![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 33 to 57 of 224. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on February 17, 2005, at 23:05:29
In reply to Re: preliminary PBC, posted by Dr. Bob on February 17, 2005, at 22:57:52
I have long ago given up trying to protest blocks. I know I have no real impact.
But I do want to give you my support, and that was the real point of my prior post.
((((Bobby))))
I think you're a pretty cool guy. And those you befriend are very lucky.
Posted by AuntieMel on February 18, 2005, at 9:00:46
In reply to Re: preliminary PBC, posted by Dr. Bob on February 17, 2005, at 22:57:52
I never thought a four month old pbc on a different thread and for different thing (accusation vs joke of death) would count.
Does this mean the pbc I got for something against the poster talking lawsuits will count next year?
Posted by Jai Narayan on February 18, 2005, at 9:09:50
In reply to Re: preliminary PBC - does that count? » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on February 18, 2005, at 9:00:46
Old PBC's applying to new topics?
Is this rule tucked in somewhere I haven't seen?
it sends a chill thorugh me, so must we keep a list of our PBC's?
I have lost track of mine.
yeks!
Ja*
Posted by snoozin on February 18, 2005, at 11:13:59
In reply to Re: blocked for week » Gabbi-x-2 » Bobby » MCK, posted by Dr. Bob on February 17, 2005, at 21:39:52
Draconian --
dra·co·ni·an adj.
Exceedingly harsh; very severe: a draconian legal code; draconian budget cuts.
[After Draco]
--------------------------------------------------Draco --
Dra·co
Seventh century B.C. Athenian politician who codified the laws of Athens (c. 621). Lauded for its impartiality, his code was unpopular for its severity.
Posted by Jai Narayan on February 18, 2005, at 15:09:38
In reply to Re: blocked for week » Gabbi-x-2 » Bobby » MCK, posted by Dr. Bob on February 17, 2005, at 21:39:52
Gabbix, I am so sorry you are blocked.
if:
1. you are reading this....xoxoxox
2. I searched for your email...can't find it!!!:(
3. i had to put 3 in because you can't use numbers if it's only 2thinking of you dear heart.
Ja*
Posted by alexandra_k on February 18, 2005, at 15:45:29
In reply to Re: blocked for *w*e*e*k* GABBIX....:(, posted by Jai Narayan on February 18, 2005, at 15:09:38
Yeah Gabbi, I'm going to miss you :-(
I am sorry, hon.
Posted by gardenergirl on February 19, 2005, at 8:14:09
In reply to Rod is desperate for attention, posted by MCK on February 17, 2005, at 19:23:38
I apologize for not posting this before you were blocked, but I just wanted to post that my own experience of personal communication with Rod off the board is not consistent with yours.
fwiw
gg
Posted by Jai Narayan on February 19, 2005, at 16:57:25
In reply to Rod is desperate for attention, posted by MCK on February 17, 2005, at 19:23:38
Okay that freaks me out.
I love my Gabbi.....
what can we do?I want to protect her immediately
how can this happen.I am so glad your were completely honest MCK.
You have a lot of guts and integrity.please keep us posted.
Ja*
Posted by alexandra_k on February 19, 2005, at 19:06:37
In reply to Re: Rod is desperate for attention, posted by Jai Narayan on February 19, 2005, at 16:57:25
Posted by Jai Narayan on February 19, 2005, at 20:29:53
In reply to probably best to avoid that subject header too... (nm) » Jai Narayan, posted by alexandra_k on February 19, 2005, at 19:06:37
So what is going on here?
I am so confused.
I got caught up in the good guys and bad guys stuff.
I am so completely sorry....for my buttinsking.
Should have sat this one out.
admin is one of the most dangerous sites to post on.
I am exiting, hopefully without hurting anyone in the process.
Ja* exiting stage left....
poof
ps sorry Rod if I offended you in any way.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 19, 2005, at 23:41:53
In reply to Re: preliminary PBC - does that count? » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on February 18, 2005, at 9:00:46
> Does this mean the pbc I got for something against the poster talking lawsuits will count next year?
It depends on the context. And it should, shouldn't it?
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on February 20, 2005, at 12:48:56
In reply to Re: does that count?, posted by Dr. Bob on February 19, 2005, at 23:41:53
eep. then can we have access to our records then? i mean, i forget all the pbc's and pbs' i have had. i would like to know exactly what i did wrong so i never do that again please.
otherwise one is always a bit on edge, you see. especially because sometimes we don't really understand why people got blocked. or we didn't think it was all THAT severe. and some of us really really really really don't want to get blocked.
Posted by Toph on February 20, 2005, at 13:13:07
In reply to Re: does that count? » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on February 20, 2005, at 12:48:56
alex, have you heard of the famous study, "Pigmalian in the Classroom?"
http://members.aol.com/svennord/ed/labeling.htm
Essentially the group of students labeled (deceptively) as gifted at the end of the year out-performed the control group of students similarly constituted because of teachers' expectations. It would seem that this phenomenom would apply here. Posters labeled as problematic are more likely to act out somehow because of the force of their perceived label. This in turn is reinforced by the administrator's perception of the "problem poster" who would receive firm controls because of his/her label. The teachers in the study, BTW, were completely oblivious of their biased perception of the mislabeled students.Toph
Posted by alexandra_k on February 20, 2005, at 13:28:56
In reply to Re: does that count? » alexandra_k, posted by Toph on February 20, 2005, at 13:13:07
yeah. i had heard of that one.
how about a list of those who should be careful, then. just off the top of your head dr bob??
Posted by gardenergirl on February 20, 2005, at 14:07:44
In reply to Re: does that count?, posted by alexandra_k on February 20, 2005, at 13:28:56
Oooh, like checkmarks next to your name on the chalkboard. flashback flashback flashback!
gg
Posted by TamaraJ on February 20, 2005, at 14:43:48
In reply to Re: preliminary PBC, posted by Dr. Bob on February 17, 2005, at 22:57:52
and consideration for good behaviour? If it is like a "three strikes" concept, then I agree that people need to be more fully aware of what the rules are.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 20, 2005, at 18:33:39
In reply to What about redemption rehabilitation. . ., posted by TamaraJ on February 20, 2005, at 14:43:48
Posted by TamaraJ on February 20, 2005, at 20:18:08
In reply to Re: gold stars for good posts??? :-) (nm) » TamaraJ, posted by alexandra_k on February 20, 2005, at 18:33:39
before I hit "submit". It sounds kind of stupid now that I see it again. Oh well. I was thinking more along the lines not penalizing posters who are not habitual offenders (ew, how law enforcement of me). If someone gets a PBC once in a year or even twice in a year, and apologizes and/or acknowledges the error of their ways (as most do I think), then is it really a true pattern of uncivil behaviour? Geez, we all feel bad enough when we get a PBC (I know I do). Hmmm, no gold stars for this one I suspect!
Tamara
Posted by Toph on February 20, 2005, at 20:35:41
In reply to Re: does that count? » alexandra_k, posted by Toph on February 20, 2005, at 13:13:07
Seemed relevant at the time. Sometimes I feel like there's a uncivil label pinned to my back. So if I'm going to be blocked for something I never intended to be uncivil, what the f*ck, I might as well just speak my mind.
Toph
Posted by alexandra_k on February 20, 2005, at 21:05:31
In reply to LOL - I guess I should have re-read my post . . . » alexandra_k, posted by TamaraJ on February 20, 2005, at 20:18:08
> before I hit "submit".
Oh no, I saw the sense in your post. I was just being slightly tongue in cheek. Trying to be funny or mildly amusing or something...
>If someone gets a PBC once in a year or even twice in a year, and apologizes and/or acknowledges the error of their ways (as most do I think), then is it really a true pattern of uncivil behaviour?
I hear you and I guess I agree, though I also think there could be exceptions. For example I have been warned (PBC'd) about posting to posters who have requested me not to post to them. This seems simple enough. I fully understand that I shouldn't have done that and I fully expect I'll get blocked should I do it again. Whether it happens today, tomorrow, or in two years I still expect I'd get a blocking.
Same for swearing with the civility checker off.
Those issues seem fairly cut and dried (to me anyway). But if you get maybe 2 or 4 PBC's in a year for getting slightly carried away then I would hope that they are not stored up. If they are then I would like to know if there may be a magic number.
And what it is.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 20, 2005, at 21:06:59
In reply to Re: does that count?, posted by Toph on February 20, 2005, at 20:35:41
> Seemed relevant at the time. Sometimes I feel like there's a uncivil label pinned to my back. So if I'm going to be blocked for something I never intended to be uncivil, what the f*ck, I might as well just speak my mind.
Oh Toph, I don't think you do all that badly really. Are there any you don't understand? How about asking (nicely) where you went wrong so you may be able to avoid them in the future??? You can speak your mind and still be civil (mostly) ya know.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 21, 2005, at 2:13:55
In reply to LOL - I guess I should have re-read my post . . . » alexandra_k, posted by TamaraJ on February 20, 2005, at 20:18:08
> i forget all the pbc's and pbs' i have had.
They're all archived...
> sometimes we don't really understand why people got blocked.
Then ask?
> how about a list of those who should be careful, then.
>
> alexandra_kEveryone should be careful. Especially when things get heated.
--
> If it is like a "three strikes" concept, then I agree that people need to be more fully aware of what the rules are.
The rules are right there in the FAQ...
> If someone gets a PBC once in a year or even twice in a year, and apologizes and/or acknowledges the error of their ways ... then is it really a true pattern of uncivil behaviour?
>
> TamaraTheir pattern of behavior is important, but so is the context...
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on February 21, 2005, at 10:30:47
In reply to Re: does that count?, posted by Dr. Bob on February 19, 2005, at 23:41:53
The pbc you linked to had bobby saying things that were "accusatory"
But here he got blocked for saying 'please don't kill me :)" with a !smiley! on the end.
They don't seem like the same context, either.
Not meaning to be argumentative, just fair.
Posted by TamaraJ on February 21, 2005, at 11:23:15
In reply to Re: LOL - I guess I should have re-read my post . . . » TamaraJ, posted by alexandra_k on February 20, 2005, at 21:05:31
> I hear you and I guess I agree, though I also think there could be exceptions. For example I have been warned (PBC'd) about posting to posters who have requested me not to post to them. This seems simple enough. I fully understand that I shouldn't have done that and I fully expect I'll get blocked should I do it again. Whether it happens today, tomorrow, or in two years I still expect I'd get a blocking.
-- Yes, I understand that. Where we run into difficulties with that scenario, IMO, is that it is human nature and instinctual to want/need to attempt to clear up any misunderstanding and/or apologize. It's not really a questin of who has the last word really or one trying to beleaguer the point. I think a subsequent post after a "Do not post to me" post, in most cases, is done in good faith and without malice. That, I think, needs to be taken into consideration. Of course, as I have seen done in some situations, the person could always post back to themselves to try to clear up the misunderstanding and extend an olive branch. Anyway, I guess I think, in some situations, all the evidence needs to be weighed, including a person's recognition of having crossed a line and their attempt to make amends.
> Same for swearing with the civility checker off.
-- But then, as you have pointed out in the past, some offensive words do not get picked up. I saw the word b*stard (with the "a" still in it) used in a post recently. There was no PCB. It's not offensive to me, but I was surprised that it did not get picked up by the checker (particularly when b*imbo does).
Oh well. Questions of civility and good social graces will always be a subject for debate (and even uncivil discourse at times I imagine).
Tamara
Posted by gardenergirl on February 21, 2005, at 13:18:04
In reply to Re: LOL - I guess I should have re-read my post . . . » alexandra_k, posted by TamaraJ on February 21, 2005, at 11:23:15
Did you know p*m p*ms, as in the things that cheerleaders shake, (no, the other things) ;-)got asterisked???? What????
Now that's odd.
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.