![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 20 to 44 of 49. Go back in thread:
Posted by fallsfall on June 13, 2005, at 19:36:08
In reply to Lou's reply to fallsfall-ethror » fallsfall, posted by Lou Pilder on June 13, 2005, at 13:47:52
What *IS* your goal?
Posted by fallsfall on June 13, 2005, at 19:41:12
In reply to Lou's reply to fallsfall-reducontro » fallsfall, posted by Lou Pilder on June 13, 2005, at 13:57:19
Lou,
I see posts on this board that make me think that people are upset and hurt as a byproduct of your posts (that is what I mean by "controversy"). Do you want people to be hurt? I don't.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2005, at 0:11:37
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob , please » Sarah T., posted by Toph on June 12, 2005, at 8:16:40
> a pathology in which a poster would have an obsession to be Bob.
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 Toph on June 14, 2005, at 9:43:54
In reply to Re: please be civil » Toph, posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2005, at 0:11:37
I fear that if I copy the original post then i am being uncivil again. I don't know the proper form so if I am not allowed to refer to the post to which you objected I am sorry.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/511391.html
Bob, my statement is a hypotetical. A speculation that a policing pathology would have to be tolerated here. Is it uncivil to pose such a hypothesis for others to consider?
Toph
Posted by Dinah on June 14, 2005, at 9:48:05
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on June 14, 2005, at 9:43:54
I'm guessing it would depend on context. I think you have to take care in hypotheticals because it's hard to make your point while remaining truly hypothetical.
Posted by Dinah on June 14, 2005, at 9:48:28
In reply to Re: please be civil » Toph, posted by Dinah on June 14, 2005, at 9:48:05
Posted by Toph on June 14, 2005, at 12:42:29
In reply to Re: please be civil » Toph, posted by Dinah on June 14, 2005, at 9:48:05
I don't know if I expressed myself well, Dinah, but what I meant to say was hypervigilant policing is expected of an administrator, but how could something that is alright for the administrator be managed IF performed by a poster in a way viewed as objectionable to the community? This is an administration question, generally framed, IMO not uncivil, and highly relevant to this board and this context.
Toph
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 15, 2005, at 0:28:59
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dinah, posted by Toph on June 14, 2005, at 12:42:29
> hypervigilant policing is expected of an administrator, but how could something that is alright for the administrator be managed IF performed by a poster in a way viewed as objectionable to the community?
So some ways might be more objectionable and some less? How could it be done as unobjectionably as possible?
Bob
Posted by Toph on June 15, 2005, at 11:38:56
In reply to Re: policing, posted by Dr. Bob on June 15, 2005, at 0:28:59
> So some ways might be more objectionable and some less?Apparently.
How could it (policing) be done as unobjectionably as possible?
>
By you, deputies or posters?
If you are asking me I wish policing were not done by anyone other than you and your appointed deputies.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 16, 2005, at 0:07:39
In reply to Re: policing » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on June 15, 2005, at 11:38:56
> If you are asking me I wish policing were not done by anyone other than you and your appointed deputies.
But what about the "neighborhood watch" idea? Isn't it best if the whole community works together?
Bob
Posted by Toph on June 16, 2005, at 12:25:15
In reply to Re: policing, posted by Dr. Bob on June 16, 2005, at 0:07:39
> > If you are asking me I wish policing were not done by anyone other than you and your appointed deputies.
>
> But what about the "neighborhood watch" idea? Isn't it best if the whole community works together?
>
> BobNeighborhood watch works best when everyone is neighborly with one another.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2005, at 23:13:10
In reply to Re: policing » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on June 16, 2005, at 12:25:15
> Neighborhood watch works best when everyone is neighborly with one another.
If everyone's neighborly with each other, why would they need neighborhood watch?
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on June 17, 2005, at 23:36:57
In reply to Re: policing, posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2005, at 23:13:10
Intruders, folks under the influence, visitors, door to door salespeople...etc. ;)
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2005, at 2:18:17
In reply to Re: policing » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on June 17, 2005, at 23:36:57
> Intruders, folks under the influence, visitors, door to door salespeople...etc. ;)
They're all neighborly?
Bob
Posted by Toph on June 18, 2005, at 12:35:46
In reply to Re: policing, posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2005, at 2:18:17
It's extremely difficult to discuss abberrant and disruptive behavior when you cannot call a spade a spade.
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 18, 2005, at 13:01:10
In reply to Re: policing » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on June 18, 2005, at 12:35:46
Friends,
It is written her,[...abberant and disruptive behavior...].
I am requesting that if you are decieding to post to this to consider the following:
A. What behavior is the poster attatching the words abberant and disruptive to? Is it my requests to Dr. Hsiung, or anothe person here and does it make any difference as to who the person is?
B. If so, is it a sound mental-health practice to attatch those words to someone's behavior that requests a determination from Dr. Hsiung as to if something is acceptable or not in relation to the guidlines of the forum?
C. Is it not when someone agrees with what another posted that they could be considered as also writing the statement in question that they agree with?
D. Could you also consider if what you write could have the potential to arrouse ill-will toward the poster that is described here as having abberant and disruptive behavior, be it me or anyone else?
Lou
Posted by Toph on June 18, 2005, at 13:11:17
In reply to Lou's response top an aspect of this thread-, posted by Lou Pilder on June 18, 2005, at 13:01:10
I find the people gg described and others disruptive. I also find it difficult to talk about disruptions here.
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 18, 2005, at 13:31:12
In reply to Re: an aspect of this thread-, posted by Toph on June 18, 2005, at 13:11:17
Friends,
It is written here that the aberrant and disruptive behavior is other people that come to the community like in a city where there are door-to-door salsemen etc.
I am requesting that you examine the entire thread and make a determination for your self to see if that is what the import of the thread is about, because although gg was talking about a neighborhood watch, there was also talk about "pathology" in relation to "policing" this board.
But could anyone identify the "intruders" that are here that this discussion is about? Could there be the potential for the intruders to be those that request determinations from Dr. Hsiung on the administrative board? How can one know if you can rule that out?
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on June 18, 2005, at 19:06:01
In reply to Re: policing » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on June 17, 2005, at 23:36:57
Sorry for not being more clear. My list referred to those who were not necessarily members of the neighborhood, and thus may feel no need to be neighborly.
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 19, 2005, at 1:35:06
In reply to Re: policing » gardenergirl, posted by gardenergirl on June 18, 2005, at 19:06:01
> My list referred to those who were not necessarily members of the neighborhood
So then the question is, who qualifies as a member of this neighborhood?
Bob
Posted by Toph on June 19, 2005, at 7:45:54
In reply to Re: members of the neighborhood, posted by Dr. Bob on June 19, 2005, at 1:35:06
>
> So then the question is, who qualifies as a member of this neighborhood?
>
> BobI thought the qestion was who qualifies to be a member of its police force?
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 21, 2005, at 2:29:23
In reply to Re: members of the neighborhood, posted by Toph on June 19, 2005, at 7:45:54
> > So then the question is, who qualifies as a member of this neighborhood?
>
> I thought the qestion was who qualifies to be a member of its police force?Isn't it best if the whole neighborhood works together? :-)
Bob
Posted by so on June 25, 2005, at 23:22:12
In reply to Re: members of the neighborhood, posted by Dr. Bob on June 21, 2005, at 2:29:23
> > > So then the question is, who qualifies as a member of this neighborhood?
> >
> > I thought the qestion was who qualifies to be a member of its police force?
>
> Isn't it best if the whole neighborhood works together? :-)
>
> BobWhat will happen to neighbors who, for whatever reason, don't want to work on something other neighbors find important? What if those who consider that they represent the whole neighborhood decide one person or small group does not belong in that neighborhood?
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2005, at 22:07:07
In reply to Re: members of the neighborhood, posted by so on June 25, 2005, at 23:22:12
> What will happen to neighbors who, for whatever reason, don't want to work on something other neighbors find important?
Neighborhood watch doesn't depend on every single neighbor watching. Neighbors are free not to watch.
> What if those who consider that they represent the whole neighborhood decide one person or small group does not belong in that neighborhood?
What happens to people like that is a separate issue. In this case, they're blocked from posting there.
Bob
Posted by Toph on June 27, 2005, at 14:32:39
In reply to Re: members of the neighborhood, posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2005, at 22:07:07
If my neighbor, hypothetically speaking, didn't like the length of my grass, I would consider it neighborly for him/her to raise their objection with me first and not ask the police to come out and see if my lawn is overgrown.
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.