![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 25 to 49 of 134. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by Dinah on July 22, 2005, at 14:26:23
In reply to Where does the 14th amendment come in? » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on July 22, 2005, at 13:45:03
I thought it was about the thread regarding RHisaPredator. But I was gone for the day, and am not sure of the timeline at all. I think you'd probably know better than I would.
I guess it's a lot easier to tell when you're here. Another reason it takes Dr. Bob a while to sort through things. He probably needs to check posting times as well as actual words.
Posted by Racer on July 22, 2005, at 19:18:05
In reply to Re: Where does the 14th amendment come in? » Racer, posted by Dinah on July 22, 2005, at 14:26:23
> I thought it was about the thread regarding RHisaPredator. But I was gone for the day, and am not sure of the timeline at all. I think you'd probably know better than I would.
>
> I guess it's a lot easier to tell when you're here. Another reason it takes Dr. Bob a while to sort through things. He probably needs to check posting times as well as actual words.
I was pretty well confused by that one -- soared right over my pointy little head *g*Thanks for 'splainin' it to me...
Posted by Jen Star on July 22, 2005, at 19:22:12
In reply to Where does the 14th amendment come in? » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on July 22, 2005, at 13:45:03
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 23, 2005, at 13:13:55
In reply to Lou's request for so's reinstatement-14th amndmnt, posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2005, at 7:53:07
> I am requesting the immediate reinstatement of the poster "so".
I'm sure he appreciates the support, but if he wants the length of his block reduced, he needs to email me.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 23, 2005, at 13:13:59
In reply to Re: Lou's request for so's reinstatement-ftrhosten, posted by partlycloudy on July 22, 2005, at 9:54:44
> it was abundantly clear that "so"'s stated purpose was to incite outrage here.
Please don't jump to conclusions about others or post anything that could lead them to feel accused.
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 partlycloudy on July 23, 2005, at 17:59:34
In reply to Re: please be civil » partlycloudy, posted by Dr. Bob on July 23, 2005, at 13:13:59
Excuse me, I derived my opinion from this post:
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050716/msgs/529603.html
I was in too much of a hurry to quote it in my original post.
partlycloudy
Posted by partlycloudy on July 23, 2005, at 23:26:28
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by partlycloudy on July 23, 2005, at 17:59:34
I don't post this to present an excuse for being uncivil - I wish I had taken the time to quote the original post, obviously. I think I was pretty muddied up about the whole sequence by this part except from feeling offended. Sorry I did not make it abundantly clear in the beginning.
pc> Excuse me, I derived my opinion from this post:
>
> URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050716/msgs/529603.html
>
> I was in too much of a hurry to quote it in my original post.
> partlycloudy
Posted by Dinah on July 24, 2005, at 6:58:20
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by partlycloudy on July 23, 2005, at 17:59:34
> URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050716/msgs/529603.html
"And I will be back. You won't know me when you see me."
Posted by gardenergirl on July 24, 2005, at 13:34:19
In reply to Re:, posted by Dinah on July 24, 2005, at 6:58:20
Yep, I think it was pretty clear at the end.
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 24, 2005, at 18:27:37
In reply to Re:, posted by Dinah on July 24, 2005, at 6:58:20
> > And I will be back. You won't know me when you see me.
Still, he doesn't actually state that his purpose is to incite outrage here, does he?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on July 24, 2005, at 18:37:53
In reply to Re: stated purpose, posted by Dr. Bob on July 24, 2005, at 18:27:37
Just thought it might be good to bring it to your attention, and I'll bookmark it in case I need to bring it to your attention again.
I also thought it might be a good time for you to reiterate the rules for coming back, particularly as someone who wouldn't be known when seen.
I'm sure I don't have to remind you of your agreement regarding shortening block lengths?
Posted by gardenergirl on July 24, 2005, at 21:17:23
In reply to Re: stated purpose, posted by Dr. Bob on July 24, 2005, at 18:27:37
He/she did say that what was going on was civil disobediance. Is that something that is intended to incite outrage? Seems like it could be, if civil disobediance is designed to foster awareness leading to perhaps change?
Just a thought.
gg
Posted by JenStar on July 24, 2005, at 21:56:20
In reply to Re: stated purpose, posted by gardenergirl on July 24, 2005, at 21:17:23
I think that people are sometimes so disruptive, and enter posts that are so deliberately unkind to others, that it would be acceptable to give them a lifetime ban.
"so" entered multiple unkind posts, and even said that he/she was going to "go crazy" with mean posts (I've paraphrased, but am keeping the spirit, I believe) before he/she got banned. "so" basically said that he/she know the posts were uncivil but wanted to do them to upset people. I distinctly remember this post. In a case like this, don't you think that a mere 6 (or 18) weeks is too weak of a ban?
"so" him/herself said in several posts that he/she knows how to use words effectively to incite people (or something similar), and several times bragged about his/her cleverness in using words against people. There were also veiled threats against others.
Words are all we have to go by, here on Babble. I understand wanting to play fair, but I don't think "so" plays fair. Do you not think that a longer ban would be appropriate, given some of things that I've pointed out above?
I guess I'm feeling frustrated, Dr. Bob, by what seems to be a detached and bemused attitude towards posters who really hurt other people's feelings on purpose. I would like to see more positive support for the regulars here.
You directly responded to a post of so's, stating that he/she could continue to argue/debate with you in the future. To me, that seemed to indicate that you felt that so's posts were logical and worthy of future attention, even though they were quite uncivil. But I didn't see any posts from you that supported some of the posters who were on the receiving end of so's posts. I know that it's probably interesting to have people like so come in from time to time, because the reactions of other people are interesting, in an objective way. But so many people really LIKE babble. I think it would be nice to have a little more of a "dr. bob firewall" protecting the gentler souls here!
thanks for your consideration.
JenStar
Posted by barosky on July 25, 2005, at 2:23:37
In reply to Re: stated purpose, posted by Dr. Bob on July 24, 2005, at 18:27:37
I don't understand why you devote your time to all of this, when so much of it doesen't even involve you,
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 25, 2005, at 7:34:43
In reply to Lou, what drives you.., posted by barosky on July 25, 2005, at 2:23:37
> I don't understand why you devote your time to all of this, when so much of it doesen't even involve you,
Friends,
I am requesting that if you are going to reply to this part of this thread that you ask yourself the following.
A. Does the posting of statements here that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, involve me?
B. Does the posting of statements that IMO have the potential to arrouse ill-will toward me, involve me?
C. Does the posting of statements that have the potential to deride or defame Scientologists here involve me?
D. Does the posts by Dr. Hsiung that IMO have the potential to indicate that policy here is being applied in a discriminatory or caprecious or arbitrary manner , involve me?
E. Could there be something here that could be seen, and others see it, but some others do not see it?
F. Could you post a link to a post here that I have responded to that does not involve me?
G. Does a mamber here ever have to defend themselves for participating as a civil member in this forum?
H. Are different points of view {protected} here?
K.Could there be reasons for posters to be members here that are unbeknowing to some posters here?
M. If someone devotes a lot of time to this community, could there be a good and just reason for doing so?
Lou
Posted by Racer on July 25, 2005, at 11:36:47
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-~involv?, posted by Lou Pilder on July 25, 2005, at 7:34:43
> > I don't understand why you devote your time to all of this, when so much of it doesen't even involve you,
>
> Friends,
> I am requesting that if you are going to reply to this part of this thread that you ask yourself the following.
> A. Does the posting of statements here that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, involve me?
> B. Does the posting of statements that IMO have the potential to arrouse ill-will toward me, involve me?
> C. Does the posting of statements that have the potential to deride or defame Scientologists here involve me?
> D. Does the posts by Dr. Hsiung that IMO have the potential to indicate that policy here is being applied in a discriminatory or caprecious or arbitrary manner , involve me?
> E. Could there be something here that could be seen, and others see it, but some others do not see it?
> F. Could you post a link to a post here that I have responded to that does not involve me?
> G. Does a mamber here ever have to defend themselves for participating as a civil member in this forum?
> H. Are different points of view {protected} here?
> K.Could there be reasons for posters to be members here that are unbeknowing to some posters here?
> M. If someone devotes a lot of time to this community, could there be a good and just reason for doing so?
> LouThis is a little more than "just" a guess, Lou, because I know that it affects my reaction to your posts, so it may apply to other people here, too. If it does, maybe they'll read this and offer up their opinions on whether or not this is a common reaction.
Most of us, when we "interact" with others here, address one another directly, we ask questions, offer opinions as our own, answer questions, etc. It's a dialog. Both parties are engaged with one another.
In reading your posts, though, I see you addressing the forum as a whole, as though we were sitting in an audience, and you were at the podium, speaking to us all. I think that creates a rather artificial distance between us all -- and I think that some people here may react with resentment to that feeling. I hope that makes sense to you. I know that some of the less pleasant posts I've read addressed to you mentioned something of the sort, so I'm betting I'm not the only one who has reacted this way.
What I think I'm trying to say is that in most of the posts on these bulletin boards, there's a sense of one-on-one interaction between members. Even if several people reply to a single post, there's still a one-on-one relationship implied by the posts. With you, though, even when people write directly to you, you respond as though you're at the front of the room, speaking to a large, anonymous, amorphous group.
Speaking only for myself, when I've written to you trying to get a sense of who you are, a sense that we're both here at Babble for a reason, that we have some common ground that would allow for us to make some sort of human connection -- well, you know that you have never responded to me directly, and -- frankly -- that hurts my feelings. I feel frustrated by it, and rather rejected.
What Barosky has in mind I can't say. I'm not speaking for him or her, only for myself. And my guess that some others feel similarly only applies to those I've seen trying to make a personal connection of some sort with you.
Just a few bites of some food for thought. I hope you find it helpful.
Posted by Nickengland on July 25, 2005, at 13:41:38
In reply to Lou, I'm just guessing here, but... » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on July 25, 2005, at 11:36:47
I'm 99.9% sure I've read Lou is a former Maths teacher...
If the "Friends" part of the post was changed to "Children" i'm sure it could read somewhat similar to how you may address kids in a classroom...if you kind of imagine the setting being that Lou is writing on a black board.. (of course the actual contents is different)
Maybe thats where the Multiple Choice style comes from?
Would I be right Lou?
A. Yes, pretty close
B. No, Not at all.
C. A mixture of the above
E. None of the above
F. The style is something else completely
Well, I thought it might as well try the mulitple choice style for something different lol
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by Nickengland on July 25, 2005, at 14:01:04
In reply to Re: stated purpose, posted by Dr. Bob on July 24, 2005, at 18:27:37
>Still, he doesn't actually state that his purpose is to incite outrage here, does he?
I don't think 'so's purpose is to incite outrage here. He has quite clearly stated his sole purpose of posting here though Dr Bob. Firstly he said you should lose your medical license in one of his posts. He also said this site should be shut down.
And when I asked this...
> From reading your posts so, you've made it quite clear your only real interest here is to exact revenge on Dr Bob...
He answered...
>I've made it clear I intend to expose Robert Hsiung as the malicious bigot he knows himself to be.
His purpose here seems to be against the site and against yourself personally I would have thought from reading this?
Posted by gardenergirl on July 25, 2005, at 16:46:00
In reply to Re: stated purpose » Dr. Bob, posted by Nickengland on July 25, 2005, at 14:01:04
>
> His purpose here seems to be against the site and against yourself personally I would have thought from reading this?So then inciting outrage might be considered an unintended side effect?
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on July 25, 2005, at 16:47:13
In reply to Re: stated purpose » Nickengland, posted by gardenergirl on July 25, 2005, at 16:46:00
and that it was in reaction to So's posts.
I don't want to characterize the posts a inciting anything. Although I can say I felt outrage among other feelings.
gg
Posted by partlycloudy on July 25, 2005, at 17:15:08
In reply to assuming folks were outraged... » gardenergirl, posted by gardenergirl on July 25, 2005, at 16:47:13
Actually, I'm quite miffed at getting a PBC at my post!
Not that I've seen any successful retractions from Dr Bob on them; I'm not wasting my typing fingers on it.
But yes; I personally was outraged by the series of threads and exchanges in question.
mostlycloudy
Posted by Nickengland on July 25, 2005, at 18:08:09
In reply to Re: stated purpose » Nickengland, posted by gardenergirl on July 25, 2005, at 16:46:00
>So then inciting outrage might be considered an unintended side effect?
I would agree, most definately.
I'm fairly certain with the amount of intelligence behind some of 'so's posts, the unintendedness....well I personally think he knew that side effect was coming regardless.
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by JenStar on July 25, 2005, at 18:28:55
In reply to Re: stated purpose » gardenergirl, posted by Nickengland on July 25, 2005, at 18:08:09
I agree. So mentioned several times that he/she knows how to use words for maximum effect.
I believe that it's completely impossible to write such provocative things as were included in many of those posts, and such cruel things, and NOT be aware that you are inciting anger, rage, hurt feelings, etc.
I think to every rule there is an exception; to every rule there is a special clause. It's near impossible to develop civility rules that govern the entire hoard perfectly. And in a case like this, it seems to me there is ample evidence of malintent from the venom seen in some of those posts. I'm not sure that when such motives are present, that giving slap-on-the-wrist blocks is fair to the community as whole. I was also frustrated to see that other posters who posted under duress, sort of reeling from the after-effects of the onslaught of posts, received PBC's. Somehow the system doesn't seem perfectly set up to deal with this kind of issue...
JS
Posted by JenStar on July 25, 2005, at 18:34:31
In reply to Re: stated purpose » Nickengland, posted by JenStar on July 25, 2005, at 18:28:55
Sometimes intent IS obvious even if someone doesn't explicitly state their intent. And sometimes intent can be inferred with 99% accuracy. And sometimes people's intent MUST be inferred, because they say one thing publicly but their actions and words speak another story.
And sometimes intent SHOULD be inferred. Letting people continue to play word games at the expense of the boards and the expense of other posters is not appropriate, in my opinion. It's interesting, yes, but not conducive to harmony. (Although: I suppose it's never been explicitly stated that "harmony" is one of the goals of this board! Maybe that's just my personal goal.)
I know it's Dr. Bob's call on who he wants to allow here, and clearly he wants to allow so to return. I disagree with that decision, just for the record.
JenStar
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.