![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 16 to 40 of 42. Go back in thread:
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 5, 2004, at 7:22:13
In reply to Re: a perfect world, posted by Dr. Bob on September 5, 2004, at 2:37:46
> > I dearly hope Bob replies in full
> >
> > Lar
>
> Sorry, but I'm not sure I have anything to add to what I've already posted.But what about what *I* have posted? I will not be ignored.
> What happened was unfortunate,
Unfortunate is all you'll say?
> but if possible, I'd like to try to focus on getting back on track and moving forward again.
This is how we move forward, Bob. We talk it out. We change what needs changing.
Frankly, Bob, your sarcastic subject line should have YOU blocked. I am quite offended.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 5, 2004, at 7:26:21
In reply to Re: A monologue upon The Rules » Larry Hoover, posted by alesta on September 5, 2004, at 0:00:44
> larry, thank god for you...i had to take a peak at what you wrote..i've retired from this discussion due to stress/depression, but i just wanted to fully support your *brilliant* synopsis of this whole mess...it blew me away...you are so amazing...you really put it all together so unbelievably well...i just hope you're a stronger person than i am...i just *don't* want to see this mess take you down like it did me...*please* take it easy...i cannot believe how smart you are.:)*wow*..:)
>
> amy:)Dear heart, I am very touched by your words. I hope you find solace in my strength, and my support for your compassion.
Sometimes, I just know I have something to say. It rolls around inside, and it takes form. And somehow, I know when it is ready. What you read was not edited, but for spelling and semantics (and I missed one spelling error). It just pours out, when it is ready. I am proud of what pours out of me, when the situation arises.
Bless you,
Lar
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 5, 2004, at 8:19:14
In reply to Re: A monologue upon The Rules » Larry Hoover, posted by verne on September 4, 2004, at 22:03:52
verne,
You wrote,[...my sympathy is with Dr. Bob...posters admitted it was against the rules... and posted anyway...].
Is it not evident that those posters thought that it would be {doing a good thing} even though there would be some rule aginst what they wanted to do? Is it not lawfull to do good?
This is what I see as something that Larry Hoover is trying to bring out. It appears to me that Larry is trying to bring out that {the rules are to be made for the posters, not that the posters are to be made for the rules}.
Lou
Posted by SLS on September 5, 2004, at 8:49:46
In reply to A monologue upon The Rules, posted by Larry Hoover on September 4, 2004, at 12:34:11
> So many times, I see massive violation of civility on one side, and minor technical violations on the other, with equal penalties distributed. Unequal crime, but equal penalty.
I think it would be very difficult to assign gradations of inequality among specific violations.
Perhaps it makes sense for Dr. Bob to consult with a sociologist and a lawyer to help create a protocol or a set of guiding principles for handling matters of civility.
> I'm almost tempted to unleash my full vocabulary...
EVERYONE TAKE COVER!!!
There is a difference between unleashing your full vocabulary and unleashing the full power of your vocabulary. You seem to have done pretty good on the latter. Please don't get yourself blocked.
- Scott
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 5, 2004, at 9:21:50
In reply to Re: A monologue upon The Rules, posted by SLS on September 5, 2004, at 8:49:46
> > So many times, I see massive violation of civility on one side, and minor technical violations on the other, with equal penalties distributed. Unequal crime, but equal penalty.
>
> I think it would be very difficult to assign gradations of inequality among specific violations.It would be different, not difficult, IMHO. A point scale was suggested, as an example of a different method. In a sense, one is already in place, as Bob can assign severity of violation differences already. (PBC; please rephrase; block, but not increase; block, but double the prior; block, but triple the prior).
> Perhaps it makes sense for Dr. Bob to consult with a sociologist and a lawyer to help create a protocol or a set of guiding principles for handling matters of civility.
I think that most of the people arguing about what has happened are arguing from a perspective that they would prefer that mitigation and aggravation are more formally recognized. Or, at least, more overtly when they are applied. The "cut and paste" of recycled phrasing (from the FAQ) that Bob currently employs totally obscures whether or not he did apply either of those two factors.
> > I'm almost tempted to unleash my full vocabulary...
>
> EVERYONE TAKE COVER!!!My rhetoric can be devastating. I know it.
> There is a difference between unleashing your full vocabulary and unleashing the full power of your vocabulary.
It is indeed that distinction I was trying to make.
> You seem to have done pretty good on the latter. Please don't get yourself blocked.
I have no intention of getting myself blocked, although Bob may block me. He has surprised me a number of times already. I would much prefer that any subsequent blocks come from a fully conscious, and totally obvious, demonstration of my will and intent.
>
> - ScottThanks,
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 5, 2004, at 9:27:44
In reply to Re: A monologue upon The Rules » Larry Hoover, posted by verne on September 4, 2004, at 22:03:52
> Lar,
>
> "posters simply reinvent themselves" and come back under another name - is an excellent point. I hadn't even considered that possibility.It's obviously happening. Those who live within the rules are punished more than those who do not do so.
> On the blocks, my sympathy is with Dr. Bob. Some of the posters even admitted it was against the rules in their post and proceeded anyway. They said something like, "I'll be spanked" or "I'll be blocked" but here goes.
Indeed. But I also noted what appeared to be anger in Bob's subsequent responses. That is not appropriate. It is an indication of prejudice, and he should have found another way, or another time, to express himself. He is not above his own recommendations to us, I should hope.
He solicits funding for himself on this site. The question is no longer black and white. We are arguing shades of grey.
Lar
Posted by SLS on September 5, 2004, at 10:42:10
In reply to Re: A monologue upon The Rules » SLS, posted by Larry Hoover on September 5, 2004, at 9:21:50
Hi Larry.
> > > So many times, I see massive violation of civility on one side, and minor technical violations on the other, with equal penalties distributed. Unequal crime, but equal penalty.
> > I think it would be very difficult to assign gradations of inequality among specific violations.
> It would be different, not difficult, IMHO. A point scale was suggested, as an example of a different method. In a sense, one is already in place, as Bob can assign severity of violation differences already. (PBC; please rephrase; block, but not increase; block, but double the prior; block, but triple the prior).I think such differentiations are necessarily dependent upon the subjective interpretations of the enforcer. Of course, this does not become a problem as long as everyone agrees with the judgments of the enforcer or agrees to accept the judgments of the enforcer as official government.
I sometimes feel that the current system is constrictive and choking.
> > Perhaps it makes sense for Dr. Bob to consult with a sociologist and a lawyer to help create a protocol or a set of guiding principles for handling matters of civility.
> I think that most of the people arguing about what has happened are arguing from a perspective that they would prefer that mitigation and aggravation are more formally recognized. Or, at least, more overtly when they are applied. The "cut and paste" of recycled phrasing (from the FAQ) that Bob currently employs totally obscures whether or not he did apply either of those two factors.Do you think the overall tone of moderation should be relaxed, or to be exercised with a strict precision based upon new standards and regulations?
- Scott
Posted by verne on September 5, 2004, at 10:49:02
In reply to Lou's reply to vernes post » verne, posted by Lou Pilder on September 5, 2004, at 8:19:14
Lou,
But it's not obvious the request for donations was a good thing - one reader described feeling threatened, that the forum felt less safe if this sort of thing went on. Pressure involved from the incrowd and that sort of thing.
Your point that "the rules are to be made for the posters, not that the posters are to be made for the rules" should be tempered with submitting to whatever ruling authority we happen to find ourselves under. "render to...", "submit yourselves..." etc...
Verne
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 5, 2004, at 11:26:33
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to vernes post, posted by verne on September 5, 2004, at 10:49:02
verne,
You wrote,[...your point...{should} be tempered with submitting to...authority...].
I see this discussion innitiated by Larry not as a call to rebell against the authority, but as a protest to the way the authority is adminiistered and to discuss ways to improve the administration of the site. I see the posters that said that they would do it anyway, in knowing that there was a rule against it, to be doing it because they thought that they were doing a good thing. The fact that others posted that they thought that it was not a good thing does not necessarrily mean that the posters that did do it did not think, to them, that it was a bad thing to do.
Are you quoting the bible passage that said,[..render to Ceaser...render to God...?] If so could you explaine the relevance that you think that verse has in respect to Larry's protest of how the administration is done here? I do not see Larry as advocating that people do not "render" to obey the rule about asking for money, but to express that in the case that he is citing , that some posters thought that there was just cause for such. Are you also citing the bible verse that states,[... submit yourselves to the government...] applys to Larry's post here? If so, could you clarify how that is? I do not see Larry as trying to advocate that others disobey the rules , but to address the way they are administered and seek constructive change via a discussion about how he feels about the way the cite is administered.
Lou
Posted by alesta on September 5, 2004, at 12:44:39
In reply to Re: a perfect world » alesta, posted by verne on September 5, 2004, at 5:42:24
oh, thank you, verne, i know this stuff isn't really that important, but it sure doesn't feel that way when you're involved in it...you are so sweet...i really appreciate your words of kindness..
you take care, hon,:)
amy
> Amy,
>
> I appreciate your passion. My doctor once said to me: would you rather be "right or happy?" He said I had a need to be right and I was a real "reformer" and he had all the personality tests to back it up. Of course, I fought him all the way, claiming I was an artist or anything but a reformer. Years later I realized he was right, that I was a "reformer", and would rather be right than happy.
>
> So from one reformer to another, I understand where you're coming from and it's completely valid. We are driven by a need for perfection, justice, and what's right.
>
> When someone or something has you riled, don't rise to the bait. Or, as they say around here, "don't wrestle with the pig". The thinking, I guess, is that the pig is already covered with mud and doesn't mind running around while we get muddy and tired.
>
> You belong, you're loved, and discussions on the board aren't that terribly significant.
>
> take care,
>
> verne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Posted by alesta on September 5, 2004, at 12:57:29
In reply to Re: A monologue upon The Rules » alesta, posted by Larry Hoover on September 5, 2004, at 7:26:21
larry, you're beautiful...what a gem...thank you, i don't feel so alone...
god bless you,
amy
p.s. that piece of yours was uneditied? no WAY!:)
> Dear heart, I am very touched by your words. I hope you find solace in my strength, and my support for your compassion.
>
> Sometimes, I just know I have something to say. It rolls around inside, and it takes form. And somehow, I know when it is ready. What you read was not edited, but for spelling and semantics (and I missed one spelling error). It just pours out, when it is ready. I am proud of what pours out of me, when the situation arises.
>
> Bless you,
> Lar
>
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 5, 2004, at 13:05:58
In reply to Re: A monologue upon The Rules--larry, posted by alesta on September 5, 2004, at 12:57:29
> larry, you're beautiful...what a gem...thank you, i don't feel so alone...
> god bless you,
> amy
> p.s. that piece of yours was uneditied? no WAY!:)Way.
Posted by verne on September 5, 2004, at 15:23:27
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to vernes post-2 » verne, posted by Lou Pilder on September 5, 2004, at 11:26:33
Lou,
I thought you were referring to scripture when you say "the rules are to be made for the posters, not that the posters are to be made for the rules" (insert sabbath) so I responded in kind.
I took a bit of a spiritual leap making the connection - the situation on the board and the situation a couple thousand years ago aren't exactly equivalent.
There are lots of "submit yourselves" passages that refer to more than just government but that discussion is best left to the Faith board.
Anyway, I thought I was posting in the same spirit, just adding another perspective.
Verne
Posted by AuntieMel on September 5, 2004, at 16:17:38
In reply to Re: a perfect world » Dr. Bob, posted by alesta on September 5, 2004, at 3:38:21
The subject line came from one of my posts. I don't think Dr. Bob was trying to make light:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/386556.html
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 5, 2004, at 16:20:04
In reply to Re: a perfect world - alesta and Larry, posted by AuntieMel on September 5, 2004, at 16:17:38
> The subject line came from one of my posts. I don't think Dr. Bob was trying to make light:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/386556.htmlThanks. It does make a point though, doesn't it? Perception can be quite different than intent.
Lar
Posted by AuntieMel on September 5, 2004, at 16:22:24
In reply to Re: a perfect world - alesta and Larry » AuntieMel, posted by Larry Hoover on September 5, 2004, at 16:20:04
Posted by alesta on September 5, 2004, at 16:32:40
In reply to Re: a perfect world - alesta and Larry, posted by AuntieMel on September 5, 2004, at 16:17:38
> The subject line came from one of my posts. I don't think Dr. Bob was trying to make light:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/386556.htmluh, i think he was...he posted those words for a reson, did he not? you tell me what he meant by that, then.
Posted by alesta on September 5, 2004, at 16:36:18
In reply to Re: a perfect world - alesta and Larry » AuntieMel, posted by Larry Hoover on September 5, 2004, at 16:20:04
larry,
are you still there?? this battle never ends, let me tell you..once you're in it you can never get out of it...god, i'm so sick of this..it will drive you crazy..how do we stop this thing? help...need a shoulder...
amy
Posted by AuntieMel on September 5, 2004, at 16:52:27
In reply to Re: a perfect world - auntie mel, posted by alesta on September 5, 2004, at 16:32:40
Please understand that I'm not trying to argue with you or convert you to my way of thinking. But sometimes (quite often) I don't explain things well enough and I'm just trying to do that now.
Well, my post was about using point systems to determine how severe the infraction was and the block length. Instead of automatic doubling. With how much the poster was harassed before the incivility, and so on.
It ended with 'Just my idea of a perfect world............' I could be wrong, but I took the subject line being copied from my post, along with Dr. Bob's comment about it being interesting to discuss, that he is willing to maybe think of something else as being fair, but still not based on liking one person better than another.
It seemed like a good thing to me.
Posted by alesta on September 5, 2004, at 17:08:20
In reply to Re: a perfect world - auntie mel » alesta, posted by AuntieMel on September 5, 2004, at 16:52:27
look, this is very simple. when dr. bob posted "a perfect world" in his title, he was referring to what larry wrote. whether he took that phrase from you or not is irrelevant.
you are arguing the point, so i am forced to respond. but i honestly don't like disagreeing with anyone. for some reason i find it very upsetting. i know we can't all get along in this world...could we just *agree to disagree*, instead of continually fighting over the issue? friends??
amy :)
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 5, 2004, at 17:09:53
In reply to Re: a perfect world - larry, posted by alesta on September 5, 2004, at 16:36:18
> larry,
> are you still there?? this battle never ends, let me tell you..once you're in it you can never get out of it...god, i'm so sick of this..it will drive you crazy..how do we stop this thing? help...need a shoulder...
> amyNo, it never ends. The scab never heals completely. There are times that you must turn away from it. Just turn away. Peace is where you find it, and it isn't here.
I am very tired. This has taken a lot out of me. More than I realized. <sigh> I shall go and tuber, for the time being. [tuber, verb intransitive: to become a couch potato]
Babblemail me, if you wish.
Lar
Posted by AuntieMel on September 5, 2004, at 20:47:36
In reply to Re: a perfect world - alesta and Larry » AuntieMel, posted by Larry Hoover on September 5, 2004, at 16:20:04
Thanks for understanding that I was trying to explain the subject line. And that I'm not trying to argue.
Perception vs intent is something I've been talking about a lot lately:)
Posted by AuntieMel on September 5, 2004, at 23:48:17
In reply to Re: a perfect world - auntie mel » AuntieMel, posted by alesta on September 5, 2004, at 17:08:20
<<<<you are arguing the point, so i am forced to respond. but i honestly don't like disagreeing with anyone. for some reason i find it very upsetting. i know we can't all get along in this world...could we just *agree to disagree*, instead of continually fighting over the issue? friends??
Sure we can agree to disagree. I only tried to explain because you asked me to:
<<<<uh, i think he was...he posted those words for a reson, did he not? you tell me what he meant by that, then.
Posted by AuntieMel on September 6, 2004, at 0:09:17
In reply to Re: a perfect world - auntie mel, posted by AuntieMel on September 5, 2004, at 23:48:17
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 6, 2004, at 0:22:16
In reply to Re: a perfect world - auntie mel » alesta, posted by AuntieMel on September 5, 2004, at 16:52:27
> > I'm not sure I have anything to add to what I've already posted.
>
> But what about what *I* have posted? I will not be ignored.
>
> LarI think what I've already posted addresses what you posted. We may disagree, but I'm not ignoring you.
> Well, my post was about using point systems to determine how severe the infraction was and the block length. Instead of automatic doubling. With how much the poster was harassed before the incivility, and so on.
>
> It ended with 'Just my idea of a perfect world............' I could be wrong, but I took the subject line being copied from my post, along with Dr. Bob's comment about it being interesting to discuss, that he is willing to maybe think of something else as being fair, but still not based on liking one person better than another.
>
> AuntieMelThat was it, sorry about not being more clear. My idea was to try to move forward, with various ideas of a (more) perfect world...
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.