![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 75 to 99 of 197. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 15, 2005, at 1:13:22
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 14, 2005, at 19:00:55
> > 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... Dr. Bob I am asking you to look into this, and provide a response.
>
> JayI'm sorry you felt put down, but I think it was acceptable.
--
> The direct response to your apology was to REAFFIRM my do not post request
>
> Gabbi-x-2This response?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050517/msgs/502020.html
Sorry, but that's not how I read it. If you want me to respond to a post after a DNP, post to me with links to your DNP and their later post.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 15, 2005, at 1:13:28
In reply to Re: DNP's and civility rules » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 15, 2005, at 0:50:28
> how someone ... could become so dangerous
>
> lambs were led to slaughter.
>
> Toph> you have the gall to try and find reasons why your doing the EXACT same thing doesn't count.
>
> I can't think of anything bad enough to call this.
>
> Gabbi-x-2Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on June 15, 2005, at 3:00:34
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen » JenStar, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 12, 2005, at 21:21:00
Good point. I usually have a good sense about which of my posts are just fine and which might be riskier. But who knew I'd get a PBC for f*rting?
:)gg
Posted by gardenergirl on June 15, 2005, at 3:02:12
In reply to How to build a Zen, posted by TofuEmmy on June 12, 2005, at 10:01:47
Ems,
I'm sorry you had to make multiple attempts to get your response, and I know it was upsetting to you.((((emmy))))
gg
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 15, 2005, at 3:18:50
In reply to Re: please review.., posted by Dr. Bob on June 15, 2005, at 1:13:22
> > The direct response to your apology was to REAFFIRM my do not post request
> >
> > Gabbi-x-2
>
> This response?
>
No this one says it clearly. I wouldn't expect you to read into it.http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050517/msgs/502068.html
Posted by KaraS on June 15, 2005, at 5:26:29
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » KaraS, posted by alexandra_k on June 14, 2005, at 23:56:10
> > 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?About exactly what I wrote in an earlier post in this thread:
"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."
Posted by Toph on June 15, 2005, at 6:51:37
In reply to Re: please be civil » Toph » Gabbi-x-2, posted by Dr. Bob on June 15, 2005, at 1:13:28
I'm sorry, I know you are trying to be patient with me. I need to be careful with hyperbole. But I'm not sure I can learn to change the way I speak. I'll try.
Posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 9:39:02
In reply to Re: please be civil » Toph » Gabbi-x-2, posted by Dr. Bob on June 15, 2005, at 1:13:28
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/510659.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050610/msgs/512441.html
I do not wish to see Alexandra PBC'd or blocked because of me. So I'm not requesting that. I'm just trying to point out that there is substance behind Gabbi's frustration.To tell you the truth, I was going to answer the post in question, thus lifting the DNP, because I felt the situation that was causing me distress might be far enough in the past. But then I read
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050614/msgs/512722.html
And realized that I was wrong. Since poster A has pretty close to a fifty percent chance of being me, and another fifty percent chance of being another poster - in the application of everyday logic anyway - not formal logic, because I took ethics rather than logic as my philosophy elective. I do not believe poster A's motivations were accurately represented, if poster A was indeed me. In fact, lack of accurate representation of poster A motivations was the actual cause of the DNP, so removing it at the moment would not seem wise.
Added to the fact that the statement
" 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."excerpted from that post, could be construed to mean that poster A is the "you" referred to.
I suppose Toph could read the post about posters A & B as an example of a properly worded hypothetical under civility guidelines.
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.