![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 197. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by TofuEmmy on June 12, 2005, at 10:01:47
I figured something out. Remember Zen? I’m sure lots of you do. I’m writing this without her knowledge…or permission, but…well, I think she’ll understand.
I remember her anger at Dr Bob sometimes astounded me. I loved her, but couldn’t understand how his actions made her so furious. It didn’t start out that why – her anger built up over time until she was no longer able to control it, and ended her time here with a 48-week block.
But, ya know what? Now, I TOTALLY understand what happened to her.
Dr. Bob is a human who acts on his thoughts AND feelings. He runs this site, and makes all the rules. But, because he is writing rules regarding his opinion of something as nebulous as “civility”, the enforcement of the rules is not precise. Since he is human, he forms opinions of people, and those personal opinions DO impact the way he enforces the rules here. Yes, we all know there is favoritism. I have felt it myself when I was on the “good user” list. I’ve seen Bob let me and my friends get away with posts which others could not. And I surely didn’t complain about that.
But, over time….I have been moved to the “Bad User” list. This is probably related to my support of PsychCentral, and DocJohn. I know for sure that I am on the “Bad User” list, this because I no longer am protected here by Bob.
I issued a Do Not Post request to a user here. This user has now posted to me THREE times. I sent this information to Bob with all the url’s for him to view. Nothing happened. Imagine how that made me feel. Angry? Hurt? Unprotected?…definitely!
If someone on Bob’s “Bad User” list had posted to me after a DNP, he/she would have been at least PBC’d if not blocked. Imagine if Zen had done it, or if “so” had? The block would have come so fast, your head would spin.
See….this is how that version of Zen was born. When a woman who hates asking for help finally does reach out and ask, and she is ignored…it feels horribly degrading. Especially when this unfair treatment comes from a man. And most especially when the man is supporting another man who repeatedly broke the rules. Women who have been abused by men in the past are particularly sensitive to unfair treatment from men. It raises the hackles on our collective necks.
It made me VERY angry. I clearly felt “a new Zen is rising”! I understood exactly how her anger was built, and how it was encouraged by the actions, and inactions of Dr. Bob.
But, I can’t risk acting on that level of emotional energy. I wouldn’t live through it and survive as Zen has. I have to just tell myself that Babble is run by a human, not a computer. I will never expect fairness here. Until you’ve been on the bad list, you have idea what Babble is really like. You can’t live in the wealthiest neighborhoods your whole life, and really know the country you live in. You have to spend some time on the other side of the tracks, to know what a place is really like.
emmy
Posted by partlycloudy on June 12, 2005, at 10:18:22
In reply to How to build a Zen, posted by TofuEmmy on June 12, 2005, at 10:01:47
> But, over time….I have been moved to the “Bad User” list. This is probably related to my support of PsychCentral, and DocJohn. I know for sure that I am on the “Bad User” list, this because I no longer am protected here by Bob.
>
Emmy, you moved over to *my* Bad User list when you were mean and unsupportive towards me several times. Each time you apologized, saying that you can be bitchy sometimes. But when that behaviour continues - you hurt, you apologize, you hurt, you apologize... you move from being Good to Bad. I also noticed that you would post here mostly to make derisive comments about Babble and how it is run, rather than being supportive, with the exception of your posts on the Grief board. I find myself reading your posts because they are witty, but they are rarely without a barbed end.That has been my personal experience, at least.
partlycloudy
Posted by All Done on June 12, 2005, at 12:12:28
In reply to How to build a Zen, posted by TofuEmmy on June 12, 2005, at 10:01:47
(((((emmy)))))
I wish you weren't hurting so much. I wish there was more I could say or do to make you feel better.
Please take gentle care of yourself.
Laurie
Posted by Toph on June 12, 2005, at 14:10:54
In reply to How to build a Zen, posted by TofuEmmy on June 12, 2005, at 10:01:47
I do not speak for Zenhussy, only me. I hope that she is not an PB icon for incivility, only unfairness. No one like Zen should be blocked for 48 weeks. To say that someone is that dangerous is to ascribe way too much importance to this place, seriously. There has to be a better way than sumarily executing a person on a mental health support forum. I admit however that I wasn't there, so maybe she did commit a capitol crime as so convicted.
Perhaps one factor, em, is the "Howard Dean" effect. Establishments are uncomfortable with people who are so impassioned. These people become viewed as dangerous because of their intensity. Their image can be transformed from someone positive for this country or this site to someone bad after their excitable utterences are spun into some negative persona by others.
I hope you are wrong about the list thing. I would hope that if there is any catagorization, that it is with each individual post as either appropriate or not.
Posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 15:43:42
In reply to How to build a Zen, posted by TofuEmmy on June 12, 2005, at 10:01:47
I find it interesting that some people perceive that they are on a list of bad users. I hope I am not on a certain poster's do-not-post-to-me list. I can't always recall, but to err on the side of caution, I try to write most of my posts in the third person and about generalized topics, unless a person has specifically written in the second person to me, or included my name in the heading of their post.
I wonder if a person who believes they are on the administration's "bad user" list thinks they would be allowed to write to another member [you were mean to me]. I wonder if a person who writes such a statement but who is not out of favor with the administration will be allowed to make the statment with no response from the administraton. Which is to say, I wonder if all members, some members or no members are allowed to write statements that say another has been mean toward them.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 12, 2005, at 16:28:21
In reply to How to build a Zen, posted by TofuEmmy on June 12, 2005, at 10:01:47
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
You are right that Dr Bob is a person, not a machine.
And that the civility rules aren't purely mechanical, they require a decision by someone who can take context etc into account.I think that what I have noticed is that Dr Bob might go a little easier on posters who regularly post supportive posts to others. If they manage to navigate the boards and seem to be using them for their intended purpose and the poster seems to have got the hang of the civility rules then Dr Bob (and indeed, all of us) are more likely to be charitable when there is an ambiguity.
People who don't seem to have gotten into the spirit of it
Or people who do lash out
Seem to be treated less sympathetically.
I think I have noticed that too.But don't forget that Doc John and the moderators over there have to make decisions too.
I would say that they make their decisions on the same basis.
I have emailed Doc John repeatedly on an issue (my issue seems to be the 'hey - where did my thread go??? issue) and it was very time consuming indeed to attempt to extract a response or some sort of explanation out of him.I figure I would have been more likely to have got a response without having to 'prompt' so much if I had have been more known to the boards by having been there for longer and been more supportive to others.
Posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 16:49:30
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen » TofuEmmy, posted by alexandra_k on June 12, 2005, at 16:28:21
Some people might read more than write other to the other boards because they don't recognize a consitent standard by which they can contribute to other boards. For example, I don't know if I can write that government policies are "hypocritical" "pathetic" or "a joke". I would have plenty to write on the topic of a certain policy, pro and con, but feel uncertain writing about a policy that has been so described when I am not certain I can use similar language, or suspect that my status in the community might subject me to a different standard than that which governs my peers.
Posted by Phillipa on June 12, 2005, at 18:55:02
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen, posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 16:49:30
Who's Doc John? I must be missing something. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by TofuEmmy on June 12, 2005, at 19:11:16
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen » TofuEmmy, posted by alexandra_k on June 12, 2005, at 16:28:21
I would never say PsychCentral or DocJohn are perfect. However, if I were interested in discussing PC, I'd do it via PsychCentral, where those comments belong, not here. My post has nothing to do with PC. This thread is about Babble and Dr Bob. I have no intention of entering into another site comparison.
Additionally, I have been a fairly long term poster here with 1 block - which was due to my trying to raise money for another poster. I don't think my history here is indicative of one who deserves to be ignored. Do you?
emmy
Posted by JenStar on June 12, 2005, at 19:12:32
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen, posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 16:49:30
Try your proposed governmental post & see what happens. There's one easy way to find out!
Someone with such rigorous control over language as you present should surely be able to posit your beliefs in a manner which not only elucidates each premise in a clear (if somewhat verbiose) fashion but also avoids the appearance of any impropriety.
As to your earlier question about how to use sharp wit, consider your point and your sarcasm well taken, although I personally am not certain whether you were just trying to be funny & clever or whether you were trying to make fun of the person who wrote <snort.>
Can you clarify which it was?
JenStar
Posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 19:22:36
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen » so, posted by JenStar on June 12, 2005, at 19:12:32
> Try your proposed governmental post & see what happens. There's one easy way to find out!
If I were to learn that some people are allowed to make certain statements about government policies but that I am not allowed to make identical statements, or to make similar statements to the contrary about the same policies, it could have a detremental effect both on my mental health and on my ability to provide support and information at this forum.
> As to your earlier question about how to use sharp wit, consider your point and your sarcasm well taken, although I personally am not certain whether you were just trying to be funny & clever or whether you were trying to make fun of the person who wrote <snort.>
>
> Can you clarify which it was?It could be neither of the alternatives you present, but more likely a product of the articulate manner you described in which I try to avoid all appearance of or implication of impropriety while still holding open the capacity to understand other writing as witty if that is how it was intended. It was an effort to present a lack of clear understanding of the meaning and especially a failure to recognize which side of a debate was the object of apparently colloquial writing you describe as humor.
Posted by TofuEmmy on June 12, 2005, at 19:23:39
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen » TofuEmmy, posted by partlycloudy on June 12, 2005, at 10:18:22
I've done an extensive search via Google for the "many" times I have been mean and unsupportive to you or anyone. Unfortunately, what I found instead were pages of supportive and silly posts, with a handfull of "bitchy" ones. I found a post where I supported your efforts to quit drinking. I found one where I supported your first ever post on the Faith board, and came to your aid after someone criticized it.
I've been on Babble for a long time. I think I've been a compassionate poster fairly consistantly. I'm sorry that you see me as "bad" and mean. But, I don't think I'll be able to change your opinion. I have looked in Google for the facts, and from what I found, your post is not based on the facts, but on emotion. I can't change the way you feel about me.
I think we are more alike than not. We both will come to the aid of our friends, and fight for what we believe is right and just. I admire that in you, and wish you the best.
emmy
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 12, 2005, at 19:24:08
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen » so, posted by JenStar on June 12, 2005, at 19:12:32
>
> Someone with such rigorous control over language as you present should surely be able to posit your beliefs in a manner which not only elucidates each premise in a clear (if somewhat verbiose) fashion but also avoids the appearance of any impropriety.
>
Though my grasp of the language isn't nearly as good as So's, it's fairly good, and I find the rules very confusing. Just today I saw someone being thanked by Dr. Bob for telling a poster "She was a bit rough on" another poster. I agree with her, and I agree with her right to say it, but that statement could have easily earned someone else a block at a different time.
Consider Pax's year long block (with no preceding warning) just last week for saying "I think that's irresponsible of you guys" I really wanted to ask Dr. Bob for clarification, but didn't want to add any more fuel to the flames here.Sorry for being off Topic Emmy.
Posted by JenStar on June 12, 2005, at 20:11:56
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen, posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 19:22:36
so,
I apparently misinterpreted your statement about the <snort.> To me, it appeared that it could be possibly construed as a "stand up comedy" type of commuique, in which the author seizes a certain phrase or word from the audience and "riffs" on it to showcase a verbal skill and wit.Or it could possibly have been, I surmised, a veiled attack on another poster, an attack which at once denigrades the person being mocked and highlights the literary and grammatical skills of the mocker.
Obviously I feel relief that it was not choice b, as do, I'm sure, the other posters here. And I hope you feel nothing but pleasure that your consummate verbal skills elicit the implicit praise that would come from even assuming you MIGHT be engaging in choice a.
But something in your posting style leads me to surmise that you, in fact, might NOT be irrevocably harmed if posting rules appeared to apply to you in a way that differs from the application to other posters. Forgive me if I once again misinterpret, but it seems that you possess a certain mental fortitude which innoculates you against any such attempts.
In which ways would the support you mention be reduced?
J
Posted by JenStar on June 12, 2005, at 20:19:31
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen » JenStar, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 12, 2005, at 19:24:08
I don't think it's off topic. I agree, it is sometimes hard to tell when someone else will get a warning, a block, or nothing. However, I have a pretty good feel for MY posts -- what will get a warning. I think it's pretty hard to put all of the ins & outs into words. I think intent is factored in there too, as well as the words themselves. Do you have a "feel" for your own posts, or are you sometimes concerned about what you can & can't say with safety?
JenStar
Posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 20:55:41
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen » so, posted by JenStar on June 12, 2005, at 20:11:56
>Forgive me if I once again misinterpret, but it seems that you possess a certain mental fortitude which innoculates you against any such attempts.
Dialectic ability is not necessarily evidence of mental fortitude, and neither are absolute evidence of broad social skills. The risk to myself is that, if I apply an unusual amount of mental energy to a matter and am frustrated in my efforts, especially by something I don't understand, the energy doesn't always just dissipate -- the increased alertness can then turn toward another object or even in on myself in ways that might not be productive, possibly depending on other circumstances that might introduce other stressors in my life beyond what results from participating in this forum.
Your querry makes me wonder, though, if the administrator harbors a belief that I might be less susceptible to injury than some others might be.
> In which ways would the support you mention be reduced?
>
>
> JIf I were to post that opposition drug laws is "hypocritical" or "a joke" or even that the laws as they stand are "hypocritical" "pathetic" or "a joke" as a means of testing what is allowed without first asking, and were blocked from posting for a period of time as a result, I would not be able to provide support and information during that period of time. Perhaps the test you propose would best be administered by someone in the employ of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, who might have a deeper interest in discerning whether tolerance for the statements comprised a political position but who is not as interested in providing support for certain people whose views might not be the most popular in this forum, and who might be more directly effected by claims that their life's work is "hypocritical" or "a joke".
Posted by Jai Narayan on June 12, 2005, at 21:01:27
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen » Gabbi-x-2, posted by JenStar on June 12, 2005, at 20:19:31
I am on PC as well
I love babble for all the wonderful people and Dr. Bob.
He's intelligent and sensitive.
I like PC because I never get a PBC...
some of the threads go missing and locked down.each site has it's own way of trying to control people.
Dr. B approaches the person
Dr. J goes for the thread
each one wants people to feel welcomed and safe.
I guess the rule of the day is peace is the most important thing.I have noticed that each site has wonderful people on them.
now how to address the problem of people breaking the rules on each site.
Emmy should not be posted to if she has clearly stated that she did not want to be posted to.
What is wrong here?
why is that person on babble doing this to her?
I don't get it?
Emmy that must be irritating.
that does need to be addressed.I have found myself in conflict on the babble site and on PC site...people will be people.
it's no easier on either site.
conflict is a struggle.I guess that's my Zen of it.
J.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 12, 2005, at 21:21:00
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen » Gabbi-x-2, posted by JenStar on June 12, 2005, at 20:19:31
> I don't think it's off topic. I agree, it is sometimes hard to tell when someone else will get a warning, a block, or nothing. However, I have a pretty good feel for MY posts -- what will get a warning. I think it's pretty hard to put all of the ins & outs into words. I think intent is factored in there too, as well as the words themselves. Do you have a "feel" for your own posts, or are you sometimes concerned about what you can & can't say with safety?
>
Well I did have concern for sure. I was blocked once which baffled me, and a second time for something I thought was dicey but I'd patterned after someone who didn't get blocked. There was a while, about a year ago where I thought people were being treated very harshly and inconsistantly, and it did stop me from posting here for quite a while.
Fairly recently it seemed to have eased up, but that's nerve wracking to me too, because I wonder if the rules have changed, or if the axe could fall at any minute. After seeing someone get *thanked* for a post that would have had me blocked..and several uncivil posts go unchecked.. and then Pax's *block* (I wish we had italics here so I could quit using asterisks..)
yeah, I've lost pretty much any feel for what is okay besides the most banal.
The idea of being blocked doesn't really bother me, except if I think it's unfair, then it's the unfairness I dislike. If I were a new poster though I'd be extremely wary, when I was new, the thought of getting a P.B.C mortified me.
I respect someone who is very careful to find out what is okay before they post, It shows a desire to contribute within the boundaries, and that's not an easy thing to do on your own.
When I found it to unpredictable, I gave up.
Posted by JenStar on June 12, 2005, at 21:45:55
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen » JenStar, posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 20:55:41
Well, I doubt that we'll ever get any "open" DEA agents here! This just doesn't seem like the kind of forum in which they might choose to participate, no?
I think I must have completely missed the statements that included the words hypocrite and/or joke. It seems to really be a concern for you, because you keep mentioning it. Can you refer again to the initial post? I'd like to read it now. My interest is piqued after seeing you refer to it so many times!
Also, why don't you join us over on social from time to time? You seem interesting. Come chat for a while & don't worry about the rules so much!
JenStar
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 12, 2005, at 22:07:01
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen, posted by Jai Narayan on June 12, 2005, at 21:01:27
> Emmy should not be posted to if she has clearly stated that she did not want to be posted to.
> What is wrong here?
> Emmy that must be irritating.**It would be incredibly irritating, and to not have it addressed would only add to that.
Furthermore, any inferences that you (Emmy) or Zen would have been treated with more respect if you had been more supportive, or been here longer, offend *me*
Zen had been here since almost the beginning, she had many loyal friends, and I remember her going out of her way for me to find out information on a rare medication I was starting
when I couldn't, and I barely knew her.
She was blocked for 24 weeks for swearing.. for saying sh*t. There is no fairness in that.
Emmy, I've never seen you as mean, I've never even seen you as b*tchy (though I'll take your word for it ;) I remember you being funny, and supportive, but I never saw mean.
And I know you didn't mean your post to be a comparison of P.Central and Babble, it didn't cross my mind, and I'm confused as to why it came up at all.(((Emmy)))
Posted by TofuEmmy on June 12, 2005, at 22:15:09
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen--Emmy, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 12, 2005, at 22:07:01
Oh Gabbi! :-) You just don't know how much your post means to me. I needed one person to tell me that they don't think I am completely evil. Thank you!
(And thank you for telling me about Silky Underwear from Lush! It's great!)
Hugs, emmy
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 12, 2005, at 22:51:07
In reply to How to build a Zen, posted by TofuEmmy on June 12, 2005, at 10:01:47
> I issued a Do Not Post request to a user here. This user has now posted to me THREE times. I sent this information to Bob with all the url’s for him to view. Nothing happened. Imagine how that made me feel. Angry? Hurt? Unprotected?…definitely!
A critical factor in a Do Not Post request, for it to be binding, is that harassment is evident.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#harassed
Rules 1 and 2 *require* harassment. Holding differing opinions about third parties does not fit the definition for harassment. Nor does my failing to heed her requirement that I modify my behaviour towards a third party (not even on the Babble site). Defiance is not harassment. See the original "Do not post" request:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050330/msgs/478945.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050330/msgs/478960.htmlThe original request does not meet the harassment requirement. All that might flow from it, is moot. One person's discomfort ought not to become a burden placed on another. Disagreement alone is insufficient grounds.
I have tried (and failed) to do the honourable thing, out of respect, but this is receiving far too much attention, IMHO. I have apologized, repeatedly. I shall not let it happen again, notwithstanding the lack of regulatory support for the request.
Humbly,
Lar
Posted by Dinah on June 12, 2005, at 23:04:52
In reply to Re: How to follow the harassment policy, posted by Larry Hoover on June 12, 2005, at 22:51:07
I don't think Dr. Bob has required harassment to be present to uphold the do not post requirement. The only thing I remember him saying is that you can't DNP in response to a post that was to someone else entirely and didn't affect you, and I'm not even sure of that. It's just a vague recollection.
He seems to be allowing and upholding DNP requests in a broad range of circumstances.
Just fyi, and Dr. Bob will correct me (I'm sure) if I'm wrong.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 12, 2005, at 23:09:41
In reply to Re: How to follow the harassment policy » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on June 12, 2005, at 23:04:52
> I don't think Dr. Bob has required harassment to be present to uphold the do not post requirement.
I'm sure of that too, I've had one upheld that would not be considered to be legal harassment.
Though, I think what is considered harassment should be up to the person who issued the D.N.P.
Posted by TofuEmmy on June 12, 2005, at 23:25:00
In reply to Re: How to follow the harassment policy » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on June 12, 2005, at 23:04:52
If Larry had a problem with the DNP, he should have brought it up in April and stated that he is simply unwilling to abide by it. We could have hashed it out then with Dr. Bob.
I need, for my own mental health, to stop all contact from Larry. Is that not my perogative here? There is no Ignore button available. Isn't the DNP rule to protect us from posters we don't want contacting us? I am unable to respond in a civil fashion to Larry. So, the DNP prevents further disruption of the board.
If too much attention has been paid to this (in Larry's opinion) - had he not posted to me, there would be no such attention. If he would stop posting to me and/or about me, all the attention would disappear. Simple. I'd like that please.
emmy
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.