![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 48 to 72 of 89. Go back in thread:
Posted by Deputy 10derHeart on February 3, 2009, at 19:34:39
In reply to Who was he talking about? (nm), posted by fayeroe on February 3, 2009, at 13:50:52
Well, the best thing to do is to ask Toph, for sure.
(Toph, I'm sorry to be talking about you as if you're not here - I hate that - but I did want to find a way to answer Pat's question. Please feel free to straighten me out on anything I've assumed incorrectly, etc.)
I thought it was reasonable to see Toph's post as a response to Sigismund's comments on "previous administrations," as part of that post was quoted at the start.
Most of the list of phrases posted are commonly associated with negative descriptions of the administration, or policies, of former President G.W. Bush. When I asked that those sort of comments not be posted, posters who supported him and his administration, as well as *any* other administrations before Preident Obama's, are the individuals I was thinking could feel put down.
Reasonable people can disagree and misinterpret, and that includes deputies. But, as Dinah has posted recently, we are trying to administrate regarding Politics-related posts as evenhandedly as possible, in accordance with Dr. Bob's wishes, and with an eye toward support and education.
Posted by Deputy 10derHeart on February 3, 2009, at 19:55:14
In reply to Re: Please be civil » Deputy 10derHeart, posted by Toph on February 3, 2009, at 14:29:31
> It is interesting to me how stringing a few nouns and verbs together can be so unequivicably identifying as to which administration I may have been referring.
It doesn't matter which administration you meant. I don't think I specified in my post...? I can't be 100% *sure* unless you specifically say, but that could be uncivil so I'm not recommending posting that! If another poster had mentioned (or begun a thought) "With this new (current) administration..." and you or anyone responded with similar negative phrases (perhaps in the future tense) - that would also be uncivil.
The focus of my request to be civil was avoiding negative characterizations about any administrations - to increase respect and sensitivity for differing views. That's all.
Of course, I know I am likely completely missing your point :-)
-- 10der
Posted by Toph on February 3, 2009, at 22:00:41
In reply to which administration(s) » Toph, posted by Deputy 10derHeart on February 3, 2009, at 19:55:14
I was merely trying to experiment with Sig's suggested style.
> Tortured People.
> Ruined economy.
I should have said...
Tortured Mohammed al-Qahtani.*
Oversaw collapse.*according to senior US official Susan Crawford
Posted by Sigismund on February 4, 2009, at 1:35:05
In reply to Re: which administration(s) » Deputy 10derHeart, posted by Toph on February 3, 2009, at 22:00:41
Allow me to report myself (in violation of the civility rules)
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20081212/msgs/877537.html
in which I mentioned Franck's comment that a thousand years would pass and Germany's guilt would not be erased.
Since there are no Germans on the politics board to be offended and since all rules at the margins create absurdities, I think we can say that the civility rules are working as well as can be expected.
Posted by Deputy Dinah on February 4, 2009, at 9:49:49
In reply to Re: which administration(s) » Deputy 10derHeart, posted by Toph on February 3, 2009, at 22:00:41
> Tortured Mohammed al-Qahtani.*
> *according to senior US official Susan Crawford
Please don't quote anything that is in violation of the civility guidelines, as you have already been informed this statement would be.
Scott's suggestions were good ones, and would not be deemed to be uncivil.
You have just been warned to be civil on this matter already, so I'm going to have to block you from posting for one week.
Followups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil. And should not quote material that is in violation of the civility guidelines.
Dr. Bob was available last night and has already ruled on this matter. However, should anyone wish to contact him about this or any other matter, his email is at the bottom of each page.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by fayeroe on February 4, 2009, at 11:29:02
In reply to Blocked for a week » Toph, posted by Deputy Dinah on February 4, 2009, at 9:49:49
@&%$+&%#!
Posted by Sigismund on February 4, 2009, at 16:20:32
In reply to problem words » SLS, posted by Deputy 10derHeart on February 3, 2009, at 19:16:40
I don't see why 'tortured' should be a problem.
I thought the idea was that there could be a legitimate debate about whether the use of it was OK.
Has that idea has been quietly forgotten?
Posted by Sigismund on February 4, 2009, at 16:39:15
In reply to Re: Politicspeak » Sigismund, posted by Toph on February 2, 2009, at 23:16:09
There's no problem with 'invaded'?
Would citizens of the US feel put down if their country was said to have invaded another, for reasons (or lack thereof) which may in themselves lead those citizens to feel put down?
What about 'liberated'?
Posted by gabbette on February 4, 2009, at 23:12:53
In reply to Blocked for a week?, posted by fayeroe on February 4, 2009, at 11:29:02
I'd find it far less frightening if certain topics were forbidden altogether.
Being forced to find innoffensive euphemisms for atrocities is f*cking blood chilling.
Posted by gabbette on February 4, 2009, at 23:23:31
In reply to Blocked for a week?, posted by fayeroe on February 4, 2009, at 11:29:02
While were at it, can we find less judgemental
words for child abuse? Rape?
I was raped, I guess that implies judgement.Perhaps I should say,
"He found a use for my body in a way he enjoyed but I found highly disagreeable"Or is it like "The murder of one person is a tragedy the murder of thousands is a statistic"
so it's okay in fact preferable, to not look them in the eye, (figuratively speaking) dismiss the horror, and infer by omission that they had a choice.
Posted by Dinah on February 4, 2009, at 23:24:48
In reply to Re: Blocked for a week?, posted by gabbette on February 4, 2009, at 23:12:53
I remind Dr. Bob that many sites just don't allow religion or politics as topics.
But he prefers to allow posters to discuss them, under the same civility guidelines that apply everywhere else.
Posted by gabbette on February 5, 2009, at 0:54:06
In reply to I'd find it preferable too » gabbette, posted by Dinah on February 4, 2009, at 23:24:48
Hallo Dinah
I realize the deputies are enforcing his guidelines whether or not they are always agreed with. (That was a badly formed sentence)
No daggers aimed your way.
I'd much rather have you here as deputy for all the good you do, than have you turn in your badge because of a difference in preference in one area.btw.
I tell people who are important to me "They don't have to call back" too.
That made me chuckle.
Posted by Dinah on February 5, 2009, at 7:56:22
In reply to Re: I'd find it preferable too » Dinah, posted by gabbette on February 5, 2009, at 0:54:06
Thanks Gabbi.
I don't disagree with Dr. Bob's application of the civility guidelines to all boards. But I do think the current situation causes a fair amount of confusion and distress.
Not that it's that much different than any other board. On every board there are difficulties in balancing what a poster might wish to say with what a poster is allowed to say. I am no doubt not alone when I decide not to say anything at all, if I don't think I can say it within the civility guidelines within the energy level I have to expend on the matter.
But I think it's a special challenge on the topics of Religion and Politics.
The things we do to protect ourselves... Mind you, my therapist agrees that I should probably keep protecting myself that way by telling him he doesn't need to call. So maybe in his case, it's the smart thing to do. :)
Posted by fayeroe on February 5, 2009, at 9:26:42
In reply to Re: I'd find it preferable too » gabbette, posted by Dinah on February 5, 2009, at 7:56:22
> Thanks Gabbi.
>
> I don't disagree with Dr. Bob's application of the civility guidelines to all boards. But I do think the current situation causes a fair amount of confusion and distress.Dinah, please tell me what the current situation is?
How did this start?
Who is confused?Who is in distress? (I'm not talking about Topher being blocked..that is another subject altogether)
>
> Not that it's that much different than any other board. On every board there are difficulties in balancing what a poster might wish to say with what a poster is allowed to say. I am no doubt not alone when I decide not to say anything at all, if I don't think I can say it within the civility guidelines within the energy level I have to expend on the matter.
>
> But I think it's a special challenge on the topics of Religion and Politics.The challenge on the Politics board was a few months ago. I'm only aware of this latest discussion being here on administration.
Did someone get blocked from Politics, recently, due to uncivil behavior?
>
> The things we do to protect ourselves... Mind you, my therapist agrees that I should probably keep protecting myself that way by telling him he doesn't need to call. So maybe in his case, it's the smart thing to do. :)Thank you.
Pat
Posted by Dinah on February 5, 2009, at 9:33:15
In reply to Re: I'd find it preferable too » Dinah, posted by fayeroe on February 5, 2009, at 9:26:42
Posted by fayeroe on February 5, 2009, at 11:23:19
In reply to Re: I'd find it preferable too » gabbette, posted by Dinah on February 5, 2009, at 7:56:22
Dinah..."But I do think the current situation causes a fair amount of confusion and distress."
I thought "current" meant right now. Ongoing.
I'll have to look in the dictionary.
"
Posting "a fair amount of confusion and distress" could cause some posters to wonder if you are talking about them. I've certainly been reminded time and again to not post anything that might be confusing to other posters.If I had posted it, would I have gotten a PBC?
Posted by Dinah on February 5, 2009, at 11:44:53
In reply to Re: I'd find it preferable too, posted by fayeroe on February 5, 2009, at 11:23:19
I meant the arrangement of allowing political posts while limiting the content. A situation that is current in the sense that it is the rule at this moment. This sentence referred to my previous sentence about my personally finding it preferable that the topics just be disallowed as it is on so many boards of all types.
A general statement that I have made, in one form or another, for years.
I was talking about the rules, not the posters.
And this is just my personal opinion about what the rules should be. Obviously Dr. Bob is not in agreement with me, and my opinion is not at all relevant. I was just agreeing with Gabbi.
Posted by sdb on February 6, 2009, at 9:47:37
In reply to unethical use of civ. guidelines by deputies} bob, posted by sdb on January 26, 2009, at 6:12:27
hello, I love you all, especially Dinah!
Dr. Bob claims high standards in ethical issues but he seems not to care about it. That is somewhat, I must say, disappointing.
I have concerns about the deputy punishing system that is based on not clear rules that allows a lot of arbitrariness.
Punishing people can damage people.
Posted by fayeroe on February 6, 2009, at 10:00:13
In reply to Re:, posted by sdb on February 6, 2009, at 9:47:37
~~~I have concerns about the deputy punishing system that is based on not clear rules that allows a lot of arbitrariness.
Punishing people can damage people.~~~I cannot imagine how a poster feels when Babble is their only 'safe' place and they get kicked in the head. If a poster is in a "free world" situation where family and friends aren't supportive, it has to hurt like hell to be kicked out here. I prefer "kicked" over blocked.
I've been there and because my investment here is so small, I go my merry way. However I think that so many posters view Babble as family. And most of us already know what rejection/ punishment feels. It sucks.
I say "what goes 'round, comes 'round" However when there is so much denial going on that I question whether or not the lesson will be learned. I am not talking about posters, I am talking about administration.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 6, 2009, at 10:11:26
In reply to Re:, posted by sdb on February 6, 2009, at 9:47:37
> hello, I love you all, especially Dinah!
>
> Dr. Bob claims high standards in ethical issues but he seems not to care about it. That is somewhat, I must say, disappointing.
>
> I have concerns about the deputy punishing system that is based on not clear rules that allows a lot of arbitrariness.
> Punishing people can damage people.sdb,
You wrote,[...love..all...especially Dinah...(Mr. Hsiung) claims high standards...I have concerns...].
I am interested in more of what your perception could be concerning what you wrote and have the following questions;
A. redacted by me
B. What are the high standards that you are referring to in relation to, let's say, if they concern statements that could lead another to feel put down/accused, or something else, and could you post here some examples of those that you are concerned about as being disappointing?
C. Is there disappointment to you in the aspect of doing what could be good for the community as a whole that Mr. Hsiung writes in his TOS to trust him about? If so, could you post here some examples?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 6, 2009, at 13:29:32
In reply to Re: » sdb, posted by fayeroe on February 6, 2009, at 10:00:13
> ~~~I have concerns about the deputy punishing system that is based on not clear rules that allows a lot of arbitrariness.
> Punishing people can damage people.~~~
>
> I cannot imagine how a poster feels when Babble is their only 'safe' place and they get kicked in the head. If a poster is in a "free world" situation where family and friends aren't supportive, it has to hurt like hell to be kicked out here. I prefer "kicked" over blocked.
>
> I've been there and because my investment here is so small, I go my merry way. However I think that so many posters view Babble as family. And most of us already know what rejection/ punishment feels. It sucks.
>
> I say "what goes 'round, comes 'round" However when there is so much denial going on that I question whether or not the lesson will be learned. I am not talking about posters, I am talking about administration.fayeroe,
You wrote,[...denial...]
Could you list some examples of the denial that you are referring to? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to examine any examples that you post here and see what could arise out of those situations, concerning how the denial could or could not have the potential, if any, to cause harm to the mental health of any members here.
Posted by sdb on February 12, 2009, at 13:22:22
In reply to Re: » sdb, posted by fayeroe on February 6, 2009, at 10:00:13
> ~~~I have concerns about the deputy punishing system that is based on not clear rules that allows a lot of arbitrariness.
> Punishing people can damage people.~~~
>
> I cannot imagine how a poster feels when Babble is their only 'safe' place and they get kicked in the head. If a poster is in a "free world" situation where family and friends aren't supportive, it has to hurt like hell to be kicked out here. I prefer "kicked" over blocked.
>
> I've been there and because my investment here is so small, I go my merry way. However I think that so many posters view Babble as family. And most of us already know what rejection/ punishment feels. It sucks.
>
> I say "what goes 'round, comes 'round" However when there is so much denial going on that I question whether or not the lesson will be learned. I am not talking about posters, I am talking about administration.I also make mistakes. I really do not think that mentioning the similarity in history was a mistake. But after a warning (to be against the rules, whatever that means) maybe to post the content again instead to make a link to it was false.
Posted by Deputy Dinah on February 12, 2009, at 13:31:14
In reply to Re: also my mistake, posted by sdb on February 12, 2009, at 13:22:22
Just to clarify, Dr. Bob considers links to materials that would be considered uncivil also to be uncivil.
Posted by sdb on February 12, 2009, at 14:44:02
In reply to Re: also my mistake » sdb, posted by Deputy Dinah on February 12, 2009, at 13:31:14
> Just to clarify, Dr. Bob considers links to materials that would be considered uncivil also to be uncivil.
can you please show me where it is written that 'links to materials that would be...' ? I think that it is of importance that people can read first what is allowed or not before they get punished and harmed.
thank you.
Posted by Deputy Dinah on February 12, 2009, at 16:42:43
In reply to Dr. Bob considers links to materials... }} Dinah, posted by sdb on February 12, 2009, at 14:44:02
Not everything is included in the FAQ. Deputies act on the site guidelines as applied and interpreted by Dr. Bob in the past. Or if there is no precedent, we ask him. This has been Dr. Bob's stance on the matter of links for some time.
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.