![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 80 to 104 of 104. Go back in thread:
Posted by NikkiT2 on February 24, 2003, at 7:59:50
In reply to Lou's response tp NikkiT2's post (1a) » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2003, at 10:30:22
Lou,
I don;t see how your example of abuse against black people is connected tot his.
Are you suggesting that Dr Bob is racist?? As far as I can see, he deals with every person the same. If you are uncivil, you get a warning, if you do it again, you get a ban. What ever your race, religion etc.
Posted by NikkiT2 on February 24, 2003, at 8:03:43
In reply to Re: Okay, okay Lou, posted by Dinah on February 23, 2003, at 11:47:00
WOuld you prefer that we were open to any kind of abuse and incivility here??
I have an internet stalker. he is highly abusive about me, and has managed to follow me to most internet sites I use. This is one of my only havens from him.
If he were to find me here, do you think he has the right to say what ever he wishes about me??
Civility, to me, is something that should be practiced by everyone. I feel safe here (where I don;t elsewhere). That is down to Dr Bobs rules.
I, personally, would leave this site and never return if Dr Bob were to allow un-civil posts.
Nikki
Posted by NikkiT2 on February 24, 2003, at 8:06:40
In reply to Lou's reply to stjames post » stjames, posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2003, at 16:03:39
Lou.
What you are posting about is about peoples rights. Do you believe that people have a right to be un-civil?? Do you honestly believe that if I were to say nasty things to you / about you, I have a right to do this??
I don't believe this. I believe we all have a right to be protected.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 24, 2003, at 8:08:31
In reply to Re: Lou's response tp NikkiT2's post (1a) » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on February 24, 2003, at 7:59:50
NikkiTs,
You wrote,[...I don't see how your example...]
See:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030221/msgs/203060.html
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 24, 2003, at 8:16:39
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to stjames post, posted by NikkiT2 on February 24, 2003, at 8:06:40
NikkiT2,
See:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030221/msgs/203108.html
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on February 24, 2003, at 8:36:33
In reply to Lou's reply to NikkiT2's post-(SJ) » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on February 24, 2003, at 8:16:39
Lou,
Those posts do not answer my question as to whether you think those being un-civil really have a right to do so. A simple yes or no would help me out here.
I have read all the replies on this thread, and still do not understand. Sorry for this.
I would like to know whether you believe I have a right to be un-civil to you if I so wish.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 24, 2003, at 8:47:25
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2's post-(SJ) » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on February 24, 2003, at 8:36:33
NikkiT2,
One answer would be,[it depends].
See:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030221/msgs/203062.html
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 24, 2003, at 8:59:02
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2's post-(SJ) » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on February 24, 2003, at 8:36:33
NikkiT2,
Another asnswer could involve some of what A. Gibson wrote here. http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030221/msgs/202387.html
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 24, 2003, at 9:02:15
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2's post-(SJ) » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on February 24, 2003, at 8:36:33
NikkiT2,
Another answer could involve some of the thoughts that A.Gibson wrote on another post of his:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030221/msgs/202540.html
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 24, 2003, at 9:14:09
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2's post-(SJ) » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on February 24, 2003, at 8:36:33
NikkiT2,
To further give some mor light on your question and my response, let us look at A.Gibson's next post which he was blocked for.
Now {if} I was the moderator of this board, I would consider other alsternatives to blocking A. Gibson[under these circumstances]. I would have simply asked him to clarify what he meant and cite examples of such and allow me to address his responses to the clarification requested. Then, if there was still no [mitigation] of the situation or concilliation, {then} he would have received what he requested. This is one of the reasons that I ask people for clarificatio,ie: it gives the other poster a means to {mitigate} or [reconcillate]with the other poster, which promotes harmony among the members of the community [which is what civility is expected to accomplish] .
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030221/msgs/202764.html
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 24, 2003, at 9:20:18
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2's post-(SJ) » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on February 24, 2003, at 8:36:33
NikkiT2,
Another possible answer to your question would be to examine some of John V's posts. See:
http:www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20021128/msgs/201785.html
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 24, 2003, at 9:31:20
In reply to Lou's reply to NikkiT2's post-John V » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on February 24, 2003, at 9:20:18
NikkiT2,
Below are some of John V's posts that I would like you to give further consideration to as an answer to your question.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20021128/msgs/201785.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030221/msgs/202747.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030221/msgs/202826.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030221/msgs/203212.html
Posted by beardedlady on February 24, 2003, at 9:43:56
In reply to Re: What are the componants of justice? » stjames, posted by JohnV on February 23, 2003, at 22:41:20
Your good grammar is very sexy. : )>
I know, I know: LKIAH.
Posted by NikkiT2 on February 24, 2003, at 9:45:03
In reply to Lou's reply to NikkiT2's post-John V-more, posted by Lou Pilder on February 24, 2003, at 9:31:20
Lou,
this really is my final post to you on this subject.
I stated that I had read all the replies in this thread, infact, I have read every single post in PB Admin as it stands, so linking me to other posts does nothing to help my understanding.
I wanted to know what you thought, not what John or Arthur thought.
If Dr Bob were to take each case on its own merit, I can see many problems. One being that it would take up yet more of his time, which I guess he doesn;t have an awful lot of. Secondly, he would then be accused of having a bias toward one person or another.
By having a strict policy that is enforced across the board, reduces the risk of such accusations (eg, of having bias toward certain people)Another option that came up was peer votes. This is obviously not a good idea, as then "popular" people would be less likely to receive a ban than those who people find generally annoyinga nd would like to see banned.
I am still shocked that you equate this to the segregation of black people. Dr Bob has one clear policy that is applied to anyone and everyone.
Incivility hurts, upsets and offends people. I do not see that as a right.
Maybe you're lucky and feel safe in your life, and as such don;t mind what is said to you or about you. Personally I do care whether my friends are hurt, and I do care about what is said about me.
There are people here who I would love to give a peice of my mind to, but I do not want to upset anyone.
As you have used him as an example, (by linking to a post about his ban) Lost Boy in NYC. Do a search on all his posts, and maybe you will understand why many of us don;t feel safe having him around, and why Dr Bob felt the need to protect us.
I don;t see this as reducing your civil liberties.. I see it as protection.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 24, 2003, at 10:03:23
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2's post-John V-more » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on February 24, 2003, at 9:45:03
NikkiT2,
You wrote,[...this is my final post...].
I regret that you are abandoning our discussion. We look through a mirror in a dark room sometimes and to see clearly, there needs to be more light to come in. And sometimes we must revisit other's posts because we have more light to examine them than when they were first posted.
You wrote, [...want what you thought...not John V or A.Gibson's thought...]
Each time that I revisit those posts I get some new light upon this subject. I commend John V and A.Gibson for some of their insight that they have posted here. I believe that they were trying to write that there is much more to civility than just making a code and prescribing punishments.
The answer to your question is:[it depends]. I believe that there are a lot of factors that determine civility or uncivility and how civility could foster [harmony] in a community. I would like to see more discussion on this topic her, for I believe in civility.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 24, 2003, at 10:58:44
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2's post-John V-more » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on February 24, 2003, at 9:45:03
NikkiT2,
You wrote,[...you {equate} this to the segregation of black people...]
I do not consider that giving an example that included segregation of black people to [equate] anyone else with segregation of black people.
The example that I used was from a real experiance of mine and I gave it to show:
A) that there are people that put justice above[..just taking the easy way out and leave and go somewhere else...]
B) That just because there is a law, [...that does not mean the law is {just}...]
C) That some people are hurt by {injustice}
D) That the people here that are objecting to what they percieve as {injustice} here, are seeking redress of their greivences by using the administrative board to convey their grievences.
E) That alternatives could be discussed here to foster civility, and that protest can cause change to have more and better civility be accomplished.
F) other good and just aspects that arise out of this discussion.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 24, 2003, at 12:30:29
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2's post-John V-more » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on February 24, 2003, at 9:45:03
NikkiT2,
You wrote,[...there are people that I would love to give a piece of my mind to....].
Well, that is why I propose an alternative to expulsion here. {If} I was the moderator of this board, I would ,instead of expelling someone, use the following alternative:
Let's say A. Gibson calls me a no-good spammer troller. I would have a section of the board that me and A. Gibson could be remanded to so that we could attempt reconcilliation. This section would have its own set of rules to accomodate this type of situation. It could go like this:
Art: Lou, you are a no-good troller-spammer.
Lou: What do you mean by that, Art?
Art: You keep asking for clarification from people here.
Lou: Why does that mean that I am a spammer-troller to you, Art? Would not clarification be a good thing?
Art: You know, Lou, after I think about it, there really is no reason to jump to the conclusion that you are a no-good spammer troller just because you ask for clarification. I think it is a good thing for anyone here to ask for clarification because it gives the other poster an opportunity to expresss themselves more so that any misinterpretations could be eliminated. Let's be friends, Lou.
Lou: That's a good idea, Art. I will be your friend.
Lou
Posted by stjames on February 24, 2003, at 12:44:18
In reply to Lou's reply to NikkiT2's post-A. Gibson example » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on February 24, 2003, at 12:30:29
Lou,
But you are a "no-good spammer troller".
Posted by shar on February 24, 2003, at 13:50:32
In reply to Lou's reply to NikkiT2's post-A. Gibson example » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on February 24, 2003, at 12:30:29
This is a very nice story, Lou.
> Art: Lou, you are a no-good troller-spammer.
> Lou: What do you mean by that, Art?
> Art: You keep asking for clarification from people here.
> Lou: Why does that mean that I am a spammer-troller to you, Art? Would not clarification be a good thing?
> Art: You know, Lou, after I think about it, there really is no reason to jump to the conclusion that you are a no-good spammer troller just because you ask for clarification. I think it is a good thing for anyone here to ask for clarification because it gives the other poster an opportunity to expresss themselves more so that any misinterpretations could be eliminated. Let's be friends, Lou.
> Lou: That's a good idea, Art. I will be your friend.
> Lou
>
Posted by shar on February 24, 2003, at 13:57:21
In reply to Lou's response to Shar's post (A) » shar, posted by Lou Pilder on February 22, 2003, at 6:39:08
> Could you clarify if [the same poster] is {yourself}?
Why, yes, it is, Lou.
And, when I (foolishly) asked for clarification, I had temporarily forgotten that your response would be in the form of many, many (that is to say, numerous) posts to me, a format that I don't believe is a good one, and not a format conducive to my replying.
I won't respond to anything else you post to me in this thread.
Shar
> Shar,
> You wrote,[...I really don't understand this post...].
> Could you clarify what it is that you do not understand about [this post]? If you could, then I could reply and possibly clear up anything that you do not understand.
> You then wrote, [...I don't thonk it is a good idea to post over and over to the same poster about the same issues ...]
> Could you clarify if [the same poster] is {yourself}? If it is, then could you clarify why it is not a [good idea] to {reply to you} about what you have requested me to do? I base this on what you wrote ,ie: [Lou, if you could provide additional details in response to my questions to your proposed solutions, and clarify...]...
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030221/msgs/202511.html
> Lou
Posted by kara lynne on February 24, 2003, at 18:12:51
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2's post-A. Gibson example, posted by stjames on February 24, 2003, at 12:44:18
But you are a "no-good spammer troller".
st.james,
how is this different from calling the uncivil uncivil, or a tyrant a tyrant?
Posted by stjames on February 24, 2003, at 18:54:13
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2's post-A. Gibson exampl, posted by kara lynne on February 24, 2003, at 18:12:51
> But you are a "no-good spammer troller".
>
> st.james,
> how is this different from calling the uncivil uncivil, or a tyrant a tyrant?It is not.
Posted by kara lynne on February 24, 2003, at 20:50:32
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2's post-A. Gibson exampl, posted by stjames on February 24, 2003, at 18:54:13
...an honest answer!
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 25, 2003, at 3:21:54
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2's post-A. Gibson example, posted by stjames on February 24, 2003, at 12:44:18
> Lou,
>
> But you are a "no-good spammer troller".Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, thanks.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 25, 2003, at 3:27:01
In reply to Lou's response tp NikkiT2's post (1a) » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2003, at 10:30:22
> Some people put justice above the easier way, which would be to go to another place.
Which I'm trying to accept, as long as they're civil.
Bob
This is the end of the 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.