![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 26 to 50 of 66. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on July 10, 2005, at 18:59:53
In reply to Re: I would think of all people » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on July 10, 2005, at 10:10:35
> You would understand Larry's point of view.
I think I do understand Larry's point of view.
I also think I understand another point of view, however, where he repeatedly posted to someone after a DNP request and was blocked for that.
> You and Gabbi and Dinah did a lot of 'do not post' with 'undirected' apologies over a very long time.'Undirected'. That is the key.
Posted by alexandra_k on July 10, 2005, at 19:46:23
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob: Revise your DNP written rules in the FAQ » alexandra_k, posted by TamaraJ on July 10, 2005, at 13:35:08
They aren't directed.
It was hard because Gabbi also had a tendency to say
'do not post to me'
'I take it back'
'do not post to me'
'I take it back'From memory... I broke the DNP once - and genuinely apologised straight after (I may well have been warned for that).
Aside from that I didn't break the DNP request.
I appreciate that Gabbi thinks I did...
But I didn't.
At least, I didn't think I had...
And I wasn't blocked for posting to her.I don't see why people are suprised about my perspective on this. In fact, I really can see that the situation between me and Gabbi and Dinah is very similar to the situation between Emmy and Larry.
But I tried to learn something from the block and move on.
Its either that or rail about it.
And I fail to see what good the latter does.
Blocks are hard. They bring up a lot of childhood stuff. Both for me and for Larry and for most people I suppose. But that being said it is up to the poster whether they want to explore that and try and sort it or whether they want to blame others and are determined to NOT see the other point of view.
I don't know where I'd be at if my block had have been for 6 weeks instead of 1 week...
But I choose to learn from this.
In general... I respect the rules. I believe they protect me (and indeed they have protected me) from other peoples attacks. I might not agree with them on every point... I might not agree with all of Dr Bob's determinations... But, in general I feel that he does a far better job of being consistent and fairly predictable than either myself or a group of other posters could do.He isn't perfect.
But I choose to believe he does his best.
And I choose to do my very best to leave my sh*t in the past where it belongs.
And I choose to not get into complicated discussions about nit picking over the rules.
A little personal responsibility can go a long way...
Posted by crushedout on July 10, 2005, at 22:36:42
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob: Revise your DNP written rules in the FAQ, posted by alexandra_k on July 10, 2005, at 19:46:23
I have to agree with Tamara. The irony of you, alex, saying "DNP means DNP" seems overwhelming.And the whole point of the current controversy is (1) it's not clear at all when we get to use the DNP (I guess you're saying we should be allowed to whenever we want? it's not clear) and (perhaps more importantly, in the Larry/Em case, or just in general) (2) once there is a DNP, what *is* violating it? do you have to use the word "you"? can you talk about the person as much as you want as long as it's clearly in the third person?
it's not clear cut at all, which is why so many people are upset about larry's block, i think. and i don't understand how you saying "DNP means DNP" makes any of it clearer.
Posted by crushedout on July 10, 2005, at 23:01:35
In reply to Re: I would think of all people » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on July 10, 2005, at 18:59:53
oh yes, explain that important distinction to us, alex. i still do not understand it. sounds suspiciously like a technicality to me.
Posted by gabbii on July 10, 2005, at 23:15:14
In reply to Re: I would think of all people » alexandra_k, posted by crushedout on July 10, 2005, at 23:01:35
>
> oh yes, explain that important distinction i still do not understand it. sounds suspiciously like a technicality to me.Well in one of the posts there was only one "You" in reference to me, so apparently it wasn't actually a post to me, you see.
Posted by gabbii on July 10, 2005, at 23:30:34
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob: Revise your DNP written rules in the FAQ, posted by alexandra_k on July 10, 2005, at 19:46:23
> They aren't directed.
> It was hard because Gabbi also had a tendency to say
> 'do not post to me'
> 'I take it back'
> 'do not post to me'
> 'I take it back'
>actually I said that twice. One time on two distinctly separate occasions months apart.
The first time I realized I had been rash and took back the D.N.P almost immediately.
That was clear.
The second time may have been a bit confusing because I did respond to an apology, and that was taken (as is according to the rules) to be an okay to re-engage.
So in my subsequent post I was reaffirming my D.N.P not changing my mind again. And I did say that "I would like to maintain the D.N.P request" Not that I had decided again to invoke a D.N.P request.
There was no "tendency"
My only mistake was not being able to ignore an apology, and feeling I needed to further explain my reasoning. Now that is being used as the example of my "Tendency to go back and forth."Now if you are really interested (sarcasm)
It is in the archives.
Posted by gabbii on July 10, 2005, at 23:32:02
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob: Revise your DNP written rules in the FAQ » alexandra_k, posted by gabbii on July 10, 2005, at 23:30:34
Posted by alexandra_k on July 10, 2005, at 23:57:28
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob: Revise your DNP written rules in the, posted by crushedout on July 10, 2005, at 22:36:42
> I have to agree with Tamara. The irony of you, alex, saying "DNP means DNP" seems overwhelming.
I'm afraid I don't see the irony.
I've learned something in the process. And what I've learned can indeed be summarised: DNP means DNP. I guess it is the unpacking of that that can be hard, though.> And the whole point of the current controversy is (1) it's not clear at all when we get to use the DNP (I guess you're saying we should be allowed to whenever we want? it's not clear)
That is a seperate issue to the next one. I would say that any concern over that should be directed to Dr Bob. Not directed to the issuer of the request because... DNP means DNP.
>and (perhaps more importantly, in the Larry/Em case, or just in general) (2) once there is a DNP, what *is* violating it? do you have to use the word "you"? can you talk about the person as much as you want as long as it's clearly in the third person?
It depends on whether it is posting to the poster or whether it is not a post to the poster. There can be an ambiguity. I think I have learned that it is better to err on the side of caution. If you want to say something then you have to be VERY careful that your post isn't interpreted as being a post to the poster who has requested you not post to them.
> it's not clear cut at all, which is why so many people are upset about larry's block, i think. and i don't understand how you saying "DNP means DNP" makes any of it clearer.Right. Sorry I couldn't help clarify. I just think people should worry a little less about picky interpretations of the rules and take a little personal responsibility for their posts. If a post is ambiguous and you get blocked for it well then one has the opportunity to learn that one should be more careful. One does have to be very careful. The line between directed and non-directed can be fine. But if in doubt: don't post it. Or send it to a civility buddy for their opinion. Or send it to Dr Bob for his. If everyone just aimed to post posts that were unambiguously not to posters who had requested they not post to them then there wouldn't be a problem.
I think I'm going to leave this issue now.
As gg is so fond of saying 'the wheels on the bus go round and round'. I'm not sure that this discussion is all that productive.
Its a shame... There could be some benefit to working out a list of ways that we can help people and indeed help ourselves to avoid blocks...
But then it is so much easier to go round and round...
And so very hard to break the cycle.
Posted by gabbii on July 11, 2005, at 0:05:43
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob: Revise your DNP written rules in the, posted by crushedout on July 10, 2005, at 22:36:42
This is probably practically undreadable
But the whole story has been laid out so there is no question as to what happened.
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » Gabbi-x-2, posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 17:58:19
Please don't post to me.
It's not animosity. It's fatigue. I get very tired of feeling I have to prove or explain that there is much thought put behind what I say and do and that I'm not asking for advice. If someone has a way of being that I admire, and qualities I would like to adopt, I take notice.This is the apology not directed to me.
In reply to Alex » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 23, 2005, at 19:37:23
...It comes of posting in a hurry because I have 5 minutes to get to class...
I should know better than that by now.
I didn't put that very well at all...
I didn't try to check my understanding of your POV first...
I am really sorry
I don't blame people for feeling a bit peeved with me.
Sorry.
Won't happen again...Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 23, 2005, at 22:12:43
In reply to Re: I'm really sorry..., posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 21:13:11
I appreciate your apology, but even if you had not understood my post, to say "I'm grateful for never having to resort to that" That's just not a way to have a friendly conversation with someone. In this context, It's not something I would ever say to anyone I had a modicum of respect for.
Imagine my saying to you "I'm so grateful I've never had to resort to referring to philosphy theories when I need to get my point across"
In other words:
Thank Heavens I've been saved from ever having to be that way! I'm so much better than that.
Fine, point out that you never tire of figuring out reasons for things, that's conversation.
I just can't fathom that even being busy would make someone say something like that.. unless it's what they really thinking and they were rushed to "make it nice" In which case, why bother responding at all if the post isn't hurting anyone, or directed toward you.In reply to Re: I'm really sorry... »
alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 23, 2005, at 22:12:43
> to say "I'm grateful for never having to resort to that" That's just not a way to have a friendly conversation with someone. In this context, It's not something I would ever say to anyone I had a modicum of respect for.
In the same way that by 'story' I mean 'narrative construction' by 'giving up' I meant it in the Dennetian sense...
Basically... I missed the joke. I didn't get that the post was a joke. I thought it was serious and that you were expressing your frustration.
There simply isn't enough time in the day to go around trying to make sense of everything...
And even if there was one could go crazy trying...
I didn't mean that quite the way it came out.
But I do see that it sounds very appalling indeed.
I am sorry.In reply to Re: I'm really sorry..., posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 22:57:38
I would prefer to keep the Do not Post request.
I am sorry, for me too, but it seems we have an ongoing theme of misunderstanding and assumptions here and I find it incredibly draining.Then I made this post To Dr. Bob:
> How would you feel if you were told instead they were enjoying the opportunity to connect with each other?
>
> Bob
I cannot believe you're even trying to do that. Its insulting and infuriating, and a scary futuristic prediction from several classic books.
White Supremecy : Gives white folks a chance
to connect with one another and feel empowered
Do you feel okay about it now Dr. Bob?To which there was this response, which was again "not" a post to me
Re: publicly viewable
Posted by alexandra_k on May 28, 2005, at 17:26:14
In reply to Re: publicly viewable » Dr. Bob, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 28, 2005, at 13:18:24
I think...
The crucial difference between racism and small boards is the idea that with racism (specism, sexism, whatever...) people discriminate on grounds that are irrelevant to whatever it is that they need to make a choice for.I think it is really very different from discrimination...
So I gave up. A day later I rescinded the D.N.P saying it didn't seem to do anything but preclude my name from being Checked off by the post which I found even more annoying.
And then Alex and I had a lengthy discussion..
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 alexandra_k on July 11, 2005, at 0:27:35
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob: Revise your DNP written rules in the, posted by alexandra_k on July 10, 2005, at 23:57:28
Alex » alexandra_k
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 23, 2005, at 19:37:23
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » Gabbi-x-2, posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 17:58:19Please don't post to me.
It's not animosity. It's fatigue. I get very tired of feeling I have to prove or explain that there is much thought put behind what I say and do and that I'm not asking for advice. If someone has a way of being that I admire, and qualities I would like to adopt, I take notice.The request wasn’t in the header – and there was a comment to me AFTER the request was made (right of response???) – but yeah, it was a DNP request.
Re: I'm really sorry...
Posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 21:13:11
In reply to Alex » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 23, 2005, at 19:37:23
...It comes of posting in a hurry because I have 5 minutes to get to class...
I should know better than that by now.
I didn't put that very well at all...
I didn't try to check my understanding of your POV first...
I am really sorry
I don't blame people for feeling a bit peeved with me.
Sorry.
Won't happen again...
And yes the line ‘I didn’t try to check my understanding of your POV first’ is directed. This is the post I regret.Re: I'm really sorry... » alexandra_k
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 23, 2005, at 22:12:43
In reply to Re: I'm really sorry..., posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 21:13:11
> ...It comes of posting in a hurry because I have 5 minutes to get to class...
>
> I should know better than that by now.
>
> I didn't put that very well at all...
> I didn't try to check my understanding of your POV first...
> I am really sorry
I appreciate your apology, but even if you had not understood my post, to say "I'm grateful for never having to resort to that" That's just not a way to have a friendly conversation with someone. In this context, It's not something I would ever say to anyone I had a modicum of respect for.
Imagine my saying to you "I'm so grateful I've never had to resort to referring to philosphy theories when I need to get my point across"
In other words:
Thank Heavens I've been saved from ever having to be that way! I'm so much better than that.
Fine, point out that you never tire of figuring out reasons for things, that's conversation.
I just can't fathom that even being busy would make someone say something like that.. unless it's what they really thinking and they were rushed to "make it nice" In which case, why bother responding at all if the post isn't hurting anyone, or directed toward you.> I don't blame people for feeling a bit peeved with me.
>
> Sorry.
> Won't happen again...And this is a post to me. Thus I have a right of response and here it is:
Re: I'm really sorry...
Posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 22:57:38
In reply to Re: I'm really sorry... » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 23, 2005, at 22:12:43
> to say "I'm grateful for never having to resort to that" That's just not a way to have a friendly conversation with someone. In this context, It's not something I would ever say to anyone I had a modicum of respect for.
In the same way that by 'story' I mean 'narrative construction' by 'giving up' I meant it in the Dennetian sense...
Basically... I missed the joke. I didn't get that the post was a joke. I thought it was serious and that you were expressing your frustration.
There simply isn't enough time in the day to go around trying to make sense of everything...
And even if there was one could go crazy trying...
I didn't mean that quite the way it came out.
But I do see that it sounds very appalling indeed.
I am sorry.
I don't think I'm better than you or that my way is the only way.
Really.
I think I should give up about now.
Just remember...
That I do respect you
And I'm sorry for the way things turned out
When I reread that bit I could see how it would be most likely to be taken
And so I'm not suprised you took it the way you did.
I'm sorry.
And minnie too - my last post to you was similarly appalling.
Time to go home and curl up with "In Session" methinks...Re: I'm really sorry... » alexandra_k
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 23, 2005, at 23:15:31
In reply to Re: I'm really sorry..., posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 22:57:38Actually my entire post was not a joke.. it was lighthearted, and I do get frustrated and often deal with it with humor. Many babblers would agree that there are times the blocking system seems to be unfair, or at least unpredictable this is probably because Dr. Bob himself is *not* a system .
So If I want to give up on figuring it out the minutia of reasoning behind every block feel free to be grateful that you don't have to stoop to that.
I would prefer to keep the Do not Post request.
I am sorry, for me too, but it seems we have an ongoing theme of misunderstanding and assumptions here and I find it incredibly draining.And that was that. End of conversation and to the best of my knowledge I have not directed a post to Gabbi since.
I do wonder what the point of this dialogue is, however.
Would people prefer me to get another blocking?
Am I to become an example of the senseless and arbitrary and inconsistent nature of civility determinations yet again. At this point I would be happy to take a block if only people would get over the complaining. I have done things I regret here, yes. To have past regrets brought up doesn’t serve much purpose that I can see.
Good luck to you peoples.
I’m going to leave this now and try to get back into the spirit of the boards.
Or maybe I will get a blocking. I dunno. Well see.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 11, 2005, at 8:16:00
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob: Revise your DNP written rules in the, posted by alexandra_k on July 11, 2005, at 0:27:35
I can't speak for others. But it seems to me that since you were so obviously (to me, and I think you will agree) confused by what the heck DNP meant that you would by more sympathetic towards another poster who was also confused.
Instead you say "DNP meand DNP"
So - to me there is a disconnect, which I don't understand. And I'm seeing a disconnect from someone who usually uses logic to understand things. Hence my surprise.
Are people trying to get you blocked? Was Emmy trying to get Larry blocked? I can't know either one of those answers, because I can't get inside the head of another. I can only form pseudo-judgememts based on what I see.
But I'll tell you, I am not trying to get you blocked. Just trying to point out what I see as an inconsistency.
Posted by alexandra_k on July 11, 2005, at 8:29:07
In reply to Re: The point of the dialogue » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on July 11, 2005, at 8:16:00
Yay! An inconsistency ((((AuntieMel))))
(I'm serious here 100% no sarcasm).> I can't speak for others. But it seems to me that since you were so obviously (to me, and I think you will agree) confused by what the heck DNP meant that you would by more sympathetic towards another poster who was also confused.
I didn't think I was confused... Really. I didn't think I was confused. I made several mistakes. I see those now. I got blocked for something where I saw it one way - but once the other way was pointed out to me then I saw it the other way too. So I don't think it was that I was confused...
> So - to me there is a disconnect, which I don't understand. And I'm seeing a disconnect from someone who usually uses logic to understand things. Hence my surprise.
Hmm. '"Tries" to use logic may be more appropriate... ;-) I'm no logician. Besides which I find other people point out my inconsistencies fairly frequently. I don't mind that. In fact I appreciate it because you can't do anything about fixing it if you don't know the problem exists.
I think this is what people find suprising about me.
I find it suprising that other people find it suprising.
I make mistakes a lot.
I make logical errors a lot.
I make inconsistent claims a lot.
But I appreciate knowing that I'm doing these things (so long as it is pointed out in a civil way).Really.
> Are people trying to get you blocked? Was Emmy trying to get Larry blocked? I can't know either one of those answers, because I can't get inside the head of another. I can only form pseudo-judgememts based on what I see.Yeah. I don't believe posters are trying to get other posters blocked. But as has come up on the boards before mostly with respect to Lou: people get nervous when someone requests determination on their posts. People get nervous even when they are fairly sure they haven't done anything wrong. Because one never can be 100% sure and so one starts to worry...
And what do people say with regards to Lou's requests for determination? And what do they wish he would do instead?
> But I'll tell you, I am not trying to get you blocked. Just trying to point out what I see as an inconsistency.Ok.
I believe you.
Could you have a go at pointing out the inconsistency again? I'm sorry but I can't see it yet.
Posted by alexandra_k on July 11, 2005, at 8:32:06
In reply to Re: The point of the dialogue » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on July 11, 2005, at 8:29:07
Sorry - that should have read:
I think this is what people find suprising about me.
I find it suprising that other people find it suprising.But I fully acknowledge that:
I make mistakes a lot.
I make logical errors a lot.
I make inconsistent claims a lot.
And I appreciate knowing that I'm doing these things (so long as it is pointed out in a civil way).
Posted by gabbii on July 11, 2005, at 9:08:52
In reply to Re: The point of the dialogue » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on July 11, 2005, at 8:16:00
The request wasn’t in the header
that's not a rule that's been invoked or was even suggested at the time, and obviously the request was read. I had offered the suggestion of the subject header recently it's simply a suggestion made to Dr. Bob. like many other suggestions. It's not a loophole.
– and there was a comment to me AFTER the request was made (right of response???) – but yeah, it was a DNP request.There were comments directed toward Larry too!
There is was no right of response in that situation, and if that *was* valid not one Dnp request toward me would be legitimate.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 9:20:49
In reply to Re: Do not post in the Subject Heading- Dr. Bob » gabbii, posted by thuso on July 10, 2005, at 11:15:02
> the person could fill in a form showing the name of the person they are invoking the DNP on, the thread in question, and the reason the person wants the DNP? ... An email could then be sent to the person being DNP'ed letting them know about the request.
I like that. People might not check a separate DNP page. And the form could even post the actual DNP. I don't know about automatically asking for a reason, though...
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on July 11, 2005, at 9:30:31
In reply to Re: The point of the dialogue---- AuntiMel » AuntieMel, posted by gabbii on July 11, 2005, at 9:08:52
I think it's a good suggestion, too. As it is, a DNP can be buried so deep it would be easy to overlook.
Depending on how often a board is checked it is possible in the subject line, too, but it would be a lot less likely - so it would make sense to consider this for the future.
There is a problem with when to(ward) become to(). Obviously if there is a 'you' in the statement it is a 'to' but the others are grey.
And, yes, there were comments directed 'at' Larry, if not 'to' him.
More shades of grey than the human retina can discern.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 11, 2005, at 10:05:03
In reply to Re: Do not post in an email, posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 9:20:49
"I don't know about automatically asking for a reason, though..."
Didn't you just ask Jay what his reason was???
My head is spinning.
Posted by thuso on July 11, 2005, at 10:25:33
In reply to Re: Do not post in an email, posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 9:20:49
> I like that. People might not check a separate DNP page. And the form could even post the actual DNP. I don't know about automatically asking for a reason, though...
>
> BobThe only reason I mentioned a place for the person to say why they are invoking the DNP is because it seems that's a big controversy right now. By adding the reason, you or a deputy would be able to review the request to determine if the DNP really is appropriate. It doesn't seem like DNP's are handed out like candy, so it shouldn't be too much extra effort and it may help stop another huge debate like this one. I haven't been here long, but I'd already seen a few DNP's where there doesn't seem to be (on the surface) a valid reason and then a day later the DNP is rescinded. This could keep that from happening. That's the only purpose for that added that part.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 10:45:56
In reply to Re: back up a minute redux » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on July 11, 2005, at 10:05:03
> "I don't know about automatically asking for a reason, though..."
>
> Didn't you just ask Jay what his reason was???Yes, but I don't automatically do so:
> If it's not clear to me why their post makes you feel harassed, I may ask.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#harassed
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on July 11, 2005, at 12:00:58
In reply to Re: back up a minute, posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 10:45:56
Ok, so it's not automatic. But you did just ask Jay. And you did just ask Gabbi.
And now you point to the FAQ about using DNP in the case of harassment.
----------------------------
But you also say the DNP against Larry was valid, even thought there was no harassment.
And this was supposedly because it was discussed in May:
> My understanding is the don't post to me option implies nothing more than a desire to disengage
I think wanting to disengage would be a reasonable way of generalizing that policy:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050517/msgs/503044.html=================================================
but then again, you said this:
-------------
> > Posting to someone means directing either the subject line or the body of a post to them. Replying to posts by someone isn't necessarily posting to them.
Right, in that sense.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/505945.html
---------
and that was what Larry got blocked for doing.
I'm still having trouble sorting this out.
And I still don't understand why he got blocked *after* Dinah told him to quit and he did quit. It seems like double jeopardy to me.
my brain hurts.
Posted by gardenergirl on July 11, 2005, at 14:23:35
In reply to Re: Do not post in an email » Dr. Bob, posted by thuso on July 11, 2005, at 10:25:33
So just to be clear...we do not have a "no fault" DNP option? There has to be a reason? Maybe a web form could have a pulldown menu or check box feature with a few options for general reasons...aka harrassment, trigger, etc.
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 14:47:34
In reply to Re: the mud thickens » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on July 11, 2005, at 12:00:58
> But you also say the DNP against Larry was valid, even thought there was no harassment.
Well, I do think Emmy was within her rights to ask Larry not to post to her:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050614/msgs/519681.html
Meaning, I think she could've felt harassed by that post of his.
> > > Posting to someone means directing either the subject line or the body of a post to them. Replying to posts by someone isn't necessarily posting to them.
>
> and that was what Larry got blocked for doing.No, I did consider some of it to have been posted to her:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/512411.html
> And I still don't understand why he got blocked *after* Dinah told him to quit and he did quit. It seems like double jeopardy to me.
I can see that, but I thought of it as reviewing a decision by a deputy:
> > Dr. Bob, is of course, the final arbiter of rules, and you should contact him about any questions you might have, or to override any deputy decisions.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/511949.html
> my brain hurts.
Sorry about that. There sure has been a lot of hurt lately.
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on July 11, 2005, at 16:49:01
In reply to Re: the mud thickens, posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 14:47:34
>>Well, I do think Emmy was within her rights to ask Larry not to post to her:
>>Meaning, I think she could've felt harassed by that post of his.2 questions:
1) so is harassment necessary for a DNP?
2) just for my curiosity, and I'm not saying you or Emmy are wrong, but which one could have felt like harassment?And a comment:
>>Sorry about that. There sure has been a lot of hurt lately.I'm not hurt.
Posted by Ron Hill on July 11, 2005, at 19:38:41
In reply to Re: the mud thickens, posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 14:47:34
> Well, I do think Emmy was within her rights to ask Larry not to post to her:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050614/msgs/519681.html
> Meaning, I think she could've felt harassed by that post of his.> Bob
Help me out here. I can't find the specific location of Lar's harassing sentence, phrase, or word in "that post of his" (whichever one you are referring to).
I'm a pretty simple-minded kinda guy, so if it's okay with you, I'd like to take a systematic and sequential approach in our hunt for the specific element(s) of Larry's alleged harassing speech.
So let's start with the DNP posted in the April Fool's Day thread:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050330/msgs/478960.html
<start post reprint>
Do not post to me again (nm) » Larry Hoover
Posted by TofuEmmy on April 2, 2005, at 13:33:38
In reply to Re: Good gravy, let it rest. » TofuEmmy, posted by Larry Hoover on April 2, 2005, at 13:22:47<end post reprint>
The above DNP was issued in response to the following post from Larry:http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050330/msgs/478945.html
<start post reprint>
Re: Good gravy, let it rest. » TofuEmmy
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 2, 2005, at 13:22:47
In reply to Good gravy, let it rest. (nm) » Larry Hoover, posted by TofuEmmy on April 2, 2005, at 13:02:35
The help I will. I started a new thread, as Doc John terminated the last one by disabling the reply button.
http://forums.psychcentral.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=135684&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1<end post reprint>
Dr. Bob, please identify the specific sentence, phase, or word in Larry’s 4/2/05 post that meets the definition of harassment. For your convenience, I have included below the dictionary entry for the word “harass”.Once I hear back from you on this specific DNP, we can then systematically move to the next one.
-- Ron
ha•rass P Pronunciation Key (h -r s , h r s)
tr.v. ha•rassed, ha•rass•ing, ha•rass•es
1. To irritate or torment persistently.
2. To wear out; exhaust.
3. To impede and exhaust (an enemy) by repeated attacks or raids.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Posted by gardenergirl on July 11, 2005, at 21:03:47
In reply to Re: Mud Wrestling » Dr. Bob, posted by Ron Hill on July 11, 2005, at 19:38:41
If you asked someone not to post to you in good faith that your request was legitimate, wouldn't you feel harrassed if the person continued to post to you and perhaps even emailed or babblemailed you? I don't know about what might or might not have happened off board, but I do think that the cumulative effect of someone responding, even in their own good faith, after you asked them not to would feel harrassing to me.
gg
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.