![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 26 to 50 of 60. Go back in thread:
Posted by LegWarmers on April 4, 2006, at 21:13:09
In reply to Re: I disagree » LegWarmers, posted by Racer on April 4, 2006, at 20:55:21
>
> First of all, I have experienced something a little similar on another site, where someone posted something about me that really felt like an invasion of privacy. I'm not unsympathetic to Matt's side of it.
>
> And I thought about posting at the time that a lot of issues in that thread could be ignored for Matt's benefit. I'm rather sorry I didn't.Thats more along the lines of what Im thinking... I just wish I had said something more useful about ignoring it. Doesn't this poster deserves a block?
>
> The bottom line, however, remains the same. Matt chose to post what he did. That post was beyond the bounds here. Matt was blocked.Agreed
>
> Look at it this way: even if everyone else in a thread writes something uncivil, each of us has the choice of whether or not we do so as well. And we're all responsible for our own choices.Right, it just seems like the whole issue was ignored. Thats my issue. It never really was addressed by Bob, that this poster was claiming to have information etc etc...
>
> But, again, this was a very unfortunate incident. I agree that many people would find it quite provocative -- heck, I would have found it quite provoking, myself. I really do have sympathy for Matt. Nonetheless, he chose to write what he did.But I also think he did a great job ignoring not ONE, but TWO threads on the same topic on two boards he frequents... he ignored it, for what appears for quite a while...until the poster started getting personal... then he posted a very civil post.... Then the post abuot suicide came up... Doesn't sem right to me.
He should at least get credit for his initial handing of an unfortuante situation... a less severe block? I dunno> Agree to disagree?
I never have been able to agree to disagree ; ) .... but I do think we agree more than disagree anyway, so .. sure why not.
Posted by Phillipa on April 4, 2006, at 21:17:29
In reply to Re: I disagree » Phillipa, posted by Dinah on April 4, 2006, at 20:25:45
No offense but seriously just the thought of it would make me laugh. I'd be hysterical thinking of my head in a toilet bowl. I'm laughing now. Love Phillipa
Posted by Dinah on April 4, 2006, at 21:32:38
In reply to Honestly? » Dinah, posted by Phillipa on April 4, 2006, at 21:17:29
Well, perhaps you wouldn't mind. But there would be those who would.
Posted by Phillipa on April 4, 2006, at 21:38:22
In reply to Re: Honestly?, posted by Dinah on April 4, 2006, at 21:32:38
If you were at a party and someone told you to put your head in a toilet would take it seriously and either want to or would laugh or would get angry and want to punch them out? Me laughter is the best healer of all. Love Phillipa
Posted by Racer on April 4, 2006, at 21:55:39
In reply to How Many of you would thinkit funny and some punch, posted by Phillipa on April 4, 2006, at 21:38:22
> If you were at a party and someone told you to put your head in a toilet would take it seriously and either want to or would laugh or would get angry and want to punch them out? Me laughter is the best healer of all. Love Phillipa
Phillipa, it's great that you can think of it that way, and expect that sort of reaction should you ever find yourself in that situation.
It's unrealistic and rather unfair to assume that anyone else shares that belief. For a lot of people, hearing that would be pretty devastating, and that needs to be taken into account. If my husband ever said anything like that to me, I would be very, very angry with him, as well as hurt. And I would never dream of saying anything remotely like that him.
But let's shift the focus back where it belongs: it's not whether or not someone should be hurt by the phrase Matt used. Let's not try to debate whether someone "should" find what he wrote funny. I think you'll agree that Matt didn't mean it to be funny -- he was hurting, and he lost his temper and lashed at. That is understandable.
But it's still not OK.
Posted by LegWarmers on April 4, 2006, at 22:10:28
In reply to And that's your right » Phillipa, posted by Racer on April 4, 2006, at 21:55:39
he did do a really good job of keeping his angry post as a me post, up until the toilet part. but seriouly, its not like he said... "YOU THIS AND YOU THAT" When you compare the toilet comment with "there is no vaidity to what he posts" ON TWO separate boards. And he is on suicide watch. and he is high drama.... and the list goes on... i must say, id rather be told to go stick my head in a toilet than all that other stuff. those sound like *personal* attacks. right? Matt did not personally attack this poster. he did not try to hurt the poster.. he tried to understnad at first and then when it didn't stop and the poster failed to acknowledge Matt's post he got justifiably angry. he said I feel p*ssed becasue.... and then the toilet bit. But nothing like, you are a pice of #)*$@)#
Posted by Dinah on April 4, 2006, at 22:36:40
In reply to For the record, posted by LegWarmers on April 4, 2006, at 22:10:28
If I understand correctly the issue here is that there is a belief that uncivil posts on the thread were missed?
Or is it that you'd like him to comment specifically on the issue of people claiming to know someone personally and giving off board information about them. And whether that is considered uncivil under board policy? In other words, a clarification on board policy?
So that if someone knew me off board, or claimed to know me off board, and said things that I'd prefer not to disclose on board, would that be uncivil? Is that the issue?
Posted by Phillipa on April 4, 2006, at 22:36:50
In reply to For the record, posted by LegWarmers on April 4, 2006, at 22:10:28
As we know we won't get anywhere. but how many would have blocked the thread starter? That person must be getting a great deal of laughter at the trouble they caused. And it's sorry to me that some relationships have no humor in them. Personally the only thing that would have made even a little mad is getting my hair wet. Ever throw a husband or wife in a swimming pool or the ocean when they didn't want to be? Or go out and buy something they didn't like or not show up when they expected you to or cook what they didn't like or not eat what they cooked for you? I'd love to see a perfect realtionship. Maybe that is one of the reasons so many get divorced today or stay till the kids are grown or have none at all like my oldest Daughter. She doesn't want any kids to live in a world like we seem to have less marriage cousellors and even therapists. And my youngest Daughter has never been happier since she separated and is not not drinking no stress and loves just going out to do fun things with friends. Love Phillipa
Posted by LegWarmers on April 4, 2006, at 22:50:48
In reply to Re: For the record, posted by Dinah on April 4, 2006, at 22:36:40
> If I understand correctly the issue here is that there is a belief that uncivil posts on the thread were missed?
yes. First, the poster posted on two boards, so to me, thats 2 punishments, right? the poster claimed matt had no validity to his posts and that he was high drama and that he shoudlnt be posting and so on and so on... Is that appropriate? and appropritate times 2?
>
> Or is it that you'd like him to comment specifically on the issue of people claiming to know someone personally and giving off board information about them. And whether that is considered uncivil under board policy? In other words, a clarification on board policy?Its both. I think that is a very real and scary issue and this person implied to know that Matt was on a suicide watch... whatever that means. And then said, in time I will reveal who i am. That is teasing. there is play teasing and then there is provocative teasing and this person was teasing in a way that was scary. i know who you are and i know what you are doing, kind of scary. That issue NEEDS to be addressed and or clarified.
>
> So that if someone knew me off board, or claimed to know me off board, and said things that I'd prefer not to disclose on board, would that be uncivil? Is that the issue?Yes and no, that is an issue yes. BUT this person claimed things that were not true, they claimed information that they had no true knowledge of at least thats what it appears. unless, yes, this person does somehow know Matt. But from what I gather, Matt does not know this person and this person implied to know Matt and have personal information regarding him. There appear to be several civilty issues here.
Do you agree?
Posted by Racer on April 4, 2006, at 23:03:57
In reply to Re: For the record » Dinah, posted by LegWarmers on April 4, 2006, at 22:50:48
See, here's where I get all muddled up:
Yes, I believe the first post qualified for a warning, and posting it on two boards would have qualified as well. Although that's where it's a bit blurry: first offense, never been warned before, new to the site, etc -- so probably only one warning for those two issues.
Even though my gut says that I'd want more to happen if someone posted that about me.
I think what's happened here has a lot to do with the perceived unfairness of Matt being blocked, while the original poster was not. Part of the problem, I believe, was that this happened at a time when there was no one right here to step in. And by the time GG came along, things had really escalated. But there are all sorts of threads to this web, having to do with the problems if new people were treated more harshly than people who've been here a while, you know?
I don't know. I am just glad this is Dr Bob's site and not mine -- I don't have to decide these things, he can have the headaches... ;-)
Posted by Dinah on April 4, 2006, at 23:04:19
In reply to Re: For the record » Dinah, posted by LegWarmers on April 4, 2006, at 22:50:48
> > If I understand correctly the issue here is that there is a belief that uncivil posts on the thread were missed?
>
> yes. First, the poster posted on two boards, so to me, thats 2 punishments, right? the poster claimed matt had no validity to his posts and that he was high drama and that he shoudlnt be posting and so on and so on... Is that appropriate? and appropritate times 2?No. If both posts were posted before a PBC, then it is one infraction and gets one PBC.
>
> >
> > Or is it that you'd like him to comment specifically on the issue of people claiming to know someone personally and giving off board information about them. And whether that is considered uncivil under board policy? In other words, a clarification on board policy?
>
> Its both. I think that is a very real and scary issue and this person implied to know that Matt was on a suicide watch... whatever that means. And then said, in time I will reveal who i am. That is teasing. there is play teasing and then there is provocative teasing and this person was teasing in a way that was scary. i know who you are and i know what you are doing, kind of scary. That issue NEEDS to be addressed and or clarified.I think you'd probably be better off using hypotheticals here, since you need to be careful not to negatively characterize the behavior of any poster.
Posting information that you know to be incorrect is uncivil. Posting mysteriously is not uncivil. I'm not sure about being mistaken. I mean, it's concievable that a poster could confuse a poster for someone they know for one reason or another. It is uncivil posting personal information about someone, but I'm not sure where the line is drawn on that. It would be worth having Dr. Bob clarify.
>
> >
> > So that if someone knew me off board, or claimed to know me off board, and said things that I'd prefer not to disclose on board, would that be uncivil? Is that the issue?
>
> Yes and no, that is an issue yes. BUT this person claimed things that were not true, they claimed information that they had no true knowledge of at least thats what it appears. unless, yes, this person does somehow know Matt. But from what I gather, Matt does not know this person and this person implied to know Matt and have personal information regarding him. There appear to be several civilty issues here.
> Do you agree?
>Again, I would say it depends. A poster might be posting information they know to be untrue, which falls into the civility guidelines per Dr. Bob. They might be posting in error, believing what they say to be true. Or they may be posting truthfully something that another poster might prefer to not be made public. I think it's the last scenario that needs to be clarified by Dr. Bob.
Posted by Phillipa on April 5, 2006, at 0:29:47
In reply to Re: For the record, posted by Dinah on April 4, 2006, at 23:04:19
gg I have a question. Would the fact that I just got an e-mail from Matt's mom and persmission from her to forward it to bob with the comment of the outrageousness of this person claiming to be Matts's mom make a difference along with a forward of matt's response to me via babblemail to this person to Bob make a difference in the situatation. I did send those to Dr. Bob. Matt's Mom is very upset and concerned for her sons's safety.And when I informed via Babblemail what was going on on social that was when he joined in. Just thought I would keep all parties informed. Boy I love having posters e-mails makes it so much easier if they are blocked. Love phillipa
Posted by NikkiT2 on April 5, 2006, at 3:20:23
In reply to How Many of you would thinkit funny and some punch, posted by Phillipa on April 4, 2006, at 21:38:22
I quite often call my husband a studid c*&t, but I'm pretty sure many here would find it offensive if I said that to them.
And, if someone I didn't know very closely told me to go stick my head in a toilet, I wouldn't lunch them, but I certainly would walk away and not speak to them again.
Theres a fair amount at this place that gets posted that makes me feel uncomfortable you know.. and I do think the txt person was strange. But, they *didn't* reak any civility rules as far as I understand them, and Matt did. Its painful, but those are the rules.
Nikki
Posted by NikkiT2 on April 5, 2006, at 3:27:06
In reply to Re: For the record » Dinah, posted by Phillipa on April 5, 2006, at 0:29:47
I'm really confused.
If what Matt says is correct, then can we trust that this wasn't his Mum posting?
And he spoke in one of his posts about having to go as two people aren't allowed to post here from the same computer.I'm really confused.
Nikki
Posted by wildcard11 on April 5, 2006, at 5:27:43
In reply to Re: For the record » Phillipa, posted by NikkiT2 on April 5, 2006, at 3:27:06
~okay, this thread could def. be a headache..lol i think the main question/concern here is why did txtoolgirl NOT get blocked for statements that may have been overlooked...i do see *why* Matt got blocked under the rules, however i think the issue that is causing this to continue is that again, the 'original' poster went overboard w/ only a PBC (similiar to an incident not long ago), and that Matt got a *2* week block (was there a PBC for Matt?), which i think is seen unfairly b/c of the *way* in which the original poster was posting about him.
that said, Nikki, i do see a point you made!!!
Posted by ClearSkies on April 5, 2006, at 6:14:40
In reply to Acting as deputy » Phillipa, posted by gardenergirl on April 4, 2006, at 18:25:35
> > But where do you look to see who is acting as duputy if not stated.
>
> The current deputies are Auntie Mel, Dinah, and me. You can contact any of us or Dr. Bob by email with questions or concerns if you do not wish to post the question to the board for whatever reason. Additional information about deputies can be found in the FAQ: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#deputies
> As noted above in the thread about new deputies, Clearskies, 10derheart, and Racer are currently in the process of being selected for two new deputy positions. I believe that clearskies signed her post as "not-deputy" (or something similar) to clarify that status, although she can better address that.I don't want to creat any more confusion or distress about this. In future, I will consult with Dr Bob's deputies and ask them to issue any PBC's if they agree a post warrants one. That's probably what I should be doing anyway while Dr Bob evalutates the candidates.
I'm sorry if I caused a problem about this.
ClearSkies
Posted by Sobriquet Style on April 5, 2006, at 7:24:30
In reply to Re: Acting as deputy, posted by ClearSkies on April 5, 2006, at 6:14:40
The rules are different. If real life enters board life, specific issues etc, then the rules can become complicated.
Illusions, delusions and jumping to conclusions. How does anyone draw a conclusion what is real and what is not in paricular threads about what is reality of a situation in real life? Why simply come to Administration of course.
Good luck
~
Posted by Dinah on April 5, 2006, at 7:56:33
In reply to Re: For the record » Dinah, posted by Phillipa on April 5, 2006, at 0:29:47
As I said to a different poster in a previous post, the rules are VERY clear. No matter how you feel about a poster and what they posted, and even if they received a PBC for what they posted, it is against Babble civility guidelines to speak in violation of the civility guidelines.
So I would strongly advise against posting anything that characterizes another poster as anything negative.
You would have to check with Dr. Bob as to whether posting an email from Matt's mom would be equivilant to posting for a blocked poster.
But even if it's ok, you couldn't say more than that the things said were not correct, not that another poster's behavior was outrageous.
And please hold off doing it until Dr. Bob can rule on this particular case.
Dinah, acting as deputy for Dr. Bob
Posted by Phillipa on April 5, 2006, at 10:57:15
In reply to Please be careful » Phillipa, posted by Dinah on April 5, 2006, at 7:56:33
Dinah no there is a misunderstanding. I don't want to post Matt's Mom's E-mail. I sent both her E-mail and Matt's Babble mail to Dr. Bob. No I'm not posting it or anyone else's on the board. They have been sent to Dr. Bob via his E-mail. That is what was meant by loving E-mails. Only Dr. Bob will see them. Not the board. Love Phillipa
Posted by Tabitha on April 5, 2006, at 11:15:13
In reply to Re: Please be careful » Dinah, posted by Phillipa on April 5, 2006, at 10:57:15
Hi Phillipa, I don't think seeing the emails is going to get Dr Bob to un-block Matt, if that's what you're hoping. You know the drill, no matter what went before, the response always has to be civil. It can be hard to understand & accept, but I don't think it's going to change.
I think it's great that you support Matt though, and I'm glad you kept your cool in that thread, because I'd hate to see you blocked, too.
Posted by Phillipa on April 5, 2006, at 12:04:45
In reply to Re: Please be careful » Phillipa, posted by Tabitha on April 5, 2006, at 11:15:13
My point is not trying to get Matt unblocked but to let him know that is Mom was aware of what was going on and she said I meaning me would take care of it. So I guess I am being used nothing that isn't done in real life everyday but I have to do what I know is right and that is to inform the moderator that it wasn't a random act of madness on Matt's part. I stick up for everyone in real life too. Which is probably why I take and need meds for anxiety but you gotta do what you gotta do. I guess it's the nurse in me. Yes I tried to keep my cool . Thank-you for the support. Love Phillipa
Posted by Phillipa on April 5, 2006, at 12:47:36
In reply to Re: Acting as deputy, posted by ClearSkies on April 5, 2006, at 6:14:40
Clear Skies I knew exactly what you meant and was not confused about it. But you do have a point someone who isn't on the boards very often could be confused. As usual you are very thoughtful and through in thinking of this as it wouldn't have occurred to me. No confusion on my part but I can't speak for others. Love Phillipa
Posted by special_k on April 5, 2006, at 18:14:26
In reply to Re: Acting as deputy, posted by ClearSkies on April 5, 2006, at 6:14:40
oh. i've been known to ask people to please be civil.
i figured that was okay.
doing it as a poster looking out for them (to give them a chance to backtrack a bit before a deputy and / or bob hits the boards)
i wasn't planning on stopping with that...
i think it is okay for posters to do that?
Posted by ClearSkies on April 6, 2006, at 6:25:24
In reply to Re: Acting as deputy, posted by special_k on April 5, 2006, at 18:14:26
I think so too.
Posted by LegWarmers on April 6, 2006, at 10:00:59
In reply to Re: Acting as deputy, posted by ClearSkies on April 5, 2006, at 6:14:40
> > > But where do you look to see who is acting as duputy if not stated.
> >
> > The current deputies are Auntie Mel, Dinah, and me. You can contact any of us or Dr. Bob by email with questions or concerns if you do not wish to post the question to the board for whatever reason. Additional information about deputies can be found in the FAQ: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#deputies
> > As noted above in the thread about new deputies, Clearskies, 10derheart, and Racer are currently in the process of being selected for two new deputy positions. I believe that clearskies signed her post as "not-deputy" (or something similar) to clarify that status, although she can better address that.
>
> I don't want to creat any more confusion or distress about this. In future, I will consult with Dr Bob's deputies and ask them to issue any PBC's if they agree a post warrants one. That's probably what I should be doing anyway while Dr Bob evalutates the candidates.
>
> I'm sorry if I caused a problem about this.
>
> ClearSkiesI thought it was great when you stepped in!
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.