![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 89 to 113 of 154. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by SLS on September 2, 2004, at 6:56:43
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by KaraS on September 1, 2004, at 21:22:06
> 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.
LOL
Dear Kara,
You shouldn't give me so much credit. :-)
I had placed quotation marks around the word to indicate to Dr. Bob that I understood the word to require a subjective characterization or judgment of intent for its use. I wasn't questioning your spelling abilities. Obviously, you should continue to question mine.
LOL
- Scott
Posted by KaraS on September 2, 2004, at 9:02:22
In reply to Re: please be civil - Kara's spelling, posted by SLS on September 2, 2004, at 6:56:43
> > 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.
>
> LOL
>
> Dear Kara,
>
> You shouldn't give me so much credit. :-)
>
> I had placed quotation marks around the word to indicate to Dr. Bob that I understood the word to require a subjective characterization or judgment of intent for its use. I wasn't questioning your spelling abilities. Obviously, you should continue to question mine.
>
> LOL
>
>
> - Scott
Scott,I did know that was why you had the word in quotes. I just thought the way you spelled it looked correct (but I'll certainly question you from now on!) :-)
-K
Posted by Sad Panda on September 2, 2004, at 9:16:13
In reply to Re: please be civil - Kara's spelling » SLS, posted by KaraS on September 2, 2004, at 9:02:22
> > > 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.
> >
> > LOL
> >
> > Dear Kara,
> >
> > You shouldn't give me so much credit. :-)
> >
> > I had placed quotation marks around the word to indicate to Dr. Bob that I understood the word to require a subjective characterization or judgment of intent for its use. I wasn't questioning your spelling abilities. Obviously, you should continue to question mine.
> >
> > LOL
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
>
> Scott,
>
> I did know that was why you had the word in quotes. I just thought the way you spelled it looked correct (but I'll certainly question you from now on!) :-)
>
> -K
>
>BudInSki here, I blame the drugs :) I've been relatively free of cognitive problems from these meds except for spelling. I have a lot of difficulty with words that aren't spelt the way the sound on these meds.
Cheers,
Panda.
Posted by AuntieMel on September 2, 2004, at 11:34:17
In reply to Re: Another question, posted by Dr. Bob on September 2, 2004, at 3:10:17
> > It has been suggested that mercy might be considered if chemist emails you. Is there a snowball's chance?
> >
> > AuntieMel
>
> Never say never...
>
> BobWell, obviously it is up to chemist, but I know that *I* would have trouble doing that. I spent too many years *not* defending myself when I thought I was right, and I'm just now starting to do so. Sucking up my pride and asking for mercy for such a small thing would set me back in my 'recovery'
Mel
Posted by alesta on September 2, 2004, at 12:50:51
In reply to Re: please be civil » alesta, posted by Dr. Bob on September 2, 2004, at 3:06:14
> > what flmm had to say... It is BRUTAL.
> >
> > these outrageous insults
>
> Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused.dr. bob, respectfully, it was necessary for me to state that observation in order to discuss this administrative matter.
> > 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.well, we are emotional creatures after all. i don't know if i would have been so "civil" under the circumstances. we are not perfect people that come to this forum. not to mention there is an innate need to "save face" when being attacked viciously, and to deny a person that seems a bit uncivil to me.
i think this doctrinal enforcement of civility may be having a paradoxical effect at this point...
i hope i am not blocked for responding to your comments. i am a peace-loving individual and don't like to see conflict between the owner or its recipients. if i have hurt or offended anyone, i am truly sorry.
amy
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 2, 2004, at 21:29:28
In reply to Re: please be civil--dr. bob, posted by alesta on September 2, 2004, at 12:50:51
> > > what flmm had to say... It is BRUTAL.
> > >
> > > these outrageous insults
>
> it was necessary for me to state that observation in order to discuss this administrative matter.I disagree, couldn't you have just said:
> 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) if that was grounds for banishment, then none of us should be here....
>
> Now, I ask you, or anyone, would you just sit there and take it??? Be honest...and remember, too, that these comments 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.
> >
> > And if the attacked defend themselves by attacking back? Two wrongs don't make a right.
>
> well, we are emotional creatures after all... we are not perfect people that come to this forum. not to mention there is an innate need to "save face"But in that case, should even the original attacker be blocked? Isn't he also an emotional creature, and not perfect? Maybe he felt an innate need to attack?
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on September 2, 2004, at 23:49:12
In reply to Re: emotional creatures, posted by Dr. Bob on September 2, 2004, at 21:29:28
"Maybe he felt an innate need to attack?"
Now, *that* is an interesting concept. Is this in the DSM IV? If so, as posters, what can we do to help? If it is part of an illness, what would be the correct way to handle situations like this? Arguing back doesn't seem to be sensitive to his needs. Ignoring it could make him feel worse if this is a cry for attention. And letting it slide and continue posting might encourage more of the same behavior, letting this person feel his behavior is socially acceptable.
Seriously. If the poster is wanting to support the person with the 'need to attack,' what is the best way to handle it?
Posted by gardenergirl on September 3, 2004, at 1:20:34
In reply to Re: emotional creatures » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on September 2, 2004, at 23:49:12
Hmmmm, Mel your questions relate to my post to JenStar about why I responded the way I did to ron1953. I think I was trying to be more therapeutic, but it's hard when you don't understand the need. But your take on either arguing or ignoring make sense to me, and I think I was trying something different.
Warmly,
gg
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.