![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 140 to 164 of 225. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2013, at 0:51:07
In reply to Re: Lou's response-promo » Lou Pilder, posted by 10derheart on August 18, 2013, at 0:21:26
> Piss off.
Please be sensitive to the feelings of others.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express yourself, including a link to a nice post by Dinah on I-statements, are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on August 22, 2013, at 0:58:34
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on August 20, 2013, at 13:26:47
I'm sorry you got blocked. Even if it is what you wanted... I'm sorry that you wanted / needed for that to happen...
I hope you come back and Babble with me. I have been trying not to take it personally that you have been ignoring me.
Sniff.
((((((10))))))
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2013, at 1:19:40
In reply to Re: Not again, posted by Willful on August 20, 2013, at 16:30:05
> I would have to reflect a bit on what could occasion this sort of bitterness in someone who had been a trusted aide, or deputy.
>
> It's easy ... to weigh on the scale our seemingly emotional pleas, against some notion of neutral or distanced fairness to Lou who has irrationally become the locus of all dreads. It's easy to be blind Justice with a scale, and to believe that if you weigh fairness on one side, and our objections on the other, that the scales swing back and forth and that our feelings are not sufficiently heavy to weigh the scale down beyond reasonable doubt to the level of action.
>
> maybe you ought to ask, is there something that you need to do differently?I'm doing things differently now. I think some posters may actually prefer how I did things before.
Posters could also ask if there's something they could do differently. If they didn't feel powerless.
I did wonder what occasioned 10der's post. What she said was:
> > the fact you won't block me tells me what I wondered about and wanted to know, so thanks for that.
I thought what occasioned it was wondering if I was still enforcing the rules, which I'd been saying I still was. What do you think occasioned her post?
That's an interesting image: a scale with fairness to Lou on one side and other posters' feelings on the other. That would seem to imply:
1. If I didn't block Lou it would be because those posters didn't feel strongly enough, or I wasn't taking their feelings seriously enough.
2. If they did feel strongly enough, or I took their feelings seriously enough, I'd be unfair to Lou.
I also wonder about Lou's posts. What do you think occasions them?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on August 22, 2013, at 4:12:03
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on August 20, 2013, at 13:26:47
Posted by Dinah on August 22, 2013, at 4:15:59
In reply to Re: Not again, posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2013, at 1:19:40
> I also wonder about Lou's posts. What do you think occasions them?
>
> BobIf I were Lou, I think I'd prefer that you lay down rules and follow them rather than encourage discussions about him. On the one hand, I'm a big fan of understanding others. But on the other hand, that sort of discussion can often lead to hurt feelings.
There's been a lot of discussion about incivility from Lou. But under the new way of doing things, there has also been far more incivility towards Lou than would previously have been accepted.
I feel uncomfortable about such an atmosphere, on both sides.
Posted by Partlycloudy on August 22, 2013, at 7:29:43
In reply to ((( 10der ))) (nm), posted by Dinah on August 22, 2013, at 4:12:03
Posted by homelycygnet on August 22, 2013, at 8:15:03
In reply to Re: Not again, posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2013, at 1:19:40
Posted by Phillipa on August 22, 2013, at 20:37:47
In reply to Re: Not again, posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2013, at 1:19:40
Since I have occasionally also emailed with him he sounds rational in his emails but irrational almost psychotic here. Sometimes I wonder if he's some sort of lawyer? Or an experiment? I don't know all guesses
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 22, 2013, at 21:16:44
In reply to Re: Not again » Dr. Bob, posted by Phillipa on August 22, 2013, at 20:37:47
> Since I have occasionally also emailed with him he sounds rational in his emails but irrational almost psychotic here. Sometimes I wonder if he's some sort of lawyer? Or an experiment? I don't know all guesses
P,
You wrote,[...him...irrational almost psychotic here...].
I could be thought to be the subject person in your post. What you have written about me could reduce the regard and respect and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile opinions or feelings against me. The fact that you have not cited any URL of a post to substantiate your claim against me prevents me from showing the context of any post that you could be using, and prevents me from posting my response to you concerning your claims here about me.
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on August 23, 2013, at 18:23:56
In reply to Lou's response-earratnul » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on August 22, 2013, at 21:16:44
I guess you will be unable to then. Phillipa
Posted by HomelyCygnet on August 25, 2013, at 15:24:47
In reply to Re: Not again » Dr. Bob, posted by Phillipa on August 22, 2013, at 20:37:47
Since you are inviting us to speculate about the motives of others..........And I thought it was against your rules to bring off board emails onto the board. I am tired of your obvious discrimination against Lou and your game playing and your general jackassery. And even though I thought their willingness to carry out your nastiness was despicable, I think your disloyalty to your former deputy girls is despicable too.
Bye :)
> Since I have occasionally also emailed with him he sounds rational in his emails but irrational almost psychotic here. Sometimes I wonder if he's some sort of lawyer? Or an experiment? I don't know all guesses
Posted by HomelyCygnet on August 25, 2013, at 16:48:35
In reply to Bob, civil to mention Phillipa sounds paranoid?, posted by HomelyCygnet on August 25, 2013, at 15:24:47
Go ahead and start the discussion without me. I have to go out and buy some more asterisks.
Posted by 10derheart on August 29, 2013, at 20:19:16
In reply to Re: blocked for week » 10derheart, posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2013, at 0:51:07
That was quite refreshing.
Posted by 10derheart on August 29, 2013, at 20:22:21
In reply to Bob, civil to mention Phillipa sounds paranoid?, posted by HomelyCygnet on August 25, 2013, at 15:24:47
>>And even though I thought their willingness to carry out your nastiness was despicable,
oh, thank you, dahling, you are always so very, very kind and complimentary. At least some things are consistent.
- NastyDespicableHeart
whoo hoo!!
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 30, 2013, at 22:12:03
In reply to Bob, civil to mention Phillipa sounds paranoid?, posted by HomelyCygnet on August 25, 2013, at 15:24:47
> their willingness to carry out your nastiness was despicable
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express yourself, including a link to a nice post by Dinah on I-statements, are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
PS: This block is the result of one action, but its length is the result of a pattern of actions. The block length formula:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
takes into account how long the previous block was, how long it's been since the previous block, and how uncivil the current post is:
duration of previous block = 1 week
period of time since previous block = 2 weeks
severity = 2 (default) + 1 (uncivil toward particular individual or group) + 1 (uncivil in multiple posts at same time) = 4
block length = 3.84 rounded = 4 weeks
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 30, 2013, at 22:12:50
In reply to thanks » Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on August 29, 2013, at 20:19:16
Posted by Twinleaf on September 2, 2013, at 19:01:07
In reply to Re: blocked for 4 weeks, posted by Dr. Bob on August 30, 2013, at 22:12:03
I am disappointed to see the same formula for calculating blocks. It leads so rapidly to unconstructive months-long blocks for very minor issues. In the years that we have been discussing this, I don't believe I ever saw any poster support for this way of blocking. Almost everyone who has voiced an opinion has been in favor of short, occasional blocks. I have a terrible feeling that we are just wasting our time asking for any constructive changes. I feel that you are just toying with us.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 3, 2013, at 12:37:37
In reply to Re: blocked for 4 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on September 2, 2013, at 19:01:07
> I am disappointed to see the same formula for calculating blocks. It leads so rapidly to unconstructive months-long blocks for very minor issues. In the years that we have been discussing this, I don't believe I ever saw any poster support for this way of blocking. Almost everyone who has voiced an opinion has been in favor of short, occasional blocks. I have a terrible feeling that we are just wasting our time asking for any constructive changes. I feel that you are just toying with us.
I acknowledge and respect that you (and others) have different opinions about the formula. Reasonable people can disagree.
Regarding just this specific case, it wasn't a months-long block. Did you consider the issue very minor?
Bob
Posted by Twinleaf on September 3, 2013, at 14:22:59
In reply to Re: the formula, posted by Dr. Bob on September 3, 2013, at 12:37:37
No, I think a block was appropriate. I am just discouraged to see the old formula in operation, despite the extensive negative reaction towards it in this forum. It's true that this was not a months-long block, but, if you follow your formula, the next one will be. I think the most distressing part of this, for me, is that, despite years of negative opinion about your blocking policy, you suddenly start using exactly the same one again. Why not try out a more flexible, updated policy - one that has the support of at least some forum members?
Posted by alexandra_k on September 3, 2013, at 18:37:02
In reply to Re: the formula » Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on September 3, 2013, at 14:22:59
> No, I think a block was appropriate. I am just discouraged to see the old formula in operation, despite the extensive negative reaction towards it in this forum. It's true that this was not a months-long block, but, if you follow your formula, the next one will be. I think the most distressing part of this, for me, is that, despite years of negative opinion about your blocking policy, you suddenly start using exactly the same one again. Why not try out a more flexible, updated policy - one that has the support of at least some forum members?
yes. about what was the critical mass before you started with the formula and the blocks that lasted eons in internet years.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 4, 2013, at 14:15:09
In reply to Re: the formula » Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on September 3, 2013, at 14:22:59
> No, I think a block was appropriate. I am just discouraged to see the old formula in operation, despite the extensive negative reaction towards it in this forum. It's true that this was not a months-long block, but, if you follow your formula, the next one will be. I think the most distressing part of this, for me, is that, despite years of negative opinion about your blocking policy, you suddenly start using exactly the same one again. Why not try out a more flexible, updated policy - one that has the support of at least some forum members?
May I ask how long you would've made the block?
How long the next block is depends on how soon the next incivility is. A block is the result of one action, but its length is the result of a pattern of actions. On the one hand, I suddenly started to use the formula again; OTOH, the pattern of actions suddenly appeared again.
I wonder if one issue is how long blocks are and a somewhat separate issue is using a formula, any formula, since that makes it, well, formulaic, as opposed to individualized.
Again, I acknowledge and respect that you (and others) have different opinions about the formula. Reasonable people can disagree. And can feel frustrated with each other.
Bob
Posted by Twinleaf on September 4, 2013, at 20:36:42
In reply to Re: the formula, posted by Dr. Bob on September 4, 2013, at 14:15:09
If it were me deciding, I would try to keep the blocks shorter, and see how that worked. I would not use a formula, and not automatically increase the block length for repeat offenses, nor would I automatically block every time the same issue arose. Individual judgement is important, because some situations are much more harmful than others.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 6, 2013, at 4:26:03
In reply to Re: the formula » Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on September 4, 2013, at 20:36:42
> If it were me deciding, I would try to keep the blocks shorter, and see how that worked.
May I ask how short you would've kept that block?
> Individual judgement is important, because some situations are much more harmful than others.
I agree. That's part of the formula.
Bob
Posted by Twinleaf on September 6, 2013, at 6:53:04
In reply to Re: the formula, posted by Dr. Bob on September 6, 2013, at 4:26:03
I think I would try st least several blocks of one week, and apply the escalating block formula very sparingly and intermittently, if at all.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 7, 2013, at 0:05:28
In reply to Re: the formula » Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on September 6, 2013, at 6:53:04
> I think I would try st least several blocks of one week, and apply the escalating block formula very sparingly and intermittently, if at all.
Got it. Thanks for explaining the approach you'd take.
Bob
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.