![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 134. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2005, at 7:53:07
Dr. Hsiung,
I am requesting the immediate reinstatement of the poster "so".
There are many reasons for my request to you.
The first of these is that there are many posts here that could fall into the catagory of your posting code here to not be acceptable, yet the poster is not expelled. If "so" is held out to be the only poster to be accountable to your code, while others that have written unacceptable posts and not be held accountable, then the selective accountability to "so" raises many questions as to if your sanction of "so" is a sound mental-health practice.
The United States Constitution, and other constitutions, have clauses that speak to "equal protection". The general meaning of such is that if there are others that are allowed, then this one could be allowed also. Sometimes it is referred to as prohibiting "selective enforcment".
Lou PIlder
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2005, at 8:19:22
In reply to Lou's request for so's reinstatement-14th amndmnt, posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2005, at 7:53:07
> Dr. Hsiung,
> I am requesting the immediate reinstatement of the poster "so".
> There are many reasons for my request to you.
> The first of these is that there are many posts here that could fall into the catagory of your posting code here to not be acceptable, yet the poster is not expelled. If "so" is held out to be the only poster to be accountable to your code, while others that have written unacceptable posts and not be held accountable, then the selective accountability to "so" raises many questions as to if your sanction of "so" is a sound mental-health practice.
> The United States Constitution, and other constitutions, have clauses that speak to "equal protection". The general meaning of such is that if there are others that are allowed, then this one could be allowed also. Sometimes it is referred to as prohibiting "selective enforcment".
> Lou PIlderDr. Hsiung,
In my rquest for the reinstatement of "so", I cited the "equal protection" clause of the United States Constitution.
In the same time period that "so" posted, there is the post her that writes,
[...SOme peoPLe...have too much time on their hands...].
I had posted here about that post and I do not see where you have commented on it as being acceptable here or not. If that means that the post is acceptable here, then that could bring many aspects of the treatment to "so" up for inspection here by interested parties to fairness here.
The post in question could be out of charactor for the administrative board, but it is not redirected. Some people could make the association that "so" is the "SO" in the [...SOme people have too much...]. This IMO, could have the potential to arrouse ill-will toward "so" and IMO could have the potential for a hostile environment toward "so" to be fostered, because it is left unaddressed by the moderators when there is IMO the potential to be incitive toward "so". Since the resulting atmosphere on the forum toward "so" was not checked by the moderators at the point that the post was innitiated, then IMO, "so" could have the potential to be subjected to the potential of public ridicule here and there was the potential for the potential,IMO for "so" to be provoked, which provocation could IMO, could have been prevented by administrative intervention at the point of innitiation of the post in question .
This leads to the concept of ,"did the administration {foster} the potential provocation toward "so" by not addressing the post in question? If so, then is that a sound mental-health practice to allow the post in question to go unaddresed and expell "so" if what he/she posted after that was a result of the provication while the poster of the post in question is not expelled?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dinah on July 22, 2005, at 8:30:42
In reply to Lou's request for so's reinstatement-ftrhostenvrn?, posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2005, at 8:19:22
I'm quite certain that Dr. Bob has not yet caught up on Admin, Lou.
Perhaps you should give him another day or so. He had some technical difficulties to deal with as well.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2005, at 8:33:54
In reply to Lou's request for so's reinstatement-ftrhostenvrn?, posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2005, at 8:19:22
> > Dr. Hsiung,
> > I am requesting the immediate reinstatement of the poster "so".
> > There are many reasons for my request to you.
> > The first of these is that there are many posts here that could fall into the catagory of your posting code here to not be acceptable, yet the poster is not expelled. If "so" is held out to be the only poster to be accountable to your code, while others that have written unacceptable posts and not be held accountable, then the selective accountability to "so" raises many questions as to if your sanction of "so" is a sound mental-health practice.
> > The United States Constitution, and other constitutions, have clauses that speak to "equal protection". The general meaning of such is that if there are others that are allowed, then this one could be allowed also. Sometimes it is referred to as prohibiting "selective enforcment".
> > Lou PIlder
>
> Dr. Hsiung,
> In my rquest for the reinstatement of "so", I cited the "equal protection" clause of the United States Constitution.
> In the same time period that "so" posted, there is the post her that writes,
> [...SOme peoPLe...have too much time on their hands...].
> I had posted here about that post and I do not see where you have commented on it as being acceptable here or not. If that means that the post is acceptable here, then that could bring many aspects of the treatment to "so" up for inspection here by interested parties to fairness here.
> The post in question could be out of charactor for the administrative board, but it is not redirected. Some people could make the association that "so" is the "SO" in the [...SOme people have too much...]. This IMO, could have the potential to arrouse ill-will toward "so" and IMO could have the potential for a hostile environment toward "so" to be fostered, because it is left unaddressed by the moderators when there is IMO the potential to be incitive toward "so". Since the resulting atmosphere on the forum toward "so" was not checked by the moderators at the point that the post was innitiated, then IMO, "so" could have the potential to be subjected to the potential of public ridicule here and there was the potential for the potential,IMO for "so" to be provoked, which provocation could IMO, could have been prevented by administrative intervention at the point of innitiation of the post in question .
> This leads to the concept of ,"did the administration {foster} the potential provocation toward "so" by not addressing the post in question? If so, then is that a sound mental-health practice to allow the post in question to go unaddresed and expell "so" if what he/she posted after that was a result of the provication while the poster of the post in question is not expelled?
> Lou Pilder
>
Dr. Hsiung,
Then another post arrises after that, [...I'll miss *you* so...].
This heading and the rest of the post,could have the potential, IMO, to be sarcastic/satire directed toward "so" that could IMO be unnacceptable in relation to your code here for posting whaich could, IMO, have the potential to have the potential for others to {ridicule} "so".
I posted here about the acceptability of the post in question and I do not see where you ahev addressed it. If that means that it is acceptable, then could you write how is {sarcasm} defined here?
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050716/msgs/529692.html
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2005, at 8:58:21
In reply to Re: Lou's request for so's reinstatement-ftrhosten » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on July 22, 2005, at 8:30:42
Dinah,
You wrote,[...has not caught up yet on admin...].
Could you, then, attend to those posts that have the potential to arrouse ill-will toward "so"?
Lou
Posted by partlycloudy on July 22, 2005, at 9:54:44
In reply to Re: Lou's request for so's reinstatement-ftrhosten » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on July 22, 2005, at 8:30:42
Lou, I believe that Dinah acted in good faith and with excellent judgement in placing the block on "so". Dr Bob has indicated the length of the block as 1 year. Perhaps you should consider that there might have been other infractions of the civility rules (i.e., abusive emails, personal attacks using Babblemails; and perhaps it was discovered that "so" was an already blocked poster who snuck in using a different name? This is all conjecture on my part.) that contributed to his decision that would not be apparent to us fellow posters here on the boards?? And that Dr bob is not obligated in any way to divulge what those infractions might be, but instead places the protection of this site and its users at the forefront. I don't think it's my place to question Dr Bob's decision when it was abundantly clear that "so"'s stated purpose was to incite outrage here. He has protected PsychoBabble and its participants in blocking "so" for this length of time.
I'd also like to point out that this website is not a democracy in any shape or form! I wouldn't think that the US Constitution would have a place in protecting a private citizen of the world here. Otherwise you'd be implying that the United States has overall power and rule over the Internet.
Partlycloudy
Posted by Nikkit2 on July 22, 2005, at 10:14:43
In reply to Lou's request for so's reinstatement-14th amndmnt, posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2005, at 7:53:07
Theres alot of things in life I would like Lou.
I'd like the bombers to stop attacking London for a start.
And, as PC says, the US constitution doesn't cover the internet *shrugs*
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2005, at 10:17:59
In reply to Re: Lou's request for so's reinstatement-ftrhosten, posted by partlycloudy on July 22, 2005, at 9:54:44
Friends,
It is written here,[...this is not a democracy {in any shape or form...}...you'd be implying that the United States has overall power and rule over the Internet...].
I am requesting that if you are going to reply to this thread that you undertake a study of the unfolding body of law in relation to the internet.
I ask, how do the laws of the jurisdiction of the the poster or the laws of the jurisdiction of the server determine such?
Lou
Posted by SLS on July 22, 2005, at 10:21:52
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-jrisdtn?, posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2005, at 10:17:59
> I am requesting that if you are going to reply to this thread that you undertake a study of the unfolding body of law in relation to the internet.
I would ask that if you are going to reply to this thread that you undertake a study of the unfolding body of law in relation to the Internet.
- Scott
Posted by gardenergirl on July 22, 2005, at 11:21:53
In reply to Re: Lou's request for so's reinstatement-ftrhosten, posted by partlycloudy on July 22, 2005, at 9:54:44
> Lou, I believe that Dinah acted in good faith and with excellent judgement in placing the block on "so". Dr Bob has indicated the length of the block as 1 year.
I missed this post. Can someone link me to it, please? I was curious, too about how long the block was.
Also, Lou asked if Dinah would address certain posts since Dr. Bob does not appear to have caught up yet with his administration duties (and lordy, who could blame him? What a lot of posts he has to wade through!) At any rate, I believe that addressing those posts are for Dr. Bob to handle, unless he chooses to delegate this duty. And as of now, he has not, as far as I know. Just to clarify...
gg
Posted by 10derHeart on July 22, 2005, at 11:29:28
In reply to Re: Lou's request for so's reinstatement-ftrhosten, posted by gardenergirl on July 22, 2005, at 11:21:53
> > Lou, I believe that Dinah acted in good faith and with excellent judgement in placing the block on "so". Dr Bob has indicated the length of the block as 1 year.
>
> I missed this post. Can someone link me to it, please? I was curious, too about how long the block was.Hmmm...I also missed it. But I think it didn't happen. I think Dinah mentioned what the max length is right now. But I'm pretty sure I've read all the posts DB made in the past 48 hours, and I never saw him answer this question.
Perhaps a misunderstanding....?
Posted by Dinah on July 22, 2005, at 11:30:24
In reply to Re: Lou's request for so's reinstatement-ftrhosten, posted by gardenergirl on July 22, 2005, at 11:21:53
Now that Dr. Bob's back, I'd rather he use his own discretion.
And before he was back, I had very limited time myself here, and couldn't address the entire issue. I regret that. In fact, I regret that I was otherwise unavoidably occupied the entire day this unfolded. It's been a hectic week in my real life, and last night was the first day I really had time to devote to Babble. Dr. Bob was back by that time.
It will sort itself out, Lou. And if Dr. Bob doesn't act in a way you judge fair, you can talk to him about it then. I was just pointing out that given the scope of what happened, he hasn't had time to give the weight and judgement we all expect him to give to the matter.
P.S. I have no idea how long so is blocked for. The maximum length is one year, I have no idea what factors Dr. Bob is using. That's why I just said "blocked".
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2005, at 11:31:30
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-jrisdtn?, posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2005, at 10:17:59
> Friends,
> It is written here,[...this is not a democracy {in any shape or form...}...you'd be implying that the United States has overall power and rule over the Internet...].
> I am requesting that if you are going to reply to this thread that you undertake a study of the unfolding body of law in relation to the internet.
> I ask, how do the laws of the jurisdiction of the the poster or the laws of the jurisdiction of the server determine such?
> LouFriends,
I am requesting that yopu read the following link if you are going to reply to this thread
Lou
http://www.mattcollins.com.au/oupupdates.htm
Posted by Dinah on July 22, 2005, at 11:34:29
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-recnt, posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2005, at 11:31:30
One wonderful aspect of democracy, and one very much upheld here at Babble, is that you don't have to do research before speaking.
People can reply to this thread even if they don't have the foggiest notion of what law governs the internet, or even if they have an incorrect notion of what law governs the internet.
I'm not saying that any particular poster has either condition. I'm just pointing out that Dr. Bob has no requirement for accuracy of facts. And that people are allowed to voice their opinion anyway.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 22, 2005, at 11:39:32
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-recnt, posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2005, at 11:31:30
It all applies to defamation. There couldn't be any defamation here, because nobody uses real names.
And even if there could be, there wasn't any towards so. Cross words and disagreements do not make for defamation.
The closest to defamation would be so's accusations about Dr. Bob.
defame: "to harm the reputation of by libel or slander"
libel: "a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt"
<note the word unjust>
slander: "see defame:"
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2005, at 11:56:30
In reply to Re: I read your link » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on July 22, 2005, at 11:39:32
Friends,
It is written here,[...couldn't be defamation here,{because real names are not used here...].
I am requesting that if you are going to reply to this thread that you investigate as to if a person does not use their real name that that protects them from the laws of defamation.
I have a large body of infomation concerning that and will post such if necessarry. As of now, my research shows not.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on July 22, 2005, at 12:04:36
In reply to Lou's response to AuntieMel's post-SueDoe?, posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2005, at 11:56:30
Lou, have you visited many other sites?
The worst of what goes on at Babble is standard at many sites, including large and very public ones. And I'm not even talking ones about mental health, although I've seen some interesting standards of conduct on those as well.
I went to one of the big news sites with a board, and was shocked down to my toes.
I think that even if the Internet police came knocking, they'd find plenty to do before they reached Babble.
Posted by Dinah on July 22, 2005, at 12:06:06
In reply to Re: Lou's response to AuntieMel's post-SueDoe? » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on July 22, 2005, at 12:04:36
I've got work to do.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2005, at 12:09:35
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread-recnt » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on July 22, 2005, at 11:34:29
> One wonderful aspect of democracy, and one very much upheld here at Babble, is that you don't have to do research before speaking.
>
> People can reply to this thread even if they don't have the foggiest notion of what law governs the internet, or even if they have an incorrect notion of what law governs the internet.
>
> I'm not saying that any particular poster has either condition. I'm just pointing out that Dr. Bob has no requirement for accuracy of facts. And that people are allowed to voice their opinion anyway.Friends,
It is written here, [...one of the wonderful aspects of democracy...DR Bob has no requierment of accuracy of facts. And that people are allowed to voice their opinion...].
I am requesting that if you are going to reply to this thread that you research the archives as to if "dancingstar" was {voicing her opinion} when she was expelled for writing,[...Personally, I do not belive that it is a problem with a ...]? Dr. Hsiung's rules that he has in his FAQ writes,[...different points of view are encouraged...] And there were previous posts here that were of the same nature of dancingstar's where the poster was not expelled and the post was not addressed by Dr. Hsiung. His reply to me as to my request for clarification of such was in some way that if the post in question was posted today, it would not pass muster. But I ask,what was posted between that post and dancingstar's post to indicate to dancingstar, or anyone else, that there was a change?
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on July 22, 2005, at 12:31:09
In reply to Re: I read your link » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on July 22, 2005, at 11:39:32
It was a apt one. And I know I need a reminder lately. Color me reminded. :)
gg
Posted by AuntieMel on July 22, 2005, at 12:39:33
In reply to Hey Mel...remember that observation you made? » AuntieMel, posted by gardenergirl on July 22, 2005, at 12:31:09
Posted by partlycloudy on July 22, 2005, at 13:04:42
In reply to Re: Lou's request for so's reinstatement-ftrhosten, posted by gardenergirl on July 22, 2005, at 11:21:53
> > Lou, I believe that Dinah acted in good faith and with excellent judgement in placing the block on "so". Dr Bob has indicated the length of the block as 1 year.
>
> I missed this post. Can someone link me to it, please? I was curious, too about how long the block was.
>Maybe it was a dream I had? Darned if I can find such a post by Dr Bob about the block's length. I am sorry, everyone, for any confusion I caused. Time for me to go back to bed.
And Lou - I'll stay out of further discussion regarding "so". It is obviously way out of my league. I'm not even American, let alone knowledgeable about international laws regarding the internet and how the US Constitution is involved.
Best wishes,
partlycloudy
Posted by Racer on July 22, 2005, at 13:28:30
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread-recnt » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on July 22, 2005, at 11:34:29
> One wonderful aspect of democracy, and one very much upheld here at Babble, is that you don't have to do research before speaking.
>
> People can reply to this thread even if they don't have the foggiest notion of what law governs the internet, or even if they have an incorrect notion of what law governs the internet.
>
> I'm not saying that any particular poster has either condition. I'm just pointing out that Dr. Bob has no requirement for accuracy of facts. And that people are allowed to voice their opinion anyway.Thank you for posting this, Dinah. I appreciate having it spelled out -- especially on this matter, since I'm way late for my day today and don't have time to read anything beyond a few threads here. While I'm interested in the information contained in that link, I just can't do it.
And yet, I have something to say about this whole Teacup Tempest...
(Never let the facts get in the way of a good opinion, eh? *g*)
www.dr-bob.org is not a democracy, it is not a government of any sort, it is not a public service in the usual sense of that phrase -- it is a web site created and maintained by one man, and as such is governed by that one man's rules. Maybe a pretty accurate way to look at is isn't as a sort of virtual coffee-shop, but as Dr Robert Hsuing's Virtual Living Room, where we can come and hang out, as long as we respect his rules as we would if we were in his physical living room?
Dunno... Just the way I see it, when I find myself smarting from a PBC, or irritated by a block that seems out of proportion to the infraction. {shrug} Personally, I agree with Scott, though -- the rules do help me, and I appreciate them for that reason. Even if I don't always agree 100%...
Posted by gardenergirl on July 22, 2005, at 13:37:14
In reply to OK, if I wasn't crazy I wouldn't be here, right?, posted by partlycloudy on July 22, 2005, at 13:04:42
Hey, no worries. I think you fit right in here, of course in your own unique way. As we all do.
((((pc))))
gg
Posted by Racer on July 22, 2005, at 13:45:03
In reply to Lou's request for so's reinstatement-14th amndmnt, posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2005, at 7:53:07
> Dr. Hsiung,
> I am requesting the immediate reinstatement of the poster "so".
> There are many reasons for my request to you.
> The first of these is that there are many posts here that could fall into the catagory of your posting code here to not be acceptable, yet the poster is not expelled. If "so" is held out to be the only poster to be accountable to your code, while others that have written unacceptable posts and not be held accountable, then the selective accountability to "so" raises many questions as to if your sanction of "so" is a sound mental-health practice.
> The United States Constitution, and other constitutions, have clauses that speak to "equal protection". The general meaning of such is that if there are others that are allowed, then this one could be allowed also. Sometimes it is referred to as prohibiting "selective enforcment".
> Lou PIlderFirst of all, Lou, I really am curious about where you find the relevance to the 14th amendment? (While I'm not a constitutional scholar, I do have a passing familiarity with a lot of it, and sometimes even read the Supreme Court's rulings...)
Beyond that, though, Lou, I think the reason "so" was blocked had less to do with her reaction to the "SOme peoPLe" post, and a whole lot more to do with her reaction to being reminded that someone had previously posted a "Do Not Post" request which was being violated. If you read the following post, you'll see that "so," in effect, threatened to post "what I really think" and then proceeded to post a series of attacks, mostly targetting Dr Bob himself, but also insulting other posters here. I think that is a violation of any rules of civility, and therefore the block was probably justified. http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050716/msgs/529536.html
Also, Lou -- I was one of the posters singled out by "so" and I will tell you that I did have a very strong emotional reaction to those posts directed at me. My feelings were hurt, and I felt as though I was neither welcome nor safe here at Babble. Do you think that it is appropriate for someone to write something about another poster here that is so directly accusatory? I'm guessing -- and hoping -- that you just didn't see some of those posts.
Anyway, I gotta disagree with you on this one. I don't think that "so" was blocked because the moderators didn't respond rapidly enough. I think that "so" earned her block, and I hope that Dr Bob will support Dinah's actions.
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.