![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 42. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Phillipa on March 14, 2006, at 22:16:31
Although I know nothing about the drug nardil I read the whole thread and I saw nothing wrong with what ED said. Thanks Phillipa
Posted by 10derHeart on March 14, 2006, at 23:39:02
In reply to Why did ED_UK Get Blocked?, posted by Phillipa on March 14, 2006, at 22:16:31
From what Dr. Bob 'snipped', the uncivil part of the post was that ed referred to another poster's post as *unkind.* It resulted in a block because Dr. Bob had recently warned him (if I recall that was in the last day or two, but maybe on a separate thread...?) about civility.
That's my understanding anyway.
Posted by Phillipa on March 15, 2006, at 11:00:06
In reply to Re: Why did ED_UK Get Blocked? » Phillipa, posted by 10derHeart on March 14, 2006, at 23:39:02
It's his Nardil thread. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by gardenergirl on March 15, 2006, at 13:49:56
In reply to Re: Why did ED_UK Get Blocked? » 10derHeart, posted by Phillipa on March 15, 2006, at 11:00:06
> It's his Nardil thread. Fondly, Phillipa
I don't understand what you mean by this. It's clear to me that 10der knew what post/thread was involved.
gg
Posted by Phillipa on March 15, 2006, at 14:02:43
In reply to Re: Why did ED_UK Get Blocked? » Phillipa, posted by gardenergirl on March 15, 2006, at 13:49:56
I just figured that l0der didn't read the nardil thread. But then people read a lot of the threads. Sorry. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by gardenergirl on March 15, 2006, at 14:40:53
In reply to Re: Why did ED_UK Get Blocked? » gardenergirl, posted by Phillipa on March 15, 2006, at 14:02:43
Reading the thread can give context to what Ed was referring to. But it doesn't change what he wrote and why it was sanctioned.
I misinterpreted your post, though--reading too fast. Sorry.
gg
Posted by 10derHeart on March 15, 2006, at 15:16:21
In reply to Re: Why did ED_UK Get Blocked? » Phillipa, posted by gardenergirl on March 15, 2006, at 14:40:53
Without going back to look, I think there were two or more separate threads that stemmed off of the original (ongoing?) discussion about old/new Nardil. I did read all the way through at least two of them, so I did recall ed previously being warned about his own response/labeling as 'rude' of a posters's response to some of his opinions/ideas/thoughts on the matter.
But Phillipa, it's not at all farfetched to guess I hadn't read a Nardil thread. Don't take it or know anyone IRL who does, and rarely post on meds board except about ADD/ADHD and sometimes beta blockers. But sometimes, because I see the names of posters I 'know' and care about there, I do read (you and gg, for instance) and I learn so much about meds, pdocs, drug companies and the courage, intelligence and tenacity of Babblers! So it's well worth the read :-)
Too bad things get so heated. I'm glad people are passionate - it can be quite a tool in the arsenal of navigating the mental health world, but sometimes goes over the line for Babble civility.
Ed wasn't the only one PBC'd or blocked - once again evidence of fairness and evenhandedness, IMO. (thanks gg, other deputies, Dr. Bob) I know it's tough on other posters when a long-time poster, friend and helper can't be here for a while :-(
Posted by Phillipa on March 15, 2006, at 16:06:02
In reply to Re: Why did ED_UK Get Blocked? » gardenergirl, posted by 10derHeart on March 15, 2006, at 15:16:21
How is the word unkind uncivi? I think that this word is used a lot in the UK. But then again I may be wrong as I often am. I just hate to Ed blocked when I know at least two posters on the med board only listen to what he says. And right now they are vulnerable not saying others aren't too. I guess I just feel bad for ED he spends so much time trying to help others. Oh well I miss you Ed. Love PJ O
Posted by gardenergirl on March 15, 2006, at 16:29:51
In reply to Re: Why did ED_UK Get Blocked?, posted by Phillipa on March 15, 2006, at 16:06:02
Characterizing another post or poster as something negative, as in "unkind" is not considered to be civil. Instead, one could say something like, "I felt slighted" or some other feeling word that represents how the "unkindness" affected the other.
It's all about "I" statemnents rather than "you/it" statements.
gg
Posted by Racer on March 15, 2006, at 16:37:48
In reply to Re: Why did ED_UK Get Blocked?, posted by Phillipa on March 15, 2006, at 16:06:02
> How is the word unkind uncivi?
I think the idea was that Ed was, by using that word to describe a post, characterizing someone's message as unkind, and, by extention, characterizing the person who posted it as unking, as well.
That's where Civility rules can get a little dicey -- when you say that something "is unkind," you run the risk of it being interpreted as the person who wrote it being unkind. That's where I statements come in. Although I don't have a suggestion right now for what that would look like.
Hope that helps.
Posted by Phillipa on March 15, 2006, at 16:53:07
In reply to Re: Why did ED_UK Get Blocked? » Phillipa, posted by Racer on March 15, 2006, at 16:37:48
Racer thanks that does help . Phillipa
Posted by Jakeman on March 15, 2006, at 19:51:53
In reply to Re: Why did ED_UK Get Blocked? » Phillipa, posted by gardenergirl on March 15, 2006, at 16:29:51
GG, He DID use an "I" statement.
I am totally confused. What is going on here?
Dr. Bob: You have mentioned many times that I statements are ok. Has this policy changed? Please advise.
warm regards, Jake
> It's all about "I" statemnents rather than "you/it" statements.
>
> gg
> your rather unkind (I thought) post (Ed_UK)
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 15, 2006, at 20:53:34
In reply to Re: Why did ED_UK Get Blocked? » gardenergirl, posted by Jakeman on March 15, 2006, at 19:51:53
No, that's one hoop that trips up many, many for a long long time ; )
For instance, if that were an okay "I" statement, then it mean it would also be okay to say "I think you are stupid"
"I feel you're an idiot"An *I* statement according to the rules of the site, means you describe how you felt about what was said.
"I felt, hurt, slighted, insulted"
Instead of
"I think you are rude, or a jerk"That's really hard, because sometimes it's not the truth.
Sometimes someone is purposely trying to get your goat, and you're allowed to say "I feel hurt by that"
But often you're not hurt, you're just really bugged.
But you could say "That really annoys me"
or "I'm really disgusted by that"As long as you don't say "That was disgusting"
I hope I described that okay.
They aren't really as limiting as it might seem at first.
Posted by Jakeman on March 15, 2006, at 21:19:46
In reply to Re: Why did ED_UK Get Blocked? » Jakeman, posted by Gabbix2 on March 15, 2006, at 20:53:34
Gabbix,
Thanks for your response. But I'm still not clear about this, please excuse my being slow.
If I say, "I thought you were rather unkind"
is that uncivil?I want to dismiss myself from this thread. I find it maddening. It takes up too much of my life. At the same time, I want to get some resolution about this point in case me or others want to post something in the future.
I do feel that we are splitting hairs at this point. I'm totally against put-downs and personal attacks. If anyone was really offended by Ed's statements I hope they will say so.
warm regards ~Jake
> No, that's one hoop that trips up many, many for a long long time ; )
>
> For instance, if that were an okay "I" statement, then it mean it would also be okay to say "I think you are stupid"
> "I feel you're an idiot"
>
> An *I* statement according to the rules of the site, means you describe how you felt about what was said.
> "I felt, hurt, slighted, insulted"
> Instead of
> "I think you are rude, or a jerk"
>
> That's really hard, because sometimes it's not the truth.
> Sometimes someone is purposely trying to get your goat, and you're allowed to say "I feel hurt by that"
> But often you're not hurt, you're just really bugged.
> But you could say "That really annoys me"
> or "I'm really disgusted by that"
>
> As long as you don't say "That was disgusting"
>
> I hope I described that okay.
> They aren't really as limiting as it might seem at first.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 15, 2006, at 22:35:43
In reply to Re: Why did ED_UK Get Blocked? » Gabbix2, posted by Jakeman on March 15, 2006, at 21:19:46
I do know. It is often to me splitting hairs when the intent is obvious. I only talk about it calmly now, because I think I've sort of given up.
I remember when someone posted a very racist post and another poster said "I find that offensive" Not "I'm offended" and they got blocked.
It can be extremely maddening.
But yes, saying "I feel you were being unkind"
Would be considered uncivil (By the board)
I wish there was another word than civil used, because in truth, it's actually VERY civil.
Just not by the rules implemented here.
It isn't always the meaning, it's the wording.
So whew.. sorry I'm going on.
Even if Ed had said "what you said disgusts me" although it's more harsh, (IMO) it would have been okay and not blocked.What he technically should have said was
"I feel .. slighted.. or whatever, by that remark"Someone else can probably explain better than I.
I hope that helped a little.. even though I know sometimes understanding the rules can make you more frustrated, and shake your head in disbelief.
Posted by gardenergirl on March 15, 2006, at 23:58:18
In reply to Re: Why did ED_UK Get Blocked? » Jakeman, posted by Gabbix2 on March 15, 2006, at 22:35:43
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 16, 2006, at 13:00:08
In reply to Good explanation, thanks Gabbi (nm) » Gabbix2, posted by gardenergirl on March 15, 2006, at 23:58:18
I should have added of course, that I appreciate the spirit of the civility rules, I really do.
And overall, I'm glad that they exist.
Posted by yxibow on March 16, 2006, at 13:34:43
In reply to Thank you. G.G » gardenergirl, posted by Gabbix2 on March 16, 2006, at 13:00:08
> I should have added of course, that I appreciate the spirit of the civility rules, I really do.
> And overall, I'm glad that they exist.
>
>I appreciate the concept of civility rules, but as they say you can't please all the people all the time. What is said online, in text, is not what you would see if we all gathered in a group support room, with a moderator. As they say, you can't please all the people all the time. Yes, there are individuals on here who may have emotional fragility because of their conditions, but sometimes I think things go a bit overboard. As as also they say, ____ happens.
Tidings
Jay
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 16, 2006, at 14:14:55
In reply to Re: Thank you. G.G » Gabbix2, posted by yxibow on March 16, 2006, at 13:34:43
but sometimes I think things go a bit overboard. As as also they say, ____ happens.
>I agree fully!
Posted by wildcard11 on March 16, 2006, at 14:42:44
In reply to Why did ED_UK Get Blocked?, posted by Phillipa on March 14, 2006, at 22:16:31
to me... we can say sh*t, f*ck, *ss, etc. and the little symbol makes it okay but you say UNKIND and get blocked?????! maybe it should say u*kind...
i admit it must be tough determining PBC's, blocks, etc. but in all the time i have been here, I have NEVER read a negative post from Ed so i think a PBS or PBC would have been way more warranted. just my 2 cents...
Posted by Declan on March 16, 2006, at 15:56:21
In reply to mystery, posted by wildcard11 on March 16, 2006, at 14:42:44
Why cannot the meaning of the word be considered in the rules? Unkind is a pretty civil description, as we all seem to agree. I can't seem to remember these distinctions, the ones Gabbi was talking about above. I'd have to write them out 50 times.
Declan
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 16, 2006, at 16:04:37
In reply to mystery, posted by wildcard11 on March 16, 2006, at 14:42:44
You crack me up!
Hope you're doing well.
Oh I want to write to you about the girl baby thing..
Well, I will write to you!
Posted by 10derHeart on March 16, 2006, at 16:28:36
In reply to mystery, posted by wildcard11 on March 16, 2006, at 14:42:44
>>I have NEVER read a negative post from Ed
That being so, I still think the thing is what he said there and then on that thread, on that day/time that determined appropriate admin action, not his general 'behavior' or 'attitude' here.... as it is with anyone...
>>..so i think a PBS or PBC would have been way more warranted. just my 2 cents...
But Ed *did* get a PBC just before for a similar comment about a post. So, the 2nd *offense* brought on the block. Which is how it works, no?
I wish Ed hadn't been blocked. I wish no one ever got blocked. But I didn't see any problem with this sequence of events or the decision.
Posted by gardenergirl on March 16, 2006, at 17:08:23
In reply to Re: mystery » wildcard11, posted by 10derHeart on March 16, 2006, at 16:28:36
> >>I have NEVER read a negative post from Ed
I'm not sure I have until recently, either. I wondered about what might be going on, and I babblemailed him about the situation, although I never received a reply.
>
> I wish Ed hadn't been blocked. I wish no one ever got blocked. But I didn't see any problem with this sequence of events or the decision.I wish that, too. And I agree with the decision as well. Thanks for posting this.
gg
>
>
Posted by wildcard11 on March 16, 2006, at 18:33:00
In reply to Re: mystery » wildcard11, posted by 10derHeart on March 16, 2006, at 16:28:36
i didn't see the previous PBC but the word *unkind*??? that's just not IMO enough to warrant a block...
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.