![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 97 to 121 of 197. Go back in thread:
Posted by KaraS on June 15, 2005, at 5:26:29
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » KaraS, posted by alexandra_k on June 14, 2005, at 23:56:10
> > Suffice it to say that I agree with Tamara and Gabbi (and I couldn't possibly have improved upon their arguments anyway). I think this issue involves interpretation of events and we just don't interpret them the same way. This is not meant as a personal affront in any manner. I just don't see things the same way you do. Please let's just agree to disagree on this.
>
> I'm sorry, agree to disagree about what? Whether I broke civility rules?
> Whether Larry did?About exactly what I wrote in an earlier post in this thread:
"Larry had a right to defend himself. Emmy posted her side of things and he should have had the right to give his side as well. He did nothing that Alex hasn't done recently to Gabbi - yet she didn't receive a block. I don't think she even got a PBC. In her case, I don't recall there being a post she needed to respond to in order to give her side of things as in this case either."
Posted by Toph on June 15, 2005, at 6:51:37
In reply to Re: please be civil » Toph » Gabbi-x-2, posted by Dr. Bob on June 15, 2005, at 1:13:28
I'm sorry, I know you are trying to be patient with me. I need to be careful with hyperbole. But I'm not sure I can learn to change the way I speak. I'll try.
Posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 9:39:02
In reply to Re: please be civil » Toph » Gabbi-x-2, posted by Dr. Bob on June 15, 2005, at 1:13:28
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/510659.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050610/msgs/512441.html
I do not wish to see Alexandra PBC'd or blocked because of me. So I'm not requesting that. I'm just trying to point out that there is substance behind Gabbi's frustration.To tell you the truth, I was going to answer the post in question, thus lifting the DNP, because I felt the situation that was causing me distress might be far enough in the past. But then I read
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050614/msgs/512722.html
And realized that I was wrong. Since poster A has pretty close to a fifty percent chance of being me, and another fifty percent chance of being another poster - in the application of everyday logic anyway - not formal logic, because I took ethics rather than logic as my philosophy elective. I do not believe poster A's motivations were accurately represented, if poster A was indeed me. In fact, lack of accurate representation of poster A motivations was the actual cause of the DNP, so removing it at the moment would not seem wise.
Added to the fact that the statement
" All I know...
Is that those kind of requests tend to produce a 'f*ck that I'll continue just to spite you' kind of response.
I'm not proud of that...
But there it is."excerpted from that post, could be construed to mean that poster A is the "you" referred to.
I suppose Toph could read the post about posters A & B as an example of a properly worded hypothetical under civility guidelines.
Posted by ed_uk on June 15, 2005, at 10:30:20
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks - Miscarriage of Justice!! » Dr. Bob, posted by TamaraJ on June 14, 2005, at 9:45:37
Hi T,
I'm sad that Lar got blocked :-( He's such a great asset to babble. I hope he will return speedily when the 6 weeks are up.
Ed xxx
Posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 10:39:12
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks - Miscarriage of Justice!! » TamaraJ, posted by ed_uk on June 15, 2005, at 10:30:20
Especially since the poster whose DNP was violated believes that the six weeks is excessive.
I realize that requests have to be made by the blocked poster, but I am publicly expressing support for reducing the length of this block.
One week?
You don't automatically double you know. Or even automatically give the same as the prior. Sometimes you use your judgement to give a lesser block length. Sometimes you give more than one PBC or a PBC after a block.
Could you reconsider the sentence?
Posted by TamaraJ on June 15, 2005, at 11:05:43
In reply to I formally request that Lar's block be reduced, posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 10:39:12
I agree with Dinah. Serious consideration should be given to reducing the block.
Tamara
Posted by 10derHeart on June 15, 2005, at 12:16:53
In reply to Re: I formally request that Lar's block be reduced » Dinah, posted by TamaraJ on June 15, 2005, at 11:05:43
I agree as well. I recommend one week. Two at the very, very most. Please give it some thought, Dr. Bob.
Posted by Bobby on June 15, 2005, at 12:24:06
In reply to I formally request that Lar's block be reduced, posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 10:39:12
Posted by alexandra_k on June 15, 2005, at 15:41:01
In reply to For context re. Gabbi's post » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 9:39:02
After this:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050517/msgs/502068.html
I did not post to Gabbi.
With respect to this:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050517/msgs/502068.html
They were general comments rather than being directed (IMO). I was very careful to do that. I would be interested to know whether such posts are considered to be circumventing or not - I didn't think of it that way at the time.
And I would love a response :-)
With respect to this:
>Sometimes A requests B not post to them because A doesn't want B to post about a certain issue anymore.
So what is B to do???
The fact that A doesn't want B to talk about an issue is a factor, yes.
But should B have to drop an issue because A doesn't want B to talk about it anymore?
I don't think so.
Especially if B isn't being uncivil.
A can always stop reading.
Secure in the knowledge that B isn't adressing posts to them.
B can't make A continue to read.
So...
Should A stop reading
Or should B have to shut up?This isn't anything I haven't said directly to Gabbi before.
>All I know...
Is that those kind of requests tend to produce a 'f*ck that I'll continue just to spite you' kind of response.
I'm not proud of that...
But there it is.And I'm not proud of that, but that is the way I am responding to Gabbi's request because I do see it as her attempting to shut me up in talking about stuff where my perspective is different from hers. We have talked about this before. I'm not proud of it. But better to acknowledge it and own it rather than just pretending I'm perfectly okay with it, I would have thought.
>I've been forced to silence too much of my life.
And it brings that up for me.Yup.
I'm not sure what goes on with Dinah when she requests me to not post to her. I don't know if she is attempting to stop me continuing to post to the thread or what.
Not sure.
Unless she clarifies I guess I'll never know...
I don't understand what went wrong.
Why a DNP request is supposed to help.
???
Posted by alexandra_k on June 15, 2005, at 15:42:09
In reply to For context re. Gabbi's post » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 9:39:02
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050610/msgs/512441.html
Posted by Phillipa on June 15, 2005, at 16:47:07
In reply to Re: the second link should have been:, posted by alexandra_k on June 15, 2005, at 15:42:09
Just had to add my two cents worth. All the Boards will suffer without Larry for six weeks. But especially the Alternative Board. He is considered the expert there. Where will posters get his Babblemails he takes the time to send and his incredible knowledge? Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by KaraS on June 15, 2005, at 17:14:24
In reply to I formally request that Lar's block be reduced, posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 10:39:12
Yes, please.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 15, 2005, at 17:47:02
In reply to Re: please be civil » Toph » Gabbi-x-2, posted by Dr. Bob on June 15, 2005, at 1:13:28
Well, what I can apologize for is contributing to the conflict on the board, I know how upsetting it can be and I regret that I didn't show more concern for those affected by it.
Posted by Tamar on June 15, 2005, at 19:28:20
In reply to Sorry, but the words speak for themselves... » Gabbi-x-2, posted by jay on June 14, 2005, at 21:06:15
Hello Jay,
May I respond to this? I don’t want to comment on what I think Emmy meant by her statement; neither do I want to tell you how to feel. But I want to respond because this discussion raises a lot of questions that I think are serious and important with respect to how and why people feel accused when this kind of issue is raised.
I’m a woman who has suffered at the hands of men, and I *am* more sensitive to unfair treatment by men than by women. I don’t want to be. If I could *choose* to believe that all men except my abusers are safe and honourable people, I would do it right now.
But unfortunately if I feel under pressure from someone who happens to be a man, it does trigger unresolved feelings. Part of my reason for doing therapy and for being at Babble is to try to resolve some of those feelings. It takes a long time.
Nevertheless, I am utterly opposed to the rampant demonization of men that seems to be increasingly pervasive. I thoroughly object to any suggestion that men are inherently dangerous, sexual predators, or potential child molesters. I think it’s important to make it clear that although I may feel vulnerable in response to the actions of particular men simply because they are men, it doesn’t mean anyone should assume that I think all men are evil.
I do not think that any individual man is like all men. But sadly I sometimes can’t help feeling as if a man might be dangerous, even when he’s not, purely because of my past experience. It’s not a rational response; it’s a response that comes out of pain.
I should say for the record that I have never felt intimidated by any of the men I’ve encountered here at Babble; in my case this irruption of the past into the present has only happened in real life.
I’m talking about my own experience because I don’t want to assume that I speak for others, and yet I have heard other people express very similar feelings. I want to feel that all men are safe. I want it so much. But several men I trusted turned out to be unsafe and it colours my dealings with men.
Jay, I wanted to write this because I think I can understand why men might feel accused by the statement Emmy made. And yet, perhaps the statement was mainly a reflection of the depth of suffering that women feel after abuse, and the time it takes to reach a point where men feel safe. I’m absolutely not a man-hater. And of course I have the greatest respect for you personally. I hope you know that.
Tamar
Posted by 10derHeart on June 16, 2005, at 0:19:28
In reply to Re: Sorry, but the words speak for themselves... » jay, posted by Tamar on June 15, 2005, at 19:28:20
Tamar,
I found this post quite eloquent. I, too, have had similar experiences in my past, and you expressed what I'd been wishing I could say to Jay after reading through this thread, better than I ever could have!
I believe you added some clarity to this difficult and important topic. Thank you.
'spose we ought to quit or move it to another board, though....?
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 16, 2005, at 0:49:42
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on June 15, 2005, at 6:51:37
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 16, 2005, at 1:02:40
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 15, 2005, at 17:47:02
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 16, 2005, at 1:27:43
In reply to Re: DNP requests, posted by alexandra_k on June 15, 2005, at 15:41:01
> With respect to this:
>
> [ http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/studs/20050329/msgs/513432.html ]
>
> They were general comments rather than being directed (IMO).Sorry, but to me, this:
> > You should be able to check their lists of papers online. From there you should be able to obtain a past years course outline. That should give you an outline of the topics covered in the course and should also give you the name of the txt book and any reccomended readings.
> >
> > Looking at all three can be a good way of deciding whether the paper is likely to interest you or not.sounds directed, while this:
> > Over here you don't really need to decide until your second full time year what you want to major in and what you want your first support to be etc.
> >
> > Sometimes you find that a subject that you wouldn't have thought would interest you all that much really does. And sometimes you find that a subject that you would have thought interesting actually isn't to you because of the interests of the faculty members in the department.sounds general.
> I'm not sure what goes on with Dinah when she requests me to not post to her. I don't know if she is attempting to stop me continuing to post to the thread or what.
She's attempting to stop you from continuing to post to her? And I don't think you did, so I'm going to block you from posting for a week. Sorry.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#harrass
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Sarah T. on June 16, 2005, at 2:36:03
In reply to Re: I formally request that Lar's block be reduced, posted by KaraS on June 15, 2005, at 17:14:24
Dr. Bob,
Please rescind Larry Hoover's block. Why do you block someone who contributes so much and helps so many? His absence is OUR loss.
Thank you.
Sarah T.
Posted by Dinah on June 16, 2005, at 4:51:07
In reply to Re: blocked for week » alexandra_k, posted by Dr. Bob on June 16, 2005, at 1:27:43
Dr. Bob. I wasn't just being nice when I said that I didn't want to see Alexandra blocked because of this. I saw her post as a nice gesture. I'll admit that it isn't a good general idea to post even nice gestures to someone who has asked you not to post to them, but I hate to see someone blocked over one, particularly one to me. Reminded, perhaps, especially in light of the circumstances before and conversation after Lar's block, but not blocked.
If I lift the DNP, would you lift the block?
Posted by Dinah on June 16, 2005, at 7:57:56
In reply to Re: blocked for week » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 16, 2005, at 4:51:07
It's obviously not fair to post about the subject when you can't reply.
But my email is
bully for you 77 at yahoo
if you want to email me and we can try for repair?
Posted by AMD on June 16, 2005, at 14:23:31
In reply to Explanation » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on June 13, 2005, at 9:23:44
This entire "administrative" forum is silly, and a major waste of time. I'm surprised, in fact, that folks as erudite as chemist and Larry even bother responding to the banal content of the posts here. It's more of game, I suspect, than anything serious.
People: toughen your skin.
Why is everyone on here so sensitive? If you find someone's posts offensive, /don't read them/, don't reply. It's as easy as that.
The fact that the forum is run as a dictatorship -- appalling in light of the laws regarding free speech in this country -- is disgusting.
I bet I risk a ban by expressing this /opinion/.
I find it patently offensive that I can't say what I want without one of the administrators jumping on my back.
amd
Posted by AMD on June 16, 2005, at 14:24:52
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » Larry Hoover, posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2005, at 2:35:16
This is so stupid. Seriously Dr. Bob. He was apologizing. Tell whomever Larry was addressing to quit reading his posts!
amd
Posted by AMD on June 16, 2005, at 14:31:17
In reply to Re: I'm sorry Larry :-(, posted by alexandra_k on June 14, 2005, at 16:16:03
Instead of letting a single complaint ruin everything for the others on the board -- for example, I could care less about the posts of the person Larry was addressing, but I find his own posts extremely insightful -- why don't you add an option to let individual users selectively filter messages from those posters whom they don't want to read? This would seem much better. In effect you hurt more than help by blocking people whose posts may have saved other people from much pain and suffering (myself included). I actually feel /pain/ when I can't query our resident experts on the various effects of psychotropic drugs and other illicit substances, even if their responses serve to merely bring me back to reality.
From a utilitarian perspective, this ridiculous policy hurts more than it helps.
amd
Posted by Jai Narayan on June 16, 2005, at 14:51:38
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks, posted by AMD on June 16, 2005, at 14:24:52
I've got an idea, why don't you set up a board and run it for a while.
Jai
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.