![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 9 to 33 of 192. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on December 2, 2004, at 14:13:07
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah-~endrs-frckidio » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on December 2, 2004, at 11:37:45
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 2, 2004, at 14:27:14
In reply to Pegasus explained it better than I did (nm) » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on December 2, 2004, at 14:13:07
Dinah,
You wrote,[...pegasus explained it better than I did...].
He/she did write that it was not acceptable to referr to others in the way that the post in question writes. And you write that posts that are unaddressed by the moderator are OK?
Then there are posts that are unadressed even after a request for a determination of acceptability or not is made. Could those posts beconsidered acceptable?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on December 2, 2004, at 14:37:10
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah-paibid » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on December 2, 2004, at 14:27:14
I think it's best to let Dr. Bob answer, Lou. I was just stating what I remembered from the intro.
But I would assume that if something is brought to Dr. Bob's attention and he does nothing that he thought it was not against the rules. But that doesn't mean he agrees with what was said.
Why don't you ask him though. I know nothing more.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 2, 2004, at 14:51:46
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah-paibid, posted by Dinah on December 2, 2004, at 14:37:10
Dinah,
You wrote,[...I would assume...that if he does nothing after it is brought to his attention...that it is not against the rules...].
If you could think that, then there is the potential for others to think that also.
I am proposing that posts of that nature could have a symbol placed after them, without comment, by the moderator, to indicate that the moderator does not consider the post acceptable and could also mean that it is not endorsed by the forum, for could a post be unacceptable and at the same time be endorsed by the moderator?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 2, 2004, at 17:54:38
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dinah-~endrs-frckidio, posted by pegasus on December 2, 2004, at 13:33:08
pegasus,
You wrote,[...lost about the fundamental concern...].
The fundamental concern involves the following :
Posts that are potentially unacceptable but have no mention of that by the moderator after a request for a determination of acceptability or not has been posted or emailed to Dr.Hsiung. If this procedure is implemented, then it could mean that if no symbol is placed by the questioned post, that it is endorsed and acceptable for the forum. I feel that without such a procedure, one could think that a post is acceptable when it is not.
The example given is one of a group of posts belonging to this class of posts. I am proposing to Dr. Hsiung that he put a symbol by those posts that have the potential to be unacceptable to indicate that the forum does not endorse the post. This is not the same as saying that the post is unacceptable, although it could be.
I base this on several practices for newspapers. Some newspapers do not want to print advertisments for particular products, or for telephone numbers to hear sexual fantacies or "dateing services" and such. But they have to allow all to advertise so they allow these type of adds and post that the newspaper does not endorse what is being advertised. Also with radio and tv programs that the station does not endorse.
The statement by Dr. Hsiung that he is only responsible for what he writes IMO does not adresss this situation because he has a code for posting and I believe that the code leads people to believe that if there is no action by the moderator to say that something is not acceptable, then the potential to think , like Dinah has written, that the post is acceptable is there. If the radio station did not express that they did not endorse the opinions of the parties in the program, then one could think that the station did endorse what was on the air.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 2, 2004, at 18:26:15
In reply to Lou's reply to pegasus-funcon » pegasus, posted by Lou Pilder on December 2, 2004, at 17:54:38
pegasus,
You wrote,[...fundamental concern...].
The next concern is about defamation and humiliation. Dr. Hsiung has a strict policy concerning defamation directed to a particular poster. Posters could experiance deep humiliation from posts that have defaming statements about a person here. In the post in question that I have used as an example, if I was "linkage", I would feel deep humiliation from the names used by the other poster directed to "linkage".
Dr. Hsiung has written many things that have the potential for people to think that he wants to protect posters from emotional and psychological harm by enforcing his code of posting. I feel that IMO, that my proposal will further that goal. I would feel much more comfortable if there was a note that the post was not endorsed by the forum. This could be "please be..." or a "rephrase" or what I am proposing as a new way to address these type of posts.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 3, 2004, at 4:49:52
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah-paibid, posted by Dinah on December 2, 2004, at 14:37:10
> I would assume that if something is brought to Dr. Bob's attention and he does nothing that he thought it was not against the rules. But that doesn't mean he agrees with what was said.
Right:
> The only messages I take responsibility for are my own.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2004, at 5:17:33
In reply to Re: doesn't mean he agrees, posted by Dr. Bob on December 3, 2004, at 4:49:52
> > I would assume that if something is brought to Dr. Bob's attention and he does nothing that he thought it was not against the rules. But that doesn't mean he agrees with what was said.
>
> Right:
>
> > The only messages I take responsibility for are my own.
>
> Bob
R. Hsiung,
In the above reply by you to another poster, the other poster thinks that if you do not reply to a request about acceptability of a post, then your not replying means that what was written is not against the rules.
Does this mean , then, that since you have not replied to my request for a determination as to the acceptability of the post in question that it is not against the rules here to write that someone here is a "fruitcake" and an "idiot"?
If you could clarify that, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2004, at 6:32:29
In reply to Re: doesn't mean he agrees, posted by Dr. Bob on December 3, 2004, at 4:49:52
Dr. Hsiung,
If it is allowable for one here to call another poster a "fruitcake" and an "idiot", then could you clarify what your rational could be to make it unacceptable here to call someone an (expletive), which is the same word used sometimes to referr to a donkey? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2004, at 6:56:17
In reply to Re: doesn't mean he agrees, posted by Dr. Bob on December 3, 2004, at 4:49:52
Dr. Hsiung,
In the example in question, one could think that the poster directing "fruitcake" and "idiot" toward the other poster, (likadge), has the potential to be considerd a {personal attack}against linkadge. One could also have the potential to think that the words used toward the poster constitute {offensive language} toward another poster.
In gardengirl's post directed to the poster thatused the language toward linkadge, she thought that the language constitued that the poster look at the civility code. In that code, it writes that accusing others or putting down others is unacceptable according to the code here.
I could go along with the acceptance of "fruitcake" and 'idiot" to possibly be words that are not prohibited here,like the word that is prohibited here that could mean a donkey, but I feel and it is my opinion that the post could have the potential to be considered by some as falling into the part of the code here that speaks to {accusing others and putting down others or even jumping to a conclusion about another poster here}. There is also the aspect of defamation toward the poster as to how one defines defamation on a mental-health forum. Legally, I do not think that calling someone a "fruitcake or idiot" constitutes legal defamation, but I am thinking in terms of the type of defamation that has the potential to cause psychlogical and emotional harm to someone here. I call it defamation of the soul.
I am requesting that you modify your code in the FAQ to include that calling posters here these type of names be not acceptable and that if you could insert the example used here, I would appreciate that.
Lou Pilder
Posted by nikkit2 on December 3, 2004, at 6:59:05
In reply to Lou's response to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Dinah-ol » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2004, at 6:32:29
Could you please link to the mesage in which someone called someone else a "fruitcake" and an "idiot"..
Thankyou
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2004, at 7:07:38
In reply to Lou's response to Dr. Hsiung's replyto Dinah-pa-ol » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2004, at 6:56:17
Posted by partlycloudy on December 3, 2004, at 9:00:36
In reply to the link to this discussion, posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2004, at 7:07:38
Lou, isn't your question about the use of the words "fruitcake" and idiot" a non-issue since the poster has been banned? Isn't getting banned a clear consequence of being repeatedly uncivil? I believe the fact that the poster in question has been banned makes it unnecessary for any individual posts to be examined.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2004, at 11:01:06
In reply to Re: the link to this discussion » Lou Pilder, posted by partlycloudy on December 3, 2004, at 9:00:36
pc,
You wrote,[...poster...banned makes it unnecessary for...individual posts to be examined...].
Unnecessary? The post is visible and there is no addressing of it from the moderator. If the poster left the forum on his/her own volition, would you still think that the post then need not to be addressed by the moderator?
Lou
Posted by partlycloudy on December 3, 2004, at 12:49:16
In reply to Lou's reply to partlycloudy-bndunnec » partlycloudy, posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2004, at 11:01:06
You'd have to ask Dr Bob, then. I'll keep quiet.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 4, 2004, at 2:02:49
In reply to Lou's reply to partlycloudy-bndunnec » partlycloudy, posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2004, at 11:01:06
> I believe the fact that the poster in question has been banned makes it unnecessary for any individual posts to be examined.
>
> partlycloudyThat was what I thought...
> If the poster left the forum on his/her own volition, would you still think that the post then need not to be addressed by the moderator?
>
> LouNo, in that case I would still address it, since they might change their mind.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 4, 2004, at 8:03:13
In reply to Re: Lou's reply, posted by Dr. Bob on December 4, 2004, at 2:02:49
Dr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...in that case,( a poster left on their own volition), I would address it...].
You also wrote elseware,[...if I miss it...I could be reminded and then address it...].
If we look at the type of post in question, there is the potential for some to think that since the post is not addressed by you that it is OK here to post such. There is no visible understanding that the poster that wrote such is absent from the board when they read the post. I am asking you to elliminate that situation by making some type of notation that what is posted is not acceptable here because there is the potential for one to think that since there is no visible notation {from you} that the content of the post is unacceptable here that they could think that it is acceptable here to call a person those names. You say that someware else you evicted the poster for some other post. But those that read the post in question do not have any idea of that unless they frequent another board where the eviction took place.
There are many boards here that I have never posted on. I believe that there could be others here that also do not look at some of the other boards. And I do not think that it is the responsibility of evry poster here to read evry post on evry board to find out. When someone reads the post in question , they see a poster calling another poster here a "fruitcake" and an "idiot" and there is nothing from ther moderstor to indicate at the sorce of the post that it is unacceptable. I am requesting that in these cases that you place a symbol next to the post to indicate that the poster has been evicted from another post on another board and that the symbol means that the post in question is unacceptable.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 4, 2004, at 9:42:18
In reply to Re: Lou's reply, posted by Dr. Bob on December 4, 2004, at 2:02:49
> > I believe the fact that the poster in question has been banned makes it unnecessary for any individual posts to be examined.
> >
> > partlycloudy
>
> That was what I thought...
>
> > If the poster left the forum on his/her own volition, would you still think that the post then need not to be addressed by the moderator?
> >
> > Lou
>
> No, in that case I would still address it, since they might change their mind.
>
> BobDr. Hsiung,
Let us look at the above. Another poster,(partlycloudy) write that {...believe...that the poster in question has been banned makes it {unnecessary} for any individual posts to be examined...].
Then you write to that,[...That was what I thought...]and if the poster left on their own volition,[...I would ...address it since they might change their mind...].
The reason that I am requesting that you impliment a procedure for these type of situations is so that others could know if the post in question is acceptable or not. One here may not know if a poster that wrote such has left the forum or not and what the reason if they left was for them leaving. Posters sometimes post sporatically and may be absent for weeks or months at a time between posts. This is in regards to your stated goal of the forum being for support. I do not belive that one can jump to any conclusion about a post being acceptable or not just because the poster posted some other post that was not acceptable on another board. In this case, the {other} post is on a different board, and not seen on the thread that the post in question is so there IMO is the potential for some posters here to think that the post is acceptable because you have not addressed it and they may not know that another post on another board by the same posted has resulted in an eviction to that poster, nor may they even know that there is some policy here that allows posts that have the potential to be defaming to another poster to remain aunaddressed by you because of another post by the poster. I have seen posts that have been written as unacceptable by a particular poster and there are other posts by that same poster that are acceptable. I do not prescribe to any system of logic that could have the potential to say that since a post is unacceptasble by a particular poster on another board, that it is unnecessary to examine for acceptability or not all the other posts by that poster. I also do not think or believe that it is a sound mental health practice to prescribe to any system of logic that says that since one post by that poster is unacceptable, then all the rest of the posts by that poster can be left unaddressed. If they are left unaddressed then I believe that others could have the potential to think that a post is acceptable when it is not.
This is why I am requesting the new procedure be implimented by you. I do not think that there could be any harm done to anyone by you notating a post that has the potential to defame another poster or put down that poster. I believe that it is necessarry for you to do so. I am still hurting from posts here that you have not addressed as to the acceptability or not even after I have posted and emailed you to do so and since you have not addressed them, one here could have the potential to think that the posts about me are acceptable by you which have tthe potential to defame me and humiliate me. And if your policy here could hurt me, then I feel that it could hurt others also. Who knows what person could see the post that calls another a "fruitcake" and an 'idiot" months from now. There is the potential for a reader to not know by seeing the post there that the poster that wrote the post was evicted for writing another post on another board. There is the potential for one to not know that you have written that it is unnecessary for you to address the post because of that. They may not even consider that such a policy could even exist because they may be a citizen of a country that prohibits in their constitution any such policy like that to exist in their country.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 4, 2004, at 12:51:09
In reply to Lou's reply to to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou- » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 4, 2004, at 8:03:13
> there is the potential for some to think that since the post is not addressed by you that it is OK here to post such.
That's true, maybe I should do more in situations like that... Maybe next time...
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 4, 2004, at 14:00:10
In reply to Re: Lou's reply, posted by Dr. Bob on December 4, 2004, at 12:51:09
Dr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...that's true, maybe I should do more in situations like that...Maybe next time...]
I am requesting that now, rather than next time be implimented.
I am offering to settle this by having a voluntary,virtual arbitration here of the issues involved and reach a binding decision. My suggestion is that we each pick 5 posters here to represent each other in a jury. We will present our prospective positions and then there will be a vote from the selected 10 posters that me and you will agree on, to decide the issue and it will be binding upon both of us.
The issues that I want to presebnt to thes virtual arbitration committee are that all posts that have the potential to be defaming or accusitive or to have the potential to arrouse ill will toward a poster or group be attended by you by taking the submitted posts and you posting a symbol to them to indicate that they are not acceptable in realation to the guidlines of the forum. This means that we could go back to some period of time, and I am willing to have that period of time to be 3 archives in a board.
I am asking that my representatives to vote be the following:
Atticus
Noa
Dinah
gardengirl
Larry Hoover
Please advise me if you are willing to accept my offer to have a virtual binding arbitration of this matter and then if you agree, those that I have asked to represent me could either accept or decline and you could pick your representatives.
Lou PIlder
Posted by TofuEmmy on December 4, 2004, at 14:35:14
In reply to Lou's offer to Dr. Hsiung » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 4, 2004, at 14:00:10
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 4, 2004, at 18:03:56
In reply to Lou's offer to Dr. Hsiung » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 4, 2004, at 14:00:10
Posted by gardenergirl on December 4, 2004, at 23:58:12
In reply to Lou's reply to to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou-B » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 4, 2004, at 9:42:18
> I also do not think or believe that it is a sound mental health practice to prescribe to any system of logic that says that since one post by that poster is unacceptable, then all the rest of the posts by that poster can be left unaddressed. If they are left unaddressed then I believe that others could have the potential to think that a post is acceptable when it is not.
Lou, I'm going to take one of your points and make it more general for the sake of my point. Certainly in recent cases, all or nearly all of certain posters' posts were viewed as unacceptable by many in the community. But what about a questionable post by someone who generally is civil? Does this mean that all of their posts must now be scrutinized by Dr. Bob?
While I do think it's unfortunate that all of certain poster's recent posts were deemed "a first offense", I'm not sure why it is necessary for Dr. Bob to provide a seal of approval or disapproval for posts. I think a fair number of the community provided validation that the posts in question were not acceptable to the community. I did that myself in my responses to Herman Munster and to Shalom34Israel. I voiced my feelings about their posts.
>I am still hurting from posts here that you have not addressed as to the acceptability or not even after I have posted and emailed you to do so and since you have not addressed them, one here could have the potential to think that the posts about me are acceptable by you which have tthe potential to defame me and humiliate me.
If I may offer an interpretation here, I think the above may be the crux of the matter for you. I can tell you are upset and perhaps frustrated that Dr. Bob has not responded to all of your inquiries. I can also tell that your inquiries are very important to you. Can you accept validation from others instead of Dr. Bob? Does that help at all? In some ways, at least to me, validation from my peers is more valuable than that from an authority figure.
At any rate, I feel for you in your frustration. Are there still inquiries you have made that have not been addressed by Dr. Bob? Perhaps you could consolidate them and send them via email to him? I would suggest you could also consolidate them and put them in a post, but I don't know how that might be affected by the new rule.
Take care,
gg
Posted by alesta on December 5, 2004, at 1:13:31
In reply to AGAIN I'm the last one picked for dodgeball !!! (nm), posted by TofuEmmy on December 4, 2004, at 14:35:14
i'm sure he's just more familiar with them. i'd think you'd make a stellar jury member, i mean dodgeball player, personally. :-)
Posted by alexandra_k on December 5, 2004, at 1:23:58
In reply to AGAIN I'm the last one picked for dodgeball !!! (nm), posted by TofuEmmy on December 4, 2004, at 14:35:14
People can be picked for dodgeball one week...
And not allowed to post replies the next...
I have concluded that it really is not personal at all.I'd pick you for my dodgeball team
But I'm opposed to exercise as a matter of principle...
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.