![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 117 to 141 of 197. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on June 16, 2005, at 7:57:56
In reply to Re: blocked for week » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 16, 2005, at 4:51:07
It's obviously not fair to post about the subject when you can't reply.
But my email is
bully for you 77 at yahoo
if you want to email me and we can try for repair?
Posted by AMD on June 16, 2005, at 14:23:31
In reply to Explanation » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on June 13, 2005, at 9:23:44
This entire "administrative" forum is silly, and a major waste of time. I'm surprised, in fact, that folks as erudite as chemist and Larry even bother responding to the banal content of the posts here. It's more of game, I suspect, than anything serious.
People: toughen your skin.
Why is everyone on here so sensitive? If you find someone's posts offensive, /don't read them/, don't reply. It's as easy as that.
The fact that the forum is run as a dictatorship -- appalling in light of the laws regarding free speech in this country -- is disgusting.
I bet I risk a ban by expressing this /opinion/.
I find it patently offensive that I can't say what I want without one of the administrators jumping on my back.
amd
Posted by AMD on June 16, 2005, at 14:24:52
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » Larry Hoover, posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2005, at 2:35:16
This is so stupid. Seriously Dr. Bob. He was apologizing. Tell whomever Larry was addressing to quit reading his posts!
amd
Posted by AMD on June 16, 2005, at 14:31:17
In reply to Re: I'm sorry Larry :-(, posted by alexandra_k on June 14, 2005, at 16:16:03
Instead of letting a single complaint ruin everything for the others on the board -- for example, I could care less about the posts of the person Larry was addressing, but I find his own posts extremely insightful -- why don't you add an option to let individual users selectively filter messages from those posters whom they don't want to read? This would seem much better. In effect you hurt more than help by blocking people whose posts may have saved other people from much pain and suffering (myself included). I actually feel /pain/ when I can't query our resident experts on the various effects of psychotropic drugs and other illicit substances, even if their responses serve to merely bring me back to reality.
From a utilitarian perspective, this ridiculous policy hurts more than it helps.
amd
Posted by Jai Narayan on June 16, 2005, at 14:51:38
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks, posted by AMD on June 16, 2005, at 14:24:52
I've got an idea, why don't you set up a board and run it for a while.
Jai
Posted by AMD on June 16, 2005, at 15:50:27
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks, posted by Jai Narayan on June 16, 2005, at 14:51:38
I considered that, and if I had the time, I would.
But that is just skirting the issue, Jai. You have changed the topic of debate and violated the rules of argument.
amd
Posted by AMD on June 16, 2005, at 16:23:53
In reply to Re: How to follow the harassment policy » Dinah, posted by TofuEmmy on June 12, 2005, at 23:25:00
Emmy,
*Your* post was offensive! "Good grief, let it rest"? Given Larry's seriousness, that's akin to "good grief, let your depression complains rest!" How does that sound? I'm surprised you weren't the one blocked, and if you're replied in such a flippant manner to one of my (very serious) posts, I certainly would have presented that argument to Dr. Bob.
amd
> If Larry had a problem with the DNP, he should have brought it up in April and stated that he is simply unwilling to abide by it. We could have hashed it out then with Dr. Bob.
>
> I need, for my own mental health, to stop all contact from Larry. Is that not my perogative here? There is no Ignore button available. Isn't the DNP rule to protect us from posters we don't want contacting us? I am unable to respond in a civil fashion to Larry. So, the DNP prevents further disruption of the board.
>
> If too much attention has been paid to this (in Larry's opinion) - had he not posted to me, there would be no such attention. If he would stop posting to me and/or about me, all the attention would disappear. Simple. I'd like that please.
>
> emmy
Posted by AMD on June 16, 2005, at 16:30:33
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks, posted by Jai Narayan on June 16, 2005, at 14:51:38
Ugh -- I'm getting sucked into the fray! No more posts from me here (I hear a collective sigh of relief).
amd
Posted by AuntieMel on June 16, 2005, at 17:05:22
In reply to Re: How to follow the harassment policy » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on June 12, 2005, at 23:04:52
True.
But the FAQ probably should be updated. If Lar was depending on that and hasn't read the admin posts saying harassment wasn't needed he probably was confused.
In fact, once you told him about it he quit.
So, Dr. Bob - it seems too harsh to block him for something he didn't know about!
Posted by gardenergirl on June 16, 2005, at 23:06:03
In reply to Re: Explanation » Dinah, posted by AMD on June 16, 2005, at 14:23:31
>
> People: toughen your skin.Thanks for that advice. Hmmm, I'm highly sensitive. That's a temperament, not a choice. I wish I could effectively tell you how it feels to hear that advice. It feels like someone saying to me "change your DNA and you'll feel better." If only, sigh. But then I would also lose as aspect of myself that I view as a gift.
I don't find it easy at all to "toughen my skin". It's actually rather thin, fair, and prone to sunburn. I have to use sunblock to avoid getting burned. I view psychological sensitivity the same way. I must protect myself from getting burned as best I can.
Why am I so sensitive? I would suspect it's a result of temperament and experiences.
>
> The fact that the forum is run as a dictatorship -- appalling in light of the laws regarding free speech in this country -- is disgusting.I'm sorry you do not feel free to express yourself here. But I would like to remind you that free speech is not a right here. That is stated up front. When someone registers, they agree to abide by the site rules, which explicitly states that one does not have the right to say anything they want. Yes, this is Dr. Bob's site. His house, his rules.
>
> I bet I risk a ban by expressing this /opinion/.Could be. People's response to blocks vary. How might it affect you?
>
> I find it patently offensive that I can't say what I want without one of the administrators jumping on my back.Actually, there is only one administrator here. And my observation is he is skilled in pointing out behavior versus personal characteristics when applying administrative tools to moderate this site.
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on June 16, 2005, at 23:10:21
In reply to Re: How to follow the harassment policy » TofuEmmy, posted by AMD on June 16, 2005, at 16:23:53
I know that your concerns about the situation were very important to you. I respect that your feelings are your own, and reflect your own truth. And I think you are entitled to have them, free and clear, just as they are.
(((emmy)))
gg
Posted by verne on June 17, 2005, at 0:16:39
In reply to Re: How to follow the harassment policy, posted by Larry Hoover on June 13, 2005, at 7:46:18
Lar,
I just wanted to say I was shocked and dismayed that you were blocked over a creative and broad interpretation of the DNP rule. You are one of the reasons I check back to this site from time to time.
I would get myself blocked as a gesture of solidarity but I'm too dumbstruck to think of a way to do it. Perhaps, I'll just stay away - that won't be hard.
I'm so sick of the administrative games at this site. I don't think it does my health - emotional or otherwise - any good.
Have a nice vacation.
Verne
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 17, 2005, at 0:20:43
In reply to (((emmy))), posted by gardenergirl on June 16, 2005, at 23:10:21
The right to ask someone Not To Post to them is part of Babble, Emmy implemented it, and expected it to be enforced.
No one but Emmy and Lar know what brought this about. Emmy had every right to have her wishes respected, *without* having people question it on the board, or speculate about the situation. And Larry himeself had the right to expect reasonable, fair, treatment.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 17, 2005, at 0:22:48
In reply to Re: (((emmy))) » gardenergirl, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 17, 2005, at 0:20:43
Posted by TofuEmmy on June 17, 2005, at 8:19:42
In reply to Re: (((emmy))) » gardenergirl, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 17, 2005, at 0:20:43
Thank you both for your kindness and understanding. em
Posted by TamaraJ on June 17, 2005, at 14:45:14
In reply to Re: I formally request that Lar's block be reduced » Dinah, posted by TamaraJ on June 15, 2005, at 11:05:43
Have you had a chance to consider this request, which is supported by a number of posters? I think it would do a lot for morale if the request was considered and addressed. Thanks so much.
Tamara
Posted by Jai Narayan on June 17, 2005, at 16:46:19
In reply to Dumbstruck » Larry Hoover, posted by verne on June 17, 2005, at 0:16:39
I have been thinking about you.
your wonderful humor has been missed by me.
Jai
Posted by Jai Narayan on June 17, 2005, at 16:51:45
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » Jai Narayan, posted by AMD on June 16, 2005, at 15:50:27
" You have changed the topic of debate and violated the rules of argument."
okay, I have to toughen up my argument skin...
I'm taking a brush to my epidermis as we speak!
Jai from the thin skinned DNA group
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 17, 2005, at 17:11:24
In reply to ouch...ouch... ouch..., posted by Jai Narayan on June 17, 2005, at 16:51:45
> " You have changed the topic of debate and violated the rules of argument."
Oh Jai, you bad egg!
Imagine, violating the sacred rules of argument! What's next on your subversive agenda?
Posted by Jakeman on June 17, 2005, at 20:39:32
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks - Miscarriage of Justice!! » Dr. Bob, posted by TamaraJ on June 14, 2005, at 9:45:37
How about it Dr. Bob?
There are vital contributors to this board, the ones who selflessly offer expert advice and give suffering people help. Not to minimize other people's contributions, all are helpful. Lately several posters have stated that they are fed up and leaving. Let's keep a good thing going.
warm regards, Jake
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2005, at 23:41:13
In reply to Re: Explanation » Dinah, posted by AMD on June 16, 2005, at 14:23:31
> The fact that the forum is run as a dictatorship ... is disgusting.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused.
> I bet I risk a ban by expressing this /opinion/.
>
> I find it patently offensive that I can't say what I want without one of the administrators jumping on my back.You win that bet. Different opinions are fine, and in fact encouraged, but your freedom of speech is limited here. I've asked you to be civil before, so now I'm going to block you from posting for a week.
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
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2005, at 0:36:34
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks, reconsideration is needed » TamaraJ, posted by Jakeman on June 17, 2005, at 20:39:32
> Have you had a chance to consider this request, which is supported by a number of posters? I think it would do a lot for morale if the request was considered and addressed.
>
> TamaraJFirst, I think it's great that Larry's receiving a lot of support. And I agree, it would be great to have him back. I've considered this request. But I don't think I should unblock people just because they're popular.
--
> Lately several posters have stated that they are fed up and leaving. Let's keep a good thing going.
>
> JakeI'm going to try. And I hope others do, too. Even if they feel fed up sometimes.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on June 18, 2005, at 0:43:44
In reply to Re: reconsideration, posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2005, at 0:36:34
I'm not asking you to reconsider because he's popular. I'm asking you to reconsider because his previous blockings had nothing to do with DNP's. And because I think he misunderstood the current application of the DNP rule.
I'm not suggesting that you unblock him. I'm just suggesting that under the circumstances, six weeks may be excessive.
I was actually going to suggest that you add a permutation to the blocking rules about violations that have nothing to do with prior ones. So that mentioning a how to get an illegal medication, for example, wouldn't be automatically double a block for being rude to a poster.
Because the reason behind the increase in block length is because people should learn what is acceptable over time, right? But people could learn about one rule without necessarily learning about another.
I think Lar genuinely didn't understand the DNP rules as they stand now, and should receive a block length commensurate with that. Which would be one week.
That's my argument. Not that he should be unblocked because he's popular.
Posted by chemist on June 18, 2005, at 2:00:41
In reply to Re: reconsideration, posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2005, at 0:36:34
> > Have you had a chance to consider this request, which is supported by a number of posters? I think it would do a lot for morale if the request was considered and addressed.
> >
> > TamaraJ
>
> First, I think it's great that Larry's receiving a lot of support. And I agree, it would be great to have him back. I've considered this request. But I don't think I should unblock people just because they're popular.
>
> --
>
> > Lately several posters have stated that they are fed up and leaving. Let's keep a good thing going.
> >
> > Jake
>
> I'm going to try. And I hope others do, too. Even if they feel fed up sometimes.
>
> Bobhello there, chemist here...far be it from me to wax administrative in re: good graces for blocked posters...yet - as noted by (at least) Dinah - Larry Hoover possesses an encyclopaedic knowledge of things germane to those who frequent the PB, Alternative, and Substance Use boards (i target these three because the posts are, in my estimation, mainly the sort requiring a factual answer about a compound)...
having been the subject of one - and, curiously (to me), only one ``do not post to me'' request - i am in the dark about the whole business, inclusive of whether LH comprehends the vagaries of the rules pertaining to the procedure: i go straight to jail without collecting $200 and/or passing ``go'' every time and the ``DNP'' to-and-fro is not invoked. easier for all parties, methinks...
enough about all that, myself, and rules: can LH and Dr. RH - perhaps in consult with TE (?) - expedite a speedier return than 1 august? if LH is perceived as popular, goody for him: blame the crowd and not the crooner. he dishes information few others can unearth and explain with clarity, is on the job around the clock, and has a dam named after him. i rest my case...
yours, tjm
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2005, at 2:21:42
In reply to Re: reconsideration » Dr. Bob, posted by chemist on June 18, 2005, at 2:00:41
> can LH and Dr. RH - perhaps in consult with TE (?) - expedite a speedier return than 1 august?
Anything's possible, but who's TE (?)?
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.