![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 13 of 13. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Peeddoofff on April 3, 2006, at 22:17:43
Hi this is willyee here,why am i using a different handle,well cause i was banned yet again.I just came off one in which i did not fuss about even though it was bogus.
This one however is too much.Below is a snip of why and what im being blocked for....
"It had two prescription forms prior to xyrem...Gamma-oh and Alcover,both unfrotunatly removed during the big anti-date rape era.GOOGLE the term [xxx],alcover and you should get info on alcover,they speak how it was once avaialble but discontinued,and they too provide the products old insert.
right now the only prescription form of ghb is xyrem,otherwise named in other countrys.
the last popular legal name of an actual over the counter supplement was Renewtrient,also banned. "
Now the reason of this post is to show how the old INSERT to the drug being spoken of is still on the net.
The page i referred to where to find it is an OLD ARCHIVED page,not the SITE.However because it can lead to a site where script stuff can obtained without a script ,something i dident think about because A. it wasnt my intention,and B had nothing to do with the post.But because a user can use that info to lead themselves there i was blocked.
So i suppose referring to someone to google would be the same,since u can USE that referral to find things.
The same as u can USE the info i gave to find things as well.
Its absurd,i gave mention of an OLD archived page,having to do with a topic not even CLOSE to getting a med without a script.
So now im responsable for a reader taking my info and twisting it to there needs.I think its totaly unfair for a block here,at the LEAST a warning that i inverntaly did that.I did nothing wrong,my reply was to the orignal thread,i did not state a thing about non script meds,yet im held responsable if a reader on his OWN WILL makes what he wants out of that.
I was under the impression we indentified readers as individuals,i mean if not then arent we here basicaly giving out medical advice,telling users what they should do?
We provide information,not intended to be used a certain way,and if it is it is the users decision.So how am i any different,i did not in any way shapre or form in that post give even the slightest idea that i was or intended to provide information on getting a script med without a script.I again was keeping to the topic of the thread,and for this im blocked?
This is what i mean,i am at a point where information here is very importaant to me,and now dr.bob u snatched that source away from me,and very unfairly i believe.
Fine block me,but i KNOW i did nothing wrong,i did not recomend or give sources out to anyone on prescription medication,the source i gave provided simply what i said it did,a old page with the insert of alcover on it.
Now as far as the first post goes,first let me say i emailed u about it and had no response.In my post a thread ALREADY exsisted for a while where a p.s was indictationg someone had access to a parnate source.This post was neither warned nor blocked and was about a good week,so i replied to it asking ABOUT the p.s and was mistakenly blocked as being the one was posted "here is a p.s" meanwhile the oringal post where it exisisted still remained untouched.If i see a post here with a thread following it,for a week then am i not allowed to assume its been allowed and post to it,or is it ok for u guys to miss one or two but NOT ok for us to respond to it?
Last i know ill be blocked for a year,or whatever,it dont matter cause i need this site now,and i wont have access to information over something that is absurd.Still i want to say i think the blocking process is very COLD,it might as well be automated as that how it sounds.
Im confused,you can have deputies,but not a moderater who is active in the board,so when a block is set the moderator actualy knows whats going on and instead of a mindless robot type blocking can actualy block in a humaine way being able to explain if needed why it happened.
I mean if ur blocked u have no VOICE,none,even crimanls get there day in court,but here if ur blocked u are totaly isolated from stating a voice,even if u feel it is unfair,and by the time u come back hell it has been two weeks already.
Also i remeber a moderater garden girl saying in a general post something to the likes of "when we spoke in im last night" so obiviously the moderators speak to certain people they might have as friends off this board as im sure everyone might do,problem here,they are the same people who have authrioty over us,i see a conflict of interest there,but no matter doc bob its not u who needs the site and blocked.Why not have ur own NUETRAL moderators who actualy watch the board and know whats going on,and give people a fair chance.Having members do it makes no sense and this is without even knowing if favorites are played,its simply a conflict of interest plain and simple,and thats fact!!!!
I wonder WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME GARDEN GIRL WAS BLOCKED,unless im to believe she is more civil than the HISTORIC larry hoover!!!
Well if this is the way the site is run,its certainly not a demoracy and well not something i need to be part of.I just leave the personal advice that Dr bob you should stop worrying about changing ur damn picture every day which is oviously hiding ur residing hairline and obviously ran through some photo editor first,and maybe pay more attention to the site and add some humanity and common sense into ur blockings.
Maybe allow a voice to those blocked,im still wating to see one of the "deputies themselves blocked unless again we are to believe unlike most of us they are perfect"This site is run in madness!
Posted by Jakeman on April 3, 2006, at 22:17:44
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » willyee, posted by Dr. Bob on April 3, 2006, at 12:11:09
> > GOOGLE the term [xxx],alcover and you should get info on alcover
>
> I know that was for info, but that site could also be used to import into the US prescription medication without a prescription. Sorry, but I'm going to block you from posting for 2 weeks again.
>
> But please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
>
> If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, please see the FAQ:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#illegal
>
> Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration.
>
> Thanks,
>
> BobIf I remember correctly, he did not provide the URL of this company.
Besides Alcover GHB cannot be imported into the US. That brand doesn't exist anymore to my knowledge. However there is a US version of this drug that is available by prescription.
warm regards, Jake
Posted by gardenergirl on April 3, 2006, at 22:41:10
In reply to Madness, posted by Peeddoofff on April 3, 2006, at 19:51:44
> Hi this is willyee here,why am i using a different handle,well cause i was banned yet again.
Just to confirm, when you're blocked, even if you disagree with the reason, you're not supposed to post. Thus, I've blocked this posting name and notified Dr. Bob. I've asked him to address whether to double your existing block.
I realize that when you're blocked, you cannot have a dialog on the boards about the reasons. I also realize that emailing Dr. Bob does not always mean a quick reply. As a reminder, you can also email any or all of the deputies for explanations or additional information. Our email addresses are included in the FAQ. We're not perfect, but we have demonstrated a suitable level of understanding of the site rules to Dr. Bob's satisfaction. And any and all deputies are subject to PBC's and/or blocks, too, if we violate the rules in a post.
> If i see a post here with a thread following it,for a week then am i not allowed to assume its been allowed and post to it,or is it ok for u guys to miss one or two but NOT ok for us to respond to it?
It's always acceptable to respond to a post. However, replies must be civil themselves. This includes not quoting any "uncivil" sections of posts. As a reminder, you can also make a post here on admin to ask Dr. Bob and/or the deputies to look at a post you think might not be civil and may have been overlooked. Of course, posts of this type must also be civil. If you provide a link and ask us to look at it, that is usually sufficient.
>
> Still i want to say i think the blocking process is very COLD,it might as well be automated as that how it sounds.I admit I usually cut and paste from a "script", so when I issue PBC's or blocks, they usually all sound the same. I tend to do this in order to be more consistent and efficient.
Regards,
gg acting as deputy for Dr. Bob
Posted by yxibow on April 4, 2006, at 4:23:49
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Jakeman on April 3, 2006, at 21:16:42
> > > GOOGLE the term [xxx],alcover and you should get info on alcover
> >
> > I know that was for info, but that site could also be used to import into the US prescription medication without a prescription. Sorry, but I'm going to block you from posting for 2 weeks again.
How in the bloody hell is google going to result in an importation of US medication. You're likely to get porn sites and fake garbage for looking up Xyrem and other forms of that medication, which is a closely guarded legal schedule II US prescription medication now. Unless you're savvy with Google, you're not going to get the best results anyway from my experience with it. That's really splitting hairs.> Besides Alcover GHB cannot be imported into the US. That brand doesn't exist anymore to my knowledge. However there is a US version of this drug that is available by prescription.
>
> warm regards, Jakeexactly.
And I do voice again that there are conflicts of interest and some rather undemocratic hierarchy here, as I've posted once in the past. But again, this warm fuzzy place that I see in one post isn't always a democracy in another and I voice civilly that I do think in my opinion that you are a little quick on the trigger, GG, at times -- I know, there are few deputies, but these explosive arguments always seem to centre here. I can't use any more passive voice and I think words in the previous sentence, I'm sorry, I have to voice it somehow. I'm trying to be as civil as I can...
Anyhow, tidings and good night-- J
Posted by yxibow on April 4, 2006, at 4:55:01
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks, posted by yxibow on April 4, 2006, at 4:23:49
>
>
> Anyhow, tidings and good night
>
> -- J
>
Just to be clear, the ad-hominem comments about Dr. Bob's appearance were uncivil and understandable if someone is annoyed but one should be a little less over the top.
I personally think the length that people should be blocked from the board should be less than a week, but that's my 2c. And again, I think its people forced to play nanny -- I know, there are "trolls" and the occasional obvious obnoxiousness, but I think there are too many mm... politically correct is the only word I can think of which really doesn't describe it properly.. "slaps."
- J
Posted by gardenergirl on April 4, 2006, at 14:44:55
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks, posted by yxibow on April 4, 2006, at 4:23:49
I can't really address the reason for the original block because I never saw the unedited version of the post or what it linked to, and I frankly know very little about how one might obtain substances via the internet. Whether that was a good or bad decision by Dr. Bob, one cannot post while blocked. That's all I had to go on in regards to this action.
> And I do voice again that there are conflicts of interest and some rather undemocratic hierarchy here, as I've posted once in the past.
Well, first, this isn't a democracy and has not been portrayed as such to my knowledge. Having a moderator and deputies IS a hierarchy as far as enforcing civility guidelines.
I suppose that deputies who are also posters and who have made friends via this site does represent some level of conflict of interest. I'm not sure how to avoid that, though. I think it would be quite difficult to recruit deputies who didn't have some interest in Babble. At the minimum, I think they would have to be paid. And I also think it takes some time and experience in posting to develop an understanding of the rules, at least to Dr. Bob's satisfaction. I suppose it could be learned without participating as a poster, but it's hard for me to imagine that.
As far as having friends on the site, well, I'd like to say that's unavoidable, but I suppose it might have been possible not to come to care about people. I can tell you I've given PBC's and blocked people I like very much, and I don't like doing it. And since there are more than one deputy and a moderator, if a post gets overlooked or not addressed by one, the others likely will catch it.
I appreciate your feedback, by the way. As far as appearing "quick-triggered", well, I admit there are probably certain types of "infractions" for which I have less patience than other types. I suspect that's the nature of this job, but I can only speak for myself. In addition, when I am reading posts and have the time and focus, and I see something that I am confident about that needs addressing, I see no reason not to address it then. Perhaps the others have a different process. I'm not always in "deputy mode", either. There are times I am reading for my own needs and not to monitor the site.
>But again, this warm fuzzy place that I see in one post isn't always a democracy in another...
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
>I know, there are few deputies, but these explosive arguments always seem to centre here.
I don't mean to be dense, but arguments center on what exactly, or where?
What might you do differently if you were a deputy? Or any thoughts on how to avoid inconsistency or problems when there is an unavoidable conflict of interest?
Thanks again for your feedback.
gg
Posted by ed_uk on April 4, 2006, at 16:29:17
In reply to Madness, posted by Peeddoofff on April 3, 2006, at 19:51:44
I'm sorry you got blocked Willy. You must be hurting. Come back soon :)
Ed
Posted by yxibow on April 5, 2006, at 0:21:43
In reply to Deputy conflict of interest » yxibow, posted by gardenergirl on April 4, 2006, at 14:44:55
> I can't really address the reason for the original block because I never saw the unedited version of the post or what it linked to, and I frankly know very little about how one might obtain substances via the internet. Whether that was a good or bad decision by Dr. Bob, one cannot post while blocked. That's all I had to go on in regards to this action.
I follow...
>
> > And I do voice again that there are conflicts of interest and some rather undemocratic hierarchy here, as I've posted once in the past.We know... acknowledged
>
> Well, first, this isn't a democracy and has not been portrayed as such to my knowledge. Having a moderator and deputies IS a hierarchy as far as enforcing civility guidelines.I know... though it could be a democracy with work, but that's hard. I guess there's a sense of oh, why did this person be a deputy, other than they've been around... it goes much deeper, like, this individual is less psychotic than everyone else therefore they can be a deputy... that's how I see things sometimes.
>
> I suppose that deputies who are also posters and who have made friends via this site does represent some level of conflict of interest. I'm not sure how to avoid that, though. I think it would be quite difficult to recruit deputies who didn't have some interest in Babble.Quite true...
At the minimum, I think they would have to be paid.
Yes... Someone also foots the bill for the web site as well so money is involved here anyhow
And I also think it takes some time and experience in posting to develop an understanding of the rules, at least to Dr. Bob's satisfaction. I suppose it could be learned without participating as a poster, but it's hard for me to imagine that.
I can understand that logic.
>
> As far as having friends on the site, well, I'd like to say that's unavoidable, but I suppose it might have been possible not to come to care about people. I can tell you I've given PBC's and blocked people I like very much, and I don't like doing it.I know... and thats the remorse of conflict of interest, inevitably.
>
> I appreciate your feedback, by the way. As far as appearing "quick-triggered", well, I admit there are probably certain types of "infractions" for which I have less patience than other types. I suspect that's the nature of this job, but I can only speak for myself. In addition, when I am reading posts and have the time and focus, and I see something that I am confident about that needs addressing, I see no reason not to address it then. Perhaps the others have a different process. I'm not always in "deputy mode", either. There are times I am reading for my own needs and not to monitor the site.
Yes, it was the "quick triggered" that kind of hit the spot, I don't want to be mean but it seems that way more often.
>
> >But again, this warm fuzzy place that I see in one post isn't always a democracy in another...
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by this.Oh, it was late at night, it was referenced to another post on the psycho-babble about someone who was happy to be on here 3 months and there was a reference to "warm and fuzzy" or something. Sorry to be obtuse.
>
> >I know, there are few deputies, but these explosive arguments always seem to centre here.
>
> I don't mean to be dense, but arguments center on what exactly, or where?The most, and maybe I don't frequent the other boards much, but the medication board seems to be blocked quite often for people. Maybe that's just my view as I say, I dont visit the other boards much.
>
> What might you do differently if you were a deputy? Or any thoughts on how to avoid inconsistency or problems when there is an unavoidable conflict of interest?Consistency is hard, I must admit, but I think I would give 3 chances -- things usually work in threes anyway, we have this useless 3 strikes legislation in many states. It would include the obvious -- trolling, it can be clearly seen if there is an explosive long thread.
Extreme nastiness to people and the board owner -- and there is the consistency problem I admit, but clear and not fuzzy ad-hominem attacks.
Ad hominem, is used simplistically about libelous and nasty arguments against an individual like describing nasty things about Dr Bob, but it has much deeper meanings :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
The "seven dirty words" -- well, they're blocked anyhow by the software usually and sometimes its necessary to release -- not towards someone, but emotionally the F and S words, because when it all comes down to it, life sucks sometimes. An average productive psychotherapy session can include lots of those.
>
> Thanks again for your feedback.You're welcome.
>
> gg
>I don't have a perfect answer for everything, but I think there should be more deputies, and I think perhaps they should be rotated to minimize conflict of interest.
To totally remove conflict of interest, of course, would be to have someone not associated with the board at all, or someone who doesn't post at all -- but we've touched on the difficulties of that idea. That perhaps a middle ground is possible -- that if relations develop between deputies and especially babblemail and comments between deputies and "people they like" on the board, then a rotation should occur.
Tidings
-- Jay
Posted by yxibow on April 5, 2006, at 0:36:33
In reply to Re: Deputy conflict of interest » gardenergirl, posted by yxibow on April 5, 2006, at 0:21:43
And I would add, there is a slight tone of over "political correctness" for a lack of words. Sure, there are people who are "fragile" on here -- but while this is a safe harbour for people to come to, there also is the real world out there, and to have PBCs for every little detail that someone is hurt, is going a bit far.
Another addition -- how about, and some scripting would have to be changed, but for people who are blocked, who are in need of help but say it in the wrong way, how about another message board with a warning that you have to click past ( e.g. "This board contains possible dirty language and might be harmful to your feelings"), that has posts from people who are blocked.Nobody has to read those sections, but people who are sympathetic to those who are hurting who are blocked, and can stomach some flack and flying *** from someone with a foul mouth, can talk to those people there.
I would call it "Uncivility" or "Blockedland" or something -- I don't know, I'm just coming up with silly titles, but I think that would be one idea for those who are blocked from everything else.
Yes, I know there is babblemail and all that, but sometimes a forum is useful.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2006, at 3:40:01
In reply to Madness, posted by Peeddoofff on April 3, 2006, at 19:51:44
> The page i referred to where to find it is an OLD ARCHIVED page,not the SITE.However because it can lead to a site where script stuff can obtained without a script ,something i dident think about because A. it wasnt my intention,and B had nothing to do with the post.But because a user can use that info to lead themselves there i was blocked.
Right.
> I think its totaly unfair for a block here,at the LEAST a warning that i inverntaly did that.
Well, that was why I didn't make it for longer than last time...
> Now as far as the first post goes,first let me say i emailed u about it and had no response.
Sorry about that, I get behind sometimes. But I just replied.
Please take care of yourself, and I hope we see you back in a couple weeks.
Bob
Posted by special_k on April 7, 2006, at 17:31:19
In reply to Re: something i dident think about, posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2006, at 3:40:01
> > The page i referred to where to find it is an OLD ARCHIVED page,not the SITE.However because it can lead to a site where script stuff can obtained without a script ,something i dident think about because A. it wasnt my intention,and B had nothing to do with the post.But because a user can use that info to lead themselves there i was blocked.
sorry... does this mean the person posted a link to a page (which was okay) and the problem is that from that page (which was okay) you could get to another page (which was not okay) following a link?
isn't there precedent for this re faith and politics where the only links we take responsibility for are the pages we link to and not the pages that are linked to from that page.
isn't that the way it works?
why the change in rules NOW all of a sudden?
> > I think its totaly unfair for a block here,at the LEAST a warning that i inverntaly did that.
yeah. i mean if you don't know you aren't allowed to do it it seems senseless to block without warning you first. especially since... i'm not seeing anything explicit in the faqs (which can't be trusted since they aren't up to date anyway). be nice to think civility rules were a matter of common sense... maybe they are if bob gets his own idiosyncratic meaning of 'common sense' too... maybe he needs to write a babble dictionary so we can understand the rules or somehting..
> Well, that was why I didn't make it for longer than last time...oh the compassion.
for f*cks sake. can't you see how it is a little like saying 'oh gee see how compassionate i am i only hit you over the head 7 times instead of 14'. you could have just given a warning.how is this helping anybody but you?
and what is it doing for you?
you like to have people feel afraid you you and hate you?
is this about plato again?
you tryin to get people to revolt?
or are you trying to get people to accept more deputies and wish you would f*ck off.because you are HURTING
and oh the compassion... only hit you over the head 7 times.
yay bob. well done.
> Please take care of yourself, and I hope we see you back in a couple weeks.please tell me i'm misunderstanding the situation..;
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 8, 2006, at 6:19:58
In reply to sorry to butt in here but if i understand this... » Dr. Bob, posted by special_k on April 7, 2006, at 17:31:19
> > > The page i referred to where to find it is an OLD ARCHIVED page,not the SITE.However because it can lead to a site where script stuff can obtained without a script ,something i dident think about because A. it wasnt my intention,and B had nothing to do with the post.But because a user can use that info to lead themselves there i was blocked.
>
> sorry... does this mean the person posted a link to a page (which was okay) and the problem is that from that page (which was okay) you could get to another page (which was not okay) following a link?
>
> isn't there precedent for this re faith and politics where the only links we take responsibility for are the pages we link to and not the pages that are linked to from that page.There's precedent for this, too. And it wouldn't accomplish much if any page except an order form could be linked to. And being able to obtain medications from a site is different from something being said anywhere there, it's easier to determine and less subject to change.
Bob
Posted by special_k on April 8, 2006, at 7:37:19
In reply to Re: precedent for this, posted by Dr. Bob on April 8, 2006, at 6:19:58
> There's precedent for this, too.well then that makes it hard and hard to figure why sometimes things go without comment whereas othertimes people get blocked for two weeks.
> And it wouldn't accomplish much if any page except an order form could be linked to. And being able to obtain medications from a site is different from something being said anywhere there, it's easier to determine and less subject to change.
ok. so now that that is clearer... couldn't you update the faq's... give the guy a warning... and give him two weeks if he does it again?
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.