![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 52 to 76 of 193. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by judy1 on January 7, 2004, at 18:54:01
In reply to Re: IMO, posted by stjames on January 7, 2004, at 11:30:38
please notice my previous post was not directed towards you, if I had meant to I would have checked the box.
Posted by judy1 on January 7, 2004, at 19:01:52
In reply to Re: you're absolutely right » judy1, posted by mair on January 7, 2004, at 17:06:42
I understand what you're saying, there is a great deal of gray here and nobody can be right 100% of the time. I honestly can't remember you ever being blocked?, your posts are always considerate and I guess I think everyone should be capable of the same. I think Tabitha made a good point about some kind of FAQ to help people with "I" statements, etc.
take care, judy
Posted by shar on January 7, 2004, at 19:05:28
In reply to Re: more tips, please. » Dr. Bob, posted by tabitha on January 7, 2004, at 18:33:28
Posted by Dinah on January 7, 2004, at 19:41:11
In reply to Re: IMO, posted by Dr. Bob on January 7, 2004, at 4:15:28
I would say the same thing for this situation as I did for Dena's. When someone is obviously attempting to be civil, and yet you feel they haven't quite made it, couldn't you give alternative ways of stating first along with a please rephrase before you block?
Surely a well intentioned post that falls short doesn't come up so often that it would be *that* much extra work for you.
Posted by psychlover on January 7, 2004, at 19:57:51
In reply to Re: And » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 7, 2004, at 19:41:11
Posted by SLS on January 7, 2004, at 20:20:11
In reply to Re: more tips, please. » Dr. Bob, posted by tabitha on January 7, 2004, at 18:33:28
> 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.
Guidelines for civility? That is a wonderful idea.
- Scott
Posted by Jai Narayan on January 7, 2004, at 22:38:05
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Larry Hoover, posted by Dr. Bob on January 5, 2004, at 23:41:35
I have to say Larry Hoover is not as he seems, I too thought he was a wonderful and thoughtful person till I came up against *his* strict rules. I have been hurt and assaulted by his attitudes and the people who think Larry " can do no wrong". I am not suprised at all that he has overstepped his bounds. Sometimes I thought he could have been sued for the claims he made about products he uses. He sometimes behaves like a pdoc....telling all what they should take and not take. I was repeatedly surprised that this was *okay*. If he decided what someone should take then he would give a dose level....well that sure looked like perscribing to me. I am amazed how he got as far as he got. I have seen people sued for less. I guess I have wondered how this site was exempt from the legal rules. It sure looked risky.
IMHO
Posted by gabbix2 on January 7, 2004, at 23:06:46
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks, posted by Jai Narayan on January 7, 2004, at 22:38:05
> I am not suprised at all that he has overstepped his boundsDo you feel you stayed within the bounds of the civility guidelines?
Posted by Karen_kay on January 7, 2004, at 23:28:37
In reply to Re: Dr bob is a pedophile - What's this about?, posted by mair on January 7, 2004, at 16:03:49
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
**Correct, and I see the point of the "experiment." But, couldn't it be put in a less offensive way, such as the context that the last offense was? I'm aware of the last subject header and wouldn't it be more appropriate and less offensive to conduct the "experiment" in that fashion? I'm sorry, but at this point I'm highly offended. I really appreciate the fact that people are upset. I honestly do. But is it necessary to upset and offend others in the process as well? HONESTLY!
Posted by Dinah on January 7, 2004, at 23:29:17
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks, posted by Jai Narayan on January 7, 2004, at 22:38:05
> I have to say Larry Hoover is not as he seems, I too thought he was a wonderful and thoughtful person till I came up against *his* strict rules. I have been hurt and assaulted by his attitudes and the people who think Larry " can do no wrong". I am not suprised at all that he has overstepped his bounds. Sometimes I thought he could have been sued for the claims he made about products he uses.
Dinah here, acting as deputy for Dr. Bob.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
Posted by Jai Narayan on January 7, 2004, at 23:31:03
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Jai Narayan, posted by gabbix2 on January 7, 2004, at 23:06:46
> Do you feel you stayed within the bounds of the civility guidelines?
<Dear poster, I have stated what I thought was going on for a while. I was worried about the legal ramifications about Larry's postings.Is that so bad to question?
I think it is not.
To question is not that same as to make statements. Do you not agree?
Posted by dragonfly25 on January 7, 2004, at 23:31:25
In reply to Dr bob is a pedophile, posted by stjames on January 7, 2004, at 13:12:36
that is not funny, there are other ways to get your point accross,
Posted by Jai Narayan on January 7, 2004, at 23:36:58
In reply to Re: Please be civil » Jai Narayan, posted by Dinah on January 7, 2004, at 23:29:17
> Dinah here, acting as deputy for Dr. Bob.
> Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
<so sorry, I was out of line. I guess I was concerned. but I can back down. thanks for the warning. peace?
Posted by Karen_kay on January 7, 2004, at 23:42:31
In reply to Re: Please be civil, posted by Jai Narayan on January 7, 2004, at 23:36:58
I feel that if you think this place is unsafe, maybe you should follow your own advice and "Vote with your feet and leave."
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.