![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 2 to 26 of 49. Go back in thread:
Posted by Phillipa on June 10, 2005, at 18:56:39
In reply to Dr. Bob - Your feedback, please, posted by Minnie-Haha on June 10, 2005, at 14:24:55
Excellent research. I had noticed the same thing. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Maximus on June 10, 2005, at 23:26:11
In reply to Dr. Bob - Your feedback, please, posted by Minnie-Haha on June 10, 2005, at 14:24:55
I know you are also offended in seeing these astronomic numbers of requests. We can not even say a word on these requests without being kicked. C'est un monologue.
But by playing the same game as L** we can gain something positive.
Bye.
Posted by Sarah T. on June 11, 2005, at 1:14:00
In reply to Dr. Bob - Your feedback, please, posted by Minnie-Haha on June 10, 2005, at 14:24:55
> Dr. Hsuing:>
> If you believe this behavior is acceptable, could you please explain how it is “conducive to civic harmony and welfare” of the forum (or how it is not contrary)? Or how it supports or educates others on the forum? Or how it is in harmony with “the golden rule”? >> _________________________________________________
And are the posts to which Minnie-haha refers conducive to our mental HEALTH, or is allowing them here actually collaborating with, and strengthening, the pathology?
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 11, 2005, at 6:40:02
In reply to Re: Good work Minnie! » Minnie-Haha, posted by Maximus on June 10, 2005, at 23:26:11
> I know you are also offended in seeing these astronomic numbers of requests. We can not even say a word on these requests without being kicked. C'est un monologue.
>
> But by playing the same game as L** we can gain something positive.
>
> Bye.
Dr. Hsiung,
I am requesting that you write a determination as to the acceptability or not in relation to the guidlines of the forum for the following in the above post.
The poster writes,[...By playing the {same game} as L**...].
If the poster is referring to me, and I can not think of anyone else it could be that the poster is referring to and invite anyone to show that the poster in question is not me,I feel accused and put down when I read that statement. It is not my intention to play any type of game here. I believe that requesting from the adminitration a dertermination for acceptability or not is a function that all are invited by Dr. Hsiung to use here, and not playing a game.
Someeone here has made an endevor to list 11 posts of mine that are requests to the administration for a determination as to if a statement is acceptable or not. The express function of the administrtive board is for those type of requests to the administration and if the determination is given by the administration, then is not a positive thing accomplished because we could have more infomation as to what is acceptable here or not?
In the above it is written,[...I know you are offended by seeing these{astronomical numbers}...[...can not say...without {being kicked}...]. Is it a sound mental health practice to allow a statement like the above ? It is not my intention to "kick" anyone here.
Lou Pilder
Posted by partlycloudy on June 11, 2005, at 8:28:22
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-~plygam-kick » Maximus, posted by Lou Pilder on June 11, 2005, at 6:40:02
Lou, I believe that a large part of the original poster's frustration is that you ask Dr Bob for determinations on the appropriateness of others' posts, rather than you engaging a discussion with the posters directly.
The fact that you choose to bypass discussion of the posts with the sources of them, and instead go directly to Dr Bob for his opinion on whether or not they are within the guidelines of this forum, is reason enough for some (such as myself) to be offended.Do you understand that by not engaging with other posters directly here as to how you personally feel about their posts that you might be alienating them yourself, and in doing so you might be acting in an unsupportive way here? If instead of asking Dr Bob for aa deliberation, you could perhaps reply to a person's post by saying, for example, "I am not sure what you meant by <insert questionable part of post here>. Could you please clarify what you mean?"
I'm trying to help here, Lou. I can see that you are looking for consistency in the application of civility guidelines. I just wanted to point out that you might find it more beneficial to engage with individual posters themselves, rather than deferring to Dr Bob for his decision on the posts in question.
thanks for reading, Lou.
partlycloudy
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 11, 2005, at 12:16:49
In reply to Re: Good work Minnie! » Minnie-Haha, posted by Maximus on June 10, 2005, at 23:26:11
> I respectfully request that you write a determination as to whether or not these posts, together in quality and quantity, are acceptable in relation to the guidelines of the forum.
>
> Minnie-HahaThe guidelines may be changing, see:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/511006.html
> by playing the same game ... we can gain something positive.
>
> MaximusAnd what might that be?
Bob
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 11, 2005, at 14:04:25
In reply to Re: the guidelines, posted by Dr. Bob on June 11, 2005, at 12:16:49
> > I respectfully request that you write a determination as to whether or not these posts, together in quality and quantity, are acceptable in relation to the guidelines of the forum.
> >
> > Minnie-Haha
>
> The guidelines may be changing, see:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/511006.htmlThank you, doctor, for considering it. My reply to your linked post is at http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/511053.html
Posted by Toph on June 12, 2005, at 8:16:40
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob - Your feedback, please » Minnie-Haha, posted by Sarah T. on June 11, 2005, at 1:14:00
> And are the posts to which Minnie-haha refers conducive to our mental HEALTH, or is allowing them here actually collaborating with, and strengthening, the pathology?
>When a poster has a compulsion to directly express a need to hurt someone else this sort of pathology is rarely tolerated by the guidelines of this forum. There are other pathologies whose manifestations are also not condusive for a supportive site such as this one. It strikes me as ironic that one pathology which would manifest itself by repeated objectionable posts that would have to be tolerated would be a pathology in which a poster would have an obsession to be Bob.
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 12, 2005, at 9:14:35
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob , please » Sarah T., posted by Toph on June 12, 2005, at 8:16:40
Friends,
I am requesting that you consider the following when you post to this thread.
A. Whose posts is Minnie referring to?
B. Are they mine? If not could you show that the poster in question here is not me?
C. If so, is the other post about my posts and thearfore me?
D. Would you want to endorse what could be meant about ,if it is me, or anyone else, in this thread?
E. Do you think that there is a person that is referred to in this, as to possibly be me, thread that {has a compulsion to...express a need to hurt someone else...]?
F.In the statement,[...have an obsession to be Bob...], would you want to endorse that statement being if the person is me or even someone else?
G. In the statement,[...repeated objectionable posts...], would you want to endorse that being a reference to me or even someone else?
H. Even if the statements are not about me, and anyone is invited to show that the person is not me, would you want to endorse these statements if they had the potential to arrouse ill-will toward me or anyone else?
Lou
Posted by Toph on June 12, 2005, at 9:45:22
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on June 12, 2005, at 9:14:35
Posted by Racer on June 12, 2005, at 13:41:46
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on June 12, 2005, at 9:14:35
> Friends,
> I am requesting that you consider the following when you post to this thread.
> A. Whose posts is Minnie referring to?
> B. Are they mine? If not could you show that the poster in question here is not me?
> C. If so, is the other post about my posts and thearfore me?
> D. Would you want to endorse what could be meant about ,if it is me, or anyone else, in this thread?
> E. Do you think that there is a person that is referred to in this, as to possibly be me, thread that {has a compulsion to...express a need to hurt someone else...]?
> F.In the statement,[...have an obsession to be Bob...], would you want to endorse that statement being if the person is me or even someone else?
> G. In the statement,[...repeated objectionable posts...], would you want to endorse that being a reference to me or even someone else?
> H. Even if the statements are not about me, and anyone is invited to show that the person is not me, would you want to endorse these statements if they had the potential to arrouse ill-will toward me or anyone else?
> Lou
>
Lou, I wonder if you could take a look at your point from another perspective? I'm not suggesting that your perspective is wrong, only that there are other perspectives which you may not have considered. Please do not take this suggestion as criticism -- I'm only trying to show you what it looks like from over here where I sit.While I hardly ever read the Admin board, when I do come over here, I see multiple threads where you've asked Dr Bob for a "determination" regarding whether or not something was appropriate, or within the civility guidelines of this site. In virtually every case, there are a large number of responses to your post -- and it seems as though many of those responses state that another poster's feelings were hurt by your post. In other words, by your own voluntary actions, others have been experienced hurt feelings.
Admittedly, I have not read every post that you've brought over here, but those that I have read seem mostly to have beenwritten in good faith, with no intention to hurt someone else. In some cases, maybe someone just doesn't have great communication skills, or hasn't thought through all the possible interpretations that could be made from their words. Yes, there are some people who come to this site only to stir up trouble, or a very small number of people here who have taken a dislike to one or another member and will snipe a bit. Dr Bob seems to catch most of those posters, though, and deal with them accordingly.
After coming to these boards for the past seven years, I'd say that most everyone here -- despite mental illness, which we share in common -- is well-meaning, and mostly we all get along. Sure, there are exceptions, but mostly this is a pretty good crowd, wouldn't you say?
Going back to what you wrote, though, in your post, can you clarify something? You ask in several places whether or not we would endorse the statements made in previous posts in this thread if those statements referred to you. Yes, you did ask if we would endorse those statements even if they didn't refer to you, but the basic idea that I got from it is that you were concerned about how we might view uncomplimentary statements about you. My question is this: if those statements are about something you wrote, and you feel justified in what you wrote -- even if someone else's feelings were hurt by it -- does it really matter how anyone else feels? Isn't there some measure of personal responsibility on your side, for writing the posts in question in the first place?
Lou, I don't know you, nor even really "know" you in board terms, but your post here seems from my reading to neglect the aspect of personal responsibility. I've just written a bit more than I meant to, and I do apologize if your feelings were hurt by it. That truly was not my intention. I was just hoping to offer a little of my own perspective to you, for your consideration.
Peace.
Posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 14:10:48
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on June 12, 2005, at 9:14:35
Lou,
I know and I trust you know that the diagnosis of pathology requires medical testing. Diagnostic activities outside a clinical setting, without clinical tests, by a person who lacks clinical training in that area and especially without reference to a standard table of recognized pathologies fails to meet standards of appropriate medical care. You might also recall that psuediagnostic interventions have been used by certain governments to limit activities that were widely recognized by human rights groups as purely political, social, cultural or spiritual activities.
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 12, 2005, at 14:36:59
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on June 12, 2005, at 13:41:46
Friends,
I am requesting that you read the following post before responding in this thread.
The poster writes in particular, but not linmited to,[...I can see that the issues being discussed arn't about the particular post that is being...- but about the question of consistancy and fairness and how decisions are made and how people can know what the rules are...]
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050610/msgs/511442.html
Posted by fallsfall on June 12, 2005, at 19:33:59
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-lgtofrson, posted by Lou Pilder on June 12, 2005, at 14:36:59
Hi Lou,
I know that I have a lot of confusion, myself, about what is "civil" and what is "uncivil". So far, I have managed to remain civil in my posts here on Babble (at least I haven't gotten a PBC). So I guess, that in some sense, I do understand the difference. There have been some times when I have wanted to say certain things, and I haven't said them because I thought they would be uncivil. But if you asked me to define what makes a post civil or uncivil, I really don't know. I am frequently surprised by Dr. Bob's rulings. I know that I could never be a deputy at Babble because I *know* that I don't have a clear enough idea about civility.
I am also a person who is mortified if I am wrong, or "bad". I go to great lengths to make sure that I follow all of the laws and rules, and I want everyone else to follow the rules, too. My daughter, when she was 4, was telling her Nursery School friends not to run in the hall, and I could tell that she got that from me. My therapist is trying to get me to see that I can break a rule or law and not be a "bad" person as a result. I'm trying to grasp the idea that I can make a mistake and go on, but it is hard for me to do that.
When I read your posts requesting that Dr. Bob review a post, I wonder if you don't feel the same kinds of things that I do. I could see myself writing those posts because I might want to post on Babble, but not understanding the rules, I might be afraid to do so. Is your purpose in posting these questions to figure out what the rules are? So that you will know if you are going to break them? Are you taking examples of things that confuse you and asking for rulings so that you will be able to understand what the rules are?
I'm trying to understand what you are trying to accomplish by asking the questions that you do. Of course, you may be nothing like me and your motivations may be very different from what I describe. If that is the case, I am interested in understanding what *your* goal is.
Falls.
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 13, 2005, at 11:18:37
In reply to Goals » Lou Pilder, posted by fallsfall on June 12, 2005, at 19:33:59
fallsfall,
You wrote about the rules here and the relation to my requests for a determination to be written by Dr. Hsiung for statements written here.
One of the reasons that you propose for my postings could be in a sense correct. But there are other much greater issues here that may be unbeknowing to you.
I suggest that in order for these issues to be better known to you that you explore the archives to find my posts related to the folllowing and what other posters wrote and how the posts were handled by the administration and whattheadministration writes . A. posts that IMO have the potential to arrouse anti semitic feelings
B. Posts that IMO have the potential to arrouse ill-will toward me
C. posts that IMO have the potential to promulgate antsemitic idealologies
D. the opening page of the faith board in respect to the links as to guidlines and exceptions and the conversations there concerning me.
E. Those conversations and Dr. Hsiungs statements in particular , but not lmited to the following which are like:
1. [...if the foundation of a faith puts down those of other faiths...it is not supportive...take it elseware...]
2.[..I do what my thinking says will be good for the community as a whole...]
F. posts that IMO could have the potential to indicate that there are two standards here.
G. Posts that IMO have the potential to have the potential for some others to think that the system of moderation here could be classified as having the potential to be classified as:
1. predator moderating
2. abusive moderating
3. discriminatory moderating
4. caprecious moderating
5. arbitrary moderating
6. moderating that could be below the standard alllowed by the U.S. Constitution and the constitution of Great Britian, Canada, France and other countries.
7. moderating that is not supportive
8. moderating that restricts the posting of what could be educational to the members of the forum
9. indifferent moderating
Lou
Posted by fallsfall on June 13, 2005, at 12:57:02
In reply to Lou's reply to fallsfall » fallsfall, posted by Lou Pilder on June 13, 2005, at 11:18:37
I am not interested in taking sides.
My question was whether you are trying to understand the rules, or to change them. From your response, I now think that you are trying to change them.
If you were simply trying to understand them, I think that there could be more effective ways to do that.
But since you are trying to change them, the ideas that I had are not applicable. Though I would wonder if you think that your current strategy is accomplishing your goals, or if you might want to consider other strategies that might be as effective or more effective but might reduce the controversy that I see on the board.
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 13, 2005, at 13:47:52
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to fallsfall » Lou Pilder, posted by fallsfall on June 13, 2005, at 12:57:02
fallsfall,
You wrote,[...whether trying to understand the rules or change them...]
Could ther not be another possibility?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 13, 2005, at 13:57:19
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to fallsfall » Lou Pilder, posted by fallsfall on June 13, 2005, at 12:57:02
fallsfall,
You wrote,[...reduce the controversy...]
Are you saying that you want the controversy reduced? If so, could you clarify why you would want controversy to be reduced?
Lou
Posted by fallsfall on June 13, 2005, at 19:36:08
In reply to Lou's reply to fallsfall-ethror » fallsfall, posted by Lou Pilder on June 13, 2005, at 13:47:52
What *IS* your goal?
Posted by fallsfall on June 13, 2005, at 19:41:12
In reply to Lou's reply to fallsfall-reducontro » fallsfall, posted by Lou Pilder on June 13, 2005, at 13:57:19
Lou,
I see posts on this board that make me think that people are upset and hurt as a byproduct of your posts (that is what I mean by "controversy"). Do you want people to be hurt? I don't.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2005, at 0:11:37
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob , please » Sarah T., posted by Toph on June 12, 2005, at 8:16:40
> a pathology in which a poster would have an obsession to be Bob.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
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 should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Toph on June 14, 2005, at 9:43:54
In reply to Re: please be civil » Toph, posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2005, at 0:11:37
I fear that if I copy the original post then i am being uncivil again. I don't know the proper form so if I am not allowed to refer to the post to which you objected I am sorry.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/511391.html
Bob, my statement is a hypotetical. A speculation that a policing pathology would have to be tolerated here. Is it uncivil to pose such a hypothesis for others to consider?
Toph
Posted by Dinah on June 14, 2005, at 9:48:05
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on June 14, 2005, at 9:43:54
I'm guessing it would depend on context. I think you have to take care in hypotheticals because it's hard to make your point while remaining truly hypothetical.
Posted by Dinah on June 14, 2005, at 9:48:28
In reply to Re: please be civil » Toph, posted by Dinah on June 14, 2005, at 9:48:05
Posted by Toph on June 14, 2005, at 12:42:29
In reply to Re: please be civil » Toph, posted by Dinah on June 14, 2005, at 9:48:05
I don't know if I expressed myself well, Dinah, but what I meant to say was hypervigilant policing is expected of an administrator, but how could something that is alright for the administrator be managed IF performed by a poster in a way viewed as objectionable to the community? This is an administration question, generally framed, IMO not uncivil, and highly relevant to this board and this context.
Toph
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.