![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 17 of 17. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by SLS on September 22, 2006, at 7:23:27
A post on the main Psycho-Babble board was cited as posting a URL that was not allowed. It was a link to the homepage of the [xxx] website.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20060919/msgs/688016.html
If I am not mistaken, the depth of the links to be evaluated for civility lies only as far as the content on the webpage linked directly to the URL posted. It does not include the content of the links contained on that webpage, and of course the content of links deeper than that.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060826/msgs/685626.html
I believe the content of the webpage linked to the URL posted was itself civil. If it is, then your decision should be rescinded.
- Scott
Posted by AuntieMel on September 22, 2006, at 10:39:01
In reply to A decision to reconsider » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on September 22, 2006, at 7:23:27
Good point.
I'd like to know that web page.
Posted by valene on September 22, 2006, at 17:19:01
In reply to Re: A decision to reconsider, posted by AuntieMel on September 22, 2006, at 10:39:01
> Good point.
>
> I'd like to know that web page.
I agree completely. I would like to have that link also. Thanks.
Val
Posted by alexandra_k on September 22, 2006, at 17:29:03
In reply to A decision to reconsider » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on September 22, 2006, at 7:23:27
> If I am not mistaken, the depth of the links to be evaluated for civility lies only as far as the content on the webpage linked directly to the URL posted. It does not include the content of the links contained on that webpage, and of course the content of links deeper than that.My understanding is that it goes 2 deep.
At least... Someone got blocked a while back for posting a link that had a link to a site where you could obtain medication without a prescription.
Posted by yxibow on September 22, 2006, at 19:47:47
In reply to A decision to reconsider » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on September 22, 2006, at 7:23:27
> A post on the main Psycho-Babble board was cited as posting a URL that was not allowed. It was a link to the homepage of the [xxx] website.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20060919/msgs/688016.html
>
> If I am not mistaken, the depth of the links to be evaluated for civility lies only as far as the content on the webpage linked directly to the URL posted. It does not include the content of the links contained on that webpage, and of course the content of links deeper than that.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060826/msgs/685626.html
>
> I believe the content of the webpage linked to the URL posted was itself civil. If it is, then your decision should be rescinded.
>
>
> - Scott
>Yes I was puzzled by the [xxx] link issue, it does contain one link to online pharmacies but that isn't its particular angle. It contains vast amounts of summaries and articles from scientific journals; it itself could not be classified as a peer reviewed or HON or "reliable source" site completely but it has some competent information. There is only one link on there that happens to go to online pharmacies, some of which probably don't exist anymore, I dunno, I never even noticed it until it was brought up. Whoever is behind the site also has multiple domain names for [xxx], some of which have nested deep links to the original front page of the site aforementioned.
Posted by SLS on September 23, 2006, at 7:34:08
In reply to Re: A decision to reconsider » SLS, posted by alexandra_k on September 22, 2006, at 17:29:03
> > If I am not mistaken, the depth of the links to be evaluated for civility lies only as far as the content on the webpage linked directly to the URL posted. It does not include the content of the links contained on that webpage, and of course the content of links deeper than that.
> My understanding is that it goes 2 deep.
> At least... Someone got blocked a while back for posting a link that had a link to a site where you could obtain medication without a prescription.Perhaps, but the most recent comment made by Dr. Bob indicates otherwise.
The linked page displays no information that would enable one to seek medication without a prescription. This is level 1. The link representing level 2 displays a list of links to online pharmacies. Level 3 is the online pharmacy itself. So, then, even level 2 does not provide the information necessary to procure drugs. One must navigate to level 3 for this.
In this case, one must police level 3 for determination of acceptability. This sets a precedent that I believe is unhealthy for the community.
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on September 23, 2006, at 9:39:43
In reply to Re: A decision to reconsider » alexandra_k, posted by SLS on September 23, 2006, at 7:34:08
I'm not saying it's so because I don't know what's in Dr. Bob's mind, but perhaps he considers medication without a prescription a different case than incivility. And perhaps he has a list of unacceptable sites based on that?
Just a guess, since I doubt Dr. Bob has the time to go through levels of links in his brief pass over the board.
Posted by SLS on September 23, 2006, at 16:14:19
In reply to Re: A decision to reconsider » SLS, posted by Dinah on September 23, 2006, at 9:39:43
> I'm not saying it's so because I don't know what's in Dr. Bob's mind, but perhaps he considers medication without a prescription a different case than incivility. And perhaps he has a list of unacceptable sites based on that?
>
> Just a guess, since I doubt Dr. Bob has the time to go through levels of links in his brief pass over the board.
I would be more than dismayed if all citations from the [xxx] domain were to be eliminated. [xxx] is an valuable resource. The abstracts themselves make no mention of procurement of drugs. They have at the bottom of their pages a link to one main page or another that then contain a link to a page with links to online pharmacies. So, then, the posts with links to abstracts would link to online pharmacies through 4 levels. I should hope that would be deep enough to pass a determination of acceptability.I would understand fully if Dr. Bob were to codify a rule that would determine that a link appearing on a webpage linked to in a post must contain civil material. In other words, civility will extend 2 levels. I am just responding to his most recent comments about links made on Administration and relating it to a recent action he took on the main board regarding same which was inconsistent with those comments.
I would protest vehemently should [xxx] abstracts be determined unacceptable to link to.
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 24, 2006, at 17:15:11
In reply to Re: A decision to reconsider, posted by SLS on September 23, 2006, at 16:14:19
> The linked page displays no information that would enable one to seek medication without a prescription. This is level 1. The link representing level 2 displays a list of links to online pharmacies. Level 3 is the online pharmacy itself. So, then, even level 2 does not provide the information necessary to procure drugs. One must navigate to level 3 for this.
One can't place an order from level 1, but IMO where to go to place an order is still information that enables or facilitates that.
> I would be more than dismayed if all citations from the [xxx] domain were to be eliminated.
It's fine to link to pages there that don't contain links like the above. How about that?
Bob
Posted by madeline on September 24, 2006, at 19:13:00
In reply to Re: A decision to reconsider, posted by Dr. Bob on September 24, 2006, at 17:15:11
Sometimes it sounds to me as though you are making this up as you go along.
IMHO
I think you should re-reconsider the post.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060826/msgs/685626.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 24, 2006, at 21:47:27
In reply to Re: A decision to reconsider » Dr. Bob, posted by madeline on September 24, 2006, at 19:13:00
> Sometimes it sounds to me as though you are making this up as you go along.
Well, that's life sometimes. Did you think I was following a manual?
Bob
Posted by SLS on September 24, 2006, at 22:24:47
In reply to Re: A decision to reconsider, posted by Dr. Bob on September 24, 2006, at 17:15:11
> > The linked page displays no information that would enable one to seek medication without a prescription. This is level 1. The link representing level 2 displays a list of links to online pharmacies. Level 3 is the online pharmacy itself. So, then, even level 2 does not provide the information necessary to procure drugs. One must navigate to level 3 for this.
>
> One can't place an order from level 1, but IMO where to go to place an order is still information that enables or facilitates that.
>
> > I would be more than dismayed if all citations from the [xxx] domain were to be eliminated.
>
> It's fine to link to pages there that don't contain links like the above. How about that?
Ok.:-)
So we can go back to playing in the sandbox?
I am interpreting your words here as your allowing us to continue using the abstracts as citations. Am I correct on this?
- Scott
Posted by SLS on September 24, 2006, at 22:29:47
In reply to Re: A decision to reconsider, posted by Dr. Bob on September 24, 2006, at 17:15:11
A sample page of an abstract would be:
http://www.xxx.com/bupropion.htm
where www.xxx.com = domain name
- Scott
Posted by madeline on September 25, 2006, at 5:12:56
In reply to Re: A decision to reconsider, posted by Dr. Bob on September 24, 2006, at 21:47:27
okay fair enough, there is no manual here.
I do understand the need to keep the psychobabble board from becoming a forum for online pharmacies.
I will also admit that I "shot from the hip" a bit and, without checking, simply assumed a PBC had been issued regarding the link. For that assumption, I apologize.
However, with all due respect Dr. Bob, I fail to see the value in you telling me how life is sometimes.
Believe me, I KNOW how life is sometimes. I have to get up and live in it every single day.
Maddie
Posted by muffled on September 25, 2006, at 11:42:51
In reply to Re: A decision to reconsider, posted by Dr. Bob on September 24, 2006, at 21:47:27
> > Sometimes it sounds to me as though you are making this up as you go along.
>
> Well, that's life sometimes. Did you think I was following a manual?
>
> Bob***ROFL.......most definately NOT a manual judging from the fusses we have on this board!!!!
Bob is human...aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack.
I'm having human probs w/my T.
Sigh.
Sorry Maddie if you felt Bob was harsh, he comes across that way sometimes with his one liners. I've felt the same way.
So the reason I post is to say I hope you don't take it personally, and don't hold your breath waiting for an apology....
This site IS Bobs, and that being so, HE is the human(and therefore flawed) manual for this site.
Dunno what his motivation is?
I sometimes wonder?
Anyhow, take care, thanks for trying to help make this site a better place.
Muffled
Posted by JahL on September 25, 2006, at 13:20:28
In reply to Re: A decision to reconsider » alexandra_k, posted by SLS on September 23, 2006, at 7:34:08
Hi Scott.
I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis.
The site-that-shall-not-be-named is a superb resource and it would be a shame if board members were made ignorant of it.
The online pharmacy element is pretty peripheral to the site in general. Your average search engine provides quicker access to non-prescribed drugs, yet Bob provides a Google search function on each page.
I'm currently half-way through reading the 'The Hedonistic Imperative' piece. I feel I have already gained a lot in terms of my understanding of the human condition - not a bad thing.
As ever though, it's Bob's site and his decision to make. I just wish he'd make the right one. :-)
Sincerely,
Jah.
> In this case, one must police level 3 for determination of acceptability. This sets a precedent that I believe is unhealthy for the community.
>
>
> - Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 29, 2006, at 0:59:28
In reply to Re: A decision to reconsider » Dr. Bob, posted by madeline on September 25, 2006, at 5:12:56
> So we can go back to playing in the sandbox?
>
> I am interpreting your words here as your allowing us to continue using the abstracts as citations. Am I correct on this?
>
> - ScottCorrect, just take a look at what they link to before you link to them?
> okay fair enough, there is no manual here.
>
> I do understand the need to keep the psychobabble board from becoming a forum for online pharmacies.
>
> I will also admit that I "shot from the hip" a bit and, without checking, simply assumed a PBC had been issued regarding the link. For that assumption, I apologize.
>
> However, with all due respect Dr. Bob, I fail to see the value in you telling me how life is sometimes.
>
> Believe me, I KNOW how life is sometimes. I have to get up and live in it every single day.
>
> MaddieThanks for understanding. Sorry if I came across as implying that you didn't know how life was, I certainly didn't mean that at all!
I appreciate the great support that both of you provide, and I'm glad we can work together here.
Bob
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.