![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 42 to 66 of 66. Go back in thread:
Posted by AuntieMel on July 11, 2005, at 10:05:03
In reply to Re: Do not post in an email, posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 9:20:49
"I don't know about automatically asking for a reason, though..."
Didn't you just ask Jay what his reason was???
My head is spinning.
Posted by thuso on July 11, 2005, at 10:25:33
In reply to Re: Do not post in an email, posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 9:20:49
> I like that. People might not check a separate DNP page. And the form could even post the actual DNP. I don't know about automatically asking for a reason, though...
>
> BobThe only reason I mentioned a place for the person to say why they are invoking the DNP is because it seems that's a big controversy right now. By adding the reason, you or a deputy would be able to review the request to determine if the DNP really is appropriate. It doesn't seem like DNP's are handed out like candy, so it shouldn't be too much extra effort and it may help stop another huge debate like this one. I haven't been here long, but I'd already seen a few DNP's where there doesn't seem to be (on the surface) a valid reason and then a day later the DNP is rescinded. This could keep that from happening. That's the only purpose for that added that part.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 10:45:56
In reply to Re: back up a minute redux » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on July 11, 2005, at 10:05:03
> "I don't know about automatically asking for a reason, though..."
>
> Didn't you just ask Jay what his reason was???Yes, but I don't automatically do so:
> If it's not clear to me why their post makes you feel harassed, I may ask.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#harassed
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on July 11, 2005, at 12:00:58
In reply to Re: back up a minute, posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 10:45:56
Ok, so it's not automatic. But you did just ask Jay. And you did just ask Gabbi.
And now you point to the FAQ about using DNP in the case of harassment.
----------------------------
But you also say the DNP against Larry was valid, even thought there was no harassment.
And this was supposedly because it was discussed in May:
> My understanding is the don't post to me option implies nothing more than a desire to disengage
I think wanting to disengage would be a reasonable way of generalizing that policy:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050517/msgs/503044.html=================================================
but then again, you said this:
-------------
> > Posting to someone means directing either the subject line or the body of a post to them. Replying to posts by someone isn't necessarily posting to them.
Right, in that sense.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/505945.html
---------
and that was what Larry got blocked for doing.
I'm still having trouble sorting this out.
And I still don't understand why he got blocked *after* Dinah told him to quit and he did quit. It seems like double jeopardy to me.
my brain hurts.
Posted by gardenergirl on July 11, 2005, at 14:23:35
In reply to Re: Do not post in an email » Dr. Bob, posted by thuso on July 11, 2005, at 10:25:33
So just to be clear...we do not have a "no fault" DNP option? There has to be a reason? Maybe a web form could have a pulldown menu or check box feature with a few options for general reasons...aka harrassment, trigger, etc.
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 14:47:34
In reply to Re: the mud thickens » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on July 11, 2005, at 12:00:58
> But you also say the DNP against Larry was valid, even thought there was no harassment.
Well, I do think Emmy was within her rights to ask Larry not to post to her:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050614/msgs/519681.html
Meaning, I think she could've felt harassed by that post of his.
> > > Posting to someone means directing either the subject line or the body of a post to them. Replying to posts by someone isn't necessarily posting to them.
>
> and that was what Larry got blocked for doing.No, I did consider some of it to have been posted to her:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/512411.html
> And I still don't understand why he got blocked *after* Dinah told him to quit and he did quit. It seems like double jeopardy to me.
I can see that, but I thought of it as reviewing a decision by a deputy:
> > Dr. Bob, is of course, the final arbiter of rules, and you should contact him about any questions you might have, or to override any deputy decisions.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/511949.html
> my brain hurts.
Sorry about that. There sure has been a lot of hurt lately.
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on July 11, 2005, at 16:49:01
In reply to Re: the mud thickens, posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 14:47:34
>>Well, I do think Emmy was within her rights to ask Larry not to post to her:
>>Meaning, I think she could've felt harassed by that post of his.2 questions:
1) so is harassment necessary for a DNP?
2) just for my curiosity, and I'm not saying you or Emmy are wrong, but which one could have felt like harassment?And a comment:
>>Sorry about that. There sure has been a lot of hurt lately.I'm not hurt.
Posted by Ron Hill on July 11, 2005, at 19:38:41
In reply to Re: the mud thickens, posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 14:47:34
> Well, I do think Emmy was within her rights to ask Larry not to post to her:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050614/msgs/519681.html
> Meaning, I think she could've felt harassed by that post of his.> Bob
Help me out here. I can't find the specific location of Lar's harassing sentence, phrase, or word in "that post of his" (whichever one you are referring to).
I'm a pretty simple-minded kinda guy, so if it's okay with you, I'd like to take a systematic and sequential approach in our hunt for the specific element(s) of Larry's alleged harassing speech.
So let's start with the DNP posted in the April Fool's Day thread:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050330/msgs/478960.html
<start post reprint>
Do not post to me again (nm) » Larry Hoover
Posted by TofuEmmy on April 2, 2005, at 13:33:38
In reply to Re: Good gravy, let it rest. » TofuEmmy, posted by Larry Hoover on April 2, 2005, at 13:22:47<end post reprint>
The above DNP was issued in response to the following post from Larry:http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050330/msgs/478945.html
<start post reprint>
Re: Good gravy, let it rest. » TofuEmmy
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 2, 2005, at 13:22:47
In reply to Good gravy, let it rest. (nm) » Larry Hoover, posted by TofuEmmy on April 2, 2005, at 13:02:35
The help I will. I started a new thread, as Doc John terminated the last one by disabling the reply button.
http://forums.psychcentral.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=135684&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1<end post reprint>
Dr. Bob, please identify the specific sentence, phase, or word in Larry’s 4/2/05 post that meets the definition of harassment. For your convenience, I have included below the dictionary entry for the word “harass”.Once I hear back from you on this specific DNP, we can then systematically move to the next one.
-- Ron
ha•rass P Pronunciation Key (h -r s , h r s)
tr.v. ha•rassed, ha•rass•ing, ha•rass•es
1. To irritate or torment persistently.
2. To wear out; exhaust.
3. To impede and exhaust (an enemy) by repeated attacks or raids.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Posted by gardenergirl on July 11, 2005, at 21:03:47
In reply to Re: Mud Wrestling » Dr. Bob, posted by Ron Hill on July 11, 2005, at 19:38:41
If you asked someone not to post to you in good faith that your request was legitimate, wouldn't you feel harrassed if the person continued to post to you and perhaps even emailed or babblemailed you? I don't know about what might or might not have happened off board, but I do think that the cumulative effect of someone responding, even in their own good faith, after you asked them not to would feel harrassing to me.
gg
Posted by gabbii on July 11, 2005, at 22:46:46
In reply to Harrassment, posted by gardenergirl on July 11, 2005, at 21:03:47
> If you asked someone not to post to you in good faith that your request was legitimate, wouldn't you feel harrassed if the person continued to post to you and perhaps even emailed or babblemailed you? I don't know about what might or might not have happened off board, but I do think that the cumulative effect of someone responding, even in their own good faith, after you asked them not to would feel harrassing to me.
>
> ggIt has to me, even to my own surprise at times,
The content is really irrelevant. When it's ignored I feel as if the depth of my feelings, the reason I placed the D.N.P in the first place, is (are?) being dismissed because of their assessment of the situation, and that.. well let's say it doesn't breed good feelings.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 12, 2005, at 3:12:53
In reply to Re: sputter, sputter » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on July 11, 2005, at 16:49:01
> 1) so is harassment necessary for a DNP?
In this case, feeling harassed is, yes.
> 2) just for my curiosity, and I'm not saying you or Emmy are wrong, but which one could have felt like harassment?
Which post? The one Ron linked to:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050330/msgs/478945.html
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on July 12, 2005, at 6:52:17
In reply to Harrassment, posted by gardenergirl on July 11, 2005, at 21:03:47
> If you asked someone not to post to you in good faith that your request was legitimate, wouldn't you feel harrassed if the person continued to post to you and perhaps even emailed or babblemailed you?
Just to clarify, I am not aware of any emails or babblemails in this specific situation. Just suggesting that those might also be part of a cummulative effect in general.
gg
Posted by crushedout on July 12, 2005, at 16:20:24
In reply to Re: back up a minute, posted by Dr. Bob on July 12, 2005, at 3:12:53
> > 1) so is harassment necessary for a DNP?
>
> In this case, feeling harassed is, yes.why only in this case? how are we supposed to know what the rules are if you make them up on a case-by-case basis?
Posted by gabbii on July 12, 2005, at 17:06:51
In reply to Re: back up a minute » Dr. Bob, posted by crushedout on July 12, 2005, at 16:20:24
If you could see me, you'd see the look on my face is that of a dog who heard a weird noise..
This is making less and less sense as it goes along..
Posted by gardenergirl on July 12, 2005, at 17:44:11
In reply to Re: back up a minute, posted by gabbii on July 12, 2005, at 17:06:51
Sung to the tune of Howdy Doody:
It's Crazy Making time!
It's Crazy Making time!lalala la lala
and so on....
sigh
gg
Posted by AuntieMel on July 12, 2005, at 17:58:51
In reply to Re: back up a minute » Dr. Bob, posted by crushedout on July 12, 2005, at 16:20:24
Posted by AuntieMel on July 12, 2005, at 18:00:59
In reply to Re: back up a minute, posted by gabbii on July 12, 2005, at 17:06:51
Well, notice harassment still isn't necessary.
"Feeling" harassed is.
So it's still pretty much open.
Posted by gabbii on July 12, 2005, at 18:40:03
In reply to Re: back up a minute » gabbii, posted by AuntieMel on July 12, 2005, at 18:00:59
I'm so lost right now I don't know whether that clears things up or confuses me more..
But I do think feeling harassed is quite legitimate. I have triggers that would never fall into any l harrassment category
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 13, 2005, at 0:52:20
In reply to Re: back up a minute » Dr. Bob, posted by crushedout on July 12, 2005, at 16:20:24
> > > 1) so is harassment necessary for a DNP?
> >
> > In this case, feeling harassed is, yes.
>
> why only in this case? how are we supposed to know what the rules are if you make them up on a case-by-case basis?In this case because that's what the FAQ said (and still says). But changing it is under discussion, so it might not continue to be the case. Sorry if this is making you crazy!
Bob
Posted by Ron Hill on July 28, 2005, at 1:03:56
In reply to Re: Mud Wrestling » Dr. Bob, posted by Ron Hill on July 11, 2005, at 19:38:41
Dr. Bob,
I felt devalued, unappreciated, and disrespected when you chose to ignore my post (included below) by not responding. Fortunately, since I do not attempt to bolster my self worth by seeking the approval of others, the “hurt” didn’t last long.
I patiently waited for more than two weeks for your response, but to no avail. I had hoped you could point me to the specific location of Larry’s alleged harassment. But apparently you do not want to discuss it on a line-by-line basis. Perhaps you felt that my post was too demanding, or that it was an attempt to be controlling. Or perhaps you just don’t have a good answer to my question.At any rate, it’s time for me to move on.
-- Ron
-----------------------
> > Well, I do think Emmy was within her rights to ask Larry not to post to her:
>
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050614/msgs/519681.html
>
> > Meaning, I think she could've felt harassed by that post of his.
>
> > Bob
>
> Help me out here. I can't find the specific location of Lar's harassing sentence, phrase, or word in "that post of his" (whichever one you are referring to).
>
> I'm a pretty simple-minded kinda guy, so if it's okay with you, I'd like to take a systematic and sequential approach in our hunt for the specific element(s) of Larry's alleged harassing speech.
>
> So let's start with the DNP posted in the April Fool's Day thread:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050330/msgs/478960.html
>
> <start post reprint>
>
> Do not post to me again (nm) » Larry Hoover
> Posted by TofuEmmy on April 2, 2005, at 13:33:38
> In reply to Re: Good gravy, let it rest. » TofuEmmy, posted by Larry Hoover on April 2, 2005, at 13:22:47
>
> <end post reprint>
>
>
> The above DNP was issued in response to the following post from Larry:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050330/msgs/478945.html
>
> <start post reprint>
>
> Re: Good gravy, let it rest. » TofuEmmy
> Posted by Larry Hoover on April 2, 2005, at 13:22:47
> In reply to Good gravy, let it rest. (nm) » Larry Hoover, posted by TofuEmmy on April 2, 2005, at 13:02:35
> The help I will. I started a new thread, as Doc John terminated the last one by disabling the reply button.
> http://forums.psychcentral.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=135684&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1
>
> <end post reprint>
>
>
> Dr. Bob, please identify the specific sentence, phase, or word in Larry’s 4/2/05 post that meets the definition of harassment. For your convenience, I have included below the dictionary entry for the word “harass”.
>
> Once I hear back from you on this specific DNP, we can then systematically move to the next one.
>
> -- Ron
>
>
> ha•rass P Pronunciation Key (h -r s , h r s)
> tr.v. ha•rassed, ha•rass•ing, ha•rass•es
>
> 1. To irritate or torment persistently.
> 2. To wear out; exhaust.
> 3. To impede and exhaust (an enemy) by repeated attacks or raids.
>
> The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
> Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
> Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
>
Posted by Dinah on July 28, 2005, at 1:09:23
In reply to Cat Got Your Tongue? » Dr. Bob, posted by Ron Hill on July 28, 2005, at 1:03:56
Ah, Ron.
I hope you mean move on to another topic. Or another board on the site.
Babble isn't Dr. Bob, you know. And I'd miss you if you were gone.
Do you know that one of your posts is in my folder of very favorite posts to lift me up when I feel down?
You've made a difference in my life, and helped me shift my self image a bit toward the more positive. At at time when I didn't think I could fit into human society, you made me pause and wonder if maybe I could.
Don't let Dr. Bob get in the way of your being a real asset to Babble.
Posted by Ron Hill on July 28, 2005, at 1:17:45
In reply to Re: the mud thickens, posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 14:47:34
> Well, I do think Emmy was within her rights to ask Larry not to post to her:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050614/msgs/519681.html
>
> Meaning, I think she could've felt harassed by that post of his.
>
> Bob---
> More key than not being harassed? Maybe we should just agree to disagree on this...
>
> Bob
Dr. Bob,If someone legitimally “could've felt harassed” or is “being harassed” (your words), then you are indirectly stating that Larry Hoover is quilty of harassment. I wonder how your accusation makes Larry feel?
Sorry, but please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. When you mistreated Larry in a similar fashion in January of 2004, I blocked you for one year, so this time it's for two years.
Therefore, during the next two years you are hereby blocked from receiving the contributions of my posts to your site (i.e.; the data base you use for research studies). As I stated prior to your block in 2004, losing me from your site is not a big loss, but to lose Larry Hoover would be HUGE. For the sake of all the people he helps on this site, I hope Larry decides to return now that his block is over (assuming he can type after his upcoming surgery).
I have struggled with this decision and it grieves my heart that I must leave. On the one hand, I have been helped greatly by the people at PB and I owe them a large debt of gratitude. My brain chemistry was in pretty tough shape when I stumbled across your site and started lurking in 1999. I’m light years ahead of where I was then. And my improvement is a direct result of the information I’ve learned from posts to your site (and links contained within those posts).
I owe the PB participants more than I can repay. Their names are too numerous to mention, so I’ll not try. I’d like to stay and help in any small ways that I could by sharing my anecdotal findings and any relevant information that I come across.
For example, I’d loved to post some of the interesting and surprising anecdotal information from my current Selegiline trial. A few of the current PB participants would likely find the information worthwhile. And by having the information in the archives, several more people might have benefited somewhere down the road. However, this won’t be possible now. Oh well, life goes on. <sigh>
I also owe you a large debt of gratitude, Dr. Bob. If it were not for your insight and hard work to establish this site, your countless hours spent administering the site, and the out of pocket money you spend monthly to rent server space, I would never have been afforded the opportunity of reading the PB participants’ helpful posts and, thereby, greatly improve the condition of my mental health. Thank you!
However, on the other hand, I’ve repeatedly grown weary and emotionally drained by your inconsistent and biased enforcement of your vague and ambiguous site rules. Some skate, while others get hammered for the very same infraction. I just can’t do this anymore. I’m tired and worn out from trying to make sense of your actions.
I’m not the only person telling you this. When one person criticizes something in my life, I usually listen and then weigh the validity of their concern. However, if I start getting the same complaint from several people, then it immediately gets my attention. Chances are good that the whole world is not wrong. Does it cause you to ponder your actions when so many people have brought this same concern to your attention?
Periodically, I’ve seen you wonder aloud why old-timers leave your site. I do not consider myself an old-timer, since my first post did not appear until January 2001. But, I have been here long enough to have seen a lot of people leave because of your inconsistent and biased enforcement. Of the many wide and varied reasons why old-timers have left over the years, could one of the reasons be your unfair enforcement practices?
There is something in the human spirit that yearns and cries out for equal and fair justice for all.
Just for the record, I have nothing against Emmy. In fact, I think Emmy has handled herself in a very professional manner since the time when you blocked Larry. Instead, it is your biased and unfair enforcement that has caused you to suffer this block.
See you again in ’07 (Lord willing).
If anyone needs to contact me, send me a babblemail and I will send you my e-mail address.
For reference purposes, here is a link to a summary of the January 2004 unfair treatment of Mr. Hoover:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/303793.html
-- Ron
BP II and OCPD
600 mg/day Lithobid
900 mg/day Trileptal
50 mg/day Lamictal
2.5 mg Selegiline once every third day, as needed for tx of atypical depression
Comment: As of 7/27/05 this cocktail is working VERY well. Will it last? Who knows, but time will tell. Be well.
Posted by Ron Hill on July 28, 2005, at 1:24:16
In reply to Re: Cat Got Your Tongue? » Ron Hill, posted by Dinah on July 28, 2005, at 1:09:23
Dinah,
That is the sweetest PB post I've ever got. You are a very special lady. Be well my friend!
Carry on good soldier. Carry on.
-- Ron
> Ah, Ron.
>
> I hope you mean move on to another topic. Or another board on the site.
>
> Babble isn't Dr. Bob, you know. And I'd miss you if you were gone.
>
> Do you know that one of your posts is in my folder of very favorite posts to lift me up when I feel down?
>
> You've made a difference in my life, and helped me shift my self image a bit toward the more positive. At at time when I didn't think I could fit into human society, you made me pause and wonder if maybe I could.
>
> Don't let Dr. Bob get in the way of your being a real asset to Babble.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 28, 2005, at 22:19:02
In reply to blocked for 2 years » Dr. Bob, posted by Ron Hill on July 28, 2005, at 1:17:45
> losing me from your site is not a big loss
> I have been helped greatly by the people at PB and I owe them a large debt of gratitude. My brain chemistry was in pretty tough shape when I stumbled across your site and started lurking in 1999. I’m light years ahead of where I was then. And my improvement is a direct result of the information I’ve learned from posts to your site (and links contained within those posts).
>
> I owe the PB participants more than I can repay. Their names are too numerous to mention, so I’ll not try. I’d like to stay and help in any small ways that I could by sharing my anecdotal findings and any relevant information that I come across.
>
> I also owe you a large debt of gratitude, Dr. Bob.Thanks, and I'm glad you're doing better. It's great how supportive this group is!
I'm sure Larry appreciates your support. Anytime we lose someone, it's a loss.
I'm also sorry I've disappointed you. Maybe you'll see fit to shorten your block? Best wishes,
Bob
Posted by Dinah on July 29, 2005, at 4:55:20
In reply to I was typing while you posted » Dinah, posted by Ron Hill on July 28, 2005, at 1:24:16
Thank you for your kind words, Ron.
Ron, I know it would be hard to reconsider, but I hope you at least think about it.
I was trying to post all day about this, and didn't manage to find the words, and probably will fall short this time as well.
It's not that I don't think that Dr. Bob doesn't care if you or I or anyone else leaves Babble. But I suspect, and have no other basis than inferences from history to speculate on, that he is most concerned with ensuring that Babble can and will survive with or without one or many Babblers. I suspect he thinks that's the safest approach for Babble, not to become reliant on any poster or group of posters.
Which leads me to wonder, if I'm even partially correct in my guess, if boycotting Babble isn't a terribly effective means of protest. Since it would be more likely to confirm that sort of thinking than anything else.
I really respect a stand for principle, Ron. But there must be a way to do that that is effective while also being civil, and hopefully without other Babblers being deprived of helpful and compassionate posters.
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.