![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 192. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 2, 2004, at 7:02:49
DR. Hsiung,
I am requesting that you establish a way to indicate that you, or perhaps the entire psychiatric profession, do not endorse what is being posted by a poster. I suggest that a symbol by you be put after the post to indicate that youdo not endorse what is posted. Something like,{~endrs} after the post.
I feel that if the notation is made on the medicine issues board,(psycho babble)in some way, that other posters could have the opportunity to modify their post or enable them to know if what another poster is writing about is acceptable or not to the psychiatric or psycho-babble community.
This could also be done on the faith board. One could write something about their religion and it could be not endorsed by you. I feel that it is my opinion that does not mean that whatthey are writing about should be sanctioned. In this suggestion of mine, you could put some type of symbol after the post to indicate that what is posted is not endorsed by the forum, but is solely the beliefe of the poster.
On the social board, one could write what you consider to be not endorsed by the community, but they could still post it. Things such as language and such, questionable jokes, questionable activities.
There is a program software with little funny faces that can be posted. Perhaps instead of something like {~endrs} after the post, a funny face of unacceptance could be posted after the post by you to indicate that the forum does not endorse what is posted.
Lou
Posted by justyourlaugh on December 2, 2004, at 7:52:07
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-~endrs, posted by Lou Pilder on December 2, 2004, at 7:02:49
hummmm..
this is "dr bob's" site.
i thought it was a given everything posted was endorsed by him?
or you get the boot..
j
Posted by Dinah on December 2, 2004, at 8:17:46
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-~endrs » Lou Pilder, posted by justyourlaugh on December 2, 2004, at 7:52:07
It's my understanding that nothing on this site is "endorsed" by Dr. Bob, and that he takes responsibility only for his own words. If he finds something doesn't comply with site guidelines he takes admin action. But not taking admin action doesn't imply endorsement or approval. Admin action only says that something is in noncompliance. Leaving it up only means that no rules have been broken.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 2, 2004, at 11:37:45
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-~endrs, posted by Dinah on December 2, 2004, at 8:17:46
Dinah,
Yo wrote,[...not taking...action doesn't imply endorsement or approval...Administrative action only says that something is in noncompliance...leaving it up only means that no rules have been broken...].
But could it not be possible that one could have the potential, IMO, to think that if something was left up that that could mean that whatever it is could be endorsed by the forum since if leaving it up means that no rule has been broken?
Let us look at a post that is now on the psycho babble board. The poster writes that another poster is a "fruitcake" and an "idiot". I see at this time that it is "left up", if what you mean by that is that no notation of some nature has been posted by the moderator for it. If "leaving it up" means that no rule has been broken, could not there be the potential for someone here to think that it is OK to write that someone is a "fruitcake" and an "idiot"?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 2, 2004, at 12:22:20
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah-~endrs-frckidio » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on December 2, 2004, at 11:37:45
Dinah,
There is a post using the word in question in the archives that has no notation from Dr. Hsiung as far as I can see, so it could be OK here to call someone that in a post.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20021218/msgs/33932.html
Posted by AuntieMel on December 2, 2004, at 12:49:23
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah-acceptable--ido » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on December 2, 2004, at 12:22:20
Ah, but he is calling himself an idiot. Something more of us should do. :)
Posted by pegasus on December 2, 2004, at 13:33:08
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah-~endrs-frckidio » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on December 2, 2004, at 11:37:45
Well, but because it's not actually ok to call another poster a fruitcake or an idiot here, that post will surely be given a PBC when Dr. Bob sees it. And if Dr. Bob misses it, we have this board to use to bring it to his attention. So the rules do provide a way to deal with that already.
But someone might say something less obvious, that, say, you objected to, but it wasn't against the rules. Dr. Bob won't take any action, but that doesn't mean that Dr. Bob agrees with them. It just means that he is allowing them to say it here, because it doesn't violate the rules. So, if that's what you mean by endorse, then we do already have a system in place to establish whether Dr. Bob endorses certain statements.
Or are you confused about whether Dr. Bob agrees with statements, and that's what you want him to specify? I think in that case he'd be getting very close to practicing medicine here (at least in the case of the meds board), which would probably be a liability issue for him.
Sorry, just getting lost again about what is the fundamental concern here.
pegasus
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 2, 2004, at 13:52:33
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dinah-~endrs-frckidio, posted by pegasus on December 2, 2004, at 13:33:08
pegasus,
You wrote,[...when Dr. Bob sees it...misses it...have...board to use to bring to his attention...].
In the case in hand, how could one know if the post is OK or not,{if the moderator does not reply to the request for a determination of acceptability?}
Lou
Posted by Dinah on December 2, 2004, at 14:13:07
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah-~endrs-frckidio » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on December 2, 2004, at 11:37:45
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 2, 2004, at 14:27:14
In reply to Pegasus explained it better than I did (nm) » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on December 2, 2004, at 14:13:07
Dinah,
You wrote,[...pegasus explained it better than I did...].
He/she did write that it was not acceptable to referr to others in the way that the post in question writes. And you write that posts that are unaddressed by the moderator are OK?
Then there are posts that are unadressed even after a request for a determination of acceptability or not is made. Could those posts beconsidered acceptable?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on December 2, 2004, at 14:37:10
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah-paibid » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on December 2, 2004, at 14:27:14
I think it's best to let Dr. Bob answer, Lou. I was just stating what I remembered from the intro.
But I would assume that if something is brought to Dr. Bob's attention and he does nothing that he thought it was not against the rules. But that doesn't mean he agrees with what was said.
Why don't you ask him though. I know nothing more.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 2, 2004, at 14:51:46
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah-paibid, posted by Dinah on December 2, 2004, at 14:37:10
Dinah,
You wrote,[...I would assume...that if he does nothing after it is brought to his attention...that it is not against the rules...].
If you could think that, then there is the potential for others to think that also.
I am proposing that posts of that nature could have a symbol placed after them, without comment, by the moderator, to indicate that the moderator does not consider the post acceptable and could also mean that it is not endorsed by the forum, for could a post be unacceptable and at the same time be endorsed by the moderator?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 2, 2004, at 17:54:38
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dinah-~endrs-frckidio, posted by pegasus on December 2, 2004, at 13:33:08
pegasus,
You wrote,[...lost about the fundamental concern...].
The fundamental concern involves the following :
Posts that are potentially unacceptable but have no mention of that by the moderator after a request for a determination of acceptability or not has been posted or emailed to Dr.Hsiung. If this procedure is implemented, then it could mean that if no symbol is placed by the questioned post, that it is endorsed and acceptable for the forum. I feel that without such a procedure, one could think that a post is acceptable when it is not.
The example given is one of a group of posts belonging to this class of posts. I am proposing to Dr. Hsiung that he put a symbol by those posts that have the potential to be unacceptable to indicate that the forum does not endorse the post. This is not the same as saying that the post is unacceptable, although it could be.
I base this on several practices for newspapers. Some newspapers do not want to print advertisments for particular products, or for telephone numbers to hear sexual fantacies or "dateing services" and such. But they have to allow all to advertise so they allow these type of adds and post that the newspaper does not endorse what is being advertised. Also with radio and tv programs that the station does not endorse.
The statement by Dr. Hsiung that he is only responsible for what he writes IMO does not adresss this situation because he has a code for posting and I believe that the code leads people to believe that if there is no action by the moderator to say that something is not acceptable, then the potential to think , like Dinah has written, that the post is acceptable is there. If the radio station did not express that they did not endorse the opinions of the parties in the program, then one could think that the station did endorse what was on the air.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 2, 2004, at 18:26:15
In reply to Lou's reply to pegasus-funcon » pegasus, posted by Lou Pilder on December 2, 2004, at 17:54:38
pegasus,
You wrote,[...fundamental concern...].
The next concern is about defamation and humiliation. Dr. Hsiung has a strict policy concerning defamation directed to a particular poster. Posters could experiance deep humiliation from posts that have defaming statements about a person here. In the post in question that I have used as an example, if I was "linkage", I would feel deep humiliation from the names used by the other poster directed to "linkage".
Dr. Hsiung has written many things that have the potential for people to think that he wants to protect posters from emotional and psychological harm by enforcing his code of posting. I feel that IMO, that my proposal will further that goal. I would feel much more comfortable if there was a note that the post was not endorsed by the forum. This could be "please be..." or a "rephrase" or what I am proposing as a new way to address these type of posts.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 3, 2004, at 4:49:52
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah-paibid, posted by Dinah on December 2, 2004, at 14:37:10
> I would assume that if something is brought to Dr. Bob's attention and he does nothing that he thought it was not against the rules. But that doesn't mean he agrees with what was said.
Right:
> The only messages I take responsibility for are my own.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2004, at 5:17:33
In reply to Re: doesn't mean he agrees, posted by Dr. Bob on December 3, 2004, at 4:49:52
> > I would assume that if something is brought to Dr. Bob's attention and he does nothing that he thought it was not against the rules. But that doesn't mean he agrees with what was said.
>
> Right:
>
> > The only messages I take responsibility for are my own.
>
> Bob
R. Hsiung,
In the above reply by you to another poster, the other poster thinks that if you do not reply to a request about acceptability of a post, then your not replying means that what was written is not against the rules.
Does this mean , then, that since you have not replied to my request for a determination as to the acceptability of the post in question that it is not against the rules here to write that someone here is a "fruitcake" and an "idiot"?
If you could clarify that, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2004, at 6:32:29
In reply to Re: doesn't mean he agrees, posted by Dr. Bob on December 3, 2004, at 4:49:52
Dr. Hsiung,
If it is allowable for one here to call another poster a "fruitcake" and an "idiot", then could you clarify what your rational could be to make it unacceptable here to call someone an (expletive), which is the same word used sometimes to referr to a donkey? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2004, at 6:56:17
In reply to Re: doesn't mean he agrees, posted by Dr. Bob on December 3, 2004, at 4:49:52
Dr. Hsiung,
In the example in question, one could think that the poster directing "fruitcake" and "idiot" toward the other poster, (likadge), has the potential to be considerd a {personal attack}against linkadge. One could also have the potential to think that the words used toward the poster constitute {offensive language} toward another poster.
In gardengirl's post directed to the poster thatused the language toward linkadge, she thought that the language constitued that the poster look at the civility code. In that code, it writes that accusing others or putting down others is unacceptable according to the code here.
I could go along with the acceptance of "fruitcake" and 'idiot" to possibly be words that are not prohibited here,like the word that is prohibited here that could mean a donkey, but I feel and it is my opinion that the post could have the potential to be considered by some as falling into the part of the code here that speaks to {accusing others and putting down others or even jumping to a conclusion about another poster here}. There is also the aspect of defamation toward the poster as to how one defines defamation on a mental-health forum. Legally, I do not think that calling someone a "fruitcake or idiot" constitutes legal defamation, but I am thinking in terms of the type of defamation that has the potential to cause psychlogical and emotional harm to someone here. I call it defamation of the soul.
I am requesting that you modify your code in the FAQ to include that calling posters here these type of names be not acceptable and that if you could insert the example used here, I would appreciate that.
Lou Pilder
Posted by nikkit2 on December 3, 2004, at 6:59:05
In reply to Lou's response to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Dinah-ol » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2004, at 6:32:29
Could you please link to the mesage in which someone called someone else a "fruitcake" and an "idiot"..
Thankyou
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2004, at 7:07:38
In reply to Lou's response to Dr. Hsiung's replyto Dinah-pa-ol » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2004, at 6:56:17
Posted by partlycloudy on December 3, 2004, at 9:00:36
In reply to the link to this discussion, posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2004, at 7:07:38
Lou, isn't your question about the use of the words "fruitcake" and idiot" a non-issue since the poster has been banned? Isn't getting banned a clear consequence of being repeatedly uncivil? I believe the fact that the poster in question has been banned makes it unnecessary for any individual posts to be examined.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2004, at 11:01:06
In reply to Re: the link to this discussion » Lou Pilder, posted by partlycloudy on December 3, 2004, at 9:00:36
pc,
You wrote,[...poster...banned makes it unnecessary for...individual posts to be examined...].
Unnecessary? The post is visible and there is no addressing of it from the moderator. If the poster left the forum on his/her own volition, would you still think that the post then need not to be addressed by the moderator?
Lou
Posted by partlycloudy on December 3, 2004, at 12:49:16
In reply to Lou's reply to partlycloudy-bndunnec » partlycloudy, posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2004, at 11:01:06
You'd have to ask Dr Bob, then. I'll keep quiet.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 4, 2004, at 2:02:49
In reply to Lou's reply to partlycloudy-bndunnec » partlycloudy, posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2004, at 11:01:06
> I believe the fact that the poster in question has been banned makes it unnecessary for any individual posts to be examined.
>
> partlycloudyThat was what I thought...
> If the poster left the forum on his/her own volition, would you still think that the post then need not to be addressed by the moderator?
>
> LouNo, in that case I would still address it, since they might change their mind.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 4, 2004, at 8:03:13
In reply to Re: Lou's reply, posted by Dr. Bob on December 4, 2004, at 2:02:49
Dr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...in that case,( a poster left on their own volition), I would address it...].
You also wrote elseware,[...if I miss it...I could be reminded and then address it...].
If we look at the type of post in question, there is the potential for some to think that since the post is not addressed by you that it is OK here to post such. There is no visible understanding that the poster that wrote such is absent from the board when they read the post. I am asking you to elliminate that situation by making some type of notation that what is posted is not acceptable here because there is the potential for one to think that since there is no visible notation {from you} that the content of the post is unacceptable here that they could think that it is acceptable here to call a person those names. You say that someware else you evicted the poster for some other post. But those that read the post in question do not have any idea of that unless they frequent another board where the eviction took place.
There are many boards here that I have never posted on. I believe that there could be others here that also do not look at some of the other boards. And I do not think that it is the responsibility of evry poster here to read evry post on evry board to find out. When someone reads the post in question , they see a poster calling another poster here a "fruitcake" and an "idiot" and there is nothing from ther moderstor to indicate at the sorce of the post that it is unacceptable. I am requesting that in these cases that you place a symbol next to the post to indicate that the poster has been evicted from another post on another board and that the symbol means that the post in question is unacceptable.
Lou Pilder
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.