![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 17 to 41 of 197. Go back in thread:
Posted by Jai Narayan on June 12, 2005, at 21:01:27
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen » Gabbi-x-2, posted by JenStar on June 12, 2005, at 20:19:31
I am on PC as well
I love babble for all the wonderful people and Dr. Bob.
He's intelligent and sensitive.
I like PC because I never get a PBC...
some of the threads go missing and locked down.each site has it's own way of trying to control people.
Dr. B approaches the person
Dr. J goes for the thread
each one wants people to feel welcomed and safe.
I guess the rule of the day is peace is the most important thing.I have noticed that each site has wonderful people on them.
now how to address the problem of people breaking the rules on each site.
Emmy should not be posted to if she has clearly stated that she did not want to be posted to.
What is wrong here?
why is that person on babble doing this to her?
I don't get it?
Emmy that must be irritating.
that does need to be addressed.I have found myself in conflict on the babble site and on PC site...people will be people.
it's no easier on either site.
conflict is a struggle.I guess that's my Zen of it.
J.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 12, 2005, at 21:21:00
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen » Gabbi-x-2, posted by JenStar on June 12, 2005, at 20:19:31
> I don't think it's off topic. I agree, it is sometimes hard to tell when someone else will get a warning, a block, or nothing. However, I have a pretty good feel for MY posts -- what will get a warning. I think it's pretty hard to put all of the ins & outs into words. I think intent is factored in there too, as well as the words themselves. Do you have a "feel" for your own posts, or are you sometimes concerned about what you can & can't say with safety?
>
Well I did have concern for sure. I was blocked once which baffled me, and a second time for something I thought was dicey but I'd patterned after someone who didn't get blocked. There was a while, about a year ago where I thought people were being treated very harshly and inconsistantly, and it did stop me from posting here for quite a while.
Fairly recently it seemed to have eased up, but that's nerve wracking to me too, because I wonder if the rules have changed, or if the axe could fall at any minute. After seeing someone get *thanked* for a post that would have had me blocked..and several uncivil posts go unchecked.. and then Pax's *block* (I wish we had italics here so I could quit using asterisks..)
yeah, I've lost pretty much any feel for what is okay besides the most banal.
The idea of being blocked doesn't really bother me, except if I think it's unfair, then it's the unfairness I dislike. If I were a new poster though I'd be extremely wary, when I was new, the thought of getting a P.B.C mortified me.
I respect someone who is very careful to find out what is okay before they post, It shows a desire to contribute within the boundaries, and that's not an easy thing to do on your own.
When I found it to unpredictable, I gave up.
Posted by JenStar on June 12, 2005, at 21:45:55
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen » JenStar, posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 20:55:41
Well, I doubt that we'll ever get any "open" DEA agents here! This just doesn't seem like the kind of forum in which they might choose to participate, no?
I think I must have completely missed the statements that included the words hypocrite and/or joke. It seems to really be a concern for you, because you keep mentioning it. Can you refer again to the initial post? I'd like to read it now. My interest is piqued after seeing you refer to it so many times!
Also, why don't you join us over on social from time to time? You seem interesting. Come chat for a while & don't worry about the rules so much!
JenStar
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 12, 2005, at 22:07:01
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen, posted by Jai Narayan on June 12, 2005, at 21:01:27
> Emmy should not be posted to if she has clearly stated that she did not want to be posted to.
> What is wrong here?
> Emmy that must be irritating.**It would be incredibly irritating, and to not have it addressed would only add to that.
Furthermore, any inferences that you (Emmy) or Zen would have been treated with more respect if you had been more supportive, or been here longer, offend *me*
Zen had been here since almost the beginning, she had many loyal friends, and I remember her going out of her way for me to find out information on a rare medication I was starting
when I couldn't, and I barely knew her.
She was blocked for 24 weeks for swearing.. for saying sh*t. There is no fairness in that.
Emmy, I've never seen you as mean, I've never even seen you as b*tchy (though I'll take your word for it ;) I remember you being funny, and supportive, but I never saw mean.
And I know you didn't mean your post to be a comparison of P.Central and Babble, it didn't cross my mind, and I'm confused as to why it came up at all.(((Emmy)))
Posted by TofuEmmy on June 12, 2005, at 22:15:09
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen--Emmy, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 12, 2005, at 22:07:01
Oh Gabbi! :-) You just don't know how much your post means to me. I needed one person to tell me that they don't think I am completely evil. Thank you!
(And thank you for telling me about Silky Underwear from Lush! It's great!)
Hugs, emmy
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 12, 2005, at 22:51:07
In reply to How to build a Zen, posted by TofuEmmy on June 12, 2005, at 10:01:47
> I issued a Do Not Post request to a user here. This user has now posted to me THREE times. I sent this information to Bob with all the url’s for him to view. Nothing happened. Imagine how that made me feel. Angry? Hurt? Unprotected?…definitely!
A critical factor in a Do Not Post request, for it to be binding, is that harassment is evident.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#harassed
Rules 1 and 2 *require* harassment. Holding differing opinions about third parties does not fit the definition for harassment. Nor does my failing to heed her requirement that I modify my behaviour towards a third party (not even on the Babble site). Defiance is not harassment. See the original "Do not post" request:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050330/msgs/478945.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050330/msgs/478960.htmlThe original request does not meet the harassment requirement. All that might flow from it, is moot. One person's discomfort ought not to become a burden placed on another. Disagreement alone is insufficient grounds.
I have tried (and failed) to do the honourable thing, out of respect, but this is receiving far too much attention, IMHO. I have apologized, repeatedly. I shall not let it happen again, notwithstanding the lack of regulatory support for the request.
Humbly,
Lar
Posted by Dinah on June 12, 2005, at 23:04:52
In reply to Re: How to follow the harassment policy, posted by Larry Hoover on June 12, 2005, at 22:51:07
I don't think Dr. Bob has required harassment to be present to uphold the do not post requirement. The only thing I remember him saying is that you can't DNP in response to a post that was to someone else entirely and didn't affect you, and I'm not even sure of that. It's just a vague recollection.
He seems to be allowing and upholding DNP requests in a broad range of circumstances.
Just fyi, and Dr. Bob will correct me (I'm sure) if I'm wrong.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 12, 2005, at 23:09:41
In reply to Re: How to follow the harassment policy » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on June 12, 2005, at 23:04:52
> I don't think Dr. Bob has required harassment to be present to uphold the do not post requirement.
I'm sure of that too, I've had one upheld that would not be considered to be legal harassment.
Though, I think what is considered harassment should be up to the person who issued the D.N.P.
Posted by TofuEmmy on June 12, 2005, at 23:25:00
In reply to Re: How to follow the harassment policy » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on June 12, 2005, at 23:04:52
If Larry had a problem with the DNP, he should have brought it up in April and stated that he is simply unwilling to abide by it. We could have hashed it out then with Dr. Bob.
I need, for my own mental health, to stop all contact from Larry. Is that not my perogative here? There is no Ignore button available. Isn't the DNP rule to protect us from posters we don't want contacting us? I am unable to respond in a civil fashion to Larry. So, the DNP prevents further disruption of the board.
If too much attention has been paid to this (in Larry's opinion) - had he not posted to me, there would be no such attention. If he would stop posting to me and/or about me, all the attention would disappear. Simple. I'd like that please.
emmy
Posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 23:26:44
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen » so, posted by JenStar on June 12, 2005, at 21:45:55
> I think I must have completely missed the statements that included the words hypocrite and/or joke. It seems to really be a concern for you, because you keep mentioning it. Can you refer again to the initial post? I'd like to read it now.
Look on the Political board under the thread about legalization and decriminalization. The phrases to which you refer can be found in the first few posts of that thread. Given 48 hours without a response from an administrator who did find time during those same hours to design tee-shirts for partygoers, I will add to my list of statements that are sometimes allowed of some group members "callous contempt" and "sick joke".
> Well, I doubt that we'll ever get any "open" DEA agents here! This just doesn't seem like the kind of forum in which they might choose to participate, no?I don't know. Maybe I should invite one and find out. Though government agencies are reluctant to interfere in matters involving free speech, (even though the freedom to write that way in this forum is very unusual) participation here might fall within the mission of the Demand Reduction Program which is "to provide timely, accurate, and persuasive information to varieties of audiences in order to build support for effective drug enforcement; to educate the public about the dangers of drugs and the effects of drug abuse on the nation; and to reach community leaders, parents, teachers, counselors, and employees in the workplace in order to educate them about implementing drug prevention and education programs."
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/programs/demand.htm
>
> Also, why don't you join us over on social from time to time? You seem interesting. Come chat for a while & don't worry about the rules so much!
>
> JenStarWhen I see something there that interests me, I occassionally post there. I'm not a person who spends a lot of time in casual conversation. If I am heavily involved in this board, I might not have much time --- or energy -- to spend anywhere besides something that pays or promotes a goal that is important to me.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 12, 2005, at 23:31:50
In reply to Re: How to follow the harassment policy, posted by Larry Hoover on June 12, 2005, at 22:51:07
>
> A critical factor in a Do Not Post request, for it to be binding, is that harassment is evident.Different Link..
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050517/msgs/504152.htmlOne person's discomfort ought not to become a burden placed on another.
***I'm astonished by that comment, and I hope I've misunderstood.
Posted by JenStar on June 12, 2005, at 23:32:07
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen, posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 23:26:44
If you don't mind my asking, what is it about the rules of the board that so intrigue you? You said that you're not much into casual conversation. But why are you so interested in the administration of this board, if you're not really interested in participating in it (in the social disucssions) all that much? I guess I just don't "get" that.
Curious again...
JenStar
Posted by JenStar on June 12, 2005, at 23:41:55
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen, posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 23:26:44
OK, I found the thread. I guess to me, it seems that political discussions are going to be extremely heated and passionate. It almost seems (again, to me) that having a political debate on this kind of board is going to be extremely difficult, b/c when people get heated up about politics they generally use words or phrases that offend someone. For some reason, politics seems to enrage almost everyone at some point!
I like to debate about politics, but I often get too zealous about it (even with family & friends - or maybe ESPECIALLY with family & friends) and end up saying things I don't really want to say.
I guess that people have to be really savvy about formal debate-like rules in order to have a political discussion and not get bent out of shape, mad, or end up saying something offensive. You know, like the high school & college debates. But most people don't know how to debate like that, so it often gets heated.
Still, though, I guess I didn't feel offended at all when I read those posts. I just tried to "read through" the words & see what people were trying to say. I think that's really important when discussing politics.
Are you really interested in politics? Is that why you post mostly on that board?
JenStar
Posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 23:55:03
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen » so, posted by JenStar on June 12, 2005, at 23:41:55
> Still, though, I guess I didn't feel offended at all when I read those posts. I just tried to "read through" the words & see what people were trying to say.Well, maybe it's not obvious but i did that too. i took issue with the fact that some people can use that language in reference to some things, but others can't. Allowing it for some can tend to encourage other's to think it is permissible in other matters. I don't see how it is permissible to call laws against certain drugs pathetic, but not permissible to refer to administration of certain drugs for certain conditions using similar language. And when people are labeled uncivil by a psyciatrist for using terms that are disallowed for some but allowed for others, well, I feel inspired to support those people tenaciously.
> Are you really interested in politics? Is that why you post mostly on that board?
>
> JenStarI'm probably more interested in culture, but not so much the violins and grand piano sort of culture -- more the human interaction sort of culture. I'm interested in politics for its cultural implications and sometimes think politics is an outlet for people who might not enjoy as much cultural freedom as they are rhetorically presumed to enjoy.
Posted by so on June 13, 2005, at 0:11:39
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen » so, posted by JenStar on June 12, 2005, at 23:32:07
> If you don't mind my asking, what is it about the rules of the board that so intrigue you?
I am interested in widespread impressions that they are not consistently applied and that despite thousands of words explaining ambiguities, they are not clearly understood and perhaps not clearly defined.
> You said that you're not much into casual conversation. But why are you so interested in the administration of this board, if you're not really interested in participating in it (in the social disucssions) all that much? I guess I just don't "get" that.Reading can be participation. I've read quite a bit of the board. It seems reasonable to me that I avail myself of an opportunity to participate in discussion of administration of a forum that I read extensively.
When I do participate by writing to the board, "social" wouldn't be my first stop. Bifurcation of treatment approaches so that chemical treatments are considered "biological" and "psychological" approaches are excluded from a "biological" forum probably confounds most of my efforts to participate in the parts of the board that most interest me. I would be more interested in biological elements of phsychological engagement.
I delete much of what I write to the boards before it goes to the network -- I still get the benefit of exploring my thoughts by writing them out. I thought about posting to the main board - the drugs board -- asking when SSRI manufacturers started including "thoughts of suicide" warnings in their advertisements, but I realized there were other places to obtain accurate information without the need to participate in a lengthy discussion about people's various opinions, and probably not a lot I could contribute on the matter that would advance the discussion as it has progressed here.
>
> Curious again...
> JenStar
>
Posted by All Done on June 13, 2005, at 0:37:52
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen--Emmy » Gabbi-x-2, posted by TofuEmmy on June 12, 2005, at 22:15:09
> Oh Gabbi! :-) You just don't know how much your post means to me. I needed one person to tell me that they don't think I am completely evil. Thank you!
>
> (And thank you for telling me about Silky Underwear from Lush! It's great!)
>
> Hugs, emmyI guess I took it for granted that you and everyone would know I don't think you're completely evil. Not even a bit. And not mean, either. And I'll be very disappointed if anyone is allowed to say that about you or anyone else here at Babble.
I've always seen you as kind, caring, supportive, and sometimes a bit silly. I know you speak out on issues that are important to you. Maybe that makes some people uncomfortable, but I've always admired the way you get your point across while remaining within the civility guidelines. That's not always an easy thing to do when viewpoints differ on something or someone you deeply care about and/or believe in.
You're a very special person. I'm glad we're friends.
Now, about that underwear...how do I get on that list for recommendations? Gabbi?? ;)
Big hugs, emmy.
Laurie
Posted by alexandra_k on June 13, 2005, at 5:33:05
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen, posted by so on June 13, 2005, at 0:11:39
> Bifurcation of treatment approaches so that chemical treatments are considered "biological" and "psychological" approaches are excluded from a "biological" forum probably confounds most of my efforts to participate in the parts of the board that most interest me. I would be more interested in biological elements of phsychological engagement.
Yes, thats an interesting topic. I have had a bit of trouble before with posting 'psychology' type responses to people over on the meds board. And I guess the converse too. And what if you want to discuss the pros / cons of alternative versus traditional treatments - the alternative board or the main babble board?
Posted by partlycloudy on June 13, 2005, at 5:48:25
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen » partlycloudy, posted by TofuEmmy on June 12, 2005, at 19:23:39
Regarding your search for how I've been treated by you in the past, Emmy:
I've had emails, babblemails, and communication from you on Psych Central that were equally as hurtful as the few that you turned up here - and none of these would have shown up on your extensive google search. I'm saying this just to point out that I've been treated consistently - not only at this forum via posting, but in all our communications. It has taken me a long time to be able to stand up for myself. I haven't been successful at doing so without hurting you in kind, and for that I am truly sorry.Also, FWIW, I never said that you're evil. I have only used your own words to describe yourself. I do lash out when I'm upset, and that has earned me many PBC's here, which I've deserved.
I agree that we are alike in many ways. I wish that you would post on more boards here (like Substance and Books). I hope that we can go forward on a more even footing and help each other.
pc
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 13, 2005, at 7:33:32
In reply to Re: How to follow the harassment policy » Larry Hoover, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 12, 2005, at 23:31:50
> >
> > A critical factor in a Do Not Post request, for it to be binding, is that harassment is evident.
>
> Different Link..
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050517/msgs/504152.html> One person's discomfort ought not to become a burden placed on another.
>
> ***I'm astonished by that comment, and I hope I've misunderstood.Allow me to rephrase. Person A should not suffer a block merely because person B is in high dudgeon.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 13, 2005, at 7:46:18
In reply to Re: How to follow the harassment policy » Dinah, posted by TofuEmmy on June 12, 2005, at 23:25:00
> If Larry had a problem with the DNP, he should have brought it up in April and stated that he is simply unwilling to abide by it. We could have hashed it out then with Dr. Bob.
There is a mis-statement of the events. I am willing to abide by the DNP request, and I have apologized profusely for: a) misunderstanding the application of the "rescinding by posting to" part of the rule (applying to the first two of the three posts in question); and b) not remembering that the DNP was in effect from months ago. Instead, I remembered the friendly banter we had enjoyed for years. I'm sorry that is no longer possible.
> I need, for my own mental health, to stop all contact from Larry. Is that not my perogative here? There is no Ignore button available.
Nor is there a list of DNPs in effect, so that posters such as myself, with fallible memories, can refresh their recall. Despite any impression I might give to the contrary, my recall is about as poor as anyone can imagine. I would argue for an expiry date on DNPs, or, a list that can be referred to.
> Isn't the DNP rule to protect us from posters we don't want contacting us?
I do believe that there is an alternative, as every post is signed.
> I am unable to respond in a civil fashion to Larry. So, the DNP prevents further disruption of the board.
I'm sorry.
> If too much attention has been paid to this (in Larry's opinion) - had he not posted to me, there would be no such attention.
I am countering an argument about the process failing, with another argument that the process is in fact moot. I did not raise the issues in this thread.
> If he would stop posting to me and/or about me, all the attention would disappear. Simple. I'd like that please.
>
> emmyFine. I shan't forget.
Lar
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 13, 2005, at 7:52:34
In reply to Re: How to follow the harassment policy » Gabbi-x-2, posted by Larry Hoover on June 13, 2005, at 7:33:32
> Allow me to rephrase. Person A should not suffer a block
Merely because person B is in high dudgeon?Oh, that's all there was to it was there?
Please don't post to me Lar.
Posted by Dinah on June 13, 2005, at 7:56:24
In reply to Re: How to follow the harassment policy, posted by Larry Hoover on June 13, 2005, at 7:46:18
Dinah here, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob.
Please do not directly reply to those who have asked you not to post to them. Direct replies do not require the checking of the "previous poster" box.
Dr. Bob, is of course, the final arbiter of rules, and you should contact him about any questions you might have, or to override any deputy decisions.
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 13, 2005, at 8:25:08
In reply to Please honor Do Not Post Requests » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on June 13, 2005, at 7:56:24
> Dinah here, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob.
>
> Please do not directly reply to those who have asked you not to post to them. Direct replies do not require the checking of the "previous poster" box.
>
> Dr. Bob, is of course, the final arbiter of rules, and you should contact him about any questions you might have, or to override any deputy decisions.I really don't understand things, then. From the FAQ: "Replying to posts by someone isn't necessarily posting to them."
I'm totally confused. My voice in this counts for something. I answered impersonally, I believed.
The other poster directly mentions me, by name, and action. If I have violated this concept, has not she exceeded that threshold, and thereby rescinded, a priori? Which renders my "violation" moot?
This is a Gordian knot.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 13, 2005, at 8:28:38
In reply to Please honor Do Not Post Requests » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on June 13, 2005, at 7:56:24
Forget it. I resign. Goodbye.
Posted by Dinah on June 13, 2005, at 9:23:44
In reply to Re: Please honor Do Not Post Requests » Dinah, posted by Larry Hoover on June 13, 2005, at 8:25:08
To me, the difference was the use of the word "you" in the body of the post, in a context where you seemed to be addressing a comment to Emmy. The only thing that was different was that the box "add name of previous poster" was not checked.
Speaking of people in the third person would appear to be within the guidelines, by my understanding. Admittedly, I have always found it to be a rather limited rule. Because, by my understanding, if you were to address a post to Dr. Bob or the board at large and express regret at causing the issuer of the DNP any distress you would be fine. If you were to comment to the board or to Dr. Bob about the content of the post without mentioning the poster, that would be fine. But if you address the issuer of the DNP directly, it isn't.
Dr. Bob may well disagree and rescind my action. You can email him if you like.
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.