![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 142 to 166 of 197. Go back in thread:
Posted by chemist on June 18, 2005, at 2:25:03
In reply to Re: reconsideration, posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2005, at 2:21:42
> > can LH and Dr. RH - perhaps in consult with TE (?) - expedite a speedier return than 1 august?
>
> Anything's possible, but who's TE (?)?
>
> Bobapologies...TofuEmmy == TE in above...best, tjm
Posted by TamaraJ on June 18, 2005, at 8:45:26
In reply to Re: reconsideration, posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2005, at 2:21:42
and chemist said.
Nobody expects you to reverse your decision to block, just that you reconsider the length of the block, in light of the circumstances. It is not about Larry being popular, although I would be remiss if I did not say that he is that, and he is extremely supportive and caring - everything that Babble is about. You are being asked to reconsider the length of the block because, as Dinah has said, he misunderstood the application of the DNP rule. And, Dr. Bob, it was apparent, to me at least, from posts in this thread alone that, perhaps, others have also misunderstood its application.
Thanks, Dr. Bob, for taking the time to give this request due consideration. You're a peach :-)
Tamara
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2005, at 13:18:48
In reply to Re: reconsideration - I second (third?) what Dinah » Dr. Bob, posted by TamaraJ on June 18, 2005, at 8:45:26
> You are being asked to reconsider the length of the block because, as Dinah has said, he misunderstood the application of the DNP rule.
Right, I didn't mean to oversimplify, and I understand the above may be another factor. I'm working on sorting it out. Thanks for your patience,
Bob
Posted by 10derHeart on June 18, 2005, at 23:27:52
In reply to Re: reconsideration, posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2005, at 13:18:48
>... I understand the above may be another factor. I'm working on sorting it out. Thanks for your patience,
>
> BobThanks for that. Whatever your final decision, I think I speak for several others, at least, in saying that's all we ask, and we appreciate the effort :-)
Posted by justyourlaugh on June 19, 2005, at 21:29:11
In reply to Re: reconsideration » Dr. Bob, posted by 10derHeart on June 18, 2005, at 23:27:52
how would you feel if your block was not noticed?
if you were not a popular poster?
if exceptions were made for others,, not for you because you didnt stand in the circle?
please concider an "unblock" would upset the balance of justice..
j
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 19, 2005, at 22:12:24
In reply to just a thought..., posted by justyourlaugh on June 19, 2005, at 21:29:11
Well, In this case I think the length of the block was unfair. I do understand your point though, I think it should be lifted because it was unfair, not because, as several people mentioned, Larry contributes so much to the board.
Posted by gardenergirl on June 19, 2005, at 22:29:57
In reply to Re: just a thought... » justyourlaugh, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 19, 2005, at 22:12:24
Posted by 10derHeart on June 19, 2005, at 22:31:00
In reply to Re: just a thought... » justyourlaugh, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 19, 2005, at 22:12:24
Yes, to clarify, I agree with Gabbi. I'd like to think I would be asking for this for any poster blocked for 6 weeks under these same circumstances.
It just strikes me in my gut as too harsh, looking at all the surrounding stuff - at least what I'm aware of... It's a combnation of the potential misunderstanding leading to the block and the length that troubles me, not about what Larry does or doesn't contribute.
Posted by verne on June 20, 2005, at 4:34:51
In reply to verne verne vernie....I have missed your humor..., posted by Jai Narayan on June 17, 2005, at 16:46:19
Thanks, Jai, for the kind words. I'm in alot of emotional pain dealing with the injustice and cruelty in the world. It seems limitless. Lately, I think of Shapelle Corby.
Yet we don't need to go to a Bali prison to find cruelty. I think Dr Bob derives a sadistic pleasure in his game of blocks. It's his hobby, study, and passion - much to the detriment of participants at his drbob.org site.
Examine the history of his site and you will see a preoccupation with punishment that forsakes, and exceeds, any semblance of purpose. Reason has been overshadowed by Dr Bob's pursuit of sadistic pleasure in punishing others with his system of blocks.
His narcissistic chamber of fun reminds me of greedy enron execs and their sickening excesses. Petty, small souls, with too much power.
Who would suggest that the PsychoBabble site is a benevolent place for therapy or mutual support?
No, it's a studied nightmare that lost touch with any sort of original purpose and became Dr Bob's "hunting ground".
Who remembers what the site is for, but all remember the "blocks".
Verne
Posted by Ron Hill on June 20, 2005, at 14:40:31
In reply to Re: reconsideration, posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2005, at 13:18:48
> > You are being asked to reconsider the length of the block because, as Dinah has said, he misunderstood the application of the DNP rule.
>
> Right, I didn't mean to oversimplify, and I understand the above may be another factor. I'm working on sorting it out. Thanks for your patience,
>
> Bob
------------
Dr. Bob,Thank you for taking time to reconsider. In trying to sort it out, please take time to scan through the April Fool's Day thread which starts here:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050330/msgs/478484.html
Then compare the circumstances surrounding the original DNP request in the April Fool's Day thread to the posted PB guidelines which set forth the criteria under which a DNP can be issued. The PB DNP guidelines are posted here:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#harassed
I respectfully add my voice to the throng of PB participants asking you to reduce the duration of this block given the unusual and extenuating circumstances. Clearly, there are substantial amounts of gray in this one and, as such, it does not fall into the same category as the more commonplace type of block.
Thanks.
-- Ron
Posted by Jai Narayan on June 20, 2005, at 22:06:05
In reply to Hunting Ground » Jai Narayan, posted by verne on June 20, 2005, at 4:34:51
you sound upset.
I have always been fond of you.
your humor and life have been very interesting to me.I am sorry you are so upset.
remember that I really like you.
Jai
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 21, 2005, at 2:36:49
In reply to Hunting Ground » Jai Narayan, posted by verne on June 20, 2005, at 4:34:51
> I think Dr Bob derives a sadistic pleasure in his game of blocks.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused. The last time you were blocked it was for 1 week, and this time I'm making it for 2.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Ron Hill on June 24, 2005, at 0:31:24
In reply to Re: reconsideration, posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2005, at 13:18:48
> > You are being asked to reconsider the length of the block because, as Dinah has said, he misunderstood the application of the DNP rule.
>
> Right, I didn't mean to oversimplify, and I understand the above may be another factor. I'm working on sorting it out. Thanks for your patience,
>
> Bob
------------Dr. Bob,
It's been more that nine days since Larry was blocked. Have you finished sorting it out yet? If yes, what was your decision? If not, how soon do you anticipant making your decision and notifying us?
-- Ron
Posted by AMD on June 26, 2005, at 17:28:25
In reply to Re: blocked for week » AMD, posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2005, at 23:41:13
I don't know, Dr. Bob. I think you are beginning to get hypocritical in your blocking. Correct me if I am wrong.
For example, the comment that caused me to get blocked was: "The fact that this forum is run as a dictatorship ... is disgusting."
You claimed this would make people feel "accused." Then you turned around in the very next paragraph and said "freedom of speech is limited here," which is consistent with the dictionary definition of "dictatorship":
a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)
(Is that not how you run this board, Dr. Bob?)
So, by simply reiterating something you've said time and time again, you banned me. How is that not hypocritical?
That's like you saying, "You have no right to say what you want here, but you /can/ express an opinion," and my replying "I don't like the fact I can't say what I want" (which is an opinion) and your turning around and banning me because I did something you have personally said was O.K. many, many times (that is, expression an opinion). In fact, what else is the purpose for this board if not to express opinion on the administration of this board.
(Come to think of it, banning based on a post in the administration section itself is questionable.)
Well, that's my defense of my ban. Unfortunately, I suspect this will fall on deaf ears.
amd
Posted by Deneb on June 26, 2005, at 19:14:20
In reply to Re: blocked for week, posted by AMD on June 26, 2005, at 17:28:25
> For example, the comment that caused me to get blocked was: "The fact that this forum is run as a dictatorship ... is disgusting."
>
> You claimed this would make people feel "accused." Then you turned around in the very next paragraph and said "freedom of speech is limited here," which is consistent with the dictionary definition of "dictatorship":Maybe it was not the use of the word "dictatorship" which was the issue, but the use of the word "disgusting" to describe it. I don't think all opinions are ok to express. Opinions that put others down are not ok to express here. If someone called you or your behaviour "disgusting", you would probably feel put down.
> Unfortunately, I suspect this will fall on deaf ears.
Maybe Dr. Bob just doesn't know how to reply sometimes without making the situation worst. Everyone responds differently so maybe not responding is the safest thing to do when people are upset.
I was pretty upset when I got blocked...I kind of got a little crazy and any response would have been interpreted as an attack on me. I'm guessing that blocking made you upset as well? I personally don't like blocks, but there are rules to follow here and we must not break them. I guess blocks are the current answer for enforcing those rules. It doesn't matter why or who breaks them, but Dr. Bob is only human and makes mistakes sometimes. He can never be 100% consistent.
Deneb
Posted by 10derHeart on June 26, 2005, at 19:56:16
In reply to Re: blocked for week » AMD, posted by Deneb on June 26, 2005, at 19:14:20
I agree with Deneb's theory. Perhaps if you had kept the comment quite similar, but without the "disgusting" portion, Dr. Bob would have been willing to engage in dialog about what a dictatorship *looks like* to you - as far as here at Babble, I mean. (I know the dictionary defintion, but I imagine there might still be issues worth discussing..)
Of course, I could be completely wrong and Dr. Bob was objecting to the comment as a whole. I can only go by what might bother me, and I wouldn't care for what appears to be crossing a line into name-calling, by labeling behavior "disgusting."
It can be a powerful word. - Regards - 10derHeart
Posted by AMD on June 26, 2005, at 20:42:03
In reply to Re: blocked for week » AMD, posted by Deneb on June 26, 2005, at 19:14:20
So by that token, the terms "unappealing to me" would have been better? Please. Is there a dictionary of acceptable words now? Can you please tell me whether I can use the word "disgusting," or "troublesome," or "unfair," or "rude"? Give me a break, Deneb. That is totally unreasonable. "Disgusting" is a perfectly valid adjective.
Of course being blocked bothers me. It doesn't make me go crazy or anything, but it's frustrating as it's applied so unevenly.
There's another word appropriate here, for me, at this point: "whatever."
:)
amd
Posted by 10derHeart on June 26, 2005, at 21:14:39
In reply to Re: blocked for week, posted by AMD on June 26, 2005, at 20:42:03
> So by that token, the terms "unappealing to me" would have been better? Please. Is there a dictionary of acceptable words now? Can you please tell me whether I can use the word "disgusting," or "troublesome," or "unfair," or "rude"? Give me a break, Deneb. That is totally unreasonable. "Disgusting" is a perfectly valid adjective.<<
AMD -
IMO, this post comes awfully close to being uncivil. It sounds sarcastic toward Deneb. Also, I might feel somewhat put down if a poster asked me to "give [them] a break" and called me unreasonable. Could you have posted your disagreement with her take on things, yet left those comments out?
I thought Deneb's post was an attempt to suggest another way of looking at an issue in a reasonable, respectful way.
I don't mean to be offensive myself, even though I'll say the tone of your response toward Deneb did upset me. This is meant as a friendly "please be careful/civil" (of each other's feelings?) from another Babbler.
BTW, "disgusting" may be a perfectly valid adjective. But it's not perfectly okay, under forum guidelines, to *aim* it, or other similar words with negative connotations, directly at another poster.
Even when that poster is Dr. Bob :-) (IMO)
Respectfully,
-10derHeart
Posted by Deneb on June 26, 2005, at 21:26:49
In reply to Re: blocked for week, posted by AMD on June 26, 2005, at 20:42:03
> So by that token, the terms "unappealing to me" would have been better? Please. Is there a dictionary of acceptable words now? Can you please tell me whether I can use the word "disgusting," or "troublesome," or "unfair," or "rude"?
No, I don't think there is a list of unacceptable non-vulgar words out there. I think it has more to do with how you use them. If I say that all slugs are disgusting to me, no one here will be hurt by that to a great degree. If however I say that all people who are x are disgusting to me, that will probably be unacceptable.
It is a little tricky here, much more so than IRL I think. People can get upset easily here, even if that was not your intent.
The comment:
>Give me a break, Deneb. That is totally unreasonable. "Disgusting" is a perfectly valid adjective.upset me.
People need to show a certain amount of restraint and empathy to stay here. I disagree with blocks because of how I believe they hurt people, but not everyone is hurt by them. It's a balancing act and Babble is not the right place for everyone. I still believe that it might be useful to warn people about possible unintended side effects of blocks when they first register here.
> Of course being blocked bothers me.
It bothers me too. I hope you feel better soon.
> There's another word appropriate here, for me, at this point: "whatever."
>
> :):o)
Deneb
Posted by gardenergirl on June 26, 2005, at 21:44:36
In reply to Re: blocked for week, posted by AMD on June 26, 2005, at 20:42:03
The point is that an adjective describes a subject, and that subject might feel hurt or put down having that adjective attached to them or to their behavior, beliefs, or words.
You are perfectly entitled, at least as far as I can determine, to feel disgusted, although I believe that is a slippery slope due to the "charge" of the word. But at any rate, that is a feeling, and it is not attached to another object. It stays within you. And that makes it more civil than describing someone else's behavior, thoughts, feelings, etc.
See the difference?
gg
Posted by gabbii on June 26, 2005, at 22:26:22
In reply to Re: blocked for week » AMD, posted by gardenergirl on June 26, 2005, at 21:44:36
There were a few statements within your posts that flouted the civility requirements. Dr. Bob does not necessarily define them all when he blocks a poster.
Posted by AMD on June 26, 2005, at 23:00:00
In reply to Friendly suggestion... » AMD, posted by 10derHeart on June 26, 2005, at 21:14:39
> IMO, this post comes awfully close to being uncivil. It sounds sarcastic toward Deneb. Also,
*** This is a good example of what I'm talking about. What are we supposed to be on here, a bunch of drones? People have opinions about things, and one way of expressing the strength of those opinions is by choice of words. So "give me a break" was not "uncivil," it was indicitive that I think the difference between "disgusting" and "dislike" is of valid degree. I don't "dislike" the censorship. I think it's "disgusting." Two very different levels of opinion. Notice I don't think that personal attacks shouldn't be banned. It's criticism of ideas that upsets me, and Dr. Bob, frankly, proved my point by banning me based on said criticism.
If I had been calling /someone/ disgusting, aside from some policy (and let's not confuse the two), that might be different. However, these words exist in our vocabular for a reason, and unless we are to list a series of acceptable vocabulary words a priori, I think choosing one or the other should not be such an issue of concern. Keep in mind, too, that we are all human, and sometimes our word choices are imperfect. ***
I might feel somewhat put down if a poster asked me to "give [them] a break" and called me unreasonable.
*** Aha! That is the key point. I didn't call anyone unreasonable. I said the /notion/ was unreasonable (and obviously that's an opinion). This is where your argument (and others') is flawed. You seem to be confusing criticism of an idea with criticism of a person. They are not the same thing. (If they were, I suspect former Presidents Clinton and Bush wouldn't be yamming it out in public forums.) ***
Could you have posted your disagreement with her take on things, yet left those comments out?
*** No. That would have made the same statement without inbuing it with the seriousness with which I take it. Perhaps I could have been less sarcastic and more literal, but it would have served the same end. ***
> BTW, "disgusting" may be a perfectly valid adjective. But it's not perfectly okay, under*** You're making the same mistake here you made above, confusing criticism of an idea, rule, concept, notion with criticism of a person. ***
I hope this clarifies my point.
amd
Posted by AMD on June 26, 2005, at 23:11:52
In reply to Re: blocked for week » AMD, posted by gardenergirl on June 26, 2005, at 21:44:36
Perhaps you don't see the difference? You seem to be confusing criticism of an idea with criticism of a person. Is that not true?
"Charge" of the word, eh? Care to elaborate? So it's OK to say, for example, that my kitchen (something rather benign) is disgusting, but to say it of something much more weighty (freedom of speech) is a no-no? Is this what you're saying? So of the latter I should say only something like "not fair," or "not good," or "a disappointing aspect of the site"?
One thing I should have done was contribute a positive idea, which might have been, for example, an argument as to why freedom of speech could /benefit/ the board. I think I did so indirectly, in that people get banned who are very beneficial (social utility) to more folks on the board than are the persons who caused them to get banned. Larry is a good case in point: we're all sorely missing him. The overall utility of the bored decreaed with his ban, not increased. Unfortunately, Dr. Bob's blanket policy I think throws out of the sheet with the bath water, so to speak. But that's the price for a single, overriding policy.
Anyhow, I don't want to belabor this point. I posted /following/ my ban to express my opinion was to why it was unfair. I think that point has been expressed now multiple times, so I'll stop here and let you all have at it. :-)
amd
Posted by AMD on June 26, 2005, at 23:14:04
In reply to Re: blocked for week, posted by 10derHeart on June 26, 2005, at 19:56:16
Actually, the ban seemed more to be to be a 'fine-you-asked-for-it' from Dr. Bob more than any official violation by me of the civility policy. That is what's most, *cough*, (searching through dictionary for most benign adjective), "disappointing" about it.
amd
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2005, at 23:32:25
In reply to Re: reconsideration » Dr. Bob, posted by Ron Hill on June 24, 2005, at 0:31:24
> > > You are being asked to reconsider the length of the block because, as Dinah has said, he misunderstood the application of the DNP rule.
Sorry to take so long to reply. I think Emmy was within her rights to ask Larry not to post to her and if someone asks that, they shouldn't be posted to -- even if it's to apologize. Also, the block is already shorter than it could've been.
Bob
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.