![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 81 to 105 of 105. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 15, 2005, at 4:54:44
In reply to Re: Lou's resp[onse to Angel Girl's post-beachrstntose » Lou Pilder, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 14, 2005, at 17:54:28
> that particular statement is so heinous.
>
> Coral> in this case I feel you have been very offensive to Angel Girl
>
> Fallen4MyTPlease don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
PS: The asterisk was my doing, I meant to say so before, sorry if that was confusing...
Posted by coral on January 15, 2005, at 7:02:30
In reply to Re: please be civil » Coral » Fallen4MyT, posted by Dr. Bob on January 15, 2005, at 4:54:44
Dr. Hsuing,
I accept my PBC. My comment was insensitive.
However, I do have a question. You changed the title of a post by changing a letter to an asterisk. I’m presuming you changed it because another poster felt hurt by it. Yet, the poster who originated the post was not given a PBC. If my memory serves, previously, you’ve indicated that the intent of the poster was not to be considered in your determinations since none of us are capable of truly knowing others’ intent and you have consistently dealt with what was written.
In this particular example, several posters indicated extreme discomfort with the title. So, whether the poster intended it to cause discomfort or not, the post itself was perceived as being hurtful. Should that not have been addressed as well?
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 15, 2005, at 13:30:33
In reply to Re: to Dr. Hsuing, posted by coral on January 15, 2005, at 7:02:30
> whether the poster intended it to cause discomfort or not, the post itself was perceived as being hurtful. Should that not have been addressed as well?
I thought he apologized...
Bob
Posted by coral on January 15, 2005, at 15:18:55
In reply to Re: feeling hurt, posted by Dr. Bob on January 15, 2005, at 13:30:33
So, it's a matter of timing? If I'd apologized before you saw my post, does that mean I would not have gotten a PBC?
Coral
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 15, 2005, at 15:32:08
In reply to Re: feeling hurt, posted by coral on January 15, 2005, at 15:18:55
> So, it's a matter of timing? If I'd apologized before you saw my post, does that mean I would not have gotten a PBC?
It's not the answer to everything, but IMO an apology does go a long way...
Bob
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 15, 2005, at 19:42:39
In reply to Re: to Dr. Hsuing, posted by coral on January 15, 2005, at 7:02:30
I feel that by the civility rules the poster who had antichrist by the name of the one who was harmed by it should be blocked also (as does Coral) as SHE stated it made her feel hurt, put down, she has trouble sleeping because of it the term antichrist by here name... to me goes right to your civility rules. She felt put down by that..this is sad
> Dr. Hsuing,
>
> I accept my PBC. My comment was insensitive.
>
> However, I do have a question. You changed the title of a post by changing a letter to an asterisk. I’m presuming you changed it because another poster felt hurt by it. Yet, the poster who originated the post was not given a PBC. If my memory serves, previously, you’ve indicated that the intent of the poster was not to be considered in your determinations since none of us are capable of truly knowing others’ intent and you have consistently dealt with what was written.
>
> In this particular example, several posters indicated extreme discomfort with the title. So, whether the poster intended it to cause discomfort or not, the post itself was perceived as being hurtful. Should that not have been addressed as well?
>
>
>
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 15, 2005, at 19:43:58
In reply to Re: please be civil » Coral » Fallen4MyT, posted by Dr. Bob on January 15, 2005, at 4:54:44
.
> > that particular statement is so heinous.
> >
> > Coral
>
> > in this case I feel you have been very offensive to Angel Girl
> >
> > Fallen4MyT
>
> Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
>
> If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
>
> Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob
>
> PS: The asterisk was my doing, I meant to say so before, sorry if that was confusing...
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 15, 2005, at 19:54:18
In reply to Re: to Dr. Hsuing/ AG » coral, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 15, 2005, at 19:42:39
How frustrating
(((Angel Girl)))
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 15, 2005, at 20:13:33
In reply to Angel Girl I'm sorry about your Block, posted by Gabbix2 on January 15, 2005, at 19:54:18
I am stumped and agree..I feel badly she was blocked as I do think she was harmed by words by another
> How frustrating
>
> (((Angel Girl)))
>
>
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 15, 2005, at 20:37:29
In reply to Re: Angel Girl I'm sorry about your Block, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 15, 2005, at 20:13:33
Well I'm not exactly stumped, it's part of the Babble word ballet, it's not what she said, it's that it wasn't worded in the *exact* manner acceptable by Dr. Bob. It's amazing once you learn the intricacies of the babble "I statements" what you can get away with, although the implentation of punishment is still pretty arbitrarary from what I see. It still doesn't mean I agree with the Babble Ballet though..
And I can't figure out why that post was blockworthy and this one was not
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041218/msgs/439654.html
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 15, 2005, at 20:44:47
In reply to Re: Angel Girl I'm sorry about your Block, posted by Gabbix2 on January 15, 2005, at 20:37:29
Good Point I wish the poster that got blocked had just said I feel accused and had written Dr Bob...I agree also on the link you added...Its a ballet indeed :)
> Well I'm not exactly stumped, it's part of the Babble word ballet, it's not what she said, it's that it wasn't worded in the *exact* manner acceptable by Dr. Bob. It's amazing once you learn the intricacies of the babble "I statements" what you can get away with, although the implentation of punishment is still pretty arbitrarary from what I see. It still doesn't mean I agree with the Babble Ballet though..
>
> And I can't figure out why that post was blockworthy and this one was not
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041218/msgs/439654.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 16, 2005, at 7:41:15
In reply to Re: please be civil/ sorry dr bob on wording » Dr. Bob, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 15, 2005, at 19:43:58
Posted by Atticus on January 17, 2005, at 20:03:53
In reply to Re: Lou you have HIGHLY OFFENDED ME!!!, posted by coral on January 14, 2005, at 10:56:14
You weren't the only one taken aback by Lou's choice of subject line. I'm pretty hard to stun, but that one takes the f*cking cake, Pilder. What in hell were you thinking? Atticus
Posted by Atticus on January 17, 2005, at 20:14:07
In reply to Re: blocked for week » Angel Girl, posted by Dr. Bob on January 15, 2005, at 4:42:39
Jesus wept! This is unbelievable! Angel Girl is blocked for calling Lou Pilder insensitive, yet Lou Pilder receives NO punishment for what seems to me the incredibly insensitive act of putting the word "anti-christ" by her name in a subject heading? This strikes me as a new level of through-the-looking-glass logic for you, Dr. Bob. Were you hit in the head with a brick or something recently? Atticus
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 17, 2005, at 20:15:16
In reply to Re: Lou you have HIGHLY OFFENDED ME!!! » coral, posted by Atticus on January 17, 2005, at 20:03:53
> I'm pretty hard to stun, but that one takes the f*cking cake, Pilder. What in hell were you thinking?
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Atticus on January 17, 2005, at 20:37:51
In reply to Re: please be civil » Atticus, posted by Dr. Bob on January 17, 2005, at 20:15:16
Fair enough on my PBC, Dr. Bob. But still, I don't understand why the person who used such a blatantly offensive term such as "Anti-Christ" in conjunction with an avowed Christian's PB name seems to be the only one walking away from this fracus unscathed by any administrative action on your part. Could you explain? It seems unambiguous to me that Angel Girl felt "hurt and put down." And she said so herself. So why isn't the person who put that word next to her name not being blocked or even PBCed? I don't understand this at all. Atticus
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 17, 2005, at 21:02:26
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Atticus on January 17, 2005, at 20:37:51
Pardon me for intruding, but I think it was because Lou apologized straight away and explained himeself. Dr. Bob often overlooks giving P.B.Cs if people apologize.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 17, 2005, at 21:06:23
In reply to Re: please be civil » Atticus, posted by Gabbix2 on January 17, 2005, at 21:02:26
Yup. I am sure I have 'gotten away' with a thing or two in virtue of having genuinely apologised BEFORE he followed the thread / got to the end of it...
Posted by gardenergirl on January 17, 2005, at 22:08:13
In reply to Re: please be civil » Atticus, posted by Gabbix2 on January 17, 2005, at 21:02:26
I'm not sure I would call it "straight away", but yes, he did apologize.
gg
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 17, 2005, at 22:24:03
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by gardenergirl on January 17, 2005, at 22:08:13
> I'm not sure I would call it "straight away", but yes, he did apologize.
>
> ggWhoops! Yeah, I guess I should have looked at the thread again before I said anything.
Posted by TofuEmmy on January 18, 2005, at 8:22:15
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by gardenergirl on January 17, 2005, at 22:08:13
Lou was asked several times to apologize and did not, although he continue to post.
Lou apologized after I pointed out with an example, that he had plenty of room to type the entire word antichristian, rather than use antichrist.
His apology was not noticed by a most people because it was directed at TofuEmmy and it did not mention Angel Girl's name anywhere.
em
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 18, 2005, at 10:13:25
In reply to Lou you have HIGHLY OFFENDED ME!!! » Lou Pilder, posted by Angel Girl on January 14, 2005, at 9:26:12
> > AG,
> > You wrote,[...it (the faith board) is anti-Christian...].
> > If your statement is because the rules state that one can not post that[...salvation can {only} be obtained through Jesus Christ...],then IMO, the board is not anti-Christian
> > Lou
> >
>
>
> Lou
>
> That is your opinion, mine obviously differs. Also, I am HIGHLY OFFENDED by you putting the word 'antichrist' in the subject line with my name. I PLEAD that you ask Dr Bob to remove it IMMEDIATELY. As a Christian it SICKENS me to see that word attached to my name, regardless if it is your little shortform or not!!! Next time please use a little more sensitivity in what you choose for your references in the subject line.
>
> AG> Angel Girl,
I am sorry that this has upset you. My apology to you for my condensing antichristian to [antichrist]?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 18, 2005, at 11:48:32
In reply to Re: Lou's apology, posted by TofuEmmy on January 18, 2005, at 8:22:15
TE,
You wrote,[...apology not noticed because...].
Thanks for pointing that out. I have posted directly to Angel Girl.
You wrote,[...plenty of room to type... entire word...].
I have been using various ways for me to be able to look at a post of mine so that I can recall what the post was about. This is not always because of space available in the subject line. What is condensed is not intended by me to mean anything to anyone else, for it is only for my recall purposes because of the many people interested in these discussions which has many posts in the thread. Also, Dr. Hsiung has asked me in the past to give hima URL for something and this helps me to find the post that he is requesting from me.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 19, 2005, at 10:50:46
In reply to Lou's response to TofuEmmy's post-recl » TofuEmmy, posted by Lou Pilder on January 18, 2005, at 11:48:32
> What is condensed is not intended by me to mean anything to anyone else, for it is only for my recall purposes
Still, please do try to consider how others might react to them. Thanks,
Bob
Posted by thistlethorn on January 26, 2005, at 22:25:43
In reply to Re: Lou's resp[onse to Angel Girl's post-beachrstntose » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on January 14, 2005, at 14:45:24
In one of the posts in this thread, someone wrote:
"... try thinking of it in the terms of using a word that you may fund offensive, being a Jew, but that someone who wasn't a Jew wouldn't find offensive."
"Being a Jew," I cannot think of a single slur I've ever heard against any religious, racial, ethnic or other group that does not offend and appall me.
I would hope that every thinking person, regardless of his or her religious heritage or beliefs, would be likewise offended by the ugly words that are all too commonly uttered about Jewish people.
This is the end of the 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.