![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 34 to 58 of 197. Go back in thread:
Posted by partlycloudy on June 13, 2005, at 5:48:25
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen » partlycloudy, posted by TofuEmmy on June 12, 2005, at 19:23:39
Regarding your search for how I've been treated by you in the past, Emmy:
I've had emails, babblemails, and communication from you on Psych Central that were equally as hurtful as the few that you turned up here - and none of these would have shown up on your extensive google search. I'm saying this just to point out that I've been treated consistently - not only at this forum via posting, but in all our communications. It has taken me a long time to be able to stand up for myself. I haven't been successful at doing so without hurting you in kind, and for that I am truly sorry.Also, FWIW, I never said that you're evil. I have only used your own words to describe yourself. I do lash out when I'm upset, and that has earned me many PBC's here, which I've deserved.
I agree that we are alike in many ways. I wish that you would post on more boards here (like Substance and Books). I hope that we can go forward on a more even footing and help each other.
pc
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 13, 2005, at 7:33:32
In reply to Re: How to follow the harassment policy » Larry Hoover, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 12, 2005, at 23:31:50
> >
> > A critical factor in a Do Not Post request, for it to be binding, is that harassment is evident.
>
> Different Link..
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050517/msgs/504152.html> One person's discomfort ought not to become a burden placed on another.
>
> ***I'm astonished by that comment, and I hope I've misunderstood.Allow me to rephrase. Person A should not suffer a block merely because person B is in high dudgeon.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 13, 2005, at 7:46:18
In reply to Re: How to follow the harassment policy » Dinah, posted by TofuEmmy on June 12, 2005, at 23:25:00
> 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.
There is a mis-statement of the events. I am willing to abide by the DNP request, and I have apologized profusely for: a) misunderstanding the application of the "rescinding by posting to" part of the rule (applying to the first two of the three posts in question); and b) not remembering that the DNP was in effect from months ago. Instead, I remembered the friendly banter we had enjoyed for years. I'm sorry that is no longer possible.
> 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.
Nor is there a list of DNPs in effect, so that posters such as myself, with fallible memories, can refresh their recall. Despite any impression I might give to the contrary, my recall is about as poor as anyone can imagine. I would argue for an expiry date on DNPs, or, a list that can be referred to.
> Isn't the DNP rule to protect us from posters we don't want contacting us?
I do believe that there is an alternative, as every post is signed.
> I am unable to respond in a civil fashion to Larry. So, the DNP prevents further disruption of the board.
I'm sorry.
> 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.
I am countering an argument about the process failing, with another argument that the process is in fact moot. I did not raise the issues in this thread.
> If he would stop posting to me and/or about me, all the attention would disappear. Simple. I'd like that please.
>
> emmyFine. I shan't forget.
Lar
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 13, 2005, at 7:52:34
In reply to Re: How to follow the harassment policy » Gabbi-x-2, posted by Larry Hoover on June 13, 2005, at 7:33:32
> Allow me to rephrase. Person A should not suffer a block
Merely because person B is in high dudgeon?Oh, that's all there was to it was there?
Please don't post to me Lar.
Posted by Dinah on June 13, 2005, at 7:56:24
In reply to Re: How to follow the harassment policy, posted by Larry Hoover on June 13, 2005, at 7:46:18
Dinah here, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob.
Please do not directly reply to those who have asked you not to post to them. Direct replies do not require the checking of the "previous poster" box.
Dr. Bob, is of course, the final arbiter of rules, and you should contact him about any questions you might have, or to override any deputy decisions.
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 13, 2005, at 8:25:08
In reply to Please honor Do Not Post Requests » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on June 13, 2005, at 7:56:24
> Dinah here, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob.
>
> Please do not directly reply to those who have asked you not to post to them. Direct replies do not require the checking of the "previous poster" box.
>
> Dr. Bob, is of course, the final arbiter of rules, and you should contact him about any questions you might have, or to override any deputy decisions.I really don't understand things, then. From the FAQ: "Replying to posts by someone isn't necessarily posting to them."
I'm totally confused. My voice in this counts for something. I answered impersonally, I believed.
The other poster directly mentions me, by name, and action. If I have violated this concept, has not she exceeded that threshold, and thereby rescinded, a priori? Which renders my "violation" moot?
This is a Gordian knot.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 13, 2005, at 8:28:38
In reply to Please honor Do Not Post Requests » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on June 13, 2005, at 7:56:24
Forget it. I resign. Goodbye.
Posted by Dinah on June 13, 2005, at 9:23:44
In reply to Re: Please honor Do Not Post Requests » Dinah, posted by Larry Hoover on June 13, 2005, at 8:25:08
To me, the difference was the use of the word "you" in the body of the post, in a context where you seemed to be addressing a comment to Emmy. The only thing that was different was that the box "add name of previous poster" was not checked.
Speaking of people in the third person would appear to be within the guidelines, by my understanding. Admittedly, I have always found it to be a rather limited rule. Because, by my understanding, if you were to address a post to Dr. Bob or the board at large and express regret at causing the issuer of the DNP any distress you would be fine. If you were to comment to the board or to Dr. Bob about the content of the post without mentioning the poster, that would be fine. But if you address the issuer of the DNP directly, it isn't.
Dr. Bob may well disagree and rescind my action. You can email him if you like.
Posted by Dinah on June 13, 2005, at 9:24:32
In reply to Explanation » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on June 13, 2005, at 9:23:44
I also regret if you are distressed by this.
Posted by TofuEmmy on June 13, 2005, at 9:55:01
In reply to To TofuEmmy, posted by partlycloudy on June 13, 2005, at 5:48:25
I'm still so stunned at the depth of your dislike for me. I have now searched PsychCentral and can't find a single mean post from me to you. Just the opposite in fact - I see me welcoming you in June,and more friendly banter in August. You posted something sad about an experience on a boat, and I posted "Wish I could tuck you under my wings and keep you safe and warm today hon." I really looked hard for me being mean to you or any Babbler, and I didn't find anything.
Even in March of this year, you were friendly to me there on the substance abuse.So, it seems to have started in April during the April Fools fiasco. I think we can both agree that we weren't at our best then eh?
I am sure I've not babblemailed after that...I don't recall doing it during that either, but I could be wrong. And I couldn't have PM'd you at PsychCentral since you don't go to PsychCentral now.
So, I really truely think your memory of me is faulty, or you are confusing me with someone else on PsychCentral. I am NOT a saint, but I don't go around sending mean private emails to people, and then act nicely to them on the boards. Honestly PC, I have never understood why you dislike me so strongly. I think it's most about protecting Babble, and your friend Larry. Just as I do for Zen. I don't see why either any of that should stand between two women being friends.
emmy
Posted by partlycloudy on June 13, 2005, at 12:17:31
In reply to Re: To TofuEmmy » partlycloudy, posted by TofuEmmy on June 13, 2005, at 9:55:01
This issue has nothing to do with anyone except me and you, Emmy - and my pain is very real. You may be stunned at the depth of hurt that I am telling you about but that's only because I am finally able to express it instead of keeping it inside.
That hurt is based on MY experiences, and how I feel about them. That you won't even respect that about me says it all. I'm afraid I can't discuss this any further with you.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 13, 2005, at 13:30:50
In reply to Re: How to follow the harassment policy » Larry Hoover, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 13, 2005, at 7:52:34
I rescind My DNP to Lar, it was a 5 in the morning over-reaction.
Posted by TofuEmmy on June 13, 2005, at 14:17:21
In reply to Re: To TofuEmmy » TofuEmmy, posted by partlycloudy on June 13, 2005, at 12:17:31
You have publically accused me of repeatedly being mean, at Babble, and then at PsychCentral. I was simply trying to understand that by researching it and publically explaining what I found. I think that's only fair, don't you?
Of course you have a right to feel however you want about me. I was honestly trying to understand by seeing it for myself since I didn't remember being mean to you(except regarding the 4/1 thing).
But, I don't think you have a right to break the rules of civility here by calling me "mean", and my posts "barbed". That really hurt.
I am still at a loss to understand your feelings, as I don't return them. But you surely have a right to them.
em
Posted by partlycloudy on June 13, 2005, at 15:16:02
In reply to Re: To TofuEmmy » partlycloudy, posted by TofuEmmy on June 13, 2005, at 14:17:21
> I am still at a loss to understand your feelings, as I don't return them. But you surely have a right to them.
>
Thank you for that.
Posted by Phillipa on June 13, 2005, at 17:30:19
In reply to Re: To TofuEmmy » partlycloudy, posted by TofuEmmy on June 13, 2005, at 14:17:21
Darn! I never knew so many people were having problems with each other. Can't everyone be friends? Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by KaraS on June 13, 2005, at 20:04:48
In reply to Please honor Do Not Post Requests » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on June 13, 2005, at 7:56:24
> Dinah here, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob.
>
> Please do not directly reply to those who have asked you not to post to them. Direct replies do not require the checking of the "previous poster" box.
>
> Dr. Bob, is of course, the final arbiter of rules, and you should contact him about any questions you might have, or to override any deputy decisions.
>
>
I'm really confused. This has probably come up before so I apologize in advance for asking this question again. Also, I'm not trying to take sides here - merely asking for a clarification of the rules.I understand people being upset about being posted to from someone they've given a DNP. But when the person issuing the DNP puts forth their view of events and mentions the recipient of the DNP by name, how can the recipient defend him or herself without replying to that post directly? Is it a matter of couching the language so carefully that "you" is never mentioned and the previous poster's name isn't checked off when submitting the post? If so, that's really fooling no one. But if that is not allowed, then how can the recipient give their side of events? Certainly they ought to have that right. There just doesn't seem to be a solution here that is fair for both sides. Or am I missing something?
K
Posted by Jai Narayan on June 13, 2005, at 20:54:21
In reply to Re: How to follow the harassment policy » Larry Hoover, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 13, 2005, at 7:52:34
a sharp inhale...
I waited...
and then on the down beat the exhale...
you are so awesome...
Jai
Posted by chemist on June 13, 2005, at 21:23:59
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen--Emmy » Gabbi-x-2, posted by TofuEmmy on June 12, 2005, at 22:15:09
> 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, emmyhow about two? you know i prefer to rely upon my own excellent memory for things like this, but i went to the archives to find:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050116/msgs/445129.html
where, although later i am determined (accurately, i will add) to be ``a pain in the (insert politically correct comment here),'' i am again pardoned by autie tofu and, most importantly, am lauded for having ``nice thighs.'' enough said. yours, c
Posted by TofuEmmy on June 13, 2005, at 22:05:25
In reply to Re: Better late than never? » TofuEmmy, posted by All Done on June 13, 2005, at 0:37:52
Thank you for your kind words...I do appreciate them, and I appreciate our friendship. You've been a strong support to me despite my best efforts to "go Garbo" on everyone! :-)
Regarding the Silky Underwear bath powder...the idea is to wear the powder INSTEAD of underwear! Where is the blushing emoticon when I need him? Gabbi is such a hottie.
em
Posted by TofuEmmy on June 13, 2005, at 22:06:54
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen--Emmy » TofuEmmy, posted by chemist on June 13, 2005, at 21:23:59
And speaking of hotties....
I have in on good authority about you having great thighs. You used to tell us all the time! :-P
Thanks old buddy
Auntie
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2005, at 2:35:16
In reply to Re: How to follow the harassment policy, posted by Larry Hoover on June 13, 2005, at 7:46:18
> > I am unable to respond in a civil fashion to Larry. So, the DNP prevents further disruption of the board.
>
> I'm sorry.
>
> > If he would stop posting to me and/or about me, all the attention would disappear. Simple. I'd like that please.
>
> Fine. I shan't forget.Sorry, but she asked you not to post to her, and I think I need to consider the above to have been posted to her. IMO, her post was about you, but not to you. The last time you were blocked it was for 6 weeks, and I'm going to make it for another 6 weeks this time.
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 June 14, 2005, at 2:35:34
In reply to Re: To TofuEmmy » TofuEmmy, posted by partlycloudy on June 13, 2005, at 12:17:31
> That you won't even respect that about me says it all.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. Sorry, but I've asked you to be civil before, so now I'm going to block you from posting for a week.
Bob
Posted by Bobby on June 14, 2005, at 7:47:12
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » Larry Hoover, posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2005, at 2:35:16
Admin can be tricky.
Posted by TamaraJ on June 14, 2005, at 9:45:37
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » Larry Hoover, posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2005, at 2:35:16
Dr. Bob, Larry's block is nothing short of a miscarriage of justice, resulting from the civility rules being applied in a strictly black and white fashion. Sometimes, the gray areas need to be taken into consideration, and, in this case, there were gray areas IMO. There were, I believe, extenuating circustances, and, had those circumstances not been present, I believe that Larry would not have had to post to an individual who had issued a DNP request. It is unfair to expect someone who is being "discussed" in a post, not to want to respond and explain their actions. And, for that matter, the individual who was discussing the person could have, I think, done so in a babblemail. As a matter of fact, discussing an individual in a post, without directing the post to that individual, is, IMO, a convient way of circumventing the reciprocal DNP rule. That should have been taken into consideration before a block was issued.
You got it wrong this time, Dr. Bob. Sorry, but this type of blocking only serves to fuel bad feelings and put posters, both new and old, on edge and cause them to, perhaps, limit their posting and participation.
Tamara
Posted by AuntieMel on June 14, 2005, at 10:00:05
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen--Emmy » TofuEmmy, posted by chemist on June 13, 2005, at 21:23:59
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.