![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 51 to 75 of 133. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 23:06:23
In reply to Re: team effort, posted by so on May 22, 2005, at 21:54:43
If the major concern is informed consent, perhaps we could all brainstorm a paragraph in the registration process.
Something along the lines of internet groups being occasionally volatile places, and there is always the possibility of conflict. Please check with your personal mental health providers about whether this board would be appropriate to you at this time. The civility guidelines of this site are explained at xxxx and you might also wish to do a search on "Please Be Civil" if the issue is of concern to you. The first violation of the site guidelines will result in a warning, and successive violations will result in "blocks" of increasing length. Please further be advised that some people find being sanctioned or blocked distressing, and if you believe it may be for you it might be advisable to consult with your personal mental health provider about whether participation on this site is right for you at this time.
I've never claimed to be good with words, but you get the general idea.
Posted by so on May 22, 2005, at 23:44:52
In reply to Re: team effort » so, posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 22:11:16
> Perhaps it would be more productive to think of outcomes, and brainstorm ways to get there.
The outcome I would like to see is a better-rested administration. There is this notion in the medical profession that people can work any hour of the day, seven days a week, and whatever they put out is some gift of mercy to the clients. But you wouldn't trust your life to a pilot flying under those conditions. This isn't a surgical ward, but people come here with problems just as critical. I'm sorry, but I simply don't accept as sound psychiatric advice that anyone can work a job -- an after-midnight-shift -- 365 days a year, without ever a break, and always provide the best service for the customer.
My perspective is when a person makes a mistake in judgement under those conditions, they often write rules to codify their mistaken judgement because they have the authority to do so, and they dare not admit that they made a specific mistake. Then they go about justifying their mistaken rules, and start to engage others in supporting their mistake as if it were the best possible outcome.
And the fact that it is free isn't justification. If people need this sort of service, they need quality service. That it is a volunteer effort is not a reason to comprimise service. Quality service involves administrative planning and that is probably not what happens when someone occasionally presents a talk to peers about their web project, or seeks feedback from peers in a casual setting. Planning occurs when peers with the power to veto each other intentionally sit around the table and think through difficult scenarios before confronting it in a clinical situation.
> For example, is it the continued existence of the board that worries you?Sorry, your question returns a divide by zero error. I would be slightly disappointed if the Internet ceased to exist, because there are not such good libraries by my house but this site? I'm sure you folks would find other things to do, and I wish I would already.
> The harm caused to individual posters by blocks?More by the inconsistent application of ambiguous arbitrary rules, backed by a chorus of explanations by Bob's supporters, which some people just don't comprehend.
>
> Is it the interpretation of the rules?>I notice that you have a great interest in language. But isn't it possible that multiple administrators would actually increase the amount of variability in interpretation?
Could. Unless they started taking time to plan, and articulated their interpretations in writing, that we could read. And I'm not talking about essays that say "I don't know it till I see it." I wonder how many hours he has spent explaining to peers, in some way other than justifying, what are his rules, compared to the time he spends imposing them. This is what I'm saying -- once people get to the top tier of the medical trade, they have a broad license to do as they please, and often submit to no other authority than their own judgement.
> Do you think it would be worthwhile for someone like you, with a greater interest and facility in the nuances of language than I have, try to better explain the civility rules in words that would be easily understood by all?Probably a web cam would do me more good, so I could see what side of bed he gets up on after his five hours of sleep. Unless he doesn't work mornings, that is.
> (Have you been to PsychCentral? I don't think Dr. Grohol has a lot of professional input does he? I know he has "mods" on the boards, but I don't think they're professionals. Perhaps that's the way these boards work...)I don't remember these boards by name as much as by appearance and feel of the posts. This one doesn't have boxes around the messages -- it's powered by Matt's BB and the atmosphere is unique -- the harder he pushes for civility, it seems the less reasonable people become, and I believe it is because he overemphasizes feelings -- and his speculations about hypothetical feelings -- rather than leading toward an exchange of information. I think I recall reading that he and Grohol were both influenced by some late-90's Internet fad that involved some psuedo-virtual reality rooms, icons, avatars, pins and blocks. It was all the rage until whatever came the next summer. And without directly saying so, I think that fad might be much of the basis for their individually different styles.
I seem to recall a Harvard or Mass General board that was very reasonable. I didn't closely examine the administration, because the role of administraton didn't seem that evident. Hsiungs philosophy seems to be that people learn from seeing other's publicly chastized. Well, that's only regular members of the group, but members come and go, and they stumble into things he hasn't regulated, so they get the idea that's okay. Or they read old posts from before he made up the latest rule.
I don't know exactly where professional involvement would lead him, but if it wasnt' about presenting his accomplishments as "research" in a publish-or-perish academic enviornment, but instead about providing an actual service, they might go beyond the "whatever we can afford is good enough for you" budget. If people really need this service, he should be able to articulate the need to a funding agency. I'm not talking research funding, either. I think we probably all agree on one thing - that there is wealth available to provide health care that is not beign spent on health care, and whatever means we recognize, we agree people are suffering and dying as a result. This board can be seen as a service people use becuase other services simply arent' available -- not from local spiritual centers, not from local medical centers, not from local or federal budgets -- nowhere.
Posted by so on May 22, 2005, at 23:55:47
In reply to or.... » so, posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 23:06:23
I don't think padding the room is going to resolve any of my concerns. I want him to get at least as much sleep as is required of an over-the-road trucker, I want him to justify his rules to peers with the authority to say "i don't think so" in the same way he would justify a procedure to a insurance company or hospital administrator, and I want him to lead by example of taking regular time away from critical duty to restore his own mental health before involving himself in the lives of anonymous strangers seeking sometimes critical care. Is that too much to ask?
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 0:24:47
In reply to Re: Sorry... Which two threads???, posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 22:21:07
> To no-one in particular, of course...
> ;-)
We were debating carnivoury, moral absolutism and other topics on the politics board, and got into some exchange below on this board about god knows what - - the rules, which is what we're on about in this thread too. I seem to recall a thread about London, too.Can I ask you to address your comments about those things to the group in general? Then if I get caught up in it it's my problem. Mabye I'll want to ask the same thing of you again, about someting else. I can write in third person around a "not-to-me" request so easily they hardly seem real anyway -- it's the cut and paste back and forth that gets addictive. Linking back from somebody else's post -- or your own -- makes it less about me, too. so if you won't cite my posts or answer me on those threads, I could more easily devote my time to something else. I really do spend a lot of time on each post.
Posted by Shy_Girl on May 23, 2005, at 0:45:57
In reply to or.... » so, posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 23:06:23
Hi Dinah...
you wrote:
> If the major concern is informed consent, perhaps we could all brainstorm a paragraph in the registration process.
>
> Something along the lines of internet groups being occasionally volatile places, and there is always the possibility of conflict. Please check with your personal mental health providers about whether this board would be appropriate to you at this time. The civility guidelines of this site are explained at xxxx and you might also wish to do a search on "Please Be Civil" if the issue is of concern to you. The first violation of the site guidelines will result in a warning, and successive violations will result in "blocks" of increasing length. Please further be advised that some people find being sanctioned or blocked distressing, and if you believe it may be for you it might be advisable to consult with your personal mental health provider about whether participation on this site is right for you at this time.I think this is *very* good idea. Hope it is added. :-)
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 1:25:32
In reply to Re: or.... » Dinah, posted by Shy_Girl on May 23, 2005, at 0:45:57
> Hi Dinah...
>
> you wrote:>
> I think this is *very* good idea. Hope it is added. :-)
>
>
Sorry, not to step on Shy_Girl's recomend, but if she advocates such verbage, I want to help refine it. Thing is, not everyone here has a personal mental health provider. Maybe the majority do, but that might be where I differ -- I subscribe to a school of self-care that includes mental health self care. I'll be neutral about whether people should rely on systematic caregivers, but I suggest the site should to -- unless the purpose is to promote clinical mental health care, it would do best to recognize the range of approaches people use to care for their mental health. Claiming clinics are the sole or even usual source of care is not appreciative of the vast majority of people who find help elsewhere -- it tends to minimize the problems of those who don't seek clinical care, or suggest there is no other remedy. It tends to categorize mental health problems as seeking a clinical diagnosis. Everyone but everyone has mental health problems, some severe and never clinically diagnosed. Many find help outside clinical approaches.
I just don't spend time reading FAQ's before posting to every site I visit. I agree the method of enforcement would do well to appear prominently on a page one can't register without seeing, but the "your healthcare provider" would be lost on me.Slant wise, I would accept the rules more readily in that format if they were presented as Hsiung's unique rules for this site -- not as a standard of what is "civil" -- because when asks me to be civil that is what I aspire too --- standards I have encountered in real life for longer than Hsiung has been alive. I don't consider his rules of writing to define civility -- in his forum or anywhere else. To the contrary, his claim to own the concept of civility confounds my understanding. I simply don't appreciate being called uncivilized should I not meet his standard of owning my emotions and those of everyone who might potentially feel something upon reading what I write.
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 1:29:13
In reply to Re: or...., posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 1:25:32
Well, as you may have read elsewhere, I actually prefer "Please abide by site guidelines." since there is less general judgement involved. It seems more... civil.
But I'd miss the old PBC's. Now that's part of board culture. Sigh. I wish you didn't hate smilies.
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 1:38:38
In reply to Re: or.... » Dinah, posted by so on May 22, 2005, at 23:55:47
so let me see if I can summarize your concerns.
You don't think Dr. Bob gets enough sleep, and that he may make errors on the board because of it, and later justify them. You're worried about his personal wellbeing, and the wellbeing of us Babblers. Have you perchance had experience with doctors or interns who try to function on too little sleep?
(You don't happen to be Mrs. Bob, do you? In which case I concede to your greater knowledge.)
You don't think this is a problem particularly of Dr. Bob's site, but of PsychCentral and similar sites as well. But it appears to you to be more evident at Babble because Dr. Bob does his administrating up front rather than behind the scenes.
You want Dr. Bob to get funding for Babble. I don't quite understand the rationale behind this one. If Dr. Bob wants funding, I certainly understand. But I don't see what huge difference it would make. I sort of like the credit card idea better (yes, yes, I know others don't). But perhaps I'm missing something?
You think Babble decisions should be a committee view, with a committee composed of mental health providers.
I won't comment on anything you've said until I make sure I understand correctly what you are saying. If I'm missing the point, could you please point it out, so that the possibility of meaningful discourse is increased?
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 1:48:03
In reply to Re: or.... » so, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 1:29:13
> I wish you didn't hate smilies.
I don't hate them. But I am reluctant to compose an explanation of how I parse them vis-a-vis historic languages or face-to-face expressions, because in the past I've had bad experiences with a person who disagreed with the propriety of my comments about how I see them.
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 1:48:07
In reply to Re: or.... » Dinah, posted by Shy_Girl on May 23, 2005, at 0:45:57
There have been concerns mentioned from time to time on this subject, and I'm aware of it from personal experience.
I sort of landed in Babble over my head. I wasn't familiar with interpersonal communications and it took me some time to be able to withstand what was to this sheltered soul the somewhat hurly burly world of interaction with others (even with the civility rules). Fortunately, I had a therapist who kept me a bit grounded, and who advised Babble breaks from time to time.
Part of my trust in Dr. Bob, and my loyalty to him, comes from that rough period in my own Babble participation. Not that he said much (of course) but what he did say was reassuring and to the point. He too helped ground me. With his customary spare style, I might add. :) And without leaving his administrative role.
So my troubles were not as much with Admin as with interaction.
I'm not actually advocating such a warning, or necessarily think it's needed, but I thought I'd suggest it and see what others thought.
As far as so's concern, writing is not something I claim expertise in, and I wasn't proposing that exact wording. Just putting out an idea to see if it would resonate with those who have had trouble at Babble for one reason or another.
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 1:51:29
In reply to Re: or...., posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 1:48:03
You don't need to explain. I respect the rights of others with regards to preferences in conversational styles, once I know them.
My comment was more an expression of how much I've come to rely on them to convey tone, and what a challenge I was finding it to refrain.
It wasn't a complaint.
I hope you'll forgive me if I forget now and then, though. If you look through my other posts, you'll find them littered with emoticons.
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 3:29:14
In reply to Re: or.... » so, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 1:51:29
at least they're not enabled as animations in the script
Anyway, smileys are so 20th century. Emotive animations now have real faces, real voices, they can follow the cursor with their eyes, they can be programed to express facial emotions and some can even say whatever you type into a text field. You can manipulate their age, clothing, hair color --or even create talking animations from your own photos, or one you download from this page ... yeh, this page ... that guy up there in the corner, you can make him say anything you want...
Go here and click the "try it" link:
http://www.oddcast.com/sitepal/?&affId=36318&bannerId=0&promotionId=2270
imagine this hooked up to one of those phsycotherapy scripts -- been a while since I used one -- I think it's called alica or elisa or something?http://vhost.oddcast.com/vhost_minisite/products/sitepaltts.php
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 3:55:58
In reply to Re: or...., posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 3:29:14
here's a better link
http://www.oddcast.com/sitepal/products/sitepaltts.php
Posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 3:56:28
In reply to Re: or...., posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 3:29:14
Some people don't understand the civility rules
They can't distinguish their experiences from reality
They can't grasp the arbitrary / non-arbitrary distinction.I do understand.
At least, I think I do...
And I much prefer that to having my posts vanished.And I don't have anyone IRL with respect to treatment or medication or psychotherapy or anything.
But so what?
Without this I'd have nothing.And I (think) I can understand.
But some people don't...
Does that mean that we have failed them?Disclaimer:
I'm really stoned right now...
so... don't go getting yourself blocked
I want to talk to you tomorrow...
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 4:08:29
In reply to Re: or...., posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 3:56:28
Okay, I redirected this to my bot, who will give you all the machine emotion I can and more.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050513/msgs/501564.html
Posted by chemist on May 23, 2005, at 6:35:40
In reply to Thanks » Shy_Girl, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 1:48:07
> As far as so's concern, writing is not something I claim expertise in, and I wasn't proposing that exact wording. Just putting out an idea to see if it would resonate with those who have had trouble at Babble for one reason or another.<hello there, chemist here...i was drawn to this thread for several reasons, the most glaring (to me) being Dinah's RFC targeting (not exclusively, by read) those of us who have had trouble here at PB. i qualify.
first up: post from so -> Dinah, 22/05/2005. Dr. Hsiung does not offer psychiatric advice to any entities who/that make use of www dot dr-bob dot org. it is not a matter of rules, semantics, or opinion: it is illegal, not endorsed by the oversight agencies such as the APA and AMA, would not pass muster with federal, state, and local authorities, and simply is not a service that has been proferred by Dr. Hsiung. practicing medicine across state and country borders is not looked upon with favor. prescriptions and in-person visits are problematic.
second: a request appears to have been made which more than infers that Dr. Hsiung can attend to his perceived duties on this site by securing more sleep: i am not privvy to Dr. Hsiung's sleep and waking regimen, and i suspect that as Dinah notes, family members would perhaps be the best source of information in this regard. in any event, the issue is not germane when paralleled to whether or not one would entrust their safety to a sleep-deprived and over-worked airline pilot. the collective PB community - one-time browsers through long-term steadfasts - cannot be (collectively) labeled a ``customer,'' if for the only reason being that the ``shopkeeper'' actually does not provide a tangible service aside from an online bulletin board. the issue of whether or not money changes hands is moot - an exchange of legal/accepted tender does not a vendor/customer relationship make.
third: the assertion that if people need ``this sort of service, they need quality service'' is an opinion for which i cannot locate an antecedent. is it the ``administrative planning'' to which the reference is made? the task in question is determined not likely to be an occasional talk to one's peers about a ``web project'' or requesting and presumably digesting (again) peer-source feedback in a casual setting. instead, a suggestion for a round-table discussion with one's peers during which time appropriate actions - to be executed when required in a clinical situation - are subject to revision and veto sounds to my ears like overkill, and service at that level was not promised, implicitly or otherwise. the internet - and this website - is/are a strange ``clinical setting,'' i would concur. however, it is not a clinic, and all matters addressed on PB - from pills to therapy to writing and so forth - are handled by the posters. Dr. Hsiung polices the area: he does not practice medicine online.
fourth: Robert Hsiung is the registrant on record with PIR - the sole registrant - as the person who secured the domain name on august 4, 1998; updated the registration 5.25 years later; and will have to address the issue of renewal in the year 2007. Dr. Hsiung appears to outsource the task of hosting the web site: whether my hypothesis is accurate is a good question. however, two nameservers are noted, as is the name and contact information of the sys admins. do a whois and check it out...
fifth: the issue of what are deemed ``inconsistent'' and ``arbitrary'' rules by the owner, registered administrator (not IT), and official copyright holder to this (my ramblings now, afore, and later) and all other missives posted herein simply because arptables in the state of virginia are kept up-to-date is an opinion. also in the opinion category is the issue concerning how mistakes and subsequent perceived and/or real revisions and/or amendments to the ``rules'' are adjusted by the owner of the property we (PB) tax on a regular basis. this is not our property. i have been given a reduced sentence, and i have taken my lumps. i earned them all.
sixth: from whence did poster ``so'' determine that ``there is a notion in the medical profession that people can work any hour of the day, seven days a week, and whatever they put out is some gift of mercy to the clients?'' this statement is followed by the alluded-to airline pilot parallel: perhaps i do not fly on the same carrier(s) as ``so,'' and thus i fail to identify a foil packet of peanuts i cannot open (even if i want to) and a soft drink as a gift of mercy; and if there is any question that the FAA and aviation-associated unions are endorsing 168-hour work weeks for the flight and ground crews, i politely suggest that the interested have a look at the ``rules'' in place that appear to be an attempt (in part) to minimize repeat performances that made the news years ago.
seventh: the assertion ``so'' makes in re: ``broad license'' by medical professionals at the top tier of the medical trade being little more than responsibility to an ``authority'' identified as the judgement of the medical professional almost in toto. again: Robert Hsiung has arranged to secure a static IP address which is pointed to by a DNS when the appropriate text is transmitted. he does not practice medicine on this site, and he does not even chime in with information that might be ``more correct'' in cases where runaway threads and misinformation - some quite dangerous - are posted. he spends a great deal of time ensuring that people such as myself are aware that i am using his property and must abide by his rules.
eighth: ``so'' is not informed about the realities of academe - i am - and in particular, medical schools, where a nine-month salary is a rarity and up to 85% - or more - of a faculty member's salary is soft money that must be secured through funding agencies. The university enjoys anywhere from 40% to over 100% in overhead (F&A; insurance; etc.) which arrives with a funded proposal. Given the economy and across-the-board cuts in funding (except DHS), if overhead is 75%, and one requests $300K/3 years, one actually budgets $525K - standard, but in tight times, the proposal had better be solid gold. Dr. Hsiung is currently (according to the online faculty directory at u.chicago/pritzker) appointed as an Assistant Professor: this is the first step towards the top tier. whether or not Dr. Hsiung has satisfied the Committee on Tenure and Promotion to the extent that a jump to Associate or Full (perhaps even chaired) is merited, it appears that the top tier has not been reached just yet...further, medical schools are quite aggressive in doing away with tenure proper, although i am not aware if this is true at u. chicago.
ninth: ``so'' opines that Dr. Hsiung should be capable of articulating to a funding agency (at least one, i suppose) that monies are needed to overhaul the dr-bob website and that ``so'' ``is not talking research funding, either.'' i ask of ``so:'' having precluded solicitations to NIH, NSF, ACS-PRF, Burroughs-Wellcome, and many others bent on funding applied and - less now than 30 years ago - basic research, where do you suggest Dr. Hsiung attain the money to fully immerse himself in the business of providing a service that, by your own admission, you are indifferent as to whether or not it can survive in the near future?
p.s. i find the atmosphere at PB to my liking. Dr. Hsiung and myself are not chums, should that thought occur: aside from footing the bill, scrubbing illegal information (online pharmas, e.g.), and requesting that we act as adults - and giving us a ``time-out'' if/when he feels that a guest using his resources has crossed the line - it seems to me that little intervention by Dr. Hsiung - if any - is called for, given the nature of the crowd here...
tenth: ``so'' states that the exchange of information on PB takes a backseat to increasingly bad behaviour of the posters because Dr. Hsiung is ``overemphasizing feelings'' and ``his speculations about hypothetical feelings:'' the second statement quoted is outstanding; the first is, again, an opinion...there are posters on PB who are very sensitive to statements that appear benign to me, at least...more than one PBer has been very hurt by words that were perhaps penned with little to no intent to cause distress, while yours truly misses the point and gets another vacation.....in any event, your prose is quite prolific - a nod to Heller - and i hope you do not take any of this personally or deem it uncivil, as i have done my best......yours, chemist
Posted by gardenergirl on May 23, 2005, at 9:27:43
In reply to Re: or...., posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 1:25:32
> Slant wise, I would accept the rules more readily in that format if they were presented as Hsiung's unique rules for this siteUm, why would the rules for this board apply anywhere else? They are by definition Dr. Bob's unique rules.
>To the contrary, his claim to own the concept of civility confounds my understanding.
Hmmm, I haven't read every word on this site, but I have never encountered any claim of ownership of the concept of "civility". Would you please provide a link or a quote?
>I simply don't appreciate being called uncivilized should I not meet his standard of owning my emotions and those of everyone who might potentially feel something upon reading what I write.
When were you called "uncivilized"? I'm shocked that this could occur and not be sanctioned. Although perhaps you were extrapolating from a "please be civil" to being called "uncivilized". They are two different structures with two different meanings. The former is a request for a type of behavior and the latter is a characterization.
And this is really about making sure Dr. Bob gets enough sleep? awwwww
gg
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 9:53:29
In reply to Re: or...., posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 3:29:14
But *I* am soooo twentieth century. Maybe even 18th or 19th. I'm smiling as I say that, with a twinkly crinkly smile.
The animated emoticons scare me a bit, except for the Yahoo clapping hands one. It seems to properly represent the feelings I am trying to convey.
I still resort to (shy smile) or (grin), because sometimes a smiley just can't convey nuance.
I need to go to work now, but if you'd like to continue our conversation, you can let me know if I'm on the right track or if I've missed the mark in understanding your concerns.
Eliza is a concept that Alexandra is quite familiar with. So if you have any interest in it, you might start a discussion with her on the topic.
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 9:56:30
In reply to ..., posted by chemist on May 23, 2005, at 6:35:40
And happy you like it here.
In fact, there are a number of posters, yourself included, who seem to be quite comfortable in the realm of thought, yet have come to different conclusions about Babble.
It's what makes life interesting, isn't it?
Unless, of course, everyone in the world should decide to agree with ME. :)
Posted by Shy_Girl on May 23, 2005, at 14:23:57
In reply to Thanks » Shy_Girl, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 1:48:07
> Part of my trust in Dr. Bob, and my loyalty to him, comes from that rough period in my own Babble participation. Not that he said much (of course) but what he did say was reassuring and to the point. He too helped ground me. With his customary spare style, I might add. :) And without leaving his administrative role.
I think I understand what you mean. :-)
> I'm not actually advocating such a warning, or necessarily think it's needed, but I thought I'd suggest it and see what others thought.
I'm just curious...why don't you think such a warning is necessary?
> As far as so's concern, writing is not something I claim expertise in, and I wasn't proposing that exact wording.
I thought you did a pretty good job with the wording. :-)
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 14:24:52
In reply to ..., posted by chemist on May 23, 2005, at 6:35:40
>
> second: a request appears to have been made which more than infers that Dr. Hsiung can attend to his perceived duties on this site by securing more sleep: i am not privvy to Dr. Hsiung's sleep and waking regimen, and i suspect that as Dinah notes, family members would perhaps be the best source of information in this regard. in any event, the issue is not germane when paralleled to whether or not one would entrust their safety to a sleep-deprived and over-worked airline pilot.
If it involves a critical service, the capacity of a service provider to provide a service that is not harmful is germaine, as are factors that might infringe upon that quality, whether the service is free or not. The administrators routine early-morning interventions, his presence nearly 365-days-a-year and his usual seven-days-a-week presence are a matter of record.>the collective PB community - one-time browsers through long-term steadfasts - cannot be (collectively) labeled a ``customer,'' if for the only reason being that the ``shopkeeper'' actually does not provide a tangible service aside from an online bulletin board. the issue of whether or not money changes hands is moot - an exchange of legal/accepted tender does not a vendor/customer relationship make.
Ah, but they can and have been so labeled. A relationship between a service provider and user are the relevant concepts. In this case, we have terms of service construed as a guideline for civilized behavior. Civilized people often violate contractual terms.
> third: the assertion that if people need ``this sort of service, they need quality service'' is an opinion for which i cannot locate an antecedent. is it the ``administrative planning'' to which the reference is made? the task in question is determined not likely to be an occasional talk to one's peers about a ``web project'' or requesting and presumably digesting (again) peer-source feedback in a casual setting. instead, a suggestion for a round-table discussion with one's peers during which time appropriate actions - to be executed when required in a clinical situation - are subject to revision and veto sounds to my ears like overkill, and service at that level was not promised, implicitly or otherwise.Then at least we are not suffering from both broken promises and informally developed protocols for therapeutic intervention in a clinical setting.
>the internet - and this website - is/are a strange ``clinical setting,'' i would concur.
Please further contemplate the gravity of your concurance.
>however, it is not a clinic, and all matters addressed on PB - from pills to therapy to writing and so forth - are handled by the posters. Dr. Hsiung polices the area: he does not practice medicine online.
And so, as far as we know, he has not been charged with such. But he does contemplate by inference at the top of each page, and detail in stating that his administrative style might be therapeutice, that his activities might be therapeutic.
>
> fourth: (reference to technical milieu snipped)
>
> fifth: the issue of what are deemed ``inconsistent'' and ``arbitrary'' rules by the owner, (reference to tecnical milieu snipped) is an opinion.Most spoken or written statements, outside strict scientific dialogue, are opinions. Perhaps since opinion is the primary mode of speech among civilized humans, we could develop for network dialogue a text-coloring algorithm so people could recognize the rare case when an opinion is so fully accepted by all interested parties as to be considered fact.
> sixth: from whence did poster ``so'' determine that ``there is a notion in the medical profession that people can work any hour of the day, seven days a week,; and if there is any question that the FAA and aviation-associated unions are endorsing 168-hour work weeks for the flight and ground crews,
In reference the medical industry, if you did not fully contemplate the demands placed on student interns, I invite you to do so now. Otherwise, If you have information I have not fully considered about the extent to which sleep depravation affects quality of service in other professions, I appreciate that you have reported it.> he does not practice medicine on this site, and he does not even chime in with information that might be ``more correct''
But he stated that his doctrine of "blocking" "stories" he considers innappropriate might be a means of encouraging new "stories", and hence, therapeutic. And he occassionally states that intent is not important -- that effect is the subject of interest in deciding the propriety of communicaiton.
> eighth: ``so'' is not informed about the realities of academe -Please re-examine your instrument. It seems insufficient to accurately measure what I know.
>
> where do you suggest Dr. Hsiung attain the money to fully immerse himself in the business of providing a service that, by your own admission, you are indifferent as to whether or not it can survive in the near future?I didn't say be paid to fully immerse himself. More careful study would be required to document evidence for my premise that boards where the management does not leave allegations posted about members behavior are also those that have a budget, and for which administrative workload is shared among several qualified and identified individuals, some of which are compensated for their effort, and for which administrative policies have been contemplated in formal meetings among peers qualified to challenge each other's opinions.
> p.s. i find the atmosphere at PB to my liking. Dr. Hsiung and myself are not chums, should that thoughtIt would seem a normal product of circumstance that most of those active here at any given time would be those who find the atmosphere to their liking. My concerns focus on those who don't like it, who feel alienated by the administrative environment and who, some after offering considerable contribution in time and thought to the community, have left.
>it seems to me that little intervention by Dr. Hsiung - if any - is called for, given the nature of the crowd here...It's difficult for me to parse this in the context of the rest of your essay, but with the meaning implicit in the statement, I would agree.
> tenth: ``so'' states that the exchange of information on PB takes a backseat to increasingly bad behaviour of the posters because Dr. Hsiung ... ``his speculations about hypothetical feelings:'' the ... statement ... is outstanding;
perhaps you could say more about why you consider it an outstanding statement. Would you be comfortable publishing that opinion outside the context of a lengthy critique of my opinions you don't find equally meritous?
Finally, you expressed hope that I not take your comments personally, and that they not be deemed uncivil.
If I took it personally or considered it uncivil -- well the later is unlikely, because few uncivilized creatures have the capacity for aysnchronous network communication -- and it was intended for my personal review as well as that of a wider audience in reference to my personal contributions, so I must take it personally. I would hope you consider it a complement that I take it personally. The allusion to adult behavior in the context you offer in your reply is otherwise often used as a metaphor for graciously excepting other's views about one's personal opinions and recognizing the range of behaviors accepted and preferred among civilized creatures. Unfortunately, not all clinical practitioners hold such generous and welcome views of civilized, personal interaction.
and one further observation, informed by my unique insight which taints the observation as an opinion, I don't find any evidence that the administration has equated "civil" with "adult" in any of his admonishments of group members. i suspect if one person directly proposed that one he implicitly considers "uncivil" was in fact less than "adult" he would also tend to classify the one offering the proposal as less than civil. Obviously, I would question the accuracy of the semantics of either presumption -- civility being largely a subjective notion that implies failure to fully benefit from a civilizing culture, and adult being a biological measurement.
Now, having only limited resources to invest, I am submitting this reply with only a casual review of spelling, formatting and compliance with terms of service, the latter with which I have meticulously attempted to comply nonetheless.
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 14:44:06
In reply to Re: or.... » so, posted by gardenergirl on May 23, 2005, at 9:27:43
> Um, why would the rules for this board apply anywhere else? They are by definition Dr. Bob's unique rules.
And hence, terms of service for this site. "terms of service" is the standard reference to behavioral expectations published in support of networked forums. Civility is seldom, if ever, used to describe expectations of terms of service at other forums.
> Hmmm, I haven't read every word on this site, but I have never encountered any claim of ownership of the concept of "civility". Would you please provide a link or a quote?"Please be civil". What more evidence do we need than the statement itself? Either civility is what Robert Hsiung says it is, or it is a broader concept owned by society at large, which in this case does not always or even often align with expecations of his implicit terms of service.
>I simply don't appreciate being called uncivilized should I not meet his standard of owning my emotions and those of everyone who might potentially feel something upon reading what I write.
>
> When were you called "uncivilized"? I'm shocked that this could occur and not be sanctioned. Although perhaps you were extrapolating from a "please be civil" to being called "uncivilized". They are two different structures with two different meanings.While there are not terms of service published for this site, it is also suggested in the supporting information for what would otherwise be considered terms of service that a phrasing a statement in a positive slant is sufficient to remove implicity negative meanings. Nonetheless, scholars of literature offer that positive statements embody negative connotations. Requesting that a person be civil implies that they have not been. The cultural context in which demands for civility arose, in English language, involved comparison of formal behavioral protocols with those of cultures considered "uncivilized." We now have the capacity to more accurately state what we are requesting, which in each and every case in reference to civilized people using networked communication in this forum, is nothing more than compliance with implicit terms of service, which are not otherwise stated as part of the registration or informed consent process.
>The former is a request for a type of behavior and the latter is a characterization.
And the request for a type of behavior, striclty, compliance with terms of service, characterizes non-compliance as less than civil, hence uncivilized. Does not the statement "Please wash your hands" imply that hands are unwashed and unclean?
>
> And this is really about making sure Dr. Bob gets enough sleep? awwwwwPerhaps the administration could write a determination as to whether use of the exclamation "awwww" is consistent with guidelines that would otherwise be considered terms of service. It has also been used elsewhere in this forum with similar inference, i believe in the title to a post.
But yes, sleep and the effect of rest on capacity to deliver service is part of what I am discussing.
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 15:03:14
In reply to Re: or.... » so, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 9:53:29
> Eliza is a concept that Alexandra is quite familiar with. So if you have any interest in it, you might start a discussion with her on the topic.
Beyond citing the most current generation of talking, responsive, life-like human animations, the entire topic of non-linguistic symbols and programmed conversational algorithms in network communication is probably too close to the boundaries for me within the context of implicit terms of service for this site, because I hold a deep, almost reverent interest in the role of hard-wired tendencies for pretense in animal behavior. My reverence, however, doesn't imply that I hold all symbolic gestures as equally useful to me.I hope you followed those links and had some conversation with the animations there. What is interesting to me is the how real conversation with these animations can seem, even though I know it is entirely a product of my interaction with software.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 15:31:49
In reply to Re: or.... » Dinah, posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 15:03:14
>Then they go about justifying their mistaken rules, and start to engage others in supporting their mistake as if it were the best possible outcome.
From my experience I have found Dr Bob willing to admit when he has made a mistake. To reverse a decision even.
>"Please be civil". What more evidence do we need than the statement itself? Either civility is what Robert Hsiung says it is, or it is a broader concept owned by society at large, which in this case does not always or even often align with expecations of his implicit terms of service.One word, one meaning, but the behaviours that are considered civil and uncivil varies as a function of context. Just like RL where what is considered appropriate in church may well be different from what is considered appropriate down at the pub.
>Requesting that a person be civil implies that they have not been.
I wondered about that too…
But I was led to the conclusion that asking someone to be civil does not imply that they have been uncivil.
I wish I could find that post again…
>Does not the statement "Please wash your hands" imply that hands are unwashed and unclean?
No, it doesn’t. It might most often occur when the hearer does in fact have dirty hands, but it isn’t part of the dennotation of the utterance. It would be perfectly meaningful to say ‘please wash your hands’ to someone who had just washed them. They might protest ‘but I’ve just washed them’ but the point is that the utterance is perfectly meaningful. In fact, the utterance is a request. It doesn’t imply anything about the hearer at all. It isn’t making a claim about them it is simply asking them to do something. The reasons why the speaker made such a request might be a matter of interpretation…
>I simply don't appreciate being called uncivilized
Then you will be pleased to know that you weren’t.
I'm really thinking that there is a whole heap more to this than I know about...
You seem to be feeling hurt by past treatment here.
It is hard for us to try to understand and to help without having more of an understanding about what is going on for you.
Otherwise... I guess we might just end up going round in circles never really getting to the heart of the issue.
It seems to me... To be something about the civility rules. It is a shame that you don't want to discuss them with me anymore :-)
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 16:53:57
In reply to Re: or...., posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 15:31:49
> Otherwise... I guess we might just end up going round in circles never really getting to the heart of the issue.
If there were more to it and our dialectic pattern is circular we might just end up going around in bigger circles. My sphere already includes considerable reading in the archives, regardless whose interests might be at risk. My scope of discussion is focused where I think it is most effective.
> It seems to me... To be something about the civility rules.This part of this thread emerged from Hsiung's request that I propose a first step toward more effective governance. I proposed that he involve professional peers in administration of the board. You seem to agree with that. He seemed to nix the idea with two brief comments.
From there, the discussion has evolved to include some people offering usual support for the administration, but acknowledging to some extent doubts about the accuracy of the term "civility" which I propose could be resolved by defining his terms of service in the same manner most Web sites define their terms of service - as terms of service. Otherwise, he appears *to some* to be a physician offering diagnostic comments about the behavior of participants in a setting that potentially has clinical implications.
>It is a shame that you don't want to discuss them with me anymore :-)I see no shame. You could write your comments as statements to the topic, and could avoid citing my comments as the source of ideas to which you are responding, if you want to help me more easily discuss ideas about which you share an interest.
By the way, I also agree with the suggestion that smaller boards would be best restricted as members-read-only. Especially if he wants to continue asking people to be "civil" but not post terms of service and to classify violation of his terms in the usual and most specific way, which would be ask people to comply with the terms of service.
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.