![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 25 to 49 of 197. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by Dinah on June 13, 2005, at 9:24:32
In reply to Explanation » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on June 13, 2005, at 9:23:44
I also regret if you are distressed by this.
Posted by TofuEmmy on June 13, 2005, at 9:55:01
In reply to To TofuEmmy, posted by partlycloudy on June 13, 2005, at 5:48:25
I'm still so stunned at the depth of your dislike for me. I have now searched PsychCentral and can't find a single mean post from me to you. Just the opposite in fact - I see me welcoming you in June,and more friendly banter in August. You posted something sad about an experience on a boat, and I posted "Wish I could tuck you under my wings and keep you safe and warm today hon." I really looked hard for me being mean to you or any Babbler, and I didn't find anything.
Even in March of this year, you were friendly to me there on the substance abuse.So, it seems to have started in April during the April Fools fiasco. I think we can both agree that we weren't at our best then eh?
I am sure I've not babblemailed after that...I don't recall doing it during that either, but I could be wrong. And I couldn't have PM'd you at PsychCentral since you don't go to PsychCentral now.
So, I really truely think your memory of me is faulty, or you are confusing me with someone else on PsychCentral. I am NOT a saint, but I don't go around sending mean private emails to people, and then act nicely to them on the boards. Honestly PC, I have never understood why you dislike me so strongly. I think it's most about protecting Babble, and your friend Larry. Just as I do for Zen. I don't see why either any of that should stand between two women being friends.
emmy
Posted by partlycloudy on June 13, 2005, at 12:17:31
In reply to Re: To TofuEmmy » partlycloudy, posted by TofuEmmy on June 13, 2005, at 9:55:01
This issue has nothing to do with anyone except me and you, Emmy - and my pain is very real. You may be stunned at the depth of hurt that I am telling you about but that's only because I am finally able to express it instead of keeping it inside.
That hurt is based on MY experiences, and how I feel about them. That you won't even respect that about me says it all. I'm afraid I can't discuss this any further with you.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 13, 2005, at 13:30:50
In reply to Re: How to follow the harassment policy » Larry Hoover, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 13, 2005, at 7:52:34
I rescind My DNP to Lar, it was a 5 in the morning over-reaction.
Posted by TofuEmmy on June 13, 2005, at 14:17:21
In reply to Re: To TofuEmmy » TofuEmmy, posted by partlycloudy on June 13, 2005, at 12:17:31
You have publically accused me of repeatedly being mean, at Babble, and then at PsychCentral. I was simply trying to understand that by researching it and publically explaining what I found. I think that's only fair, don't you?
Of course you have a right to feel however you want about me. I was honestly trying to understand by seeing it for myself since I didn't remember being mean to you(except regarding the 4/1 thing).
But, I don't think you have a right to break the rules of civility here by calling me "mean", and my posts "barbed". That really hurt.
I am still at a loss to understand your feelings, as I don't return them. But you surely have a right to them.
em
Posted by partlycloudy on June 13, 2005, at 15:16:02
In reply to Re: To TofuEmmy » partlycloudy, posted by TofuEmmy on June 13, 2005, at 14:17:21
> I am still at a loss to understand your feelings, as I don't return them. But you surely have a right to them.
>
Thank you for that.
Posted by Phillipa on June 13, 2005, at 17:30:19
In reply to Re: To TofuEmmy » partlycloudy, posted by TofuEmmy on June 13, 2005, at 14:17:21
Darn! I never knew so many people were having problems with each other. Can't everyone be friends? Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by KaraS on June 13, 2005, at 20:04:48
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'm really confused. This has probably come up before so I apologize in advance for asking this question again. Also, I'm not trying to take sides here - merely asking for a clarification of the rules.I understand people being upset about being posted to from someone they've given a DNP. But when the person issuing the DNP puts forth their view of events and mentions the recipient of the DNP by name, how can the recipient defend him or herself without replying to that post directly? Is it a matter of couching the language so carefully that "you" is never mentioned and the previous poster's name isn't checked off when submitting the post? If so, that's really fooling no one. But if that is not allowed, then how can the recipient give their side of events? Certainly they ought to have that right. There just doesn't seem to be a solution here that is fair for both sides. Or am I missing something?
K
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.