![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 38 to 62 of 193. Go back in thread:
Posted by johnj on January 6, 2004, at 14:02:23
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Larry Hoover, posted by Dr. Bob on January 5, 2004, at 23:41:35
the original post did nothing but scare people. How can you allow this and not allow soomeone to refute such posts?
It appears, and not only to me, that you run off posters that have added great value to this forum. If you could only spend one day in the minds of the troubled that come here you would be more understanding.
Posted by psychlover on January 6, 2004, at 15:01:09
In reply to Dr. Bob, this is very wrong » Dr. Bob, posted by johnj on January 6, 2004, at 14:02:23
Dr. Bob,
I agree that banning Larry Hoover is a mistake. Larry Hoover is a tremendous asset to this board, and after reading many, many of his posts, I have never come across anything that is inappropriate or hurtful to others. In fact, he seems to go out of his way to make sure he chooses his words as sensitively as possible.
I hope you will reconsider your decision for the sake of those of us who rely on Larry for consistently solid information.
Thank you,
psychlover
Posted by Dinah on January 6, 2004, at 16:47:38
In reply to Re: But he was *blocked* , posted by stjames on January 6, 2004, at 12:28:40
Geesh. I said Peace. We're on the same side on Lar's block, you know. And on his PBC too. Look above.
I wasn't trying to "announce" anything.
Posted by SLS on January 6, 2004, at 16:50:57
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Larry Hoover, posted by Dr. Bob on January 5, 2004, at 23:41:35
> > claims of "wiping hardware" and "deep destruction" are more than just simple opinion. They are provocative and threatening.
> Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused. Sorry, but the last time you were blocked, it was for 1 week, so this time it's for 2.
Just babbling...I'm trying real hard to see things from Dr. Bob's perspective. I'm having a tough time, though. I kinda see where he might be calling into question the use of the words "provocative" and "threatening". I guess in a way they represent a derogatory comment on the character and motives of the person by characterizing the verbiage that this person used. Likewise, the use of the phrase "more than just simple opinion" can be seen as derogatory and an attack upon the quality of what is, essentially, an opinion. Uncivil? I don't know. It seems like a bit of a stretch to me. I'm sad to see Larry go. Oh how I long for those days when we could beat up on each other without restraint. What is deemed as uncivil now is oh so subtle by comparison.
- Scott
Posted by mattdds on January 6, 2004, at 18:54:31
In reply to Re: please don't pressure others, posted by Dr. Bob on January 4, 2004, at 22:42:51
It does more harm than good if we have to walk on pins and needles in order to communicate here.
I would argue that people can interpret things in many different ways, and some people can get offended with any comment, no matter how well phrased. To call what Larry said uncivil would take an enormous stretch in interpretation.
To a certain extent, it is not events in life that disturb people, but the interpretation of those events.
Why can't put a bit more of the burden of the experience of being offended on the recipient. Now, obviously there are boundaries (e.g. gross cutdowns or obscenities), but you are grossly overestimating the fragility of people, and underestimating their ability to "get over it".
I think I may not be alone in thinking that a lot more harm is being done with *some* of these bans than good. I'm feeling pretty fed up and annoyed.
People are not as fragile as you think, and if they are, perhaps they are the ones with the problem. I'm speaking in general terms here.
Matt
Posted by gabbix2 on January 6, 2004, at 19:21:17
In reply to This is getting absurd » Dr. Bob, posted by mattdds on January 6, 2004, at 18:54:31
> but you are grossly overestimating the fragility of people
I cannot believe any longer that these blocks have anything to do with protecting peoples feelings.
Recently a poster politely asked that a subject heading which insulted him (using his name)
be removed, Bob refused.What harm could there be in that?
There was no post following it- simply a subject heading insulting someone.
That was also the ONLY time Bob didn't go back and block out the offending "s"
as he does in every single post where someone uses the word a*s with out editing it themselves.Of course I don't think that little asterisk would have made one bit of difference to the feelings of the poster, but I do believe it says something significant, and its not good.
Posted by shar on January 6, 2004, at 20:19:04
In reply to Re: This IS absurd, posted by gabbix2 on January 6, 2004, at 19:21:17
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 7, 2004, at 0:01:07
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Larry Hoover, posted by Dr. Bob on January 5, 2004, at 23:41:35
Posted by Sabina on January 6, 2004, at 12:16:14
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Larry Hoover, posted by Dr. Bob on January 5, 2004, at 23:41:35
Larry doesn't think he can return after this block.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 7, 2004, at 0:18:03
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks - Larry's gone « Sabina, posted by Dr. Bob on January 7, 2004, at 0:01:07
Posted by TeeJay on January 6, 2004, at 19:37:02
In reply to Re: i've read the faq. thanks! (nm) » zenhussy, posted by Sabina on January 6, 2004, at 13:20:03
I've not been here long, but I have to say I'm bemused and a little irritated at some of the attitudes on these boards.
Has anyone not heard the saying which suggests rules are for the adherance of the foolish and guidance for the wise?
Seems to me that around here anyone who has a mental health problem is treated by Bob as some kind of second class citizen and is hearded like cattle through a series of strict and demanding criteria.
I've read the thread which ended in Larry Hoover getting suspended, and could see a poster who was simply making dangerous and sweeping remarks without basis and was then challenged solidly but very fairly and politely by Larry. I saw nothing untoward in Larrys posts at all, in fact the only thing I saw wrong with the thread was a lack of earlier intervention by the moderator.
As a relative newbie, I'm unsure of whether this post is in the right place or not, but I've kinda made my home around the people on the alternative board and hence offered my thoughts here. If its wrong then I guess the rules would suggest the moderator can move it to somewhere it might seem more fitting even if nobody will see it there.
Regards to all
TJ
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 7, 2004, at 4:15:28
In reply to This is getting absurd » Dr. Bob, posted by mattdds on January 6, 2004, at 18:54:31
> when someone does make these sweeping uncorroborated generalizations and then fails to back them up when asked several times, the moderator should not sanction someone for doing what the moderator should have done to begin with.
>
> MairPeople have never been under any obligation here to back up what they say. So sometimes they don't. That should be taken into account when deciding what information to trust:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#trust----
> People are not as fragile as you think, and if they are, perhaps they are the ones with the problem.
>
> MattSome people are more fragile than others. Which may in fact be a problem for them...
----
> the original post did nothing but scare people. How can you allow this and not allow soomeone to refute such posts?
It's fine to refute what someone says, but that should be able to be done without being accusatory. For example, instead of:
"Those claims are more than just simple opinion. They are provocative and threatening."
one could say:
"I can find no justification for your claims, and others may be alarmed by them."
> It appears, and not only to me, that you run off posters that have added great value to this forum. If you could only spend one day in the minds of the troubled that come here you would be more understanding.
>
> johnjI hadn't spent any time in Maxx's mind, but I was trying to understand his side...
It may be best if we just agree to disagree on some aspects of this.
I'm really sorry things have gone this way, too, you know. Larry's been a great asset, and I hope he realizes how valued he is and returns after this to continue to contribute to the community here.
Bob
Posted by stjames on January 7, 2004, at 10:24:32
In reply to Re: IMO, posted by Dr. Bob on January 7, 2004, at 4:15:28
> I'm really sorry things have gone this way, too, you know. Larry's been a great asset, and I hope he realizes how valued he is and returns after this to continue to contribute to the community here.
>
> BobWhy not treat him as such, Dr bob ?
Posted by judy1 on January 7, 2004, at 11:05:23
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks, posted by SLS on January 6, 2004, at 16:50:57
we used to get away with a lot more in the old 'wild west' days, but I think the dramatic increase of posters brought some real negative ones and that necessitated Dr. Bob's strict civility rules. I'm probably one of the few people here who likes them, I think on the whole they are enforced equally (meaning the good people who occasionally screw up get hit with blocks along with those who consistently mess up), and more importantly I feel safer now then I did for the period when the board was growing w/o rules in place.
just babbling too...
take care, judy
Posted by judy1 on January 7, 2004, at 11:14:38
In reply to Re: IMO, posted by stjames on January 7, 2004, at 10:24:32
I think quite a few posters who have been wonderful assets to the board have been hit with blocks in the past (and returned), Larry is just the latest. There shouldn't be preferential treatment and I'm glad there isn't any.
just my opinion, judy
Posted by stjames on January 7, 2004, at 11:30:38
In reply to Re: IMO, posted by judy1 on January 7, 2004, at 11:14:38
There shouldn't be preferential treatment and I'm glad there isn't any.
> just my opinion, judyJudy,
I was not asking for any.
Posted by gabbix2 on January 7, 2004, at 12:04:01
In reply to Re: IMO, posted by stjames on January 7, 2004, at 11:30:38
No one was asking for preferential treatment *because* Larry is such a valued poster.
The block itself was unreasonable, it would have been unreasonable given to any poster. Larry's remarks were not uncivil, and as has been noted he takes great care to be civil.What is more frustrating is that similar remarks are overlooked by Dr. Bob frequently; he's overlooked them in this very thread, however for obvious reasons I'm not going to point them out.
The point being made is that yet another valued poster may be leaving because they cannot post
with the sword of Damocles hanging over their head and the board will be left with a disproportionate about of the "real negative ones" you were speaking of.
Posted by gabbix2 on January 7, 2004, at 12:13:05
In reply to Re: IMO » stjames, posted by gabbix2 on January 7, 2004, at 12:04:01
Posted by stjames on January 7, 2004, at 13:10:26
In reply to Re: IMO, posted by stjames on January 7, 2004, at 11:30:38
> There shouldn't be preferential treatment and I'm glad there isn't any.
> > just my opinion, judy
>
Judy,I was not asking for any. We are all assets.
Dr Bob does not answer my questions any more
it seems (Dr Bob, please don't post asking me
what the questions are, one insult is not answering them the first time another would be to ask to have them pointed out again)
People have never been under any obligation here to back up what they say. So sometimes they don't. That should be taken into account when deciding what information to trust:However, Dr Bob does step in when people make
excessive claims, this clearly happened this time and you said NOTHING.a) WHY ?
Posted by stjames on January 7, 2004, at 13:12:36
In reply to Re: IMO, posted by Dr. Bob on January 7, 2004, at 4:15:28
Lest see how this works:
People have never been under any obligation here to back up what they say. So sometimes they don't. That should be taken into account when deciding what information to trust:
Posted by SLS on January 7, 2004, at 14:47:17
In reply to Dr bob is a pedophile, posted by stjames on January 7, 2004, at 13:12:36
> Lest see how this works:
What's going on here James? What is this subject header all about?
- Scott
Posted by kara lynne on January 7, 2004, at 15:09:56
In reply to Re: Dr bob is a pedophile - What's this about? » stjames, posted by SLS on January 7, 2004, at 14:47:17
I'm waiting for my heart to slow down long enough to respond. Some things are not funny, even if they're used to try to make a point.
Posted by stjames on January 7, 2004, at 15:11:04
In reply to Re: Dr bob is a pedophile - What's this about? » stjames, posted by SLS on January 7, 2004, at 14:47:17
Dr bob says:
People have never been under any obligation here to back up what they say. So sometimes they don't. That should be taken into account when deciding what information to trust:
Posted by mair on January 7, 2004, at 16:03:49
In reply to Re: Dr bob is a pedophile - What's this about?, posted by stjames on January 7, 2004, at 15:11:04
I don't necessarily endorse this little experiment, but I would like to point out that if someone made a similar statement about one of us - reflected in the subject line of the post, Bob would not necessarily delete it. He has said several times that he doesn't like deleting things.
Mair
Posted by mair on January 7, 2004, at 17:06:42
In reply to you're absolutely right » SLS, posted by judy1 on January 7, 2004, at 11:05:23
Judy - you'll get no argument from me concerning the need for Dr. Bob to administer this site in a way which makes it as safe as possible. By the same token, I think we frequently use the word "safe" all too casually as if there was a bright line between what is "safe" and what is not.
I try to be a responsible poster, but I can't help but cringe when I see someone being sanctioned for making statements which I know could easily have been made by me with no concern that I might be violating one of Bob's rules. This is particularly so when it's so obvious that the offending poster is not just spouting off thoughtlessly, but is making a genuine attempt to be civil.
I know that I would feel pretty awful if I was blocked or warned for making what I considered to be responsible statements. I'm sure I would be hurt by the inference I would make that my contributions to the site were not valued. Under some circumstances I'm sure I'd be pretty horrified that others might think I was trying to put someone else down, and I seriously doubt I could look at my block in any objective way. Your assertion that blocks happen all the time and that posters who have been blocked frequently return is absolutely correct. The fact that blocks may be pretty standard stuff around here, however, doesn't mean that the people who have been blocked can simply view them as casually. Getting blocked would certainly be a big deal to me, and I'm sure I'd have a tough time returning to this site afterwards.
This is too long-winded. The point I'm so ineptly trying to make is that I'm sure that those who feel they have been blocked unfairly or for reasons which they cannot really understand do not at all feel safe when they return, and ironically, it seems that many of those who have registered objections to Larry's block have done so because they respect the efforts he made to make the site a safe place for others.
Mair
Posted by Karen_kay on January 7, 2004, at 17:13:53
In reply to Dr bob is a pedophile, posted by stjames on January 7, 2004, at 13:12:36
Even if you are trying to make a point, I believe this statement is uncalled for. Don't you think that there could be a more appropriate way to get your point across, without resulting to name calling and libel? Just my personal opinion....
Karen
Posted by tabitha on January 7, 2004, at 18:33:28
In reply to Re: IMO, posted by Dr. Bob on January 7, 2004, at 4:15:28
> It's fine to refute what someone says, but that should be able to be done without being accusatory. For example, instead of:
>
> "Those claims are more than just simple opinion. They are provocative and threatening."
>
> one could say:
>
> "I can find no justification for your claims, and others may be alarmed by them."OK, when you put it that way I can see that Larry's statement was more accusatory than it needed to be. He put negative labels on the claim (provocative and threatening) rather than stating his underlying concern that people might be scared by it.
My concern is that people don't understand the concepts of making things non-accusatory and using I-statements and so forth. It's such a different standard than other boards, and from normal social discourse. I really think it takes some special training to get your rules. Did you ever think of putting together a bunch of examples like this, of blockable offenses, and the acceptable alternatives? Put it into the FAQ somewhere. Otherwise we keep having these cases of valuable, intelligent, well-spoken posters stepping over the lines without realizing it.
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.