![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 55. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 3, 2006, at 22:36:48
looks like we killed god
or he got bored with us or somethinggreetings and civility salutations
i have been reading the archives
i wish i got to meet brio
'i ain't no kissy kissy chimp' lol!!!
ya gotta love it
and ya gotta admire the attitude to the blocks
just take 'em.
why care?
bob is so f*cking idiosyncratic the whole thing is a joke.
what i don't understand is why people stay in the face of such great inconsistency.
see for example:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031120/msgs/297006.html
i know that is an old saw now...
but the point is in the face of such radical inconsistency bob snivels 'i'm doing the best i can please trust me'
when surely the thing to do is say 'sorry 'bout that' and reduce / wipe the block.
he really is pathetic.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 3, 2006, at 22:37:54
In reply to well folks, posted by alexandra_k on June 3, 2006, at 22:36:48
Posted by Deneb on June 3, 2006, at 22:51:36
In reply to well folks, posted by alexandra_k on June 3, 2006, at 22:36:48
I'm sure this will get deleted, but I agree with alexandra_k.
There *is* a lot of inconsistency. I for one would rather have everyone dinged for swearing rather than to just let slipped ones pass.
Deneb*
Posted by Deneb on June 3, 2006, at 22:53:27
In reply to Re: 8 weeks bring it on!!!! (nm), posted by alexandra_k on June 3, 2006, at 22:37:54
((((((((((((((alexandra_k))))))))))))))
I heard your message. It merits much discussion.
Deneb*
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 4, 2006, at 7:23:48
In reply to well folks, posted by alexandra_k on June 3, 2006, at 22:36:48
And we wouldn't be reduced to these squabblings if the the sanctions were appropriate. I would never waste a breath, if the sanction was fair enough.
Someone who is clearly doing their utmost to comply should never be blocked.
If that process fails, it is the guidance that has failed, not the poster.
Lar
Posted by Gabbi~G on June 4, 2006, at 19:13:03
In reply to Re: well folks, posted by Larry Hoover on June 4, 2006, at 7:23:48
It's well.
NUTS!
F.A.Q aside, offended posters aside.. technicalities aside..
I can't imagine any community, even a church community, excommunicating someone for saying what Estella did, without people considering it to be a cult.It's just not right.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 9, 2006, at 2:33:19
In reply to well folks, posted by alexandra_k on June 3, 2006, at 22:36:48
> he really is pathetic.
I'm sorry this is where we're at, but please don't post anything that could lead others to feel put down.
But please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceOne possibility is to ask another poster to be your "civility buddy" and preview posts before you submit them.
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
PS: I'm trying out a new system:
previous block: 4 weeks
period of time since previous block: 2 weeks
particularly uncivil to other posters: no
different type of incivility: no
clearly didn't understand PBC and made effort to reply: no
provoked: no
uncivil in multiple posts at same time: no
already archived: noIf we take 2 weeks, divide by 10, and round down, that's a reduction of 0 weeks. If we apply that to your previous block, that's 4 - 0 = 4 weeks. And if we double that, that's 8 weeks.
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 9, 2006, at 10:06:21
In reply to Re: blocked for 8 weeks » alexandra_k, posted by Dr. Bob on June 9, 2006, at 2:33:19
I think this response is excessive, Dr. Bob. Her contribution went a long way towards settling things down here. At least, it did for me.
Yes, her act was premeditated, but I admire the courage it took to speak despite having been told to be silent. In my heart, and as you say, two wrongs don't make a right.....and silencing, in this case, is uncivil for that reason.
I think a fair reprimand would be a renewal of a four-week term, starting at the point of her first infraction within this cluster of posts.
And I consider the whole blocking system to still be a subject of debate. Only because of what it is, do I even submit my 4-week suggestion.
Lar
Posted by zazenduck on June 11, 2006, at 16:13:29
In reply to Re: blocked for 8 weeks » alexandra_k, posted by Dr. Bob on June 9, 2006, at 2:33:19
Why would anyone feel put down by being considered capable of arousing compassion or sympathetic sadness? It seem like being considered NOT capable of arousing compassion would be a putdown. This seems like rather a generous and sympathetic statement all things considered.
> > he really is pathetic.
>
> I'm sorry this is where we're at, but please don't post anything that could lead others to feel put down.pa·thet·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p-thtk) also pa·thet·i·cal (--kl)
adj.
Arousing or capable of arousing sympathetic sadness and compassion: “The old, rather shabby room struck her as extraordinarily pathetic” (John Galsworthy).>
>
> PS: I'm trying out a new system:
>
> previous block: 4 weeks
> period of time since previous block: 2 weeks
> particularly uncivil to other posters: no
> different type of incivility: no
> clearly didn't understand PBC and made effort to reply: no
> provoked: no
> uncivil in multiple posts at same time: no
> already archived: no
>
> If we take 2 weeks, divide by 10, and round down, that's a reduction of 0 weeks. If we apply that to your previous block, that's 4 - 0 = 4 weeks. And if we double that, that's 8 weeks.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 12, 2006, at 5:09:31
In reply to Re: capable of arousing compassion is good » Dr. Bob, posted by zazenduck on June 11, 2006, at 16:13:29
> > Arousing or capable of arousing sympathetic sadness and compassion: “The old, rather shabby room struck her as extraordinarily pathetic” (John Galsworthy).
Well, old and shabby isn't exactly a compliment. :-) Plus:
> > Sometimes these three terms connote contemptuous pity, as for what is hopelessly inept or inadequate: a school with pathetic academic standards.
Bob
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 13, 2006, at 17:17:00
In reply to Re: blocked for 8 weeks, posted by Larry Hoover on June 9, 2006, at 10:06:21
I should probably have completed my own post.
What I think is fair is that Estella receive an apology, and compensation in the form of a "free pass" for one block of four weeks duration, to be used at her discretion, for any future offense not of the malicious sort. That's what I think is fair. But there are those precedents. Precedent is not necessarily fair.
I do not believe that expressing one's preferences by rank order, whether by comparator such as better, or by superlative such as best, nor even numerical scales, is a breach of civility.
I have yet to see her incivility explained.
I tendered my "compromise" of four weeks, in the above-referenced post, solely on the basis of how Babble *is*.
She did not characterize faith, in any way. What she did was separate out religion from faith. They are not the same thing, even when one speaks of religious faith. That is merely a shorthand saying for the type of faith under consideration.
Nobody's faith was under any sort of assault, IMHO. Faith does not require religion, but religion does require faith. If we could tease the two apart, and faith stood alone, then she could well be right, IMHO.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 13, 2006, at 19:42:56
In reply to Re: blocked for 8 weeks, posted by Larry Hoover on June 13, 2006, at 17:17:00
> Faith does not require religion, but religion does require faith. If we could tease the two apart, and faith stood alone, then she could well be right, IMHO.
>
> LarI'm not so sure that religion requires faith, now that I think about it.
In any case, faith was not ever questioned. Not specifically. Not generically.
Lar
Posted by Toph on June 13, 2006, at 21:20:09
In reply to well folks, posted by alexandra_k on June 3, 2006, at 22:36:48
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 25, 2006, at 2:17:48
In reply to Re: blocked for 8 weeks » alexandra_k, posted by Dr. Bob on June 9, 2006, at 2:33:19
> previous block: 4 weeks
> period of time since previous block: 2 weeks
>
> If we take 2 weeks, divide by 10, and round down, that's a reduction of 0 weeks. If we apply that to your previous block, that's 4 - 0 = 4 weeks. And if we double that, that's 8 weeks.Thanks for your further work off-board to rephrase the statement that led to that previous block. I think you succeeded, I've discussed this with the deputies, and I'd like to "cancel" that block. Recalculating this block:
previous block: 2 weeks
period of time since previous block: 7 weeksIf we take 7 weeks, divide by 10, and round down, that's a reduction of 0 weeks. If we apply that to your previous block, that's 2 - 0 = 2 weeks. And if we double that, that's 4 weeks.
Which has already elapsed, so welcome back. :-)
Bob
Posted by Estella on July 29, 2006, at 0:05:05
In reply to Re: unblocked » alexandra_k, posted by Dr. Bob on July 25, 2006, at 2:17:48
For the record:
I did rephrase but I didn't and still don't understand what was wrong with what I was blocked for.
So...
I wasn't going to accept the reduction because it seems the reason for the reduction is that I rephrased.
But I still don't understand so I don't see why I should get a reduction for rephrasing something that I don't see anything wrong with.
I shouldn't have posted. I'm sorry.
I hereby give myself... 16 weeks... I think that is where I'm at now 2X8 for being weak and posting when I wasn't going to.
Posted by Estella on July 29, 2006, at 11:15:32
In reply to Re: unblocked, posted by Estella on July 29, 2006, at 0:05:05
ack.
see what happens when i post...
i don't like person i've become on boards. trauma focused. hurting.
sure i get that in my daily life...
but how much is the answer to indulge it and embrace it and how much is the answer to participate in the real world.
i'm addicted to the internet. more in particular to posting boards. even more in particular to here. i took an online test... surprise i'm only just within the range of 'may have a problem'. given that it was self report and i was brutally honest... i'm a little surprised i scored so low. but then i realised i don't need to take a test to see. just my worrying enough to find the test somewhat amusing (and worth taking)... well my answer is in there really.
i don't like the person i've become.
i guess it is hard. when does punishment become abuse? depends on how it affects the individual. when is a block abuse? depends on how it affects the individual. how to standardise that? you can't, basically. a one week block for one might not matter very much if they don't post weekly. a one week block for someone who posts a few posts every single day, on the other hand. a person who doesn't really have IRL supports partly because that person avoids them in order to spend time with people online...
i need to move on.
there are great people here...
but i need to do some goddamn work. i don't need to fall into a depression and crying jags 'cause i've been blocked... i don't need to be spending weeks of my time trying to figure why i've been blocked. i need to do some goddamn work and i need to make the most of IRL opportunities. do some mindfulness meditation, stop smoking, exchange coke for water, f*ck... i can't belive how much i've used this place (and others when this was unavailable) because... i'm afraid of IRL.
but hiding from it...
isn't helping me long term.
going round and round these f*cking circles...
know what?
i don't care anymore.
shame i can't block myself...
i don't want to be here
and posting in a moment of weakness...
only means i've got another thing to beat myself up over.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 29, 2006, at 14:23:57
In reply to Re: unblocked, posted by Estella on July 29, 2006, at 0:05:05
> I did rephrase but I didn't and still don't understand what was wrong with what I was blocked for.
Here's one way to look at it:
> i think the world would be a better place without x
isn't explicit about whom it would be better for. Would it be better for everyone? What's problematic about that phrasing is that it's agent-independent. OTOH:
> i think my goals would be better served if there weren't established religion
does explicitly specify an agent, yourself. Which, BTW, makes it an I-statement. So there's clearly no implication that it would be better for others. Does that help?
Bob
Posted by Estella on July 30, 2006, at 8:26:07
In reply to Re: still don't understand, posted by Dr. Bob on July 29, 2006, at 14:23:57
yes that helps a lot.
though...
aren't we allowed to discuss what we think would make the world (in general) a better place?
i thought... that was what you wanted us to do on the politics board...
Posted by Estella on July 30, 2006, at 18:29:57
In reply to Re: okay. » Dr. Bob, posted by Estella on July 30, 2006, at 8:26:07
and of course the relevant stated goals were
-pacifism (in the sense of nobody dying in wars either civilians or military)
-deliberative democracy (in the sense that private reasons can't provide reasons for others the way that public reasons can and hence public reasons can't really have a place in the deliberative arena)
what i really wanted to do was to discuss whether that is right or not (ie that if those are your goals then you would be right to think that the world would be a better place without x).
i am having trouble with what we are supposed to be doing on politics...
but i guess i should think of it as a dumping ground to tidy up social... or something...
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 31, 2006, at 13:40:52
In reply to Re: okay. » Dr. Bob, posted by Estella on July 30, 2006, at 8:26:07
> aren't we allowed to discuss what we think would make the world (in general) a better place?
Yes, but remember, the primary goal of this site is support. It tends to be more constructive if you put things in terms of what you think could be improved rather than what you think the problems are. In other words, it's more supportive to say the world would be better with y than without x.
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on July 31, 2006, at 14:52:42
In reply to Re: what would make the world a better place, posted by Dr. Bob on July 31, 2006, at 13:40:52
Thank you for your work on this. I think because of you we have a very sensible rule change.
Posted by gardenergirl on July 31, 2006, at 16:12:57
In reply to Re: Estella made this site a better place, posted by AuntieMel on July 31, 2006, at 14:52:42
Yes, it's nice to see Estella posting again.
:)
Posted by Estella on July 31, 2006, at 19:36:22
In reply to Re: what would make the world a better place, posted by Dr. Bob on July 31, 2006, at 13:40:52
> > aren't we allowed to discuss what we think would make the world (in general) a better place?
> Yes, but remember, the primary goal of this site is support. It tends to be more constructive if you put things in terms of what you think could be improved rather than what you think the problems are. In other words, it's more supportive to say the world would be better with y than without x.
Right. And that is why I unpacked 'I think the world would be better without x' like this:
>is it uncivil to say so?
>i don't really see how...
>if people disagree i am up for a discussion (i think that would be interesting which is why i said what i did)>i believe the world would be a better place if people appealed to natural rather than supernatural explanations.
>i believe the world would be a better place if people appreciated that morality and values are seperable from established religion in the sense that you can have either one without the other and having one doesn't make it more probable that you will have the other.
>i believe the world would be a better place if people appreciated that there are other reasons for acting morally in accordance with values than 'god will reward us in the next life' or 'god will punish us in the next life' or 'because god said we should / shouldn't'.http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060417/msgs/646430.html
But seems that wasn't okay since you cited:
> i believe the world would be a better place if people appealed to natural rather than supernatural explanations.
In favour of blocking me.
10.5 weeks.
I tried to rephrase and I ended up not being able to post for 10.5 weeks.
Sorry but, I don't think I'll ever see that as fair.
And... I still don't understand. Maybe I see something of why you think you blocked me. But I really don't think I'll ever accept that as a good or fair reason.
Posted by Estella on July 31, 2006, at 19:39:09
In reply to Re: Estella made this site a better place, posted by AuntieMel on July 31, 2006, at 14:52:42
Hey. Thanks. To the best of my knowledge we don't have a rule change we have Bob making an exception to the rule. Hence... Someone or other will probably say something about unfairness at some point in the near future...
I tried to rephrase on the boards and was blocked for my efforts. Sometimes hard work... Well... Doesn't really matter.
Nice to hear from you. Thanks for posting ((((Auntiemel))))
Posted by Estella on July 31, 2006, at 19:39:43
In reply to Re: Estella made this site a better place, posted by gardenergirl on July 31, 2006, at 16:12:57
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.