![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 161 to 185 of 291. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 9:43:02
In reply to Re: Support, posted by Toph on September 30, 2004, at 9:26:34
Toph,
You wrote,[constitionency...a disruptive (or is it annoying, I'm not sure which posting style...].
If I am the poster with the posting style in question, then I do not think that my posting style is either disruptive or annoying.
There are posters here that have also agreed with me in respect to that.
I feel put down when I read that my posting is disruptive. To me, disruption in respect to this situation, could mean that I am doing some bad thing by posting here. I do not belive that my posting here is any sort of bad thing.
Lou
Posted by TofuEmmy on September 30, 2004, at 9:47:50
In reply to There are no rules here! Calm down folks! pt1.0573, posted by RosieOGrady on September 30, 2004, at 9:24:38
If I were any calmer, I'd be asleep. But thank you for your concern! :-)
Posted by just plain jane on September 30, 2004, at 9:54:11
In reply to capitalization of ignore » just plain jane, posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 8:36:36
Lou,
Emphasizing the word was my intent, not suggesting it to others.
The emphasis is/was intended simply as you said "you were trying to {tell me} that there is the potential for people to ignore me on their own", which, I am guessing, is not what you desire. Actually, just to remind you, a little friendly nudge, if you will.
I know I sometimes get carried away in my own ways, I'm certain we all do, and it can be helpful (among other things :)) to have a nudge for a "self-check".
simply,
just plain jane
Posted by just plain jane on September 30, 2004, at 9:58:02
In reply to There are no rules here! Calm down folks! pt1.0573, posted by RosieOGrady on September 30, 2004, at 9:24:38
Ditto, Rosie!
Thanks!!!
Hope your day is great!
just plain jane
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 10:00:11
In reply to Lou's response to Toph's post » Toph, posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 9:43:02
Toph,
You wrote, [..heard his constituants complain...disruptive(or annoying...not sure which...}.
If you are referring to m posting style, then there were others that are also in this constituancy that wrote something different of being disruptive or annoying. Below is one such post by New Wife on SEptember 23, 2004:
"i appreciate evrything you have to say. i enjoyed reading your posts. If your anything like me, you hit that send button and then only after, think of something else to write. you seen very smart and willing to communicate with others in this huge ans sometimes confusing world. have a great day and keep writing."
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/394311.html
Posted by just plain jane on September 30, 2004, at 10:00:23
In reply to Re: Support, posted by Toph on September 30, 2004, at 9:26:34
Thanks, Toph
just plain jane
Posted by just plain jane on September 30, 2004, at 10:10:01
In reply to Lou's response to Toph's post » Toph, posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 9:43:02
Lou,
I can sympathize with your feeling put down, however, someone else's statement that your style is disruptive or annoying is simply their statement, their opinion.
I hope for you that you may be able to just accept people's comments as that, their opinions.
If you desire further discussion with me on this subject, lets move it to Social.
just plain jane
Posted by SLS on September 30, 2004, at 10:12:53
In reply to There are no rules here! Calm down folks! pt1.0573, posted by RosieOGrady on September 30, 2004, at 9:24:38
> There are no rules here that are consistently and equally enforced so why bother trying? If you break one of Hsuing's suggestions say you're sorry and the rule won't be enforced except when it is enforced which is a random event not influenced by your behaviour just Hsuing's whims. No problem!
Hi Rosie.Which rules do you find are enforced with the least consistency?
- Scott
Posted by Dinahmari on September 30, 2004, at 10:19:02
In reply to Lou's response to Toph's post-2, posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 10:00:11
I think your posting style is jut fine. It doesn't bother me one whit.
I also really appreciate your scrupulous sticking to the intent rather than the letter of the new rule.
And wasn't I right about Scott (SLS)? He's such a love. :)
Feel free to respond to my posts with as many posts as you like, and I won't do it to circumvent the rules, but I'll be happy to post just to converse with you.
Would you mind if I gave you a cyberhug? This can't be easy for you. ((((Lou))))
I posted something a long time ago about how this sort of thing made me sad, but I think I see a few things that make me happy this time. Do you?
I'm trying not to post till I get my registration straightened back out, but my email is still the same and it should work fine for you. If you'd like to talk to me about the things (and people) that make me (and hopefully you) happy this time, I'd love to hear from you. I'm a bit busy today and will be gone quite a bit, but I'll get back to you as soon as I can if you'd like to converse that way.
And hopefully Dr. Bob will be by soon.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 10:21:27
In reply to Re: capitalization of ignore » Lou Pilder, posted by just plain jane on September 30, 2004, at 9:54:11
jpj,
You wrote,[...emphasizing the word was my intent, not suggesting it to others...].
Yes, that is what I wanted to know when I asked you why the word, "ignore' was in all caps. I wanted to rule out the potential for any misunderstanding and I am glad that you were just emphisizing the word for reasons that you have explained.
You see, in some cases, the putting of a word in all capitals could have the potential to be considered by some to be a suggestion and that is why I asked for you to rule that out, and you did.
You wrote,[...I know I sometimes get carried away in my own ways...].
I appreciate you making that point, for all we like humans can be carried away...].
You wrote,[...to have a nudge for a self-check...].
If this means that you were indicating that others could ignore me if I was to continue posting in more than 3 consecutive posts, could you give me some more infomation on that that could cause that to happen? If you meant something else, could you say what you meant by the statement in question if it is not that? If you could, then I could have a better understanding a towhat you mean and be able to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 10:34:08
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Toph's post » Lou Pilder, posted by just plain jane on September 30, 2004, at 10:10:01
jpj,
You wrote, [...I can sympathize with you feeling put down...]
Thank you for you understanding of my feelings in regards to the word, "disruptive" or "annoying" being associated with my style of posting.
You wrote, [...I hope ...you may be able...to accoept peoples comments on that, their opinions...].
If you are saying that people can write that my posting style is disruptive or annoying and have that protected as being stated as "an opinion", then I disagree. Could someone write, " It is my opinion that so and so is a idiot?
Lou
Posted by SLS on September 30, 2004, at 10:45:24
In reply to Lou's response to jpj-symp » just plain jane, posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 10:34:08
> jpj,
> You wrote, [...I can sympathize with you feeling put down...]
> Thank you for you understanding of my feelings in regards to the word, "disruptive" or "annoying" being associated with my style of posting.
> You wrote, [...I hope ...you may be able...to accoept peoples comments on that, their opinions...].
> If you are saying that people can write that my posting style is disruptive or annoying and have that protected as being stated as "an opinion", then I disagree. Could someone write, " It is my opinion that so and so is a idiot?
> Lou
Hi guys.I think we can all see that adjudicating the use of words to determine civility can be extremely difficult.
In my opinion, Dr. Bob has a pretty tough job. It is probably more of an art than it is a science. Precision must be a very difficult goal to achieve.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 10:58:59
In reply to Re: Hi Lou, Dinah here, posted by Dinahmari on September 30, 2004, at 10:19:02
Hi Dinah,
I am glad to be with you here again.
You wrote,[...wasn't I right about Scott?...He's such a love.):...].
Yes, I am glad to have discussion with Scott, he is stimulating to converse with. Could this be the same Scott that I met 5 years ago? hummmmm
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 11:11:30
In reply to Re: Hi Lou, Dinah here, posted by Dinahmari on September 30, 2004, at 10:19:02
Dinah,
You wrote,[...This can't be easy for you...].
Thank you for that observation about my feelings, for I think that you are saying that if you were in my situation, that it would not be easy for you.
Lou
Posted by Dinahmari on September 30, 2004, at 11:22:29
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah-~esy » Dinahmari, posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 11:11:30
I have been in similar situations and found it immensely painful. I was lucky to have my therapist to talk to about it. I hope you have someone who you feel free talking to about Babble?
Posted by Dinahmari on September 30, 2004, at 11:25:34
In reply to Hi Dinah, Lou here... » Dinahmari, posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 10:58:59
if I don't leave for work. But I'll be back later today.
Keep your head held high, Lou. And know that there are those on this board who accept you just the way you are.
I'm one of them.
Posted by alesta on September 30, 2004, at 11:26:03
In reply to Lou's rsponse to alesta's idea-2 » alesta, posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 8:25:08
hi, lou,:)you really are a congenial fellow!:) i think your idea of a 3-hour halt is fantastic. or some kind of warning instead of blocking first. maybe a warning would be the easiest to implement..this seems very reasonable and advantageous to all parties involved. and then if the poster posts after the warning, then he/she will be blocked. this way no one is caught off guard..a win-win situation.. why not? a warning (instead of a block) after 3 consecutive posts (or whenever bob sees the posts, so it could be more than 3 of course, just as it could if he were using a block first--same result). and if any further posts are made after the warning, then a block seems fair. what do you think? (thanks for bouncing your ideas off me lou--2 heads are better than one.:)) dr. bob, how about it? a warning instead of a block? i seriously doubt anyone is going to post after a warning, unless they are itching for a vacation..:)
or maybe your 3-hour halt is better, actually..love the idea!..whichever is easier for dr. bob to implement..what do you think dr. bob..sounds like an awesome solution!
lou, it was very nice to meeting you.:)
take care!
amy:)
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 11:31:17
In reply to I'm going to be in deep trouble » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinahmari on September 30, 2004, at 11:25:34
Dinah,
You wrote,[...there are those here that accept you as you are...].
Thanks for writing that.
Lou
Posted by Dinahmari on September 30, 2004, at 11:38:16
In reply to Re: Lou's rsponse to alesta's idea-2--dr. bob, lou » Lou Pilder, posted by alesta on September 30, 2004, at 11:26:03
I proposed to Dr. Bob that he work something into the computer code so as to keep people from posting after so many posts a day. That would better suit his stated purpose of "sharing the boards" and protecting less frequent posters from being crowded out by more frequent posters. After all, posting three posts on every single thread on the board would be less "sharing" than just limiting people to two or three posts per day.
Plus if the computer just gives you a polite message that you have used up your daily allotment of posts, and asks you to please post again tomorrow, there is no stigma of a public reprimand that could be very damaging.
And for those of you who recognize yourselves as the sort of frequent posters who Dr. Bob would like to post less so as to allow others more space to share (I hadn't thought of the board as a limited resource, and thought it was nicer to be welcoming and give responses to people who start a thread, but apparently that isn't giving others a chance to help which is a bad thing), please realize that there are other boards that actually welcome frequent posters and give them honorary status from what I can see, based on posting frequency.
Psychcentral I believe *likes* frequent posters, so if anyone is offended that Dr. Bob thinks frequent posters crowd infrequent ones, there is always that option. Those who frequent Pyschcentral can correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure. I just passed by there once or twice.
Sadly I am wed to this place, and will remain here or nowhere. But if I weren't I'd be tempted to move. :)
OK, enough about me. Don't you think it would be a much less stigmatizing thing to have the computer automatically stop people from posting after a certain limit rather than having Dr. Bob tell us to shut up?
Posted by Toph on September 30, 2004, at 11:38:44
In reply to Lou's response to Toph's post » Toph, posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 9:43:02
> ...If I am the poster with the posting style in question, then I do not think that my posting style is either disruptive or annoying...
>Lou, if you did think your posting style was either disruptive or annoying to others I would hope that you would not intentionally post in such a manner. Personally, I admit that sometimes your style gets in the way of me hearing your message. Toph
Posted by Dinahmari on September 30, 2004, at 11:41:13
In reply to Re: I'm going to be in deep trouble » Dinahmari, posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 11:31:17
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 11:41:42
In reply to Re: Lou's rsponse to alesta's idea-2--dr. bob, lou » Lou Pilder, posted by alesta on September 30, 2004, at 11:26:03
alesta,
You wrote,[...I think your idea...is fantastic...].
Well, I think that we could also go further in my suggestion to include what is to happen if the poster posts befor the 3-hour halt is over.
I belive that any blocking in this situation to be inappropriate. If the rule that I am suggesting was considerd to have merit here, then I suggest that if the poster in question posts before the 3-hour halt is over, that the halt could be extended to 6 more hours.Then of course, if the poster posts before the 6-hour halt is over, then a 12-hour halt and so forth. The idea that I am trying to present here is that posting in a consecutive posting manner is not something that I consider to be disruptive or annoying and I would not like that to be considered to be such by associating it with things that carry with it a blocking, such as using profanity here.
Lou
Posted by Toph on September 30, 2004, at 11:46:50
In reply to Lou's response to Toph's post-2, posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 10:00:11
> ..."i appreciate evrything you have to say. i enjoyed reading your posts... >
>Lou, I have appreciated some of the things you have said and have supported you on this board --on the other hand, I have not always appreciated the way that you have said it. Toph
Posted by Dinahmari on September 30, 2004, at 11:57:02
In reply to Alternate proposals, and alternate choices » alesta, posted by Dinahmari on September 30, 2004, at 11:38:16
your position, or misinterpreted it.
I am summarizing my understanding of what you have said.
Frequent posters "cramp" less frequent ones
A more equitable "sharing" of the board is desirable so as to encourage less frequent posters to post more.
It is a good thing to allow others to help, even if it means being less helpful yourself.
Less frequent posters may be intimidated by frequent posters, and the fact that frequent posters may often welcome them, answer their questions, or respond to threads with few responses does not offset this intimidation factor.
You believe the three post limit would help this situation more than, say, a daily limit.
Is it possible to have a computer enforced limit of some sort so as to avoid public humiliation of being told you talk too much? Honestly, that would probably also solve my problem of being afraid I'll harm myself mid meltdown because of an admin action. If it's possible under your computer writing code, wouldn't it be more compassionate?
I'm sorry if I inadvertantly broke the three post limit on this occasion. There are so many posts going on on this thread that I had trouble counting.
(BTW, Dr. Bob. Perhaps you can see some value in Lou's style of posting if you think about your own way of answering posts. People often think you forget to address certain aspects of their post, and admittedly it may be difficult to remember all parts of a question. If you addressed each part separately, it might be easier for you to remember to answer it all.)
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 12:07:30
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Toph's post-2 » Lou Pilder, posted by Toph on September 30, 2004, at 11:46:50
Toph,
You wrote that[... there are some things that you appreciate that I have written and that there are some times that you have not always appreciated the way I have said it...].
But there are many people now writing that they appreciate my posting style. Could not those people have the opportunity to read what I am posting in my style? Are there not posts here that could have the potential for others to think that the 3-post rule is unwarrented?
Let us look at Dinah's post about this. She writes to me,"I think that your posting style is just fine. It doesn't bother me one whit." and, [...feel free to respond to my posts with as many posts as you like...], and [...This can't be easy for you. (((Lou))))...].
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040927/msgs/397223.html
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.