![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 49 to 73 of 197. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by fayeroe on June 14, 2005, at 10:40:02
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks - Miscarriage of Justice!! » Dr. Bob, posted by TamaraJ on June 14, 2005, at 9:45:37
of course it is a miscarriage of justice...Dr. Bob has it in for Larry and has for as long as i can remember....
Posted by fayeroe on June 14, 2005, at 11:37:56
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks - Miscarriage of Justice!! » TamaraJ, posted by fayeroe on June 14, 2005, at 10:40:02
> of course it is a miscarriage of justice...Dr. Bob has it in for Larry and has for as long as i can remember....>
i would like to qualify my message concerning Larry's block. there are several people here who receive harsher punishments than others. he is ONE of them.
Posted by Phillipa on June 14, 2005, at 12:20:57
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks - Miscarriage of Justice!!, posted by fayeroe on June 14, 2005, at 11:37:56
What! Larry is blocked! I guess I need to visit more Boards. I know he is the expert on Alternative and is PBabble. But I have no idea about the dynamics on was it the Social Board? Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by jay on June 14, 2005, at 14:56:04
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » Larry Hoover, posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2005, at 2:35:16
> > > 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,
>
> BobOutrage! Bob, a poster SHOULD be allowed to defend themselves! It is a democratic RIGHT! C'mon..please play fair!
Jay
Posted by jay on June 14, 2005, at 15:02:04
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks - Miscarriage of Justice!!, posted by fayeroe on June 14, 2005, at 11:37:56
> > of course it is a miscarriage of justice...Dr. Bob has it in for Larry and has for as long as i can remember....>
>
> i would like to qualify my message concerning Larry's block. there are several people here who receive harsher punishments than others. he is ONE of them.
>
>Exactly! Lar had a right to defend himself, and I imagine Lar feels put down by Bob's actions because it was purely *unfair*. Bob, do you not think you should follow the guidelines of this site, and consider blocking yourself for your actions??
Jay
Posted by jay on June 14, 2005, at 15:09:31
In reply to Re: To TofuEmmy » partlycloudy, posted by TofuEmmy on June 13, 2005, at 9:55:01
> 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.
>
> emmyEmmy...you are making accusations when it seems like PC was trying very hard to keep things civil and positive between you both. That is the way I see it, anyways.
Jay
Posted by jay on June 14, 2005, at 16:13:34
In reply to How to build a Zen, posted by TofuEmmy on June 12, 2005, at 10:01:47
> 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.
>I feel quite put down in your assumption of one man being like all men. I believe it is sexist, and if I where a man saying that about woman, I would be stompped upon. Dr. Bob I am asking you to look into this, and provide a response. Thank you,
Jay
Posted by alexandra_k on June 14, 2005, at 16:16:03
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen..Dr. Bob...please review.., posted by jay on June 14, 2005, at 16:13:34
I'm sorry you got blocked.
But... You did post to her before when she had requested you not to, and now here again, so I guess I this as the fairly predictable consequence of that.
On the upside, your block didn't double.
Hope you are doing ok.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 14, 2005, at 16:58:40
In reply to Re: How to build a Zen..Dr. Bob...please review.., posted by jay on June 14, 2005, at 16:13:34
> > 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.
> >
>
> I feel quite put down in your assumption of one man being like all men. I believe it is sexist, and if I where a man saying that about woman, I would be stompped upon. Dr. Bob I am asking you to look into this, and provide a response. Thank you,
>
> JayWhere in that post is it insinuated or assumed that one man is like all men?
I fail to see that. I fail to see the sexism.
To me it's no different than a man saying "a man who was abused by his mother in the past is likely to be sensitive to any similar treatment by a women"
I don't believe any man would be "stomped" on for making that statement.
Posted by KaraS on June 14, 2005, at 17:03:42
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » Larry Hoover, posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2005, at 2:35:16
UNBELIEVABLE!!!!
Dr. Bob, this is one of the worst calls you've ever made. (The only one that was worse was that poor poster who was quickly given another year of a block for saying that someone was being irresponsible in promoting illegal drug use. That unlucky poster wasn't even given a PBC.)
Larry had a right to defend himself. Emmy posted her side of things and he should have had the right to give his side as well. He did nothing that Alex hasn't done recently to Gabbi - yet she didn't receive a block. I don't think she even got a PBC. In her case, I don't recall there being a post she needed to respond to in order to give her side of things as in this case either.
The longer I'm here the more I understand the anger about your administration of the rules. They are just not applied fairly.K
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 14, 2005, at 17:15:33
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by KaraS on June 14, 2005, at 17:03:42
> UNBELIEVABLE!!!!
>
> Larry had a right to defend himself. Emmy posted her side of things and he should have had the right to give his side as well. He did nothing that Alex hasn't done recently to Gabbi - yet she didn't receive a block.
I don't think she even got a PBC. In her case, I don't recall there being a post she needed to respond to in order to give her side of things as in this case either.I really appreciate you noticing that, I certainly did. And though I'm all for respecting the D.N.P's I think 6 weeks is unnecessary and cruel.
That, and the fact that my situation was ignored makes me unspeakably angry.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 14, 2005, at 17:44:29
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by KaraS on June 14, 2005, at 17:03:42
> He did nothing that Alex hasn't done recently to Gabbi - yet she didn't receive a block. I don't think she even got a PBC. In her case, I don't recall there being a post she needed to respond to in order to give her side of things as in this case either.
I didn't address or direct a post to her after she requested me not to.
That is the crucial difference far as I can see.
A while ago someone said quite a lot of stuff to me and then ended the post with a 'please do not post to me' request.
I replied.
I got a PBC.
A while later Dr Bob checked the boards and not realising the PBC was for that post - he blocked me.
2nd infraction - blocking.
Larry has posted to Emmy a couple times since her 'do not post to me request'.
I'm sorry Larry, but what did you expect???
You can respond in general terms.
To anyone who is following the thread.
'Do not post to me' requests are fairly worthless given that you can respond in general terms.
But people do insist on handing them out...
And...
People will get blocked if they continue to address posts to people who have requested they not do that.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 14, 2005, at 17:55:37
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » KaraS, posted by alexandra_k on June 14, 2005, at 17:44:29
Sometimes A requests B not post to them because A doesn't want B to post about a certain issue anymore.
So what is B to do???
The fact that A doesn't want B to talk about an issue is a factor, yes.
But should B have to drop an issue because A doesn't want B to talk about it anymore?I don't think so.
Especially if B isn't being uncivil.
A can always stop reading.
Secure in the knowledge that B isn't adressing posts to them.
B can't make A continue to read.So...
Should A stop reading
Or should B have to shut up?All I know...
Is that those kind of requests tend to produce a 'f*ck that I'll continue just to spite you' kind of response.
I'm not proud of that...
But there it is.I've been forced to silence too much of my life.
And it brings that up for me.That being said
I won't take it (too) personally if people want to go back through the thread and request civility determination.If I did something wrong I would appreciate the opportunity to learn from that.
I am struggling with what to take from that situatuation.
I wondered if I was losing the purpose of the boards. If I get too caught up in admin at the expense of support. I wondered that admin being one of my favourite boards attested to the fact that I am too caught up in discussing issues rather than support.
I don't know.
I'm not sure...
People need support on admin too.
Feelings fly.
Maybe thats what I like about it.
Conflict skills etc.
More movement than the other boards.
I like that.
I like process stuff.I don't know.
Posted by TamaraJ on June 14, 2005, at 17:57:55
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » KaraS, posted by alexandra_k on June 14, 2005, at 17:44:29
> I didn't address or direct a post to her after she requested me not to.
>
-- I guess I am confused then, because when there is a reply to a post by a particular person, without checking off the "add name of previous poster", and the post contains a reply that is clearly in response to what is contained in the post of the person who has issued a "DNP" request, how is that not responding to a person who has asked that they no longer be posted to. It doesn't make any sense at all. It is a circumvention of the civility rules, and it is no different than what Larry did, with the exception that Larry was the subject of a particular post, and, in a fair and just society, he should have been given the opportunity to address the things that were being said.
>
> That is the crucial difference far as I can see.
>
-- It certainly is not a "crucial" difference. It is a circumvention, plain and simple.> A while later Dr Bob checked the boards and not realising the PBC was for that post - he blocked me.
>
-- Then he went back and unblocked you about a day later because he had double disciplined you for the same post - a PBC and then a block.
>
> I'm sorry Larry, but what did you expect???-- Like most of us here, he probably expected he would not be the subject of a double standard.
>
> You can respond in general terms.
> To anyone who is following the thread.
> 'Do not post to me' requests are fairly worthless given that you can respond in general terms.
>
-- They are only fairly worthless when others chose to circumvent them.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 14, 2005, at 18:16:36
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » alexandra_k, posted by TamaraJ on June 14, 2005, at 17:57:55
> -- I guess I am confused then, because when there is a reply to a post by a particular person, without checking off the "add name of previous poster", and the post contains a reply that is clearly in response to what is contained in the post of the person who has issued a "DNP" request, how is that not responding to a person who has asked that they no longer be posted to.
From the FAQ:
>Posting to someone means directing either the subject line or the body of a post to them. Replying to posts by someone isn't necessarily posting to them.If I said:
'Poster A, I think that...' in the body of the post then I figured that would count as directing the body of a post to them.I posted comments that were intended for the benefit of other readers following the thread.
IMO the 'do not post to me' request is fairly worthless except for preventing personal attacks directed to you. When personal attacks aren't the problem, I don't see how the request helps. And in the case of personal attacks the rest of the civility rules come into play anyway... Maybe the benefit is that it should be easier to refrain from reading the posts of someone you aren't getting on with if they aren't directing the subject header to you.
>It is a circumvention of the civility rules
I didn't see it as a circumvention. Really. I thought it was ok.
> Larry was the subject of a particular post, and, in a fair and just society, he should have been given the opportunity to address the things that were being said.
He could have told the general reader what he thought about what was being said. He just couldn't adress those general comments to Emmy.
And this is at least the second time after the DNP request that Emmy has had to say 'Hey! Don't post to me!'.
I have to say... I do see where Emmy is coming from with respect to the DNP request. What I find most puzzling is the DNP request and the blow-up in the first place.
> It certainly is not a "crucial" difference. It is a circumvention, plain and simple.
If I was circumventing then I agree there would not be a crucial difference. I didn't think I was circumventing though, and if I wasn't then I think it would constitute a crucial difference.
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.