![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 80 to 104 of 163. Go back in thread:
Posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 13:31:11
In reply to Re: a complaint, posted by Dr. Bob on July 17, 2005, at 1:13:57
>
> The behavior was similar, but I responded differently before the filter was in place...
>
> Bob
That was but one example though. A couple of months ago I offered to send you several examples of posts the would have recieved P.B.C's if the poster were someone else.
You did say "Let's see how things go"
Well before that Fallen4myT had the same concern, and Now crushed has brought it up.These are all completly independent observations
about the same poster. Do you think you could at least take a closer look and see if there is some validity to this?
I don't think we're all delusional, perhaps because I tend to stick to the same boards I just don't see how many other posters you let off the hook. I do know however that if I had said to someone it's like "talking to a brick wall"
I'd have been P.B.C'dI realize that the you've said the severity of the situations had influenced your response this particular time,(though I know Susan47 certainly wasn't given any breaks after she used a**)
I would think that eventually frequency of occurence should affect your response too.
Posted by alexandra_k on July 17, 2005, at 15:52:50
In reply to a complaint » Dr. Bob, posted by crushedout on July 16, 2005, at 10:25:14
I find it interesting that certain people seem more interested in getting me PBC'd / blocked than in supporting posters getting along with one another so intervention by administration is not required.
This used to really bug me.
But I've decided its just not worth it to me.I find it rather ironic considering what these same people would prefer Lou to do instead of requesting for determinations.
And it's rather ironic considering that these same people resented administration intervention with regards to certain other posters (e.g., Larry Hoover).
Posted by alexandra_k on July 17, 2005, at 15:58:27
In reply to Re: a complaint, posted by alexandra_k on July 17, 2005, at 15:52:50
Completely independent observations are not obtained when people chat to one another off the boards. And they are not obtained when people read what other people have to say and see how I respond to them before deciding to agree.
I'm well aware that some people would prefer it if I wasn't here.
This used to really bug me...
But I've decided... It's just not worth it.
If people have a problem with me...
Then leave me alone.
I can extend the same courtesy in return.
Posted by 10derHeart on July 17, 2005, at 16:41:08
In reply to Re: a complaint, posted by alexandra_k on July 17, 2005, at 15:58:27
((Alex)) I'm VERY glad you're here.
I'm very glad the other posters/people you refer to are here, too.
Very, very glad you're all here.
You're all so different, wonderfully articulate, sensitive, smart, observant, logical...and so much more...
I feel like I'm at a celebration of the best of the best many times on Babble.
I am honored just to be in your company.
I think maybe....it's bits of all those traits that bring out such passions to defend free speech, fairness, equality, etc. As well they should, I suppose.
Like someone (Dinah...I think?..) wrote recently...the qualities we admire and love the most in people seem to have flip sides....and can also be the qualities we "love to hate,"...or at least that irritate the cr*p out of us at times!
Just some ramblings....wish I could say something more insightful or helpful :-(
Posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 16:53:21
In reply to Re: a complaint, posted by alexandra_k on July 17, 2005, at 15:52:50
> I find it interesting that certain people seem more interested in getting me PBC'd / blocked than in supporting posters getting along with one another so intervention by administration is not required.
That's a huge conclusion to jump to.
And I'm offended. I've often pointed out inconsistancies to you, as you know, and this is another one. (The last one was Pinkeye and Emmy I think) And it *certainly* doesn't keep me from supporting others, or crushed, and it's definitely not priority.
Furthermore I have never ONCE (take a look) said a negative word about Lou's posting. The opposite in fact.
Another incorrect conclusion.
And As Crushed said quite clearlyI'm not wanting anyone blocked but am pointing out inconsistancy here.
> I find it rather ironic considering what these same people would prefer Lou to do instead of requesting for determinations.**Furthermore I have never ONCE (take a thorough look) said a negative word about Lou's posting. The opposite in fact.
Another incorrect conclusion.
AS the poster said "These""and there are only two here I'm automatically included>> And it's rather ironic considering that these same people resented administration intervention with regards to certain other posters (e.g., Larry Hoover).
>
**
Again, a completely incorrect conclusion. The archives will show clearly that it was the length of the block I objected to, not administrative intervention, ever!And independent conclusions can certainly be obtained when one thinks something first, and then notices that someone else has spoken about the same idea we were thinking. THEN they may or may not speak to each other about it.
My E-mail to you Dr. Bob was at least 2 months ago about the subject, Crushed brought this up only a few days ago, and I've never even posted on the board to Crushed before two days ago never mind babblemailed.You can check that.
And in the following post "I'm well aware that some people would prefer I was not here"
Another incorrect conclusion:
I would prefer people had to have relatively similar treatment as far as the
P.B.C's go. That's my concern, especially in this case because I have been offended by the posts personally, not soley because I'm being nit-picky about the P.B.C's
Posted by alexandra_k on July 17, 2005, at 17:01:59
In reply to Re: a complaint Please Dr. bob? look at t his., posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 16:53:21
Posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 17:12:00
In reply to Re: a complaint Please Dr. bob? look at t his., posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 16:53:21
My post was to Dr.Bob
Posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 17:13:43
In reply to I'd like to reiterate - please do not post to me (nm) » gabbii, posted by alexandra_k on July 17, 2005, at 17:01:59
Here are things I've said about Lou and about
Larry Hoovers blockAbout LOU
> I'm somewhat biased though, I have learned much from Lou's insight, especially on one particular post mentioning the holocaust, and another on a joke I didn't consider racist, though, I at first thought it was nit-picky. I wouldn't want to lose that. I also have deep respect for the fact that no matter how cruel the things are that have been said to him, he never responds in kind.
It's not always good humor, sometimes it's genuine appreciation/respect for the contributions of the person involved.
About Larry's block
And though I'm all for respecting the D.N.P's I think 6 weeks is unnecessary..."
Emmy had every right to make her D.N.P request and expect that it would be validated by Dr.Bob
Posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 17:19:14
In reply to Dr. Bob I'm livid--Please note., posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 17:13:43
Posted by gabbii on July 11, 2005, at 0:05:43
And then I a while later realized that nothing had been accomplished during it after all. I reinvoked the D.N.P
And that is where it stands.
Posted by crushedout on July 17, 2005, at 23:19:21
In reply to Re: a complaint, posted by Dr. Bob on July 17, 2005, at 1:13:57
> > I hope you will ... be careful not to favor certain posters unfairly in the future
>
> I'm sorry if I've treated you unfairly. I've tried not to. Favoritism is often a concern in groups.will you agree to try to be conscious of this in the future? i'm not looking for an apology -- just a commitment to try.
> > I am ... just noting the differential treatment of objectively similar behavior. One example: with testing the vulgar language automatic filter -- she has often pointed out its deficiencies in ways that have involved posting vulgar language. When I did the same thing -- with a *very* innocuous term, I might add (crazy-*ss)-- I got warned.
>
> The behavior was similar, but I responded differently before the filter was in place...nope, i'm talking about an incident *after* the filter was in place. and ironically, i think it was in a thread alex started in which she was pointing out its deficiencies. when i joined in, you scolded me. to my knowledge, she received no scolding, despite *repeated* such incidents.
Posted by crushedout on July 17, 2005, at 23:27:15
In reply to Re: a complaint, posted by alexandra_k on July 17, 2005, at 15:52:50
I actually don't see any irony with regard to the comparison to Larry. Except irony working the other way (that you are saying DNP is DNP).
It's actually quite consistent. I think people shouldn't be PBC'd or blocked unfairly. Period.
And I've never said anything whatsoever along the lines you suggest about Lou.
I'm happy to ignore you as you suggest (in fact I rarely read your posts anymore) -- but I still insist on fairness, to the extent that insisting does any good.
Posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 23:35:56
In reply to Re: a complaint » Dr. Bob, posted by crushedout on July 17, 2005, at 23:19:21
As my claim of independent conclusions was considered to be untrue, I want to add that I mentioned that very incident to dr. bob via e-mail the day after it happened. I recieved no response though.
> > I am ... just noting the differential treatment of objectively similar behavior. One example: with testing the vulgar language automatic filter -- she has often pointed out its deficiencies in ways that have involved posting vulgar language. When I did the same thing -- with a *very* innocuous term, I might add (crazy-*ss)-- I got warned.
> >
> > The behavior was similar, but I responded differently before the filter was in place...
>
> nope, i'm talking about an incident *after* the filter was in place. and ironically, i think it was in a thread alex started in which she was pointing out its deficiencies. when i joined in, you scolded me. to my knowledge, she received no scolding, despite *repeated* such incidents.
Posted by crushedout on July 17, 2005, at 23:56:27
In reply to Re: a complaint, posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 23:35:56
excuse me it might have been crazy*ss (without the hyphen). but the incident of which i speak was definitely *after* the filter. (there was also one before, which I am not referring to.)
Posted by crushedout on July 17, 2005, at 23:57:44
In reply to Re: a complaint, posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 23:35:56
hey that's cool. you had my back even before i knew i liked you. :)
Posted by gardenergirl on July 17, 2005, at 23:57:58
In reply to Re: a complaint, posted by crushedout on July 17, 2005, at 23:56:27
Don't forget that I f*rted! That was a significant post.
;)
gg
Posted by gabbii on July 18, 2005, at 1:05:01
In reply to Re: a complaint » crushedout, posted by gardenergirl on July 17, 2005, at 23:57:58
> Don't forget that I f*rted! That was a significant post.
>
> ;)
>
> ggOh yeah, and you got P.B.C'd too!
Posted by gabbii on July 18, 2005, at 1:05:51
In reply to Re: a complaint » gabbii, posted by crushedout on July 17, 2005, at 23:57:44
>
> hey that's cool. you had my back even before i knew i liked you. :)You bet! I'll even send you a copy of the e-mail for posterity if ya want..
Posted by crushedout on July 18, 2005, at 11:21:11
In reply to Re: a complaint » gardenergirl, posted by gabbii on July 18, 2005, at 1:05:01
did gg really get pbc'ed for posting the word "f*rt"? i vaguely recall this but i can't believe it. and this was post-filter????
Posted by crushedout on July 18, 2005, at 11:21:54
In reply to Re: a complaint » crushedout, posted by gabbii on July 18, 2005, at 1:05:51
sure, i'd love to see that, if it's not too much trouble.
Posted by crushedout on July 18, 2005, at 11:25:47
In reply to Re: a complaint » gabbii, posted by crushedout on July 18, 2005, at 11:21:11
if gg got PBC'd for using "f*rt" and I got scolded for pointing out that the filter doesn't catch crazy*ss, then why did alex's use of the word "c*nt," only get an "oops!" from you, dr. bob?http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041218/msgs/435080.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041218/msgs/435097.html
does anyone else wonder what's going on here? i'm baffled.
Posted by crushedout on July 18, 2005, at 11:30:36
In reply to differential treatment dr. bob, posted by crushedout on July 18, 2005, at 11:25:47
when you look at the context in which alex posted "c*nt." see below.
# It is tempting to see what we can get away with... (nm) » Dr. Bob alexandra_k 12/27/04
# heh heh, works pretty good :-) (nm) alexandra_k 12/27/04
# Re: automatic asterisking Larry Hoover 12/27/04
# Re: I know :-) (nm) Dr. Bob 12/27/04
# damn (nm) » Dr. Bob alexandra_k 12/28/04
# Bugger (nm) alexandra_k 12/28/04
# c*nt alexandra_k 12/28/04it's not like alex did this by accident. she so much as tells us she's trying to violate the rules. and all she gets is an oops.
i know this is ancient history, but this is just one example in a long line of injustices, in my opinion.
and yes, i know i have better things to do with my time than worry about such a silly injustice. but everything is relative and this is what i happen to be worrying about. (someone save me from belittling myself! :) )
Posted by AuntieMel on July 18, 2005, at 12:07:09
In reply to differential treatment dr. bob, posted by crushedout on July 18, 2005, at 11:25:47
Hers was coded - in caps buried in a message. The filter couldn't catch it.
It was meant to be a joke, but she didn't realize f*rt would be considered vulger.
I thought it was funny and laughed my tush off, though.
Posted by crushedout on July 18, 2005, at 12:09:49
In reply to Re: gg's f*rt » crushedout, posted by AuntieMel on July 18, 2005, at 12:07:09
> Hers was coded - in caps buried in a message.
i don't understand what this means.
> It was meant to be a joke, but she didn't realize f*rt would be considered vulger.
as well she shouldn't have. it's a perfectly fine word for a biological function. personally, i think it's ridiculous that it's considered vulgar.
> I thought it was funny and laughed my tush off, though.
i'm sure you did. :) gg's a riot.
i still want to know whether she got pbc'd for it, though. if she did, that's an outrage.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 18, 2005, at 12:20:56
In reply to Re: gg's f*rt » AuntieMel, posted by crushedout on July 18, 2005, at 12:09:49
Decoded it says "I f*rted"
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050417/msgs/494363.html
Posted by crushedout on July 18, 2005, at 12:27:19
In reply to Re: the link » crushedout, posted by AuntieMel on July 18, 2005, at 12:20:56
oh, thanks, mel. no offense to, ahem, anyone but if f*rt is vulgar than so is poop. arbitrary rules make me mad.but this is a side issue. i'm focused on fairness here.
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.