![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 69 to 93 of 96. Go back in thread:
Posted by OddipusRex on April 9, 2003, at 9:05:53
In reply to But thanks for 2 more apologies » Dr. Bob, posted by OddipusRex on April 9, 2003, at 6:00:15
I have modeled this closely after the post you found acceptable about paralells between terrorists and allied forces. I am struggling to understand your requirements for civility. Please tell me if this acceptable. Thanks.
Here's a paradox: Terrorists in our society are supposedly evil. The definition of a terrorist is a person who cause fear and anger and humiliation.Yet our board administrator causes fear and anger and humiliation.Our board administrator is not a terrorist? This is not about power and control?
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 9, 2003, at 9:32:40
In reply to Re: blocked for two weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on April 9, 2003, at 8:39:28
fayeroe,
You wrote,[...you let Lou...{demand) clarifications...which make people feel put down...].
I feel that your use of the word,{demand} here is inappropriate, for a request for clarification is, well, a {request},and not a demand.
I feel that a request for clarification is good , for if the requested clairfication comes forth, then more is contributed to the discussion and I feel that more support and education could arise from that, for more discussion could be contributed as a result of the unveiling of what was requested to be clarified. As far as a request for clarification causing people to be put down, I disagree with your conclusion, for clarification allows another to , well, clarify and have the opportunity to clear up any potential misunderstandings.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 9, 2003, at 9:48:12
In reply to Re: blocked for two weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on April 9, 2003, at 8:39:28
fayroe,
You wrote,[...Lou has more leeway than anyone should have anyware...].
Requesting clarificaion is not uncivil, {anyware} that I know of. Let us revisit your previous post to me as I remember it:
fayroe:[...you're getting {anal} here...]
Lou : could you clarify what your use of the word,{anal} here is for?...].
Are you saying that my request for clarification in this case is allowing me to [demand], rather than request, clarification from you?
Are you saying that I can not ask you for clarification when you direct your statement to me? If you could clarify this, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by fayeroe on April 9, 2003, at 10:32:30
In reply to Lou's respomse to fayroe's post-LR » fayeroe , posted by Lou Pilder on April 9, 2003, at 9:32:40
> fayeroe,
> You wrote,[...you let Lou...{demand) clarifications...which make people feel put down...].
> I feel that your use of the word,{demand} here is inappropriate, for a request for clarification is, well, a {request},and not a demand.
> I feel that a request for clarification is good , for if the requested clairfication comes forth, then more is contributed to the discussion and I feel that more support and education could arise from that, for more discussion could be contributed as a result of the unveiling of what was requested to be clarified. As far as a request for clarification causing people to be put down, I disagree with your conclusion, for clarification allows another to , well, clarify and have the opportunity to clear up any potential misunderstandings.
> Loulou, request/demand...what's the difference? your use of the word request baffles me.......i stand by my statement that it makes people very uncomfortable, uneasy and UNLIKELY TO ENGAGE IN ANY KIND OF MEANINGFUL INTERACTION WITH YOU. PAT
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 9, 2003, at 10:54:58
In reply to Re: Lou's respomse to fayroe's post-LR, posted by fayeroe on April 9, 2003, at 10:32:30
fayroe,
You wrote,[...request/demand...what is the difference?...].
Ther is a distinct difference between the two. A demand has the import that there will be a mandatory requirerment to do something , or else a consequence will happen to those that do not do the demand, but a request is an optional action to perform, with no consequences as a result of not complying.
In the posts here where I request clarification from a poster, ther is no consequence to not reply. In your post in question here to me, I requested that you clarify the word {anal} in your post that involved me. I consider that a reasonable request, for the word was including me , and clarification , if it came forth, could have the potential to have cleard up any potential misunderstanding,which was my intention for requesting clarification, not to make you feel uncomfortable
Lou
Posted by Phil on April 9, 2003, at 11:54:24
In reply to Re: but........, posted by Dr. Bob on April 9, 2003, at 1:24:11
The PBC was to me. I assume that's what OR is referring to.
I'm not asking for squat.
Posted by OddipusRex on April 9, 2003, at 12:16:07
In reply to Re: but........ » Dr. Bob, posted by Phil on April 9, 2003, at 11:54:24
> The PBC was to me. I assume that's what OR is referring to.
> I'm not asking for squat.
Of course I meant Phil. I'm sorry I put the wrong name.
Posted by Ron Hill on April 9, 2003, at 12:35:39
In reply to Re: but........ » Dr. Bob, posted by Phil on April 9, 2003, at 11:54:24
Phil,
> The PBC was to me.
Which I personally thought was unfair given the fact that the post containing the comparison between the 911 terrorists and the Coalition Forces operating in Iraq did not receive a PBC.
> I assume that's what OR is referring to.
Yeah, I think OddipusRex got your name confused with Greg's.
> I'm not asking for squat.Good thing 'cause we’re fresh out. I just finished the last of the squash for lunch.
Okay, that's finished. Now, what's next?
-- Ron
P.S. Please bear with me, Phil. My meds/supplements are working so well these days that I am slightly giddy. Be well.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 9, 2003, at 20:29:10
In reply to Will this be okay to post?, posted by OddipusRex on April 9, 2003, at 9:05:53
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 9, 2003, at 20:45:53
In reply to Re: blocked for two weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on April 9, 2003, at 8:39:28
> OH, PLEASE, DR. GOD, YOU LET LOU RUN AMUCK AND DEMAND CLARIFICATIONS WHICH REALLY MAKE PEOPLE FEEL PUT DOWN AND YOU BLATHER ON ABOUT THE REST OF US BEING SENSITIVE TO OTHER'S FEELINGS??? ... LOU has MORE LEEWAY THAN ANYONE SHOULD HAVE ANYWHERE AND YET YOU LET HIM GO......
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. I've asked you to be civil before, so now I'm going to block you from posting for a week.
Also, I've been trying to come up with a way to address the leeway issue, see:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030404/msgs/216665.html
IMO, it's not so easy...
Bob
Posted by Dinah on April 9, 2003, at 23:07:17
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 7, 2003, at 4:59:10
Peace to you Dr. Bob.
Posted by bozeman on April 10, 2003, at 1:01:24
In reply to Re: blocked for week » fayeroe , posted by Dr. Bob on April 9, 2003, at 20:45:53
. . . I've been trying to come up with a way to address the leeway issue, see:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030404/msgs/216665.html
>
> IMO, it's not so easy...
>
> BobHello Dr. Bob --
I am puzzled about the whole "A could ask B not to post to them, and that would be OK" subject. My *original* take on what you were saying was, I could ask any particular person NOT to respond to my post, as long as I do it civilly. Correct so far? OK. Here's where I get confused. I *thought* I saw something (at least twenty posts ago) that meant such "don't post to me requests" would be *thread specific*. The dialogue I have been reading above appears to be more permanent and globally-orientated in nature: That is to say that if I ever, once, ask someone not to direct a post to me, that it means "forever", and if five years from now, that person directs an innocent, two-word post to me, like "Well said!" then they are de facto being uncivil and subject to being blocked. Alternatively, and perhaps more disturbing, anyone could conceivably post a message addressed to the community as a whole, with the premeditated intent to rebuff or exclude a particular poster. To me, this seems somewhat unreasonable, considering the stated "purpose" of these boards as a mutual support community, and at worst . . . . well, it reminds me of the stuff that happened in school on the playground. "Let's play a game and not let so-and-so play." Now I am willing to bet -- no, I think I *know* -- that cruel playground situations are NOT the intent of *anyone* who has voiced that they would be in favor of a "don't post to me" policy, and I'm not for one minute saying that it was their intent. I'm looking at it from the outside. Unless carefully defined and impartially applied, that's how it could easily appear to an uninvolved observer. Much less how it would feel to the person who was told not to respond before the question was even asked. Hopefully my fears are unfounded, and "thread-specific" requests would only be made as needed, not as a global prophylaxis against all future communications from a person.
Please understand, I have not yet made up my mind how I feel about the "don't post me" discussion. I don't believe I have a preference for one way or the other at this time. Also, I am *not* thinking of any particular poster on any board as I write this. Please, don't anyone read this and think, "She wrote that about me, I know she did," because you would be mistaken.
I feel I should point out that, to me, the two scenarios of "don't post me for a thread's life" vs. "don't post me forever" seem too far apart to be considered as a single option. It seems one thing for me to post something, get several posts in response, not be comfortable where the thread is going, and ask someone in particular to *not* continue to direct posts to me about it for the remainder of that thread or discussion --- and another thing entirely for me to say to them, effectively, "don't you ever speak to me again." The first is option is, from a communications and negotiation standpoint, more of an "agree to disagree" stance on a point (which has it's productive value in certain situations, by the way) -- while the second comes across more as a statement or judgement about the person, instead of about what was being discussed. I hope I've stated this clearly enough that you take my meaning as a desire to separate the behavior from the person -- to separate the situation from a global value judgement, because that is what I intended to say, and what I got that you originally meant when this subject came up several days ago.
I absolutely agree that some means is needed to allow situations to be defused more easily and consistently between two posters who never seem to be on the same wavelength, and consequently irritate each other. As the board grows more rapidly (from my lurking days, it has definitely gotten more busy and more populated), the presence of a single human moderator becomes more and more sporadic and unreliable due to the sheer number of posts involved. Let's be real, Dr. Bob, you must not have a life, or you are the most dedicated person on the planet. Everyone is entitled to a day off occassionally, and some "breather room" where the "world" won't cave in if they aren't there to keep it turning. In this "Babble World" you are the de facto Creator, Moderator, Administrator, Judge, and Judgement. That's a heavy load for one person to effectively carry, twenty-four hours a day, and I suspect the board's gotten busier and bigger than you envisioned. I'm not at all being critical, please understand that. I just don't know how you do it, or even more importantly, how you will continue to do it. Since this community has come to mean something to me personally, as a (relatively? nothing's perfect) safe place I can retreat to to discuss my deepest problems and fears . . . with people whose opinions I value . . . I have an interest in preserving it's existence as a functional, supportive, reliably safe place. So, that said, this entire thread wouldn't exist if some adaptation weren't needed. That being the case, giving "support" to each other would seem better achieved by giving people an escape (voluntary or not) out of an escalating situation. The posters could at another time interact freely and civilly, until and unless the issue comes up again, in which case the "cool down" clause might come into play once again, and one tells the other "don't post to me about this anymore on this thread, OK? I need a break." That would seem more workable in the long run than "don't you ever speak to me again." The latter doesn't seem appropriate for a mental health board, but that's just my opinion, and anyone's entitled to disagree without taking my opinion personally.
For the situation at hand, let me ask specifically how you would handle the following situations. Once those questions are answered, I'll be able to decide if I'm "for" or "against" the idea of "don't message me again," whatever form it ultimately takes.
Example for illustration: (screen names used are intended to be fictitious. If I inadvertently use a real screen name, I apologize in advance.)
____________________________________
THREAD 1: (started by A, joined by B and C)
A: ------- I hate my life, I'm so lonely since my divorce, my therapist doesn't understand me, and my meds make me hallucinate.
B: ------- I thought you said you were going to find a new therapist -- weren't you seeing your ex-husband the counsellor? Didn't he leave you for another woman? And isn't your pdoc his twin brother? I dunno, but it sounds like trouble to me. I know some good docs I could recommend if you're interested.
C: ------- Say, A, what meds are you taking anyway? I think Smilesalot is a great drug, and if you took it you probably wouldn't care if your therapist doesn't understand you.
A: ------- I know you really like it, C, and I'm glad it's worked so well for you, but Smilesalot has some pretty serious side effects, it makes some people look like Jack Nicholson aka The Joker in the Batman movie, and my job *depends* on me keeping a consistent physical appearance. I just don't want to risk those side effects. (who knows, maybe A is a TV anchorwoman?) Besides, I'm going to see another doc in two months, and I don't want to start a new med right before leaving the old doctor. And, my old pdoc is always trying to get me to take it!!! He's in cahoots with my ex, he has to be. Of course, I should have seen that coming, since they're brothers, but he has an excellent reputation, and good pdocs are hard to find. Sigh. Wish I knew what to do. Why is this happening???! I hate my life. I'm so miserable.
B: ------- I guess you could try meditating, too, until you can get in to see the new doctor. That helps some people.
C: ------- I really think you should just get you some Smilesalot!!! What could it hurt?
A: ------- Meditation just makes me more anxious. I can't shut my mind off.
C: ------- Why don't you try the Smilesalot? It's great stuff, really helped me and another poster I know.
B: ------- What about aerobics? Or breathing exercises? Do they help?
A: ------- I have asthma, so aerobics make me turn blue. Breathing exercises stress me out for the same reason, afraid I'll turn blue. I look terrible blue. (that appearance thing again, hm?)
C: ------- I know where you can get Smilesalot cheap, perfectly legal so Dr. Bob won't mind, in your own country, and it's a toll-free number. How's that for a deal?
A: ------- I know you mean well, C, and I'm really happy Smilesalot worked for you. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but please don't keep urging me to take a drug you know I have reservations about. I'm very upset and sensitive about this situation, and frustrated already, so please don't post to me anymore on this thread, OK?
B: ------- When I'm frustrated I do yoga like there's no tomorrow, and I always feel better.
A: ------- Yeah, yoga makes me feel better, too. I'll give that a try again. Thanks for reminding me.Dr. Bob: In this case, as you envision the "new" rule, is A acting appropriately by asking D to not post her any more on that thread? Is it permissible and civil of her to do so (I guess if not, then the rule itself violates the civility rules . . . hmmm)?
____________________________________
THREAD 2: (started by A, joined by B and C)
A: ------- I hate my life, I'm so lonely since my divorce, my therapist doesn't understand me, . . (etc. continues identically to Thread 1 until this point: )
C: ------- I know where you can get Smilesalot cheap, perfectly legal so Dr. Bob won't mind, in your own country, and it's a toll-free number. How's that for a deal?
A: ------- I know you mean well, C, and I'm really happy Smilesalot worked for you. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but please don't keep urging me to take a drug you know I have reservations about. I'm very upset and sensitive about this situation, and frustrated already, so please don't post to me ever again, OK?
B: ------- When I'm frustrated I do yoga like there's no tomorrow, and I always feel better.
A: ------- Yeah, yoga makes me feel better, too. I'll give that a try again. Thanks for reminding me.Dr. Bob: The only intended difference in example thread 1 and 2 is "on this thread" vs. "ever again". Is A's statement to C appropriate and civil, under the proposed rule?
____________________________________
THREAD 3: (started by D, joined by B, C, and E, but not A, as A is forbidden by D to enter the conversation)
D: ------- I just got the worst news. My wife just called and said she was leaving me to join the peace corps!!! All these years, I wondered why she never really seemed happy the way other men's wives do. I just don't know what I'm going to do, I'm so embarrassed for our kids, and for myself, and so angry with her. I'm so angry I can't think straight. I just want to break things. How could she leave us like this??! If I never see that woman again it'll be too soon!!! And by the way, A, don't you respond to me about this, I'm tired of hearing about your ex-husband-who-left-you-for-another-woman and his-twin-brother-your-pdoc saga. There's no similarity whatsoever in our situations.
B: ------- Ouch, man, bummer, women are different from men, that's for sure. My wife thinks we're from totally different planets, Mars and Venus or something like that. Sorry she left, dude, especially under those circumstances, but maybe you'll feel better soon.
C: ------- Have you talked to your wife? Does she want a divorce, or does she just want some time for herself? Maybe she's just going through a tough time and needs to think. Then again, you said she never seemed happy like other wives do. Maybe in time you'll get through it, and your whole family will be stronger? What a good example for your children to see their mother so dedicated to helping others, and their father so dedicated to making sure their lives are safe and happy! But talk to her, at least, and find out what she's really thinking. It may not be what you think, at all.
E: ------- Looks to me like she was pretty clear in what she was thinking. She wants to leave, that's what she said, right?
D: ------- Yeah . . . sortof. But she's terrible about saying what's really on her mind -- she always tells me it's something ridiculous that has nothing to do with the real problem. Maybe you're right, B, maybe I should talk to her. Maybe she just freaked out and she'll be fine. She's been at her mother's for two months taking care of her mother's broken hip, and she told me last week that the kids are getting along so well that she doesn't even feel like we need her to come back!! I haven't told her that they are just putting on a brave front for her, the youngest cries himself to sleep every night missing her. OK, I'll talk to her. And I won't break anything. I promise. Thanks.Dr. Bob -- in this situation, is D civil and justified, and living within the (new) rule to forbid A from posting to him? How can he *know* what she would have said or not said? Does it *matter* what she would have said, or not said, if he doesn't want to talk with her? How would you apply the rule this time?
____________________________________
THREAD 4: (started by D, joined by B and E, but not A or C, as they are forbidden by D to enter the conversation)
D: ------- I just got the worst news. My wife just called and said she was leaving me to join the peace corps!!! All these years, I wondered why she never really seemed happy the way other men's wives do. I just don't know what I'm going to do, I'm so embarrassed for our kids, and for myself, and so angry with her. I'm so angry I can't think straight. I just want to break things. How could she leave us like this??! If I never see that woman again it'll be too soon!!! And by the way, don't any women respond to me about this. I need a man's perspective.
B: ------- Ouch, man, bummer, women are different from men, that's for sure. My wife thinks we're from totally different planets, Mars and Venus or something like that. Sorry she left, dude, especially under those circumstances, but maybe you'll feel better soon.
E: ------- Looks to me like she was pretty clear in what she was thinking. She wants to leave, that's what she said, right?
D: ------- Yeah . . . sortof. But she's terrible about saying what's really on her mind -- she always tells me it's something ridiculous that has nothing to do with the real problem.
B: ------- Women can be like that sometimes. But then again, so can we. Sometimes, I mean.
D: ------- I just don't understand her. If she wants something from me, why doesn't she just say so? Why can't she just say what's on her mind instead going on and on and on about things that have nothing to do with why she's really upset? Does she think I don't have feelings? I do everything I think a good husband and father is supposed to, but it doesn't seem to matter, she's still never seemed happy. It's not enough, I guess.
E: ------- Oh, well, women. Can't live with 'em . . . .
D: ------- That's for sure. Guess I'd better call the lawyer. Thanks for listening.Dr. Bob -- in this situation, is D civil and justified, and living within the (new) rule to forbid A and B (and all other women) from posting to him? How can he *know* what they would have said or not said? Does it *matter* if he doesn't want to talk with them? How would you apply the rule this time?
____________________________________I really, really am not trying to be difficult. I just really don't get how you are proposing that this would actually work in the real world. Please explain if possible.
I apologize profusely for the Odyssean quality of this post . . . and for those of you still with me, thanks for reading (and thinking) it through.
With greatest respect and goodwill
bozeman
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 10, 2003, at 12:25:28
In reply to Question, Dr. Bob » Dr. Bob, posted by bozeman on April 10, 2003, at 1:01:24
bozeman,
After reading your post, I feel that you have some of the same concerns about a policy that allows others to exclude other posters ,in any way, from full participation here by allowing a poster to declare that another poster can not respond to them, or ask for clarification.
You wrote,[A could declare that B is not to post to them and that would be OK here ...seems unreasonable...since the purpose here is for mutual support...cruel playground situation...let's play a game and exclude so-and-so...unless well-defined and impartially applied...for those that are still with me, thanks for reading...].
I am with you and I will follow you where ever you may go in this topic of discussion here about [..don't post to me...].
You see, your post shows that this is not a one-person issue in regards to that there are posters that question any,[...don't post to me...]policy. For I will make a vigorous challenge to any policy that has the potential to exclude, stigmatise, ostracize, humiliate, put down, segregate, defame, or any thing else that could be deemed to be an unsound mental-health practice.
I feel that no policy of this kind is consistant with democratic principles, for I feel that there is a concept of [...equal access...] that could be breached by any such policy, no matter how well-defined the policy is. For to allow one poster to limit another poster's participation here reeks to me of the Nazi situation in the early part of the Nazi persecution of the jews when jews were ghetoized and made to place an identifying star on their clothing.
My recommendation to accomodate those that want to exclude someone here, in any way, is to remind them that this is a public forum and that posters here are [equal], and that if they want to not have a particular person respond to them that they can go to another place that allows such, or another place where that person would not be.
Lou
Posted by OddipusRex on April 10, 2003, at 14:15:30
In reply to Lou's response to bozeman's post-LR » bozeman, posted by Lou Pilder on April 10, 2003, at 12:25:28
Is this civil? These are not my opinions. It is an example designed to help me learn more about civlity standards at Babble.
I have modeled this closely after the post you found acceptable about parallels between terrorists and allied forces. I am struggling to understand your requirements for civility. Please tell me if this acceptable. Thanks.
Here's a paradox: Nazi persecutors in our society are supposedly evil. The definition of a Nazi persecutor is a person who limits the participation of an identified other in the community. Yet our board administrator limits the participation of an identified other in the community.
Our board administrator is not a Nazi persecutor? This is not about power and control?
_____________________________________________________
For to allow one poster to limit another poster's participation here reeks to me of the Nazi situation in the early part of the Nazi persecution of the jews when jews were ghetoized and made to place an identifying star on their clothing.
> My recommendation to accomodate those that want to exclude someone here, in any way, is to remind them that this is a public forum and that posters here are [equal], and that if they want to not have a particular person respond to them that they can go to another place that allows such, or another place where that person would not be.
> Lou
>
Posted by OddipusRex on April 10, 2003, at 15:37:40
In reply to Civility determination Bob?, posted by OddipusRex on April 10, 2003, at 14:15:30
How I slipped the surly bonds truth
And kissed the ass of folly
Here's a paradox: Absolute monarchs in our society are supposedly evil. The definition of an absolute monarch is a person who has Rex at the end of his name. Yet our poster OddipusRex has Rex at the end of his name.Our poster OddipusRex is not an absolute monarch? This is not about power and control?>
I offer this sad story in hopes of preventing someone else from coming to this sad end.I was once an innocent young poster who only wanted to do good and here I am evil.
I think my first mistake was overgeneralization. I slipped further off the narrow path with faulty definitions. And maybe I could have saved myself by looking for differences which would invalidate my parallel before I just kept going.
The flames are licking at my feet. Repent I ask you young and innocent posters before you meet my fate.
I have modeled this closely after the post you found acceptable about parallels between terrorists and allied forces. I am struggling to understand your requirements for civility. Please tell me if this acceptable. Thanks.
_____________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Posted by Phil on April 10, 2003, at 18:43:04
In reply to How I became an evil King :-( or................, posted by OddipusRex on April 10, 2003, at 15:37:40
You a trip, OddipusRex.
"How I slipped the surly bonds truth
And kissed the ass of folly"Made my day.
I'm easy.
Posted by noa on April 10, 2003, at 18:55:18
In reply to Re: How I became an evil King :-( or................ » OddipusRex, posted by Phil on April 10, 2003, at 18:43:04
The Wit on this board never ceases to amaze me. Perhaps Wit will be our peacemaker.
Posted by Dinah on April 10, 2003, at 21:10:40
In reply to How I became an evil King :-( or................, posted by OddipusRex on April 10, 2003, at 15:37:40
ROFL
Posted by ~Alii~ on April 11, 2003, at 14:21:35
In reply to How I became an evil King :-( or................, posted by OddipusRex on April 10, 2003, at 15:37:40
> How I slipped the surly bonds truth
> And kissed the ass of folly
> Here's a paradox: Absolute monarchs in our society are supposedly evil. The definition of an absolute monarch is a person who has Rex at the end of his name. Yet our poster OddipusRex has Rex at the end of his name.
> Our poster OddipusRex is not an absolute monarch? This is not about power and control?>
>
> I offer this sad story in hopes of preventing someone else from coming to this sad end.I was once an innocent young poster who only wanted to do good and here I am evil.
>
> I think my first mistake was overgeneralization. I slipped further off the narrow path with faulty definitions. And maybe I could have saved myself by looking for differences which would invalidate my parallel before I just kept going.
>
> The flames are licking at my feet. Repent I ask you young and innocent posters before you meet my fate.
>
> I have modeled this closely after the post you found acceptable about parallels between terrorists and allied forces. I am struggling to understand your requirements for civility. Please tell me if this acceptable. Thanks.
> __________________________________________________OddipusRex,
You fucking slay me! That is funniest post I've read in long time. Thanks for puttin' yer noggin' to use for our amusement and to continue to try to get Dr. Bob to CLARIFY just what the hell he means half the time with his ambiguity and hit and miss enforcements of his civility rules---yeah, the ones always in flux.
You are funny in a good-ha-ha kind of way....made me laugh a real oxygen breathin' laugh.
Thanks.
~Alii
Posted by Tabitha on April 12, 2003, at 16:48:38
In reply to How I became an evil King :-( or................, posted by OddipusRex on April 10, 2003, at 15:37:40
I kiss the hem of your garment.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 14, 2003, at 12:13:01
In reply to Question, Dr. Bob » Dr. Bob, posted by bozeman on April 10, 2003, at 1:01:24
> I *thought* I saw something (at least twenty posts ago) that meant such "don't post to me requests" would be *thread specific*.
That was Dinah's idea:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030404/msgs/216668.html
> The dialogue I have been reading above appears to be more permanent and globally-orientated in nature
That was how I was thinking originally....
> That is to say that if I ever, once, ask someone not to direct a post to me, that it means "forever", and if five years from now, that person directs an innocent, two-word post to me, like "Well said!" then they are de facto being uncivil and subject to being blocked.
Well, it wouldn't be completely innocent if they knew they weren't supposed to do that...
> Alternatively, and perhaps more disturbing, anyone could conceivably post a message addressed to the community as a whole, with the premeditated intent to rebuff or exclude a particular poster. To me, this seems somewhat unreasonable, considering the stated "purpose" of these boards as a mutual support community, and at worst . . . . well, it reminds me of the stuff that happened in school on the playground. "Let's play a game and not let so-and-so play."
I've also been worried about unreasonable requests:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030404/msgs/217289.html
So I've been thinking "global-only" might be better...
> It seems one thing for me to post something, get several posts in response, not be comfortable where the thread is going, and ask someone in particular to *not* continue to direct posts to me about it for the remainder of that thread or discussion...
The thing is, it's hard to control where a thread goes. Even if posts by one person to you weren't allowed, posts by them to others, undirected posts by them, and posts by others, to you or otherwise, would be, and could affect where the thread went.
> and another thing entirely for me to say to them, effectively, "don't you ever speak to me again."
Well, it wouldn't really be "ever again", it would be "unless I change my mind"... Remember, the original concern was about people feeling harassed. And not allowing posts to them would in fact be an effective way to prevent that...
> As the board grows more rapidly ... the presence of a single human moderator becomes more and more sporadic and unreliable due to the sheer number of posts involved.
I know, especially lately, and I still would like to bring back "deputy administrators", but that's another discussion...
> THREAD 1: (started by A, joined by B and C)
> C: ------- Say, A, what meds are you taking anyway? I think Smilesalot is a great drug, and if you took it you probably wouldn't care if your therapist doesn't understand you.
> C: ------- I really think you should just get you some Smilesalot!!! What could it hurt?
> C: ------- Why don't you try the Smilesalot? It's great stuff, really helped me and another poster I know.
> C: ------- I know where you can get Smilesalot cheap, perfectly legal so Dr. Bob won't mind, in your own country, and it's a toll-free number. How's that for a deal?
> A: ------- I know you mean well, C, and I'm really happy Smilesalot worked for you. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but please don't keep urging me to take a drug you know I have reservations about. I'm very upset and sensitive about this situation, and frustrated already, so please don't post to me anymore on this thread, OK?C isn't supposed to pressure A, so I'm not even sure an anti-harassment policy is needed here...
> THREAD 3: (started by D, joined by B, C, and E, but not A, as A is forbidden by D to enter the conversation)
> D: ------- I just got the worst news. My wife just called and said she was leaving me to join the peace corps!!! ... And by the way, A, don't you respond to me about this, I'm tired of hearing about your ex-husband-who-left-you-for-another-woman and his-twin-brother-your-pdoc saga. There's no similarity whatsoever in our situations.
>
> Dr. Bob -- in this situation, is D civil and justified, and living within the (new) rule to forbid A from posting to him? How can he *know* what she would have said or not said? Does it *matter* what she would have said, or not said, if he doesn't want to talk with her? How would you apply the rule this time?"Tired of hearing about your saga" could be rephrased, but if D had felt harassed with the saga, then D could request the above.
> THREAD 4: (started by D, joined by B and E, but not A or C, as they are forbidden by D to enter the conversation)
> D: ------- I just got the worst news. My wife just called and said she was leaving me to join the peace corps!!! ... And by the way, don't any women respond to me about this. I need a man's perspective.
>
> Dr. Bob -- in this situation, is D civil and justified, and living within the (new) rule to forbid A and B (and all other women) from posting to him? How can he *know* what they would have said or not said? Does it *matter* if he doesn't want to talk with them? How would you apply the rule this time?I think I'd consider that an unreasonable request. Like the second scenario in:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030404/msgs/217498.html
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 14, 2003, at 12:19:47
In reply to Re: How I became an evil King :-( or................ » OddipusRex, posted by ~Alii~ on April 11, 2003, at 14:21:35
> You f*cking slay me!
Please be sensitive to the feelings of others and don't use language that could offend them, thanks.
Bob
Posted by ~Alii~ on April 14, 2003, at 21:35:28
In reply to Re: please be civil » ~Alii~, posted by Dr. Bob on April 14, 2003, at 12:19:47
>> Please be sensitive to the feelings of others and don't use language that could offend them, thanks.
Bob<<And please show some sensitivity to how people with mental illnesses behave. It is not often that they are able to control their moods from day to day or even hour to hour, even with the best medications and doctors that science can offer up, so some people are not able to show self restraint in the language they speak/write/or type. Or perhaps they do not have spell check in the program they use to post to this forum.
Your requests for civility when you change your definitions of civility are confusing. When you don't have your 'laws' locked into place then how can the players know how to play this game? When does this stage of the experiment end Dr. Bob?
Thanks for the feedback. I'll put it into consideration that some adults here are offended by the usage of the occasional dookie, urine or copulation (shit, piss and fuck for those who can't figure out the civil versions of those words according to the April 2003 version of civility written by Dr. Hsiung).
~Alii
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 15, 2003, at 11:51:25
In reply to Please show some sensitivity » Dr. Bob, posted by ~Alii~ on April 14, 2003, at 21:35:28
> some people are not able to show self restraint in the language they speak/write/or type.
Unfortunately, they may then end up getting blocked...
> Your requests for civility when you change your definitions of civility are confusing. When you don't have your 'laws' locked into place then how can the players know how to play this game? When does this stage of the experiment end Dr. Bob?
This isn't a stage of the experiment. The "laws" here aren't fixed for the same reason that the laws in the real world aren't fixed.
> I'll put it into consideration that some adults here are offended by the usage of the occasional dookie, urine or copulation (sh*t, p*ss and f*ck for those who can't figure out the civil versions of those words according to the April 2003 version of civility written by Dr. Hsiung).
Thanks, but I just asked you not to use language that could offend others, so I'm going to block you from posting for another two weeks.
Bob
Posted by Alara on April 30, 2003, at 6:15:07
In reply to Will this be okay to post?, posted by OddipusRex on April 9, 2003, at 9:05:53
If posters on this board need to vent their anger about this issue, then they should direct their anger towards me. I was the person who started this dispute in the first place. I had had a bad day and, at the time, the war seemed to highlight the aspects of human nature that I found most upsetting.
Yes, I should have been more sensitive towards American readers. I was watching the war from afar in Australia. My opinion was subjective and fierce. I did not realise at the time that my words would hurt American citizens. Again, I apologise for hurting anybody's feelings.
Just don't hold Dr Bob accountable for my words.
If I had put another poster down, Dr Bob would have issued me with a PBC straight away. But I was talking out my frustration about people in general and Dr Bob could see that. My biggest
mistake was in using the war as an example.My postwas dark, misguided and pessimistic. It was - if unintentionally - hurtful. My timing was bad. I made a lot of unfounded generalisations. I can understand why I upset so many people and I am truly sorry.
Blame me but please don't get angry with Dr Bob. He is doing a fantastic job at keeping this website a safe haven for people affected by mental illness. I have visited forums in which many people have people have ended up with severe psychiatric injuries as a result of forum bullying, personal slandering etc. Dr Bob ensures that this type of risk is kept to a minimum. He does what is humanly possible but he is, after all, human. At the end of the day, this forum serves as a healthy, supportive community and many of us would be lost without it.
Please show Dr Bob some appreciation.
I apologise again for my mistake and take full responsibility for it. Thanks in advance for understanding.
Alara
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.