do note a fair amount of sarcasm on Chemist's part that obviously enraged flmm and a couple of others. Perhaps my issue with Chemist's block has more to do with the blocking system itself. By increasing the amount of time an individual is blocked based only on the number of previous blocks that person has incurred, you don't leave enough room for assigning a punishment that correlates with the severity of the offense involved. It also does not take into account that the person being punished utilized a fair amount of restraint given the level of insults leveled against him.
Posted by alesta on September 1, 2004, at 16:04:59
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by KaraS on September 1, 2004, at 15:29:38
i still feel that chemist was the only one of the three to respect dr. bob's request to "please be civil", except defending himself from *only one* of numerous posts consisting of insults thown in his direction.
(and, like i said, in light of the horrendous insults thrown in his direction, it is only natural to need to defend yourself)
chemist truly showed amazing restraint, dr. bob, in order to respect your wishes.
Posted by alesta on September 1, 2004, at 16:06:35
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by alesta on September 1, 2004, at 16:04:59
Posted by Emme on September 1, 2004, at 17:32:14
In reply to I must agree, Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on August 31, 2004, at 11:28:31
I have to agree. It looks to me like Chemist was trying to keep his cool under attack. I think he was being literal and not sarcastic; we're familiar with his writing style. I don't agree with the block.
Emme
> Unless you have evidence that Chemist was trying to be sarcastic, is it fair to make that assumption? Isn't it equally likely that he was doing his best to be civil under trying circumstances with no administrative assistance, and the awkwardness of trying to stick to the precise rules of the civility guidelines merely came across as sarcasm to you?
>
> Perhaps a please rephrase?
Posted by KaraS on September 1, 2004, at 21:22:06
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by KaraS on September 1, 2004, at 15:29:38
> > > they insulted him so viciously
> >
> > Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused.
> >
> > If you or anyone else has questions about this or about posting policies in general, or is interested in alternative ways of expressing oneself, please see the FAQ:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Bob
>
>
> OK, let me rephrase that to:
>
> They made comments that 99.999 percent of the thinking, feeling, breathing human population would interpret as being "viscious". I honestly don't wish to be rude here but there's just no way that a reasonable person could argue otherwise. I think your response to give me a PBC begs the question at hand.
>
> I have reread that entire post in question here and I do note a fair amount of sarcasm on Chemist's part that obviously enraged flmm and a couple of others. Perhaps my issue with Chemist's block has more to do with the blocking system itself. By increasing the amount of time an individual is blocked based only on the number of previous blocks that person has incurred, you don't leave enough room for assigning a punishment that correlates with the severity of the offense involved. It also does not take into account that the person being punished utilized a fair amount of restraint given the level of insults leveled against him.
>
>I don't like that last sentence. Please change the last few words to:
"...given the level of insults directed towards him."
Also, I changed my spelling of "vicious" to "viscious" when I saw Scott spell it that way but my dictionary insists that the first spelling is correct.
(and, yes, I'm more than a little bit compulsive...)
-K
Posted by alesta on September 1, 2004, at 22:21:34
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by KaraS on September 1, 2004, at 21:22:06
i think i have found perhaps the underlying
source of the problem--a misunderstanding.all right, I just looked over this thread again, and I see a situation where chemist corrected dr. bob, when dr. bob was actually right, b/c chemist thought bob was talking about a different comment he had made than the one dr. bob was actually referring to. Here is chemist’s quote:
“hello there, chemist here...i am not being sarcastic. dr. bob has deemed my response to flmmm sarcastic, and dr. bob is incorrect. i am quite interested in hearing from flmm in re: self-esteem boosting dietary products. “
now, the ironic part is, Dr. bob and chemist are talking about 2 entirely different comments, hence chemist felt the need to tell Dr. bob that this was untrue, naturally. So, really this whole thing is based on a misunderstanding. Perhaps if chemist could just apologize for telling Dr. bob that he was wrong because he thought dr. bob was referring to something else chemist had said, this whole thing could be cleared up. (here is the quote dr. bob was referring to:)
"i agree with your subjective assessment of your knowledge of the subject being discussed in this thread - limited - and applaud the depth of your self-realization.)"
well, i've invested enough effort into this thing...but I can totally see now why dr. bob would be upset with chemist, if that is the reason. I just wish I’d known the reason before, if that is the reason (it’s the only reason that really makes sense to me). I suppose us posters really need to hear a valid reason when we see a fellow poster blocked for such a long period of time. Dr. bob, if you’re reading, I’m sorry for missing that important detail...maybe chemist can apologize for what he said due to the misunderstanding and maybe have the block removed and we can all be one big, happy family again...well, a wish everyone a good night...you too, dr. bob...:) sorry if I was disrespectful in any manner...I’m putting this topic (and myself) to bed....
amy :)p.s. i really hope this makes sense to people! i am PMS-ing so hard right now that i'm not even sure myself....:)
Posted by AuntieMel on September 2, 2004, at 0:16:24
In reply to Re: I must agree, Dr. Bob, posted by Emme on September 1, 2004, at 17:32:14
(smiling)Maybe you'll answer this one?
It has been suggested that mercy might be considered if chemist emails you. Is there a snowball's chance?
Posted by AuntieMel on September 2, 2004, at 0:18:15
In reply to Re: I must agree, Dr. Bob, posted by Emme on September 1, 2004, at 17:32:14
That no one has come to the defense of the other two in this mess?
Says a lot for chemist, doncha think?
Posted by Dinah on September 2, 2004, at 0:31:22
In reply to Has anyone noticed?, posted by AuntieMel on September 2, 2004, at 0:18:15
I'm guessing a lot of that has to do with the length of the block as compared to the severity of the offense. Which isn't the way Babble works, but it does tend to be a bit upsetting.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 2, 2004, at 3:06:14
In reply to Re: please be civil - insults --to sls and dr. bob, posted by alesta on September 1, 2004, at 11:36:26
> what flmm had to say... It is BRUTAL.
>
> these outrageous insultsPlease don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused.
> There is nothing civil about a forum that will not allow you to defend yourself. The “attacker” should be banned, not the attacked.
And if the attacked defend themselves by attacking back? Two wrongs don't make a right.
If you or anyone else has questions about this or about posting policies in general, or is interested in alternative ways of expressing oneself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 2, 2004, at 3:10:17
In reply to Another question for Dr. Bob., posted by AuntieMel on September 2, 2004, at 0:16:24
> OK, let me rephrase that to:
>
> They made comments that 99.999 percent of the thinking, feeling, breathing human population would interpret as being "viscious".IMO, that still could lead someone to feel accused.
> there's just no way that a reasonable person could argue otherwise.
I'm not arguing otherwise, I'm asking people to be civil.
> By increasing the amount of time an individual is blocked based only on the number of previous blocks that person has incurred, you don't leave enough room for assigning a punishment that correlates with the severity of the offense involved. It also does not take into account that the person being punished utilized a fair amount of restraint given the level of insults leveled against him.
>
> KaraSI did make it 4 weeks instead of 6...
--
> It has been suggested that mercy might be considered if chemist emails you. Is there a snowball's chance?
>
> AuntieMelNever say never...
Bob
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.