![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 87 to 111 of 163. Go back in thread:
Posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 17:13:43
In reply to I'd like to reiterate - please do not post to me (nm) » gabbii, posted by alexandra_k on July 17, 2005, at 17:01:59
Here are things I've said about Lou and about
Larry Hoovers blockAbout LOU
> I'm somewhat biased though, I have learned much from Lou's insight, especially on one particular post mentioning the holocaust, and another on a joke I didn't consider racist, though, I at first thought it was nit-picky. I wouldn't want to lose that. I also have deep respect for the fact that no matter how cruel the things are that have been said to him, he never responds in kind.
It's not always good humor, sometimes it's genuine appreciation/respect for the contributions of the person involved.
About Larry's block
And though I'm all for respecting the D.N.P's I think 6 weeks is unnecessary..."
Emmy had every right to make her D.N.P request and expect that it would be validated by Dr.Bob
Posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 17:19:14
In reply to Dr. Bob I'm livid--Please note., posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 17:13:43
Posted by gabbii on July 11, 2005, at 0:05:43
And then I a while later realized that nothing had been accomplished during it after all. I reinvoked the D.N.P
And that is where it stands.
Posted by crushedout on July 17, 2005, at 23:19:21
In reply to Re: a complaint, posted by Dr. Bob on July 17, 2005, at 1:13:57
> > I hope you will ... be careful not to favor certain posters unfairly in the future
>
> I'm sorry if I've treated you unfairly. I've tried not to. Favoritism is often a concern in groups.will you agree to try to be conscious of this in the future? i'm not looking for an apology -- just a commitment to try.
> > I am ... just noting the differential treatment of objectively similar behavior. One example: with testing the vulgar language automatic filter -- she has often pointed out its deficiencies in ways that have involved posting vulgar language. When I did the same thing -- with a *very* innocuous term, I might add (crazy-*ss)-- I got warned.
>
> The behavior was similar, but I responded differently before the filter was in place...nope, i'm talking about an incident *after* the filter was in place. and ironically, i think it was in a thread alex started in which she was pointing out its deficiencies. when i joined in, you scolded me. to my knowledge, she received no scolding, despite *repeated* such incidents.
Posted by crushedout on July 17, 2005, at 23:27:15
In reply to Re: a complaint, posted by alexandra_k on July 17, 2005, at 15:52:50
I actually don't see any irony with regard to the comparison to Larry. Except irony working the other way (that you are saying DNP is DNP).
It's actually quite consistent. I think people shouldn't be PBC'd or blocked unfairly. Period.
And I've never said anything whatsoever along the lines you suggest about Lou.
I'm happy to ignore you as you suggest (in fact I rarely read your posts anymore) -- but I still insist on fairness, to the extent that insisting does any good.
Posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 23:35:56
In reply to Re: a complaint » Dr. Bob, posted by crushedout on July 17, 2005, at 23:19:21
As my claim of independent conclusions was considered to be untrue, I want to add that I mentioned that very incident to dr. bob via e-mail the day after it happened. I recieved no response though.
> > I am ... just noting the differential treatment of objectively similar behavior. One example: with testing the vulgar language automatic filter -- she has often pointed out its deficiencies in ways that have involved posting vulgar language. When I did the same thing -- with a *very* innocuous term, I might add (crazy-*ss)-- I got warned.
> >
> > The behavior was similar, but I responded differently before the filter was in place...
>
> nope, i'm talking about an incident *after* the filter was in place. and ironically, i think it was in a thread alex started in which she was pointing out its deficiencies. when i joined in, you scolded me. to my knowledge, she received no scolding, despite *repeated* such incidents.
Posted by crushedout on July 17, 2005, at 23:56:27
In reply to Re: a complaint, posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 23:35:56
excuse me it might have been crazy*ss (without the hyphen). but the incident of which i speak was definitely *after* the filter. (there was also one before, which I am not referring to.)
Posted by crushedout on July 17, 2005, at 23:57:44
In reply to Re: a complaint, posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 23:35:56
hey that's cool. you had my back even before i knew i liked you. :)
Posted by gardenergirl on July 17, 2005, at 23:57:58
In reply to Re: a complaint, posted by crushedout on July 17, 2005, at 23:56:27
Don't forget that I f*rted! That was a significant post.
;)
gg
Posted by gabbii on July 18, 2005, at 1:05:01
In reply to Re: a complaint » crushedout, posted by gardenergirl on July 17, 2005, at 23:57:58
> Don't forget that I f*rted! That was a significant post.
>
> ;)
>
> ggOh yeah, and you got P.B.C'd too!
Posted by gabbii on July 18, 2005, at 1:05:51
In reply to Re: a complaint » gabbii, posted by crushedout on July 17, 2005, at 23:57:44
>
> hey that's cool. you had my back even before i knew i liked you. :)You bet! I'll even send you a copy of the e-mail for posterity if ya want..
Posted by crushedout on July 18, 2005, at 11:21:11
In reply to Re: a complaint » gardenergirl, posted by gabbii on July 18, 2005, at 1:05:01
did gg really get pbc'ed for posting the word "f*rt"? i vaguely recall this but i can't believe it. and this was post-filter????
Posted by crushedout on July 18, 2005, at 11:21:54
In reply to Re: a complaint » crushedout, posted by gabbii on July 18, 2005, at 1:05:51
sure, i'd love to see that, if it's not too much trouble.
Posted by crushedout on July 18, 2005, at 11:25:47
In reply to Re: a complaint » gabbii, posted by crushedout on July 18, 2005, at 11:21:11
if gg got PBC'd for using "f*rt" and I got scolded for pointing out that the filter doesn't catch crazy*ss, then why did alex's use of the word "c*nt," only get an "oops!" from you, dr. bob?http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041218/msgs/435080.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041218/msgs/435097.html
does anyone else wonder what's going on here? i'm baffled.
Posted by crushedout on July 18, 2005, at 11:30:36
In reply to differential treatment dr. bob, posted by crushedout on July 18, 2005, at 11:25:47
when you look at the context in which alex posted "c*nt." see below.
# It is tempting to see what we can get away with... (nm) » Dr. Bob alexandra_k 12/27/04
# heh heh, works pretty good :-) (nm) alexandra_k 12/27/04
# Re: automatic asterisking Larry Hoover 12/27/04
# Re: I know :-) (nm) Dr. Bob 12/27/04
# damn (nm) » Dr. Bob alexandra_k 12/28/04
# Bugger (nm) alexandra_k 12/28/04
# c*nt alexandra_k 12/28/04it's not like alex did this by accident. she so much as tells us she's trying to violate the rules. and all she gets is an oops.
i know this is ancient history, but this is just one example in a long line of injustices, in my opinion.
and yes, i know i have better things to do with my time than worry about such a silly injustice. but everything is relative and this is what i happen to be worrying about. (someone save me from belittling myself! :) )
Posted by AuntieMel on July 18, 2005, at 12:07:09
In reply to differential treatment dr. bob, posted by crushedout on July 18, 2005, at 11:25:47
Hers was coded - in caps buried in a message. The filter couldn't catch it.
It was meant to be a joke, but she didn't realize f*rt would be considered vulger.
I thought it was funny and laughed my tush off, though.
Posted by crushedout on July 18, 2005, at 12:09:49
In reply to Re: gg's f*rt » crushedout, posted by AuntieMel on July 18, 2005, at 12:07:09
> Hers was coded - in caps buried in a message.
i don't understand what this means.
> It was meant to be a joke, but she didn't realize f*rt would be considered vulger.
as well she shouldn't have. it's a perfectly fine word for a biological function. personally, i think it's ridiculous that it's considered vulgar.
> I thought it was funny and laughed my tush off, though.
i'm sure you did. :) gg's a riot.
i still want to know whether she got pbc'd for it, though. if she did, that's an outrage.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 18, 2005, at 12:20:56
In reply to Re: gg's f*rt » AuntieMel, posted by crushedout on July 18, 2005, at 12:09:49
Decoded it says "I f*rted"
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050417/msgs/494363.html
Posted by crushedout on July 18, 2005, at 12:27:19
In reply to Re: the link » crushedout, posted by AuntieMel on July 18, 2005, at 12:20:56
oh, thanks, mel. no offense to, ahem, anyone but if f*rt is vulgar than so is poop. arbitrary rules make me mad.but this is a side issue. i'm focused on fairness here.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 22, 2005, at 4:49:44
In reply to Re: a complaint, posted by alexandra_k on July 17, 2005, at 15:52:50
> certain people seem ... interested in getting me PBC'd / blocked
Please don't jump to conclusions about others.
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 July 22, 2005, at 4:51:44
In reply to ESPECIALLY, posted by crushedout on July 18, 2005, at 11:30:36
> > Favoritism is often a concern in groups.
>
> Does this mean that you acknowledge that sometimes your responses are affected by favoritism?
>
> Deneb> Do you think you could at least take a closer look and see if there is some validity to this?
>
> gabbii> will you agree to try to be conscious of this in the future? i'm not looking for an apology -- just a commitment to try.
> this is just one example in a long line of injustices
>
> crushedoutI try to be fair, but I know I'm not perfectly objective. And this isn't always easy! I've tried to be conscious of this in the past and will try to be conscious of it in the future.
Maybe one reason it's a concern here is that people here have been subjected to a long line of injustices before?
--
> I ordered that book and read a bit of it to gain a better understanding of you since you quoted it. It seemed a bit depersonalizing, you know?
>
> DinahBecause it generalized? Or because it focused on groups rather than individuals? Did you gain a better understanding of this group? Did it give you any ideas about administration?
--
> I would think that eventually frequency of occurence should affect your response too.
>
> gabbiiIt does, blocks tend to lengthen...
--
> she so much as tells us she's trying to violate the rules. and all she gets is an oops.
>
> crushedoutI thought she was trying to find bugs in the program. Which is why I said oops. But it was an opportunity to get away with something, too...
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on July 22, 2005, at 8:17:30
In reply to Re: favoritism, posted by Dr. Bob on July 22, 2005, at 4:51:44
"Maybe one reason it's a concern here is that people here have been subjected to a long line of injustices before?"
Favoritism should always be a concern, even to those who have never experienced it.
But it is possible because of past injustices that people here are more determined than most to *not* have it happen on babble.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 22, 2005, at 8:27:30
In reply to Re: favoritism, posted by Dr. Bob on July 22, 2005, at 4:51:44
Posted by Dinah on July 22, 2005, at 8:29:13
In reply to Re: favoritism, posted by Dr. Bob on July 22, 2005, at 4:51:44
> Maybe one reason it's a concern here is that people here have been subjected to a long line of injustices before?Gotta agree with Mel on this one. This is the sort of statement that tends to make people upset, Dr. Bob.
>
> --
>
> > I ordered that book and read a bit of it to gain a better understanding of you since you quoted it. It seemed a bit depersonalizing, you know?
> >
> > Dinah
>
> Because it generalized? Or because it focused on groups rather than individuals? Did you gain a better understanding of this group? Did it give you any ideas about administration?
>
Because it seemed to see individuals as the organisms that make up groups and to consider them interchangeable. I don't think it gave me any better understanding of this group or administration, because I tend to see this group and administration in terms of individuals.If you ever get the time or inclination, perhaps you could give us hints about how the book pertains to us and to administration.
Regarding favoritism, I hope I don't offend if I ask you about evolutionary psychology and gender differences. Do you think there may be some male-male competition at play at times? Or a tendency to want to protect females? Maybe especially traditionally feminine females? Totally unconscious of course.
I could be totally off base of course. I'm reading first year psychology texts. :D
Posted by AuntieMel on July 22, 2005, at 11:27:58
In reply to Re: favoritism » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 22, 2005, at 8:29:13
If he favors "traditionally feminine females." I've never been occuse of being traditional *or* feminine.
Posted by Dinah on July 22, 2005, at 11:39:37
In reply to Re: well, then I'm out of the favorites list » Dinah, posted by AuntieMel on July 22, 2005, at 11:27:58
Well, I've never thought of myself as traditionally feminine either.
But I do think I have a trait or two.
I guess what I was thinking of is that some people have speculated that Dr. Bob lets females get away with more than males. And there's a bit of debate about whether it's because, as a male, Dr. Bob doesn't always recognize agression in women (because it's sometimes displayed differently, certainly not always), or whether there are more primal forces at work.
I was just wondering if Dr. Bob had considered it.
Although I suppose he would say he treats men and women equally. And that may well be true, and it's the perception that differs.
I just thought it was a subject for thought, even if it is ultimately rejected.
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.