![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 67 to 91 of 197. Go back in thread:
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 14, 2005, at 16:58:40
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen..Dr. Bob...please review.., posted by jay on June 14, 2005, at 16:13:34
> > Especially when this unfair treatment comes from a man. And most especially when the man is supporting another man who repeatedly broke the rules. Women who have been abused by men in the past are particularly sensitive to unfair treatment from men. It raises the hackles on our collective necks.
> >
>
> I feel quite put down in your assumption of one man being like all men. I believe it is sexist, and if I where a man saying that about woman, I would be stompped upon. Dr. Bob I am asking you to look into this, and provide a response. Thank you,
>
> JayWhere in that post is it insinuated or assumed that one man is like all men?
I fail to see that. I fail to see the sexism.
To me it's no different than a man saying "a man who was abused by his mother in the past is likely to be sensitive to any similar treatment by a women"
I don't believe any man would be "stomped" on for making that statement.
Posted by KaraS on June 14, 2005, at 17:03:42
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » Larry Hoover, posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2005, at 2:35:16
UNBELIEVABLE!!!!
Dr. Bob, this is one of the worst calls you've ever made. (The only one that was worse was that poor poster who was quickly given another year of a block for saying that someone was being irresponsible in promoting illegal drug use. That unlucky poster wasn't even given a PBC.)
Larry had a right to defend himself. Emmy posted her side of things and he should have had the right to give his side as well. He did nothing that Alex hasn't done recently to Gabbi - yet she didn't receive a block. I don't think she even got a PBC. In her case, I don't recall there being a post she needed to respond to in order to give her side of things as in this case either.
The longer I'm here the more I understand the anger about your administration of the rules. They are just not applied fairly.K
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 14, 2005, at 17:15:33
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by KaraS on June 14, 2005, at 17:03:42
> UNBELIEVABLE!!!!
>
> Larry had a right to defend himself. Emmy posted her side of things and he should have had the right to give his side as well. He did nothing that Alex hasn't done recently to Gabbi - yet she didn't receive a block.
I don't think she even got a PBC. In her case, I don't recall there being a post she needed to respond to in order to give her side of things as in this case either.I really appreciate you noticing that, I certainly did. And though I'm all for respecting the D.N.P's I think 6 weeks is unnecessary and cruel.
That, and the fact that my situation was ignored makes me unspeakably angry.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 14, 2005, at 17:44:29
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by KaraS on June 14, 2005, at 17:03:42
> He did nothing that Alex hasn't done recently to Gabbi - yet she didn't receive a block. I don't think she even got a PBC. In her case, I don't recall there being a post she needed to respond to in order to give her side of things as in this case either.
I didn't address or direct a post to her after she requested me not to.
That is the crucial difference far as I can see.
A while ago someone said quite a lot of stuff to me and then ended the post with a 'please do not post to me' request.
I replied.
I got a PBC.
A while later Dr Bob checked the boards and not realising the PBC was for that post - he blocked me.
2nd infraction - blocking.
Larry has posted to Emmy a couple times since her 'do not post to me request'.
I'm sorry Larry, but what did you expect???
You can respond in general terms.
To anyone who is following the thread.
'Do not post to me' requests are fairly worthless given that you can respond in general terms.
But people do insist on handing them out...
And...
People will get blocked if they continue to address posts to people who have requested they not do that.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 14, 2005, at 17:55:37
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » KaraS, posted by alexandra_k on June 14, 2005, at 17:44:29
Sometimes A requests B not post to them because A doesn't want B to post about a certain issue anymore.
So what is B to do???
The fact that A doesn't want B to talk about an issue is a factor, yes.
But should B have to drop an issue because A doesn't want B to talk about it anymore?I don't think so.
Especially if B isn't being uncivil.
A can always stop reading.
Secure in the knowledge that B isn't adressing posts to them.
B can't make A continue to read.So...
Should A stop reading
Or should B have to shut up?All I know...
Is that those kind of requests tend to produce a 'f*ck that I'll continue just to spite you' kind of response.
I'm not proud of that...
But there it is.I've been forced to silence too much of my life.
And it brings that up for me.That being said
I won't take it (too) personally if people want to go back through the thread and request civility determination.If I did something wrong I would appreciate the opportunity to learn from that.
I am struggling with what to take from that situatuation.
I wondered if I was losing the purpose of the boards. If I get too caught up in admin at the expense of support. I wondered that admin being one of my favourite boards attested to the fact that I am too caught up in discussing issues rather than support.
I don't know.
I'm not sure...
People need support on admin too.
Feelings fly.
Maybe thats what I like about it.
Conflict skills etc.
More movement than the other boards.
I like that.
I like process stuff.I don't know.
Posted by TamaraJ on June 14, 2005, at 17:57:55
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » KaraS, posted by alexandra_k on June 14, 2005, at 17:44:29
> I didn't address or direct a post to her after she requested me not to.
>
-- I guess I am confused then, because when there is a reply to a post by a particular person, without checking off the "add name of previous poster", and the post contains a reply that is clearly in response to what is contained in the post of the person who has issued a "DNP" request, how is that not responding to a person who has asked that they no longer be posted to. It doesn't make any sense at all. It is a circumvention of the civility rules, and it is no different than what Larry did, with the exception that Larry was the subject of a particular post, and, in a fair and just society, he should have been given the opportunity to address the things that were being said.
>
> That is the crucial difference far as I can see.
>
-- It certainly is not a "crucial" difference. It is a circumvention, plain and simple.> A while later Dr Bob checked the boards and not realising the PBC was for that post - he blocked me.
>
-- Then he went back and unblocked you about a day later because he had double disciplined you for the same post - a PBC and then a block.
>
> I'm sorry Larry, but what did you expect???-- Like most of us here, he probably expected he would not be the subject of a double standard.
>
> You can respond in general terms.
> To anyone who is following the thread.
> 'Do not post to me' requests are fairly worthless given that you can respond in general terms.
>
-- They are only fairly worthless when others chose to circumvent them.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 14, 2005, at 18:16:36
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » alexandra_k, posted by TamaraJ on June 14, 2005, at 17:57:55
> -- I guess I am confused then, because when there is a reply to a post by a particular person, without checking off the "add name of previous poster", and the post contains a reply that is clearly in response to what is contained in the post of the person who has issued a "DNP" request, how is that not responding to a person who has asked that they no longer be posted to.
From the FAQ:
>Posting to someone means directing either the subject line or the body of a post to them. Replying to posts by someone isn't necessarily posting to them.If I said:
'Poster A, I think that...' in the body of the post then I figured that would count as directing the body of a post to them.I posted comments that were intended for the benefit of other readers following the thread.
IMO the 'do not post to me' request is fairly worthless except for preventing personal attacks directed to you. When personal attacks aren't the problem, I don't see how the request helps. And in the case of personal attacks the rest of the civility rules come into play anyway... Maybe the benefit is that it should be easier to refrain from reading the posts of someone you aren't getting on with if they aren't directing the subject header to you.
>It is a circumvention of the civility rules
I didn't see it as a circumvention. Really. I thought it was ok.
> Larry was the subject of a particular post, and, in a fair and just society, he should have been given the opportunity to address the things that were being said.
He could have told the general reader what he thought about what was being said. He just couldn't adress those general comments to Emmy.
And this is at least the second time after the DNP request that Emmy has had to say 'Hey! Don't post to me!'.
I have to say... I do see where Emmy is coming from with respect to the DNP request. What I find most puzzling is the DNP request and the blow-up in the first place.
> It certainly is not a "crucial" difference. It is a circumvention, plain and simple.
If I was circumventing then I agree there would not be a crucial difference. I didn't think I was circumventing though, and if I wasn't then I think it would constitute a crucial difference.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 14, 2005, at 18:20:04
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » alexandra_k, posted by TamaraJ on June 14, 2005, at 17:57:55
Here's one. There are two others, but I can't be bothered to find them right now. It's petty to bring it up, but I hate double standards.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050517/msgs/501998.html
Posted by alexandra_k on June 14, 2005, at 18:28:26
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » TamaraJ, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 14, 2005, at 18:20:04
With respect to that one if Dr Bob had hit the boards before the response (in the next post) then I probably would have gotten a PBC / Block.
What was harder about that situation was the 'do not post to me' 'I take it back' 'do not post to me' 'I take it back' movement.
I wouldn't have been suprised if he was confused I know I got a little confused myself.
Please do drag it up if people think there is a double standard. Really. If there is one then I want that to be remidied. And if there is not then I want people to stop saying that there is one.
Thanks.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 14, 2005, at 18:37:25
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks, posted by alexandra_k on June 14, 2005, at 18:28:26
By the way...
I don't think it is petty.
Really.
If someone feels that there was an injustice with respect to that thread then I am open to that.
Like I said, I really am trying to figure out what to take from that situation.
I think...
In general Dr Bob takes the whole thread into account with respect to civility determinations. If a situation is escalating then he hands out PBC's / blocks to prevent it escalating further. If he doesn't hit the boards until it has already begun to de-escalate then sometimes he will let posts go that he might not if they were the last posts to the thread when he hit the boards.Or at least that is my understanding...
It is like how an apology can be taken into account.
And attempts to sort out misunderstandings etc.But maybe I'm wrong.
In that case...
- There was a DNP request.
- An apology (which was sort of directed)
- Followed by a response to the apology
- Followed by a response (right of response to above)
- Followed by another DNP request.Which I believe I honoured.
I think it might be useful to get clarification on the DNP request.
If I am / was circumventing I'll stop it.
But I really didn't think I was.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 14, 2005, at 19:00:55
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks, posted by alexandra_k on June 14, 2005, at 18:28:26
> With respect to that one if Dr Bob had hit the boards before the response (in the next post) then I probably would have gotten a PBC / Block.
I'm only going to respond to this one post.
>> What was harder about that situation was the 'do not post to me' 'I take it back' 'do not post to me' 'I take it back' movement.
The direct response to your apology was to REAFFIRM my do not post request and you again apologized
I don't know how you percieve apologies and explanations to not be *posts*
The fact that I responded to your apologies means I'm not able to see you as a non-person.Larry also said he was confused by the circumstances surrounding his second post to Emmy and an apology.
As for the mitigating circumtances, please note that you are here able to try and explain your actions, Larry is not. You don't know why he may have done what he did, it must be incredibly frustrating to see his behaviour assessed and the suitability of the punishment justified on the board and not be able to respond. Out of courtesy I'd ask that you not continue to do that.I am in complete agreement with Emmy that her DNP should have been respected, but these are different issues to me.
Posted by jay on June 14, 2005, at 19:17:46
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen..Dr. Bob...please review.. » jay, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 14, 2005, at 16:58:40
How does this look:
> > Especially when this unfair treatment comes from a ( insert different sex, different race...)
It exadurates and emphasises the sex. It is very clear and obvious. Why is 'unfair treatment' from one sex worse then another?
Jay
Posted by KaraS on June 14, 2005, at 20:25:27
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » KaraS, posted by alexandra_k on June 14, 2005, at 17:44:29
Alex,
I don't wish to get into a long discusssion about this. I just don't have the energy or the fortitude for that right now. Suffice it to say that I agree with Tamara and Gabbi (and I couldn't possibly have improved upon their arguments anyway). I think this issue involves interpretation of events and we just don't interpret them the same way. This is not meant as a personal affront in any manner. I just don't see things the same way you do. Please let's just agree to disagree on this.
Kara
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 14, 2005, at 20:43:06
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen..Dr. Bob...please review.. » Gabbi-x-2, posted by jay on June 14, 2005, at 19:17:46
> How does this look:
>
> > > Especially when this unfair treatment comes from a ( insert different sex, different race...)As you've said frequently to a poster here, using snippets of quotes out of context can be misleading.
> It exadurates and emphasises the sex. It is very clear and obvious. Why is 'unfair treatment' from one sex worse then another?
No it is not clear and obvious, she did not judge the behaviour of the man. Put in it's proper context she was explaining how Zen's anger likely developed. The effect on Zen was likely to be more pronounced because Dr. Bob is a man, together with her her *past experiences with men*It's explained quite nicely.
Dr. Bob is a man..and
"Women who've been abused by men are likely to be more sensitive to unfair treatment by men"Emmy didn't say, "And it's worse because it's a man" and leave at that, and she didn't do that for a reason.
Posted by jay on June 14, 2005, at 21:06:15
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen..Dr. Bob...please review.. » jay, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 14, 2005, at 20:43:06
The statement was in context using an assumption about (men), and could be replaced with race, colour, religion, etc. Hands down. The main point is *I* feel accused as a male, and you can't tell me what I can/can't feel.
Jay
Posted by TofuEmmy on June 14, 2005, at 21:07:00
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » KaraS, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 14, 2005, at 17:15:33
"And though I'm all for respecting the D.N.P's I think 6 weeks is unnecessary..."
Agreed. Six weeks is too long. So was 24 weeks for saying sh*t, and 48 for crticizing Bob. I've also never agreed with cummulative blocks for these offenses.
emmy
Posted by Toph on June 14, 2005, at 21:44:56
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen..Dr. Bob...please review.. » jay, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 14, 2005, at 20:43:06
I think your comments about Zen are insightful, Gabbi. I did not know her here. I met her elsewhere and have endeavored to get to know her better. I wanted to understand how someone who seemed so invested in PB and who is so kind to me could become so dangerous to others here that she would warrent a year-long banishment. I am still trying to figure this out.
I think gender does come into play here. I also think that the culture here can become so contentious that some posters become swept up into the fray. How sad that people who love this place get punished for their human reactions to other's provocations and end up bitter or banished. If this is Bob's legacy, it will be bittersweet for while he helped many, his creation also hurt many as well.
Some of you lived this and may not want to recall these times, but those of you like me who were not there, check out a period when lambs were led to slaughter.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 14, 2005, at 21:47:35
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » Gabbi-x-2, posted by TofuEmmy on June 14, 2005, at 21:07:00
> "And though I'm all for respecting the D.N.P's I think 6 weeks is unnecessary..."
>
> Agreed. Six weeks is too long. So was 24 weeks for saying sh*t, and 48 for crticizing Bob. I've also never agreed with cummulative blocks for these offenses.
>
> emmyI didn't think that you'd think it was fair either Emmy. :)
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 14, 2005, at 21:55:14
In reply to Sorry, but the words speak for themselves... » Gabbi-x-2, posted by jay on June 14, 2005, at 21:06:15
>
> JayThe main point is *I* feel accused as a male, and you can't tell me what I can/can't feel.
Nor did, I, nor would I.
However that's not what you said. You said you believed the post was "sexist" that's what I took issue with.> The statement was in context using an assumption about (men), and could be replaced with race, colour, religion, etc. Hands down.
Sure, let's do that.
Let's explain Jane's anger toward white people.Jane had grown up in a residential school,
after she left she left the reservation and married a white man who became abusive. The abuse was all the more devastating to her because it reminded her of the treatment she'd recieved by the white instructors at the residential school.
It's not a judgement, it's cause and effect.
No one is saying it's right for Jane to feel that way, what they are saying is that it is *true*You get attacked by a dog, it's likely you'll become mistrustful of dogs.
Anyway, I'm not going to post on this anymore.
Dr.Bob's not giving it a P.B.C I'm sure means he thought it was okay too.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 14, 2005, at 21:58:38
In reply to Re: Sorry, but the words speak for themselves... » jay, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 14, 2005, at 21:55:14
>
> >
> > Jay
>
> The main point is *I* feel accused as a male, and you can't tell me what I can/can't feel.
>
> Nor did, I, nor would I.
> However that's not what you said. You said you believed the post was "sexist" that's what I took issue with.That should have said
"That's not all you said"
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 14, 2005, at 22:11:23
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen..Dr. Bob...please review.. » Gabbi-x-2, posted by Toph on June 14, 2005, at 21:44:56
> I think your comments about Zen are insightful, Gabbi. I did not know her here. I met her elsewhere and have endeavored to get to know her better. I wanted to understand how someone who seemed so invested in PB and who is so kind to me could become so dangerous to others here that she would warrent a year-long banishment. I am still trying to figure this out.
***I don't think it can be figured out. I don't, at least with the knowledge we have from this side of the board.
The truth is I care for and respect Zen, but even if I had wanted to find justification for her treatment here, I could not.
I think with every other questionable decision made by Dr. Bob there is probably an explanation (if you can accept the lengthy punishments in the first place) for those who want to believe it, but not Zen.How sad that people who love this place get punished for their human reactions to other's provocations and end up bitter or banished. If this is Bob's legacy, it will be bittersweet for while he helped many, his creation also hurt many as well.
***It has at times seemd to me that those who do the most supporting get the worst treatment simply because they have more opportunities to slip up.
I don't know about the rest. I don't know of other websites, and what happens, I've not cared to stay at any, but I'm sure there must be as much contention and questions about fairness.
It doesn't stop it from hurting when you see unfairness in action though.
> Some of you lived this and may not want to recall these times, but those of you like me who were not there, check out a period when lambs were led to slaughter.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031120/
Posted by alexandra_k on June 14, 2005, at 23:53:27
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks, posted by alexandra_k on June 14, 2005, at 18:37:25
>I didn't try to check my understanding of your POV first...That was the only thing I said from the link on that could be construed as posting to someone who had requested my not post to them. I thought we had managed to sort that out.
Maybe I'm still missing something.
With respect to Larry I was looking at *what* he did rather than *why* he did it.
I think it could be useful to see whether there are a finite list of different kinds of behaviour that warrants a PBC / block.One could start off with fairly rough categories e.g., being warned / PBC'd for something and then doing it again, etc.
There could be a standard explanation as to why each kind of behaviour is considered unacceptable. They could be attached to the post along with the PBC / block. Maybe this couldn't be done but I think it would be worth a try to see if it helps posters understand the civility rules better. It would also be interesting to see whether it would be even more helpful to attach a statment as to how the behaviour was considered to be an instance of that type.
There is room for subjectivity at both points.
Someone might get blocked for a kind of behaviour which one would not want to block as a general rule. Someone might disagree that their post counts as an instance of the same type.
I wonder if that would help posters understand the civility rules?
Posted by alexandra_k on June 14, 2005, at 23:56:10
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » alexandra_k, posted by KaraS on June 14, 2005, at 20:25:27
> Suffice it to say that I agree with Tamara and Gabbi (and I couldn't possibly have improved upon their arguments anyway). I think this issue involves interpretation of events and we just don't interpret them the same way. This is not meant as a personal affront in any manner. I just don't see things the same way you do. Please let's just agree to disagree on this.
I'm sorry, agree to disagree about what? Whether I broke civility rules?
Whether Larry did?
>
>
Posted by alexandra_k on June 15, 2005, at 0:11:53
In reply to How to build a Zen, posted by TofuEmmy on June 12, 2005, at 10:01:47
>Since he is human, he forms opinions of people, and those personal opinions DO impact the way he enforces the rules here. Yes, we all know there is favoritism. I have felt it myself when I was on the “good user” list. I’ve seen Bob let me and my friends get away with posts which others could not. And I surely didn’t complain about that.
Do you really think there is favouritism?
Maybe part of zens mistake was in identifying posters who she felt to be the chosen favourites.I agree that block lengths do stack up fairly heftily. But... How many times does one have to be blocked before getting block lengths of one year?
The post in context.
And the context of past infractions.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 15, 2005, at 0:50:28
In reply to Re: DNP's and civility rules, posted by alexandra_k on June 14, 2005, at 23:53:27
>
> >I didn't try to check my understanding of your POV first...> Maybe I'm still missing something.
Alex, it was a post, a post directed to me, after I explicitly asked you not to. It's not half a post or a semi post.. it's a freaking post!
The number of "Yous" in it doesn't count, that one "You" was enough to set the tone of the entire post. That and the fact that it referred to my post and was directly after my post....
You really really believe anyone is going to think that was not breaking the rules.
Oh, of course it must be the "one *you* rule"
If the post by the recipient of a Do Not Post request replies to said post, and refers directly to it, but uses no more than one "you"
it is not a violation of the Do Not Post request.This is bloody unbelievable!
We Worked what out?
I repeated my do not post request after that.
And About Larry, I didn't say you were talking about why he did it. However your post of "support" Gee I'm sorry Lar but what did you expect, you did post to Emmy after she asked you not to" (inference, it's cut and dried Lar) Or your comment "What did he expect he broke the rules" would leave anyone wanting to explain that it isn't always that clear and he can't, he's blocked! It's simple, common, decency to leave him alone. In the same thread you have the gall to try and find reasons why your doing the EXACT same thing doesn't count. Oh wait but there is a difference -- this is not the first time you've done this kind of thing, and for Larry it is.I'm floored that you'd say you feel the need to teach others about consistancy and logic.
I can't think of anything bad enough to call this.
Insert DNP here.
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.