![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 61 to 85 of 224. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on February 21, 2005, at 21:13:32
In reply to Re: context is important, posted by Dr. Bob on February 21, 2005, at 2:13:55
>Everyone should be careful. Especially when things get heated.
Fair enough.
I don't personally have a problem with anything that I have observed with respect to warnings and blockings since I have been here (though I don't follow everything). I can't exactly predict them that well - but when they do happen I think I understand them.
Though I might be the exception rather than the norm on that score.
I guess all I find hard is that blocks are doubled or tripled AS A BLANKET RULE. A one month block (just as an example) is a pretty hefty block. Regardless of whether one has had one of those before. I would say that the NATURE of the offense should come into play with respect to determining the length of the block.
I still think Chemist's block was unreasonably long given the nature of his 'offense' (It wasn't all THAT bad IMO). Even if he did make a habit of it it still seems like a verrrrrrrrry long time. Why not retain the option of matching the offense to the length of punishment. Or is the idea to 'push out' people who persist regardless of what they may have to offer???
Posted by alexandra_k on February 21, 2005, at 21:21:33
In reply to Re: context is important » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on February 21, 2005, at 21:13:32
>Or is the idea to 'push out' people who persist regardless of what they may have to offer???
I just mean that people give up after a while. When the blocks keep getting longer and they still do not understand. Or whatever. If I was sitting on a block of 3 months or longer and I couldn't see the sense in previous ones then I would go. I couldn't afford to stay emotionally involved in babble because the risk would be just too great. That has happened with people, eh? They have sort of got 'pushed out' with increasingly hefty blocks. I mean, I can understand wanting to get rid of 'trolls'. But what about the people who aren't just trolling???
> Why not retain the option of matching the offense to the length of punishment.
One month is still a long time IMO. Why not just cap it around there???
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 22, 2005, at 0:25:30
In reply to Speaking of the asterisk thingy., posted by gardenergirl on February 21, 2005, at 13:18:04
> Did you know p*m p*ms, as in the things that cheerleaders shake ... got asterisked?
That surprised me, too. Maybe ask alexandra about P*ms?
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on February 22, 2005, at 0:45:12
In reply to Re: Speaking of the asterisk thingy., posted by Dr. Bob on February 22, 2005, at 0:25:30
As in: those p*mmy buggers over there who put themselves just where they want to on the maps. Those Brits over there, you know ;-)
Mirriam Webster says:
Australian & New Zealand, usually disparaging : P*MMY
Posted by Toph on February 22, 2005, at 0:51:43
In reply to Re: P*ms, posted by alexandra_k on February 22, 2005, at 0:45:12
> As in: those p*mmy buggers over there who put themselves just where they want to on the maps. Those Brits over there, you know ;-)
>
> Mirriam Webster says:
> Australian & New Zealand, usually disparaging : P*MMYJust testing. Sorry.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 22, 2005, at 1:38:57
In reply to Re: P*ms, posted by alexandra_k on February 22, 2005, at 0:45:12
Actually I left out the most interesting bit. Now that I've got the hang of how to spell the name of the dictionary *Miriam* Webster also says:
Etymology: by shortening & alter. from pomegranate, alteration of Jimmy Grant, rhyming slang for immigrant
Australian & New Zealand, usually disparaging : BRITON; especially : an English immigrant
http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=97586
Dunno if it is true or not...
Maybe it is more of an Aussie thing...
http://www.ancientsites.com/aw/Post/16409
Yes, I suppose we do feel a little inferior down under...
Posted by alexandra_k on February 22, 2005, at 3:49:15
In reply to Re: Speaking of the asterisk thingy., posted by Dr. Bob on February 22, 2005, at 0:25:30
Posted by Dinah on February 22, 2005, at 9:37:52
In reply to Re: preliminary PBC, posted by Dr. Bob on February 17, 2005, at 22:57:52
Dr. Bob
Yes, it is true that once a person has been PBC'd or blocked for any reason whatsoever, their next violation for any reason can lead to the next administrative step.
And it is true that this was a volatile situation that you wanted put to rest.
However, you very frequently issue PBC's on a particular subject or a particular thread, without doing an automatic escalation just because someone has received a PBC or block in the past, on a different topic, or in a different situation. You did that on this thread, in fact.
I just wish you had done that for Bobby too.
Posted by Mark H. on February 22, 2005, at 15:08:19
In reply to Re: preliminary PBC » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on February 22, 2005, at 9:37:52
and I apologize to those who were blocked for stating their point of view.
Sincerely,
Mark H.
Posted by Jai Narayan on February 22, 2005, at 18:49:27
In reply to Re: I Regret Starting This Thread..., posted by Mark H. on February 22, 2005, at 15:08:19
Mark H. you are a dear to have compassion for those who are/were blocked.
I know setting something into motion and seeing that it has some hard consequences...
well it's painful.
but, my friend, we are adults on babble and can take responsibility for our actions and the reactions....
this is not your fault...
please don't take that on.
Ja*
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 22, 2005, at 22:27:36
In reply to Re: preliminary PBC » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on February 22, 2005, at 9:37:52
> you very frequently issue PBC's on a particular subject or a particular thread, without doing an automatic escalation just because someone has received a PBC or block in the past, on a different topic, or in a different situation.
Yes, and I wish I had felt able to do that this time, too...
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on February 23, 2005, at 1:45:02
In reply to Re: preliminary PBC, posted by Dr. Bob on February 22, 2005, at 22:27:36
Posted by AuntieMel on February 23, 2005, at 7:57:06
In reply to Re: preliminary PBC, posted by Dr. Bob on February 22, 2005, at 22:27:36
Why didn't you think you could do that in this case?
Posted by 64bowtie on February 23, 2005, at 10:31:28
In reply to What Happened? Gender and the Perception of Threat, posted by Mark H. on February 16, 2005, at 17:23:41
...I was blocked or I would have thanked you sooner...
Rod
Posted by 64bowtie on February 23, 2005, at 11:10:27
In reply to Re: I Regret Starting This Thread..., posted by Mark H. on February 22, 2005, at 15:08:19
...thanx again. No apology necessary.
Mark,
Let's see if we can do better next time... Although my outer layers are all scorched and tattered from this affair, my inards are well intact.
I wouldn't wish this onto anyone! I am left with little or no integrity here at Babble. Its taken me 15 months to get as far as I got and now, POOF, all gone! I came to Babble in friendship and now I am leaving in flames; a mere cinder of my old self!
I would expect reasonable people to not recoil and revile me if I expressed any desire to savage and destroy any someone else. I would expect to be blocked first by those who can. Instead, here at Babble, the intended victim is blocked, allowing the savagery to continue. Hmmmmmm.....
I have to ask myself if this is an emotionally safe place to be. ...and, in my case as the intended victim, is it a wise business decision to stay here and just ignore the details?
I continue to seek those who are themselves seeking wellness (above all the clamor). If that appeals to you, please share how you go about it.
Rod
Posted by 64bowtie on February 23, 2005, at 11:22:23
All,
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050219/msgs/462231.html
I said, ...reasonable people [NOT] recoil and revile me...
That's a mistake...
I meant to say that, ...I expect that reasonable people [WOULD] recoil and revile me if I expressed desires to saveg and destroy someone...
Now, please reread the post with this change!
Its not a change of heart! Its a change of typing!!! I don't do good typing yet!
Rod
Posted by AuntieMel on February 23, 2005, at 13:43:45
In reply to Re: I Regret Starting This Thread... » Mark H., posted by 64bowtie on February 23, 2005, at 11:10:27
How about if we all move on? I wouldn't worry about integrity, you know - people *do* tend to forget if we let them.
Glad to have you back.
Posted by TamaraJ on February 23, 2005, at 13:50:35
In reply to Re: new day, new chapter » 64bowtie, posted by AuntieMel on February 23, 2005, at 13:43:45
The U.N. could use someone like you, or a prototype of you!
Posted by AuntieMel on February 23, 2005, at 15:15:11
In reply to AuntieMel - you are a blessing! » AuntieMel, posted by TamaraJ on February 23, 2005, at 13:50:35
That's so kind of you. It's just that I find very few things to be black and white. Sometimes that can be a curse.
Posted by Broken on February 23, 2005, at 15:15:47
In reply to AuntieMel - you are a blessing! » AuntieMel, posted by TamaraJ on February 23, 2005, at 13:50:35
I believe I stated the exact same thing to Auntie just a few days ago. It takes a special person to have that quality.
Posted by Dinah on February 23, 2005, at 16:46:58
In reply to Re: AuntieMel - you are a blessing!, posted by Broken on February 23, 2005, at 15:15:47
Posted by Dinah on February 23, 2005, at 16:57:31
In reply to Re: I Regret Starting This Thread... » Mark H., posted by 64bowtie on February 23, 2005, at 11:10:27
Your integrity is in fine shape. There's no need for you to leave. And I'm hoping we can just all put this behind us and move on (on Babble).
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 23, 2005, at 22:29:55
In reply to Re: I Regret Starting This Thread... » Mark H., posted by 64bowtie on February 23, 2005, at 11:10:27
> the intended victim is blocked, allowing the savagery to continue.
Sorry, but please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. The time before last you were blocked for 4 weeks, so this time it's for 8.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 23, 2005, at 22:34:27
In reply to Re: preliminary PBC - I'm curious » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on February 23, 2005, at 7:57:06
> How about capping the length of blocks?
>
> alexandra_kThey *are* capped now, at 52 weeks.
> Why didn't you think you could do that in this case?
>
> AuntieMelAs Dinah said:
> this was a volatile situation that you wanted put to rest.
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on February 23, 2005, at 23:06:44
In reply to Re: preliminary PBC, posted by Dr. Bob on February 23, 2005, at 22:34:27
One year?
I didn't know that.
That is a long time.I dunno.
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.