![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 12 to 36 of 179. Go back in thread:
Posted by Toph on May 1, 2013, at 11:44:55
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on April 30, 2013, at 22:33:38
I'm conflicted by this issue also Twinleaf. I commend Bob when he tolerates people exhibiting mental health symptoms on his support site. He seems to be relying more and more on the community to manage its own problems. Yet I think it is especially difficult when someone is paranoid or narcisistic because they are extremely limited in their ability to be empathic or have a shared dialogue with another person. Instead, they obsess and perseverate about their agenda and percieved harms. It's both frustrating and sad how impaired socially these individuals can be.
Posted by SLS on May 1, 2013, at 13:37:52
In reply to Re: please be civil » Twinleaf, posted by Toph on May 1, 2013, at 11:44:55
> I'm conflicted by this issue also Twinleaf. I commend Bob when he tolerates people exhibiting mental health symptoms on his support site. He seems to be relying more and more on the community to manage its own problems. Yet I think it is especially difficult when someone is paranoid or narcisistic because they are extremely limited in their ability to be empathic or have a shared dialogue with another person. Instead, they obsess and perseverate about their agenda and percieved harms. It's both frustrating and sad how impaired socially these individuals can be.
Perhaps we should allow any of these individuals to shoot people at will just because they are, sadly, paranoid or narcissistic? I don't know where the line is to be drawn here on Psycho-Babble, but don't you think there should be one?
- Scott
Posted by Twinleaf on May 1, 2013, at 13:48:55
In reply to Re: please be civil » Twinleaf, posted by Toph on May 1, 2013, at 11:44:55
I think you have given a very articulate description of the difficulty we are facing. Although any positive effect that an on- line forum can have is very limited, I would very much like to see minimal civility requirements applied, even to those who might have difficulty understanding how, or why, they apply to them. I feel that the present civility rules are benign and helpful. It would be reasonable and fair to apply them to everyone equally, and might have a beneficial effect that we will not know about. In their current form, they are simply normal social expectations and could be helpful to people who may have become extremely isolated.They certainly won't hurt anyone.
Posted by Toph on May 1, 2013, at 13:57:47
In reply to Re: please be civil » Toph, posted by SLS on May 1, 2013, at 13:37:52
> Perhaps we should allow any of these individuals to shoot people at will just because they are, sadly, paranoid or narcissistic?Did you think I was being supportive of this type of behavior, Scott? Without the administration drawing the line, as you put it, participants are left with just ignoring these individuals, I'm afraid. Pointing out how annoying, hurtful and self-centered they are sure hasn't helped.
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 1, 2013, at 14:15:13
In reply to Re: please be civil » Twinleaf, posted by Toph on May 1, 2013, at 11:44:55
Friends,
I am requesting that if you are going to post in this thread that you read the following post.
Lou
To see this post, go to the search box here and type in:
[admin,1041597]
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 1, 2013, at 14:49:20
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on April 30, 2013, at 22:33:38
Friends,
If you are considering being a discussant oin this thread, I am requesting that you read the following.
Lou
To see this post, go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in:
[admin,1006621]
Posted by SLS on May 1, 2013, at 18:41:19
In reply to Re: please be civil » SLS, posted by Toph on May 1, 2013, at 13:57:47
>
> > Perhaps we should allow any of these individuals to shoot people at will just because they are, sadly, paranoid or narcissistic?
>
> Did you think I was being supportive of this type of behavior, Scott?Of course not. I did think you were advocating tolerance of it, though.
> Without the administration drawing the line, as you put it, participants are left with just ignoring these individuals, I'm afraid.
Do you think a line should be drawn by administration if it is within its power to do so?
> Pointing out how annoying, hurtful and self-centered they are sure hasn't helped.
Exactly.
People who are not familiar with the authors of such posts don't know to ignore them. Instead, they might avoid this website entirely - or worse - adopt the messages.
- Scott
Posted by baseball55 on May 1, 2013, at 19:38:51
In reply to Re: please be civil » Toph, posted by SLS on May 1, 2013, at 18:41:19
Where is Dr. Bob in this discussion? This issue is ongoing and disturbing to many participants, yet Dr. Bob just disappears and sends out the occasional note to be civil to Lou. What's the problem here? Lou is not civil to other posters? Why is he not singled out?
Posted by Toph on May 2, 2013, at 11:13:03
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by baseball55 on May 1, 2013, at 19:38:51
Since Bob doesn't engage in these discussions like he used to years ago, we are left to speculate on his thinking. Like how should he preserve the rights of all posters to warn others of the dangerous side-effects of medications or should he permit posters the right to offer their faith as a panacea for mental health suffering? This individual has become so strident on these issues of late that I think it crosses the line that Scott mentions. Kind of similar to what Justice Stewart said about pornography - It's hard to define, but I know it when I see it. It's unclear if this individual is not civil by Bob's standards, but posters know. Sometimes it seems as if Bob gives a pass to offenders who have been here from the beinning as if there is an inertia to his pardons. All I know is I gave up thinking this poster is capable of changing a long time ago.
Posted by Lou PIlder on May 2, 2013, at 19:33:49
In reply to Re: please be civil » baseball55, posted by Toph on May 2, 2013, at 11:13:03
> Since Bob doesn't engage in these discussions like he used to years ago, we are left to speculate on his thinking. Like how should he preserve the rights of all posters to warn others of the dangerous side-effects of medications or should he permit posters the right to offer their faith as a panacea for mental health suffering? This individual has become so strident on these issues of late that I think it crosses the line that Scott mentions. Kind of similar to what Justice Stewart said about pornography - It's hard to define, but I know it when I see it. It's unclear if this individual is not civil by Bob's standards, but posters know. Sometimes it seems as if Bob gives a pass to offenders who have been here from the beinning as if there is an inertia to his pardons. All I know is I gave up thinking this poster is capable of changing a long time ago.
Toph,
You wrote,[...should he permit posters the right to offer their faith as a panacea for mental health suffering...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting readers to think when they read the statement here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could respond accordingly.True or false
A. You know that offering what one's faith entails so others could adopt it, could never help anyone overcome addiction and/or depression.
B. You know that Judaism has never enabled one to overcome addiction and/or depression
C. You know that depression is a result of a chemical imbalance and no faith could ever cure the imbalance
D. You know what the scriptures that the Jews use prescribe to those that use or prescribe or manufacture mind-altering drugs.
E. You know what causes depression
F. You know what The Great Deception is that is written in the scriptures thousands of years ago.
G You know what will be good for all the readers here.
H. You know (redacted by respondent)
Lou
Posted by Lou PIlder on May 2, 2013, at 20:47:08
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on April 30, 2013, at 22:33:38
> Dr. Bob, I definitely appreciate and support your new approach of accepting and separating differing views. It also seems reasonable and fair to give posters a warning when they make comments which could be hurtful, such as the ones directed at Lou which you cite.
>
> However, Lou has made even more frequent comments which many in the community find personally harmful and even threatening, and yet, to my knowledge, you have never given him a civility warning. No-one can understand why you are applying your very reasonable contemporary civility rules so completely differently to different posters. We all hope and expect that you will apply the rules equally and fairly, and are shocked and disillusioned when you don't. It is also undoubtedly not healthy for Lou to be repeatedly given the message here that the minimal civility rules apparently do not apply to him.Friends,
It is written here,[...Lou has made..comments which many in the community find personally harmful and even threatening...].
Psychologists write that statements of that nature can induce disparaging, hostile or disagreeable opinions or feelings toward me. But it is much more than that, for the statements have what is known as {foreseeable harm} because the statement can humiliate, degrade and dehumanize me, which is what hatetred posted toward another can do. And what would it profit for anyone to entertain in their mind what the poster has written about me here? Psychologists say that when one adopts the hate that another writes or says about another, that they can turn that hate to others in threats and insults that could poison the person so that they could commit even mass-murder. And this is allowed here under the guise that I have "never been given a civility warning" which is a lie. And lies about me here if adopted by you could infuse hatred toward me, but that hatred could be transferred to others. And how could one in that state ever overcome addiction and/or depression? My friends, I say to you that when you see this type of hate posted here about me, or anyone else, tell them to (redacted by respondent) where the sun don't shine.
Lou
Posted by Lou PIlder on May 2, 2013, at 21:43:10
In reply to Lou's warning- pstykihtt, posted by Lou PIlder on May 2, 2013, at 20:47:08
> > Dr. Bob, I definitely appreciate and support your new approach of accepting and separating differing views. It also seems reasonable and fair to give posters a warning when they make comments which could be hurtful, such as the ones directed at Lou which you cite.
> >
> > However, Lou has made even more frequent comments which many in the community find personally harmful and even threatening, and yet, to my knowledge, you have never given him a civility warning. No-one can understand why you are applying your very reasonable contemporary civility rules so completely differently to different posters. We all hope and expect that you will apply the rules equally and fairly, and are shocked and disillusioned when you don't. It is also undoubtedly not healthy for Lou to be repeatedly given the message here that the minimal civility rules apparently do not apply to him.
>
> Friends,
> It is written here,[...Lou has made..comments which many in the community find personally harmful and even threatening...].
> Psychologists write that statements of that nature can induce disparaging, hostile or disagreeable opinions or feelings toward me. But it is much more than that, for the statements have what is known as {foreseeable harm} because the statement can humiliate, degrade and dehumanize me, which is what hatetred posted toward another can do. And what would it profit for anyone to entertain in their mind what the poster has written about me here? Psychologists say that when one adopts the hate that another writes or says about another, that they can turn that hate to others in threats and insults that could poison the person so that they could commit even mass-murder. And this is allowed here under the guise that I have "never been given a civility warning" which is a lie. And lies about me here if adopted by you could infuse hatred toward me, but that hatred could be transferred to others. And how could one in that state ever overcome addiction and/or depression? My friends, I say to you that when you see this type of hate posted here about me, or anyone else, tell them to (redacted by respondent) where the sun don't shine.
> LouFriends,
The statement about me here is allowed to be posted in other types by the other posters in this thread. Notice that in reading the statement, there are presumptions about me. And when presumptions written about another can induce others as seeing me , as in this case here, as someone that is harming others or as an enemy, that is a very special type of hate. And for it to be allowed here by Mr Hsiung and his deputy could lead you to think that it is supportive, for support takes precedence according to Mr Hsiung. And one could think that it will be good for this community as a whole for this type of hate to stand here, for Mr Hsiung states that one match could cause a forest fire so that he does not wait.
Look at the other posts in this thread. Now we have a group. My friends, psychologists write about group hate and how the members of the group get a (false) sense of superiority which can give them a distorted mind-set to think that they can ridicule or bully others or even commit mass-murder. Look at the common thread that is woven in this thread about me. Is that not what can open the door to persuasion and indoctrination? Is that what you want to be involved in and swept into the sewer of hate? I say to you that if you want to be healed, the darkness of hate can keep you from finding the path to healing
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 3, 2013, at 1:33:13
In reply to Re: please be civil » baseball55, posted by Toph on May 2, 2013, at 11:13:03
Hi, everyone,
You can help this site run smoothly by notifying me of issues you see on the boards. Please don't do that in posts, however; posting that others are annoying, hurtful, self-centered, etc., can lead them to feel accused. Instead, use the "notify administrators" buttons below the posts:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#help
This applies even to those who have difficulty understanding how, or why, it applies to them. I feel this guideline is benign and helpful. It's reasonable and fair to apply it to everyone equally.
Lately, I've been trying to separate the sides in conflicts. If two sides are too far apart, giving them separate threads may lessen conflict between them without invalidating either of them:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1042870.html
I support efforts to protect and reassure other posters. Lou may express what they think and fear. What would reassure posters who feel frightened? Blocking Lou?
Some posters may not want to hear what Lou has to say, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's uncivil. Some posters may be extremely limited in their ability to be empathic with him. Instead, they may obsess and perseverate about their agendas and perceived harms.
I don't think I underestimate the intelligence and deliberative capacities of posters. I start with the assumption that they, especially with the help of others, can decide what information to trust and what information to ignore:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#trust
Which side is more capable of changing? Maybe it's an inevitable dialectic.
Bob
--
> However, Lou has made even more frequent comments which many in the community find personally harmful and even threatening
>
> Twinleaf> I agree with Twinleaf. I don't understand why your discouragement of exaggerations and overgeneralizations have not applied to Lou Pilder over the last few years. In addition, I feel that he is badgering other posters, especially when those posters ask him to desist.
>
> - Scott> I think many here interact with him not because they're interested in what he says, but because they're trying to protect others here, and especially newcomers, who may be upset and possibly driven away by his unrealistic but frightening comments. I myself have done this, because it's not fair to those who are unaware of his actions and history.
>
> Also to leave his voice unopposed seems wrong and disloyal to oneself and others who struggle with depression and go through difficult times, when what sometimes feel more like threats, than helpful warnings, may accord with someone's own thoughts or fears.
>
> Willful> I think the basic message he brings is great, and sometimes its difficult to get the message across that he brings to this site because no one wants to hear the very bad things about a pill they swallow every day.
>
> We all have flaws in how we go about doing things, but its wouldn't be good if everyone around you pointed them out to you at every single chance. Just turn the other cheek.
>
> poser938> Perhaps you underestimate the intelligence and deliberative capacities of the people who choose to take these pills.
>
> - Scott> He seems to be relying more and more on the community to manage its own problems. Yet I think it is especially difficult when someone is paranoid or narcisistic because they are extremely limited in their ability to be empathic or have a shared dialogue with another person. Instead, they obsess and perseverate about their agenda and percieved harms. It's both frustrating and sad how impaired socially these individuals can be.
>
> Toph> I would very much like to see minimal civility requirements applied, even to those who might have difficulty understanding how, or why, they apply to them. I feel that the present civility rules are benign and helpful. It would be reasonable and fair to apply them to everyone equally, and might have a beneficial effect that we will not know about. In their current form, they are simply normal social expectations and could be helpful to people who may have become extremely isolated.They certainly won't hurt anyone.
>
> Twinleaf> Without the administration drawing the line, as you put it, participants are left with just ignoring these individuals, I'm afraid. Pointing out how annoying, hurtful and self-centered they are sure hasn't helped.
>
> Toph> People who are not familiar with the authors of such posts don't know to ignore them.
>
> - Scott> All I know is I gave up thinking this poster is capable of changing a long time ago.
>
> Toph
Posted by SLS on May 3, 2013, at 8:43:43
In reply to Re: changing, posted by Dr. Bob on May 3, 2013, at 1:33:13
Hi Doctor.
I appreciate the time and effort it took for you to consider and opine on these issues and compose your post.
Thanks.
- Scott
Posted by Twinleaf on May 3, 2013, at 9:10:13
In reply to Re: changing, posted by Dr. Bob on May 3, 2013, at 1:33:13
Unfortunately, this suggestion does not address the problem which is concerning many of us: the inequitable application of "please be civil" warnings. Burying all complaints in private administrative messages allows even freer rein to the uncivil behavior which is disturbing so many people here in the first place.
Posted by Toph on May 3, 2013, at 10:13:27
In reply to Re: changing, posted by Dr. Bob on May 3, 2013, at 1:33:13
When you list my posts like this it makes me feel a little like a bully. Then I think of the posters who this individual has upset over the years and I fell less so.
Posted by SLS on May 3, 2013, at 16:02:48
In reply to Re: changing, posted by Dr. Bob on May 3, 2013, at 1:33:13
> What would reassure posters who feel frightened? Blocking Lou?
Yes, of course.
Whether or not Lou scares people is not a criterion for his being blocked. However, he could be blocked for overtly and repeatedly violating your FAQ rules of civility. Change? It may be that Lou would change his uncivil posting behaviors rather than be blocked interminably for exaggerating, overgeneralizing, and implying that the posts of others are antisemitic. As always, you can begin this process of change by first issuing PBCs.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on May 3, 2013, at 18:38:54
In reply to Re: changing » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on May 3, 2013, at 10:13:27
If you are considering being a discussant in this thread, I am requesting that you read the following:
To see this post, go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in:
[admin,1035095]
Very nice.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on May 3, 2013, at 18:44:15
In reply to Re: changing, posted by SLS on May 3, 2013, at 18:38:54
> If you are considering being a discussant in this thread, I am requesting that you read the following:
>
> To see this post, go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in:
>
> [admin,1035095]
>
> Very nice.
Best to start at the beginning of the thread...
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 3, 2013, at 23:45:03
In reply to Scott's response - justdoit » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on May 3, 2013, at 16:02:48
> Unfortunately, this suggestion does not address the problem which is concerning many of us: the inequitable application of "please be civil" warnings. Burying all complaints in private administrative messages allows even freer rein to the uncivil behavior which is disturbing so many people here in the first place.
>
> TwinleafThe guidelines here apply even to those who have difficulty understanding how, or why, they apply to them. Some posters may obsess and perseverate about their agendas and perceived harms.
--
> When you list my posts like this it makes me feel a little like a bully. Then I think of the posters who this individual has upset over the years and I fell less so.
>
> TophThank you for sharing that. You felt less like a bully, or more justified in bullying?
Those who see others being bullied, or are bullied themselves, can start to feel justified in bullying others. If you felt more justified in bullying, you may have experienced firsthand how that can happen. And you may now be able to feel more empathy for bullies.
Not that empathy is the answer to everything.
--
> > Lou may express what they think and fear. What would reassure posters who feel frightened? Blocking Lou?
>
> Yes, of course.Maybe. But if I were frightened of medication, I don't think blocking someone who expressed fear of medication would reassure me.
> Whether or not Lou scares people is not a criterion for his being blocked. However, he could be blocked for overtly and repeatedly violating your FAQ rules of civility.
You can help this site run smoothly by notifying me of issues you see on the boards. Use the "notify administrators" buttons below the posts:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#help
> Change? It may be that Lou would change his uncivil posting behaviors rather than be blocked interminably ... As always, you can begin this process of change by first issuing PBCs.
>
> - ScottIn fact, I've issued more than one PBC to Lou, and IMO his posting behavior has changed. Which side is more capable of changing?
--
I sense a theme of powerlessness. Some posters may feel powerless to change how Lou behaves. Some posters may feel powerless to change how I behave. I may feel powerless to change how some posters behave. All of us may feel powerless against mental illness.
Bob
Posted by SLS on May 4, 2013, at 2:12:15
In reply to Re: feeling powerless, posted by Dr. Bob on May 3, 2013, at 23:45:03
> I sense a theme of powerlessness.
Okay.
> Some posters may feel powerless to change how Lou behaves.
I care more how you might feel powerless to change how Lou Pilder behaves. He is quite clever, you know. You see, the real sense of powerlessness evolves as it is perceived that you actually empower Lou Pilder by not sanctioning him as you have done so to others in the past for the same behavior. If I were to say the things that he says, I can't imagine that you would allow me to continue posting here freely.
You say that Lou Pilder's behavior has changed as a result of your interactions with him. Perhaps I haven't noticed these changes in his most recent posts because I have largely ignored them, unless I become concerned that the disinformation he promulgates might be too persuasive if left unchallenged. I understand that it is not my job to challenge him. However, I sometimes feel that it is my duty to. After all, following his advice will lead to death.
I will try to be more observant of Lou Pilder's posts as they change over time as the result of your interactions with him on the board. It is true that I haven't seen benzene mentioned this past week. This is good because benzene is healthy for us. Compounds containing benzene rings keep our food safe to eat. Even aspirin is made using benzene. Our neurotransmitters contain benzene rings, as do several of the amino acids we must eat to stay alive. You see, we actually eat benzene. God gave us benzene so that we may remain alive outside of the Garden.
Please disregard the previous paragraph. I have decided not to endorse its contents, as its wording might be misinterpreted and lead to unhealthy beliefs. Do not ingest benzene. You may, of course, continue to consume the amino acids, tryptophan, tyrosine, and phenylalanine, so that you may remain alive, even though they contain benzene rings. In addition, you may continue to use your monoamine neurotransmitters to think about how silly this all is, despite the fact that benzene rings are integral to their chemical structure.
Do not consume benzene.
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on May 4, 2013, at 12:14:04
In reply to Re: feeling powerless, posted by Dr. Bob on May 3, 2013, at 23:45:03
I hate to suggest a new board, but perhaps the medication board could be left for those posts involving searching into the possibilities medications offer into a general treatment plan, while recognizing and discussing negative side effects.
With another board for posts about quitting medications entirely, the evils of medications, the poisonous ingredients in medications, and the possibilities of medications leading to violence and murder (whether or not it directed towards an identified group of persons).
That, along with perhaps a bit of administrating along already existing rules on accusing others, would probably solve the current problem.
So that the current board could still be used to discuss negative experiences with medications, in the context of the conversation, but with the idea that medication is still considered an alternative.
It would sort of be like keeping the faith board for those who aren't anti-faith, while still allowing for the anger and confusion of those who are legitimately exploring faith as a possibility in their lives.
After all, wasn't that why you originally established the medication board? To allow those who were seeking answers about medications from others using those medications a place to do so? At a time when doctors were still denying that SSRI's caused sexual dysfunction?
I think that function may be compromised by the large number of posts that are anti medication, and that aren't really written by users of psychiatric medications or those who are seeking information with the idea of using them in the future.
Yet, this would also be in keeping with your newest philosophy on board management. It would be the separation of two philosophical viewpoints so that each could discuss it freely.
Posted by Twinleaf on May 4, 2013, at 12:38:01
In reply to Re: feeling powerless, posted by Dr. Bob on May 3, 2013, at 23:45:03
I didn't realize that you had given pbcs to Lou in the past, and that you felt they had helped him . Why aren't you continuing something which has had a constructive effect? I would much prefer seeing pbc's having a constructive effect, and would not like to see Lou blocked. However, a short block of a week is not unduly punitive if the pbc's do not improve posting behavior which many other members of the board find harmful. It is actually far more destructive than the "uncivil" behavior which has resulted in pbc's and blocks in the past. I don't think there is anything in your guidelines which covers posting behavior of this kind .
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 5, 2013, at 2:19:36
In reply to Re: feeling empowered.... » Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on May 4, 2013, at 12:38:01
> > Some posters may feel powerless to change how Lou behaves.
>
> I care more how you might feel powerless to change how Lou Pilder behaves. He is quite clever, you know. You see, the real sense of powerlessness evolves as it is perceived that you actually empower Lou Pilder by not sanctioning him as you have done so to others in the past for the same behavior.
>
> - ScottI wonder if seeing me as empowering Lou might be connected with feeling powerless to change how I behave.
--
> I didn't realize that you had given pbcs to Lou in the past, and that you felt they had helped him . Why aren't you continuing something which has had a constructive effect? I would much prefer seeing pbc's having a constructive effect, and would not like to see Lou blocked. However, a short block of a week is not unduly punitive if the pbc's do not improve posting behavior which many other members of the board find harmful. It is actually far more destructive than the "uncivil" behavior which has resulted in pbc's and blocks in the past.
>
> TwinleafBe careful what you wish for:
> You have the power to pick your battles.
>
> Battling Dr. Bob on PB Admin? Generally results in frustration and effects on policy ranging from
> - none
> - the exact opposite of what you intended to accomplish
> - some other seemingly random policy change that isn't what you wanted.
>
> Choose wisely!http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090302/msgs/893534.html
Bob
Posted by SLS on May 5, 2013, at 5:13:04
In reply to Re: feeling empowered, posted by Dr. Bob on May 5, 2013, at 2:19:36
> I wonder if seeing me as empowering Lou might be connected with feeling powerless to change how I behave.
Of course it does. This is the crux of the behavioral dynamic that produces the frustration and sense of powerlessness many of us feel here. It appears to me that you have established new precedents and policies for determining what is permissible posting behavior. They seem to be different from those you instituted in the past. You have accomplished this tacitly through inaction. I think it unlikely that you would reverse these changes at this juncture. They are simply too new. You must feel strongly that they are healthy and desirable.
Can you please define or give examples of the following terms used on this website's FAQ page to determine civility? This would help me - and perhaps others - better understand your inaction in allowing posts that many of us feel are uncivil as they relate to these terms.
1. Exaggerate
2. Overgeneralize
3. Etc.http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Thanks.
- Scott
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.