![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 12 to 36 of 49. Go back in thread:
Posted by BeardedLady on November 27, 2002, at 7:29:29
In reply to Re: Dr Bob, Gabbi is not Alphamale » Jonathan, posted by NikkiT2 on November 27, 2002, at 6:03:51
I consider myself an expert, somewhat, on this. I can tell which papers were written by my students and which were written by their proofreaders because their style completely changes. You can be more dilligent in your typing, and you can use words you wouldn't use, but it's what slips by you that gets you caught.
First, alot is not one word; it's two. So if you're going to disguise yourself, you may not know to change that because many people think it's one word. Likewise, a lot of the errors you make will be ones you make because you don't they're errors, in which case you won't change them.
That said, Gabbi's and Alphamales speech patterns and vocabularies are entirely different. I don't think Gabbi could change them.
And Bob has made it a point in the past to delete some offending posts--didn't he delete the Dr. Boob posts? However, he let the offending SAR post stay for a long while, and he let some very ugly things sit here. It seems that it's at his discretion and that most people complain when he deletes, and then the same complain when he doesn't. Is it us? Or is it the stuff he chooses to delete?
Clearly, that which is evil, hurtful, accusatory--as the above post by Mr. Scott is--shouldn't be allowed to sit here for everyone to read. It's slander--and libel, even, against Gabbi.
Right you are, Dinah.
beardy
Posted by mair on November 27, 2002, at 7:49:25
In reply to Re: Dr Bob, Gabbi is not Alphamale » Jonathan, posted by NikkiT2 on November 27, 2002, at 6:03:51
I don't quite understand your thinking here Bob. Mr. Scott was apparently blocked not for his unconscionable offer to direct us all to pictures of Gabbi, but rather for his subsequent insults. Why wasn't the first post, (which some thought should have been deleted) worthy of stronger and more immediate action?
Because you refused to delete this post (or censure Mr. Scott for this specific post), and then went on to block Gabbi, I can only infer that you didn't see Mr. Scott's post as so bad because you accepted as true his assertion that Gabbi and alphamale were the same person. You have, on countless times, censured people for expressing legitimate gripes in an uncivil way. This should be no different. Even if Mr Scott was right, his offer to "expose" Gabbi was wholly inappropriate. Also, if Gabbi and alphamale are the same person, maybe the block is called for. But if they are not (as Gabbi insists), then the block was inexcusably harmful, coming as it did on the heels of Gabbi becoming very much the "accused" all for the sin of trying to step in and lend some civility to the discussion between alphamale and Mr. Scott. I think you need to weigh this before you choose to believe the unproven assertions of any poster. "If you cannot be certain that you are right, don't act as if you are right" might be a good rule to follow in similar circumstances.
Others here have raised very legitimate issues of safety and you have very visibly rallied to the defense of those who have felt "unsafe" even when those feelings were in response to threads that did not involve them personally. Here the threat to Gabbi's safety was all too direct and exceedingly personal and frankly threatening. Why is she entitled to less protection?
Mair
Posted by NikkiT2 on November 27, 2002, at 7:50:20
In reply to hard to hide your style » NikkiT2, posted by BeardedLady on November 27, 2002, at 7:29:29
Oh beardie... I wasn't saying it was or wasn't Gabbi... I was just pointing out what i do.
As for Alot... there was a recently a big discussion on this on another web site I use... I emailed a Professor of English, and was told that, in UK spelling, Alot is perfectly acceptable. US spelling uses it as two words, but, it seems, UK spelling does not.
I don't claim to have perfect grammer or punctuation, in fact, I know mines leaves alot to be desired most of the time, but I'm a computer geek, and haven't studied English language beyond 16 years old.
When I *want* I can sound alot more intelligent than I usually do, and use many different words to what I would normally use.
I posted an "anon" post over the weekend, and only one person, out of many that know me incredibly well, picke dup on it being me, and that was only because she knew the history to what I was talking about.I try, as much as possible, to be *me* on the internet, and as such, I tend to type as I would talk.
Oh, and I never write anything by hand!!!
Nikki
Posted by wendy b. on November 27, 2002, at 8:43:11
In reply to Truly Outrageous Dr Bob, posted by mair on November 27, 2002, at 7:49:25
> Others here have raised very legitimate issues of safety and you have very visibly rallied to the defense of those who have felt "unsafe" even when those feelings were in response to threads that did not involve them personally. Here the threat to Gabbi's safety was all too direct and exceedingly personal and frankly threatening. Why is she entitled to less protection?
>
> Mair
Perfectly expressed, Mair. It would be appropriate if Bob would reply to our comments, but I see nothing, no respect, no tolerance, no judicious decision-making, no going back to revise, because everything he does must always be right the first time... It's so ugly here with those posts left up...And sorry Dreamer, I adore you, but I don't operate the way you seem to be able to - 'this is only a web site.' I'd rather think it's a community of human beings who are trying to >help< each other, purportedly... Bob's actions belie this stated purpose....
Wendy
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 27, 2002, at 8:45:36
In reply to Re: Dr Bob, Gabbi is not Alphamale » Dr. Bob, posted by Jonathan on November 27, 2002, at 0:45:57
> I have always felt safer on the board knowing that there were limits to what could be said. Leaving posts like these up while blocking posters for one week makes me feel a bit less safe here.
Well, I want it to be safe here, but it isn't always. And I think people who visit should get an accurate idea of what it's like here. Uncivil posts do get through, and I don't want to make it look like they don't.
> At the very least, could you blank out parts of all posts involved?
>
> DinahThose involved can email me if information about them was posted without their permission, how about that?
> you validated the false accusation that Gabbi was posting back and forth under 2 names, then lying about it.
>
> TabithaThat actually wasn't why I blocked that posting name. We're trying to work this out. And hopefully, we'll be able to. Thanks for your patience...
> the above limitation of MSIE on non-networked machines running Windows 9x ... might make two users sharing a machine look like the same person using two posting names. I shall be pleased to discuss this further with you by email if you wish.
>
> Jonathan.Hmm, so is there any way to distinguish those two scenarios? If you think it's better to email me, please do...
Bob
Posted by rayww on November 27, 2002, at 10:17:08
In reply to Re: Psycho Babble thread, posted by Dr. Bob on November 27, 2002, at 8:45:36
> Well, I want it to be safe here, but it isn't always. And I think people who visit should get an accurate idea of what it's like here. Uncivil posts do get through, and I don't want to make it look like they don't.
>Bob, if there was a child molestor in your neighborhood and you were vulnerable to attack, would you want someone to sweep the evidence under the carpet?
The mood swing is what the mental disorders are all about. Let's not ignore the symptoms by sweeping the ugly parts away. Face it and deal. We all need help and understanding, and that's why we're here.
If three people are in a kerfuffel, the rest can be supportive, or else ignore. By adding fuel to the fire, it keeps it alive. I would never have read the thread if this discussion about it hadn't taken place.
It helps to know who people are. I think this site is all about understanding.
On another board (webhealing.com) a person can delete their own post.
I'm not sure how I feel about your blocking policy. I've never seen it done before, but I'm not a person who sits at the computer all day either. (well some days I do :)
As soon as we try to play God, we find out all too soon that judgement is best left up to Him. Only One with pure understanding can act as judge. However, you are the "god" of this forum, therefore, it is up to you to decide. Though we may question your decisions, you have the right to make them. Many counsel God also, and tell Him what they think of death, suffering, and their personal global positioning system.
Keep up the good work. (I want to write god work, but not appropriate). Sorry if I'm being me again.
Posted by NikkiT2 on November 27, 2002, at 11:03:05
In reply to me again » Dr. Bob, posted by rayww on November 27, 2002, at 10:17:08
Most baords I use allow people to delete their own posts.. I know I have posted stuff I have wished I could remove here.
We are all memebers here, and each message is linked to that persons membership, so would it be all that hard to add this feature??
Nikki
Posted by oracle on November 27, 2002, at 11:24:34
In reply to Good idea, posted by NikkiT2 on November 27, 2002, at 11:03:05
> Most baords I use allow people to delete their own posts.. I know I have posted stuff I have wished I could remove here.
>
> We are all memebers here, and each message is linked to that persons membership, so would it be all that hard to add this feature??
>
> NikkiSince we agreeed to transfer of rights to our posts, they are not ours to control anymore.
They are Dr Bobs to control and use, delete or
change as he see fit.
Posted by dreamerz on November 27, 2002, at 11:37:22
In reply to Re: Truly Outrageous Dr Bob » mair, posted by wendy b. on November 27, 2002, at 8:43:11
I did put a ?
Posted by dreamerz on November 27, 2002, at 12:01:12
In reply to Re: Truly Outrageous Dr Bob » wendy b., posted by dreamerz on November 27, 2002, at 11:37:22
The only reason i felt i had to read these threads is because i was joking about gabbi in psb and didn't know what was going on..and that i may offend .. i'd have stayed out of it and now I'm staying out of it..
...its frustrating enough to get what people mean typed here --it can be easily misunderstood...I know it's peoples lives infact I do believe my supportiveness has just about expired--I am becoming a sour sour puss.
..KAPUT..done...happy holidays now excuse me while I scream...
Posted by IsoM on November 27, 2002, at 13:47:00
In reply to Re: Psycho Babble thread, posted by Dr. Bob on November 27, 2002, at 8:45:36
I tend to feel upset by your policies but I do try to be forgiving, hoping that problems will be resolved, but this is outrageous.
I've read over the posts on PB, PB Faith, & here for the last few days, watching & waiting, & vainly hoping that decency & common sense would prevail - that you would be able to tell the difference between right & wrong that any 10 year old child could see. But it's not going to happen, is it? It's your way or no way. I can't begin to express what I think of your rigidity in polite terms or without expressive hand & facial gestures, so I won't even try. I know others know how I think & probably, you're the only one who doesn't. I find it incredible that a practicing psychiatrist would ever be SO inflexible!All I can say is I'm **totally disgusted** with the way Gabbi was treated, with the inability to see the silliness & humour in Wendy's post about being a blood drinker & let it be, & with the inability to delete certain very offensive posts of others but the quick willingness to delete anything offensive about you.
What is it? Do you see yourself as the last bastion of internet civility out there that you must guard against at all costs? Or is this more about you? I think the answer's obvious to most.
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 27, 2002, at 14:16:27
In reply to Re: Psycho Babble thread » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on November 27, 2002, at 13:47:00
Iso M,
You wrote,[...inability to see the humor in Wendy's post...] [...I think that the answer is obvious to most.]
Wendy's post said that she was a [satanist]...]
Now if that is [funny], then I also am unable to see [the humor] in it.
Satan is called the deciever, the tempter, the liar, the slandrer, the perverter of The Word of God,
the opposer to God's work, an adversary, and other names in many religions. The faith board excludes those things that are advesarial to God, such as atheism and agnosticism, for they do not support God. Now if someone wrote on the faith board that they belonged to a racial supremist group, and said that they were a racist,I believe that that would not be [humorous] any more than if a person said that they were a satanist on the faith board. I agree with Dr Bob in this respect to flagging the post in question, for if the baricades are not put up now on the road, then all hose type of posts on the faith board could travel unapposed and make a hazardous road of the faith board.
Lou
Posted by oracle on November 27, 2002, at 14:24:37
In reply to Re: Psycho Babble thread » IsoM, posted by Lou Pilder on November 27, 2002, at 14:16:27
Now if someone wrote on the faith board that they belonged to a racial supremist group, and said that they were a racist,
What happens if they post and say they are Baptist ?
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 27, 2002, at 14:44:02
In reply to Re: Psycho Babble thread, posted by oracle on November 27, 2002, at 14:24:37
oracle,
You wrote, [what happens if they post and say they are a Baptist...]
There have been posters here declaring their religious affiliations. I have seen posters declaring that thy were Catholic, Morman,Jewish,Witnesses for Jahovah, Wiccain, Budahist, Zen, and others and nothing has happenend to them. Is there something that I am missing in your question?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on November 27, 2002, at 14:49:03
In reply to Good idea, posted by NikkiT2 on November 27, 2002, at 11:03:05
I think if Dr. Bob hesitates to delete posts himself, he would be extremely unlikely to allow us to delete our own.
I also think it would lead to problems. Someone could post something provocative, wait for a response, then delete the original post. This would lead the responding poster to look bad, and leave everyone generally confused. For the most part, I agree with Dr. Bob's policy of preserving threads intact.
I just think exceptions should be made, and I think Dr. Bob's compromise of allowing the people involved on this thread to request deletion of certain information is a fair one.
Posted by Dinah on November 27, 2002, at 15:02:12
In reply to me again » Dr. Bob, posted by rayww on November 27, 2002, at 10:17:08
Hi Ray,
I think Dr. Bob has proposed a reasonable solution to this particular problem. And I was reluctant to bring up this at all for fear of drawing attention to the thread, as I stated in my post.
Moreover, I don't think all objectionable or uncivil posts should be removed. However, a situation like this seems like two offenses. The original offense is the posting of an offensive post. The second offense is those in power allowing such a post to remain in public view. I think Dr. Bob sees that, and that is why he is allowing the posters involved to request deletion. It's like if something nasty was written about someone on a wall. Writing it is wrong, but not cleaning it off is also wrong. That's not sweeping graffiti under the rug, it's just simple thoughtfulness.
Also, I appreciate the fact that Dr. Bob shows us the honor and dignity of holding us accountable for our actions, mood disorders or no.
Posted by Tabitha on November 27, 2002, at 15:06:16
In reply to Re: Good idea, posted by Dinah on November 27, 2002, at 14:49:03
>
> I just think exceptions should be made, and I think Dr. Bob's compromise of allowing the people involved on this thread to request deletion of certain information is a fair one.I second that. We all expect anonymity here, unless we choose to post personal information, which very few do. If someone should post personal information (or worse yet, false information) without our permission, either accidentally or maliciously, we ought to be able to have it removed from the board.
Posted by oracle on November 27, 2002, at 15:26:20
In reply to Re: Psycho Babble thread » oracle, posted by Lou Pilder on November 27, 2002, at 14:44:02
Is there something that I am missing in your question?
> Lou
Quite a bit, Lou.
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 27, 2002, at 15:33:28
In reply to Re: Psycho Babble thread, posted by oracle on November 27, 2002, at 15:26:20
oracle,
You wrote,[quite a bit, Lou].
Could you reveal what I am missing in your post that said,[what if they say that they are a Baptist...]? If you could, then I could be better able to communicate with you in regards to understanding your question about [what if they post that they are a Baptist?].
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by oracle on November 27, 2002, at 16:34:57
In reply to Re: Psycho Babble thread » oracle, posted by Lou Pilder on November 27, 2002, at 15:33:28
> oracle,
> You wrote,[quite a bit, Lou].
> Could you reveal what I am missing in your post that said,[what if they say that they are a Baptist...]? If you could, then I could be better able to communicate with you in regards to understanding your question about [what if they post that they are a Baptist?].
> Thanks,
> Lou
nope
Posted by IsoM on November 27, 2002, at 17:41:30
In reply to Re: Psycho Babble thread » oracle, posted by Lou Pilder on November 27, 2002, at 14:44:02
I think you're reading far more into posts than have been said, Lou. You state that others have said they were "Catholic, Morman,Jewish,Witnesses for Jahovah, Wiccain, Budahist, Zen" before, but I don't recall every one of these faiths being mentioned by others. Some have been but I think you're going beyond & reading what you think they may be.
Besides, I do have a strong faith & believe in Jesus. But I KNEW that Wendy was just being silly - goofy - & while not everyone might have laughed at it, I again KNEW she wasn't being serious & I'm sure they did too. I was NOT insulted or upset & got a smile from her goofiness.
Should everything we say be couched in serious terms, no levity at all allowed? When W.C. Fields was asked if he liked children. He said he did if they were properly cooked. It's obvious that even if he wasn't fond of children, that he was joking - he didn't eat children, any more than Wendy drinks blood, regardless of whether she does or doesn't believe in Jesus.
It was a JOKE, nothing more, nothing less. Does every last statement made here have to be carefully elaborated on for every possible misinterpretation?
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 27, 2002, at 18:55:35
In reply to Re: Psycho Babble thread » Lou Pilder, posted by IsoM on November 27, 2002, at 17:41:30
IsoM,
Wendy's post goes to an international audiance and there are religious people that could see her post as objectionable.I know a Christiandom person whose faith does not allow joking. He bases this on a verse from his bible that says,[ but sexual sins should not be named among you, nether foolish talking, coarse jesting, which is not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.] And another verse,[ ...walk circumspectfully,...]
Now I do not beleive that talking about the type of joke that you used as an example falls into the catargory that the Christiandom person that holds the formentioned verses to prohibit. I beleive that the [foolish talking and coarse jesting] that they object to involves matters of faith. And that, to him, would include joking about [being a satanist and eating blood ]
Lou
Posted by IsoM on November 27, 2002, at 19:25:37
In reply to Re: Psycho Babble thread » IsoM, posted by Lou Pilder on November 27, 2002, at 18:55:35
Lou: "Now I do not beleive that talking about the type of joke that you used as an example falls into the catargory that the Christiandom person that holds the formentioned verses to prohibit."
IsoM: So the idea of eating children, cooked or otherwise, is fine?
Hmm, what sort of distinction is there about a prohibition on drinking blood & that on eating children? Both wouldn't be considered wrong in God's eye?
- - -Lou: "I know a Christiandom person whose faith does not allow joking."
IsoM: Humour is found anywhere, even in serious discussions, & serves to enliven the discourse, peak the interest of the audience, used as an analogy, & to drive a point home. And if said person finds many different examples of humour bothersome regarding his conscience & beliefs, then I'd suggest such persons to avoid the internet. There's no one that won't be bothered by something at almmost any site they visit. Personally, I object to Disney (seriously) & so avoid any sites to do with such things. There's other things I find objectionable & avoid those too. I suggest the same for your friend.
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 27, 2002, at 19:40:34
In reply to Re: Psycho Babble thread » Lou Pilder, posted by IsoM on November 27, 2002, at 17:41:30
Iso M,
You wrote,[...I have a strong faith and believe in Jesus.]
Now I have talked to my Christiandom friend about the post in question and he said to me that he considers the post objectionable and would violate his beliefe to not jest in that manner, since it is on the faith board. He also said that Jesus called the devil the enemy. My friend also cited a verse from his bible that said,[be you angry, but sin not. Do not let the sun go down upon your wrath. Neither give place to the devil.]
My friend also cited another verse from his bible,[resist the devil and he shall flee]. My friend also said that [Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil] and that the devil is the father of all lies.
Wendy is not being condemned by anyone here. Dr Bob just said that the post was not supportive. And I agree with Dr. Bob on this. And reasonable people disagree. I hope that we let not our disagreement keep us from communicating.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 27, 2002, at 19:57:08
In reply to Re: Psycho Babble thread » Lou Pilder, posted by IsoM on November 27, 2002, at 19:25:37
Iso M.
You wrote,[humour is found enywhere...]. Yes, and in my Jewish Bible, it is written that [To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.]
A time to weep and a time to laugh....
It is the [place] that is the issue here. The post could be posted on the other boards,if allowable, but on the faith board, it has been deemed to be unsupportive.
Lou
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.