Posted by so on July 16, 2005, at 21:44:26
In reply to Re: You wouldn't? » so, posted by SLS on July 16, 2005, at 15:18:26
> Hi SO
>
> Can you do me a favor and provide me with a link to the post in which you asked Dr. Bob to review the "creepy" post on one of the other boards, 2000 I think?It's logged in the post at the top of this thread http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/2000/20041213/msgs/525416.html
> I think we should give the moderator some time to reply to your posts. He rarely allows posts on the Administration board to remain unattended. Actually, he rarely allows any thread on any board to remain unattended. It still amazes me how thorough he is.
Our experiences differ. On one recent occassion, he waited 13 days before responding to my repeated requests to review a post on politics. In the mean time, he asked me a series of questions, each of which took a considerable amount of his time. Rarely if ever have I observed comparable rumination on his part in reference to any post which he later deemed uncivil. The one in question charactrerized a particular public policy as a "joke".
Likewise, in this case, he has no need to interogate me about my faith. The time it takes him to contemplate my faith or to interogate my feelings could just as well be spent contemplating how the statement "They're that creepy" in reference to any person comports or conflicts with his instructions to not "jump to conclusions about others, post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, harass or pressure others, use language that could offend others."
We all know scientologists are human, and hence are among the "others" referenced in the FAQ. He never wrote in his FAQ "...others known to frequent this board." My faith du jour is irrelevant to whether he allows people to call other people creepy on his board.
>
> > ...but instead asked me a question about my religious faith.
>
> I think this was a mistake on the part of the moderator. It is one that happens rarely. I was surprised when I saw it.
I disagree. I agree it is a mistake, but not a mistake of ommission -- rather one of mistaken intent. I think it might reveal an intention on the part of the moderator. In my experience as a Web moderator, the word "creepy" as the object in a third-person sentence is sufficient to alert me that it is time sit up and pay attention to who is calling who what, not time to start asking people questions about their religion. I could train most any Seventh Grade student who can maintain a "B" grade average to perform the same sort of consistent moderation in less than an hour, at least as far as recognizing the problems of calling any entire group of people "Creepy."
>
> It is quite possible that he didn't consider Scientology to be a religion at the time he wrote his reply to you. I think it was an innocent mistake.I would think a doctor of psychiatry would have at least a working knowledge of prominant religions. Even if it were not recognized as a religion, what could it be that is so abhorant to be rightly called "creepy" on a Web site that otherwise does not even allow people to call recruitment of suicide bombers "monsterous"?
Asking rhetorically, since we seem to agree on the matter, why does the religous status matter? Scientologists are people, they were called creepy. That is the begining, the middle and the end of that story. It is all one needs to know to make a decision about how the statement fits within the guidelines and standard administrative practices at this site.
>
> SO, I am curious as to how long you have been monitoring or posting at the Psycho-Babble website. I ask this question only to encourage you to watch how well things work here if you are new to the site.I've been watching long enough to know what is going on. The archives allow anyone to become familiar with the history of the site, and my review as well as my interaction here does not lead me to an affirmative conclusion about "how well things work here."
>
> Regardless of whether or not a mistake was made by the moderator, the site and its management usually works well under the guidelines of civility as defined and enforced by Dr. Bob. Prejudicial enforcement is something rarely, if ever, seen here.
That something is not seen can sometimes reveal more about the attentiveness of a viewer than it does about the facts at hand. Basic nuerobiology tells us perception most often focuses on what is anticipated. While the administrator is willing to sanction some popular members, people who believe they are on the "bad member" list have reported delays in responding, responding with questions instead of addressing problematic posts, diversions to e-mails which are not answered. Prejudice might be more easily identified as a lack of interest in the appeals of unfavored members moreso than by failure to sanction favored members.> However, I can't think of a single instance on the therapeutics boards where Dr. Bob's enforcement of civility was prejudicial. That's pretty weird, huh?
Not at all. We are easily influenced by what we expect to find, so if you expect him to be consistent I would expect it might take considerable evidence to the contrary before you publicly declare that you have witnessed prejudicial enforcement. Let me ask this, if Hsiung ultimately allows a longtime member to call members of a certain faith "creepy" unchallenged after, say, two weeks or a month, would you then say that you have witnessed prejudiced enforcement?
>One mistake I think he made was asking you if you were a Scientologist. I wouldn't read too much into that, though.I would. I have read the same texts he has about the use of questions in therapuetic settings. When a person is trained to ask questions, it is fair to contemplate the purpose of a question they ask.
> I also feel that the post that upset you deserves a moderator's comment. Not to do so would be another mistake.
I'm not saying I'm upset - even if someone did "say something that could lead (me) to feel put down", but I do appreciate that one of the more reasoned long-time members of this forum readily recognizes the problematic nature of the moderator's performance so far in this matter.
> I must tell you, SO, that I disagree with much of what Scientology offers.
Surprise, surprise, but so do many Scientologists.
>For now, I would react incredulously if you were to accuse Dr. Bob as being part of a grand conspiracy by psychiatrists to purge the Earth of Scientology.
No grand conspiracy, Scott. More like a basic human response to people with whom we disagree. Cops sometimes profile and forcibly detain innocent members of certain ethnic groups, but that doesn't mean they are part of a grand conspiracy to destroy those groups. They usually say they are doing it "for the good of the community."
>From what I've read so far, though, that is exactly what Scientology is trying to do to psychiatry.
No more so than Christianity is trying to eradicate Islam or visa versa, or than Coke is trying to destroy Pepsi. Unrelenting rhetorical opposition is far different than a campaign to remove an ideology from the earth. The later most often matures to systematic (and usually ineffectual) violence.
>I might suggest that this is not the right forum to debate the practicability of psychiatry. The main medication board would probably be the best place to start.
Only to get booted to social then faith then alternative then social. But my purpose is not to debate the merits of psychiatry or of other faith systems. I have little interest in discussing the practicability of psychiatry in this forum, in large part because I think such discussion would be more productive in a forum not administered by someone with a vested interest in the outcome of the discussion.My purpose for posting to his board about this is to expose a circumstance in which an entire group of people was called "creepy" and to question the administrator about the consistency of his statement that "so far I have allowed" members to call people of a particular religous faith "creepy".
poster:so
thread:526844
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050716/msgs/528767.html