![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 24 to 48 of 51. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 10, 2009, at 14:25:19
In reply to Re: Yeah, good luck with that, posted by Timne on July 10, 2009, at 12:54:40
> That does not abrogate his responsibility to disengage when a client demands that he disengage as a service provider.
>
> I also have several other strategies for prosecution, one of which involves can-SPAM prosecution for e-mails he sends me with no "unsubscribe" button, as required by law, and which I will have no way of cancelling because he will have blocked me.> I asked to have my membership canceled so that I would not have means to continue posting, and to rebut any claim that my ongoing membership reflects support for that punks bullying.
> Garter Girl, Do not address any more posts to me.
Our engagement should terminate if you stop posting, notifying the administrators, etc. Maybe it would facilitate disengagement if others stopped posting to you, too?
I'm sorry if you're receiving e-mails you can't stop. Notifications of follow-ups and babblemails each come with instructions on how to do that. If those procedures aren't working for some reason, or if you're getting something else without analogous instructions, please let me know, and I'll take care of it.
People who are blocked should still be able to cancel notifications of follow-ups and turn off their babblemail. If that doesn't work for you for some reason, please let me know by e-mail, and I'll take care of it.
It's already been explained to you how you can "block yourself" from posting.
I wouldn't dream of claiming that your registration reflected support for my "bullying".
If you feel harassed here, please follow the procedure at:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#harassed
Finally, I'd appreciate it if you didn't post anything that could lead others (including me) to feel accused or put down.
But please don't take that personally, it doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person, and I'm sorry if this hurts you. I don't want anything bad to happen to you. In a crisis, please also get help in person. You may also wish to check out a listing compiled by a poster of helpful web pages on coping with crisis at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/psycho-babble-tips/links/Coping_with_crisis_001012507973
Gardenergirl, I'm sorry if you feel hurt.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express oneself are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, if any, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on July 10, 2009, at 14:32:53
In reply to Re: disengage » Timne, posted by Dr. Bob on July 10, 2009, at 14:25:19
>
> Gardenergirl, I'm sorry if you feel hurt.
>I don't, but thank you for thinking of me.
gg, disengaging as well
Posted by Timne on July 10, 2009, at 16:13:55
In reply to Re: disengage » Timne, posted by Dr. Bob on July 10, 2009, at 14:25:19
Remove my name from your membership rolls.
Posted by Timne on July 10, 2009, at 16:22:26
In reply to Re: disengage » Timne, posted by Dr. Bob on July 10, 2009, at 14:25:19
Posted by Timne on July 10, 2009, at 16:36:54
In reply to Re: disengage » Timne, posted by Dr. Bob on July 10, 2009, at 14:25:19
> If you feel harassed here, please follow the procedure at:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#harassedThat procedure does not address a situation in which one thinks, believes and reasons that the source of harassment is a site owner harassing anonymous guests by maintaining procedures intentionally designed to cause guests' suffering. One's "feelings" about harassment have nothing to do with it, and interaction with other guests of the board, or with the so-called deputies has nothing to do with it.
> Finally, I'd appreciate it if you didn't post anything that could lead others (including me) to feel accused or put down.
>Yet you claim that prerogative for yourself?
> I don't want anything bad to happen to you.
Your notion of evil is not consistent with mine. Something evil is happening to me. I feel I'm being raped by a psychiatrist.> In a crisis, please also get help in person. You may also wish to check out a listing compiled by a poster of helpful web pages on coping with crisis at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/psycho-babble-tips/links/Coping_with_crisis_001012507973Advise offered here does not comport with what in my experience has been reliable. Something bad is happening to me. I am captured as a permanent member of your site, where my user name and my statistic as a user contributes to support for claims to be published in research literature that the number of members reflects some meaningful support. Remove my name from your membership list.
>It's already been explained to you how you can "block yourself" from posting.
Is that a fact? I don't recognize the basis for that claim. Nor does is that diversion responsive to my simple request to be removed from the membership rolls, which any reasonable host would gladly accomodate.
Posted by Sigismund on July 10, 2009, at 17:14:14
In reply to Re: disengage, posted by Timne on July 10, 2009, at 16:36:54
>I feel I'm being raped by a psychiatrist.
Good use of an 'I statement'.
9/10
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 10, 2009, at 18:36:53
In reply to Re: disengage, posted by Timne on July 10, 2009, at 16:36:54
> > I'd appreciate it if you didn't post anything that could lead others (including me) to feel accused or put down.
>
> Yet you claim that prerogative for yourself?Yes, because I have an administrative role.
> > It's already been explained to you how you can "block yourself" from posting.
>
> Is that a fact? I don't recognize the basis for that claim.Gardenergirl posted one way:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090707/msgs/906037.html
and I babblemailed you:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20040725/msgs/370201.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/425614.html> I feel I'm being raped by a psychiatrist.
I don't in fact consider that an I-statement, see:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
so I'm going to consider you blocked from posting for 1 week.
> I am captured as a permanent member of your site, where my user name and my statistic as a user contributes to support for claims to be published in research literature that the number of members reflects some meaningful support.
I can see a parallel with rape: feeling you're being used against your will in some way. I have no plans to try to publish claims like that, but I have in the past, so you may be skeptical of what I say my plans are now.
I'm going to make an exception and remove this name. Trying to think this through:
You'll of course no longer be able to use this name to post, etc.
This name will be removed, not just blocked, so someone else could register with it. Which could be confusing, but we can cross that bridge if we come to it.
I'm still considering you blocked for 1 week, so if you change your mind, please wait at least 1 week to re-register and no matter what name you choose then, follow the steps at:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#names
If you re-engage with this site or me in that or some other way, I may re-engage with you.
> > In a crisis, please also get help in person. You may also wish to check out a listing compiled by a poster of helpful web pages on coping with crisis at:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/psycho-babble-tips/links/Coping_with_crisis_001012507973
>
> Advise offered here does not comport with what in my experience has been reliable.I'm glad you have reliable sources of advice. Best wishes,
Bob
Posted by henrietta on July 10, 2009, at 20:31:20
In reply to Re: disengage, posted by Dr. Bob on July 10, 2009, at 18:36:53
This is really great of you, Doctor. Please add my name to the list of those who want to unregister, unsubscribe, disengage. By that I do not mean I expect you to remove any of my posts. I just want my name and number (1) to be removed from membership in this community.
Thanks for understanding, at last, how this simple request can have great meaning to an individual member. I don't support, belong, live in this "community", and have not for years. I think it would have been of great benefit to both me and the community (ask 'em---but it would not be civil of them to answer honestly, of course) if I were no longer counted as a "member", and if when I first asked many years ago you had granted this simple request to unsubscribe..
Thank you, and I'm sure the community thanks you.
To reiterate---- I am only asking for my name to be removed from the rolls, and that one less person be counted in your numbers.
Posted by henrietta on July 10, 2009, at 20:58:53
In reply to Re: disengage » Dr. Bob, posted by henrietta on July 10, 2009, at 20:31:20
It doesn't matter if you or various other posters don't "get it". It's not a "Just Say No" thing. It's a simple, straightforward , respectful request, and if others find it puzzling or offensive or counterintuitive, so be it. I'm not asking you to understand it. I'm just asking that you respect me and my request. I don't feel I am required to justify myself to you or other posters, I don't feel I'm required to defend my request, and I certainly don't feel I am required to suffer the judgments of others here who seem to feel
my request is incomprehensible and possibly an indictment of some sort.
Posted by fayeroe on July 10, 2009, at 21:32:09
In reply to Re: disengage, posted by henrietta on July 10, 2009, at 20:58:53
> It doesn't matter if you or various other posters don't "get it". It's not a "Just Say No" thing. It's a simple, straightforward , respectful request, and if others find it puzzling or offensive or counterintuitive, so be it. I'm not asking you to understand it. I'm just asking that you respect me and my request. I don't feel I am required to justify myself to you or other posters, I don't feel I'm required to defend my request, and I certainly don't feel I am required to suffer the judgments of others here who seem to feel
> my request is incomprehensible and possibly an indictment of some sort.I don't see your request as being negative. I understand. I always read your posts and I enjoy them. Take care, Pat
Posted by gobbledygook on July 10, 2009, at 22:53:53
In reply to Re: disengage, posted by henrietta on July 10, 2009, at 20:58:53
> It doesn't matter if you or various other posters don't "get it". It's not a "Just Say No" thing. It's a simple, straightforward , respectful request, and if others find it puzzling or offensive or counterintuitive, so be it. I'm not asking you to understand it. I'm just asking that you respect me and my request. I don't feel I am required to justify myself to you or other posters, I don't feel I'm required to defend my request, and I certainly don't feel I am required to suffer the judgments of others here who seem to feel
> my request is incomprehensible and possibly an indictment of some sort.Henrietta,
You have my respect and support, but I don't want you to leave.
I hope you reconsider. Please.Ava
Posted by rskontos on July 11, 2009, at 1:07:57
In reply to There's that name on the boards again, posted by gardenergirl on July 10, 2009, at 13:16:13
>>>Making it hard to disappear into the archives. Seems counter-intuitive for someone who states he does not want to maintain an association with this board.
gg>>>
is not considered uncivil. Don't get me wrong GG, I don't have anything against you I am just trying to understand what Bob deems civil and not civil. Because I would feel if you said this to me that it was uncivil and inviting of more conflict. So I need an explanation why You Dr. Bob apologized to her, yet you ask us to try and help things not escalate to the point of someone getting blocked yet this statement seems to cause an escalation of someone asking you a simple request but the whole thing became a conflict.
I don't get it at all. STill shaking my head.
rsk
Posted by Sigismund on July 11, 2009, at 1:22:14
In reply to Re: Will someone explain to me why this post Dr. B, posted by rskontos on July 11, 2009, at 1:07:57
There's some kind of complicated calculus there but I'm damned if I can put it into a formula.
Clearly the declining participation in Babble is important.
Perhaps colonials get an easier ride, along with the young and the vulnerable?
I was reading in the archives a post from Verne in 2004 where he asked to be blocked, so I'm not surprised there, but I simply cannot understand Twinleaf's block unless Bob takes a harder line with professionals (sometimes, but not all of the time)?
Perhaps he doesn't like people taking up issues of principle?
Posted by fayeroe on July 11, 2009, at 9:14:27
In reply to Re: Will someone explain to me why this post Dr. B » rskontos, posted by Sigismund on July 11, 2009, at 1:22:14
~~Perhaps he doesn't like people taking up issues of principle? ~~
I think you're onto something!
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2009, at 9:52:18
In reply to Re: Will someone explain to me why this post Dr. B, posted by rskontos on July 11, 2009, at 1:07:57
> Will someone explain to me why this post is not considered uncivil. Don't get me wrong GG, I don't have anything against you I am just trying to understand what Bob deems civil and not civil. Because I would feel if you said this to me that it was uncivil and inviting of more conflict.
If you think a post might be uncivil, please don't post that, the other poster might feel accused. Instead, use the "notify administrators" button below the post.
More information about posting policies is in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#help-enforce
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by rskontos on July 11, 2009, at 12:19:38
In reply to Re: inviting of more conflict » rskontos, posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2009, at 9:52:18
Dr Bob
I was asking for clarification and you gave me the guidelines. I know what the guidelines are; for three years I have followed them just fine.
I did not use a notify button because you had already posted after this post and if you were taking action you would have. And because you hoped no feelings were upset as your post indicates.. So I in an attempt to understand things better I asked. So now I feel undervalued. Because my question did not get a real answer.
I still feel it invited more conflict and you did not answer my question. But then that isn't new is it?
I am done. But thanks for the lovely time.
rsk
Posted by Tabitha on July 11, 2009, at 12:22:08
In reply to Re: inviting of more conflict » rskontos, posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2009, at 9:52:18
You've said that one reason you don't delete uncivil posts is that you want people to learn about site guidelines by seeing examples of what is considered uncivil. So wouldn't it be educational to publicly post your reasons for *not* considering some posts uncivil?
I'm not sure if folks even get a babblemail explaining the reasoning in case they Notify, and the admin decides the post isn't uncivil.
Posted by 10derHeart on July 11, 2009, at 12:35:57
In reply to Re: notify button » Dr. Bob, posted by Tabitha on July 11, 2009, at 12:22:08
> I'm not sure if folks even get a babblemail explaining the reasoning in case they Notify, and the admin decides the post isn't uncivil.
They do, as long as their Babblemail is turned on.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 11, 2009, at 13:49:24
In reply to Re: notify button » Tabitha, posted by 10derHeart on July 11, 2009, at 12:35:57
> > I'm not sure if folks even get a babblemail explaining the reasoning in case they Notify, and the admin decides the post isn't uncivil.
>
>
> They do, as long as their Babblemail is turned on.To the deputy that posted the above or Mr. Hsiung and any other deputy.
I am unsure as to some aspects in relation to the TOS here regarding the notification procedure. If you could post here answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly. The basis for this is that it has been posted here by the owner/operator that a notification will be either attended to by a post from the admin in the thread, or a reply will be sent to the one sending the notification.
A. How much time could elapse from a notification sent and a reply from the admin could you consider to be reasonable?
B. What in your opinion(s) could be the consequences, if any, that could happen if the admin does not reply in what your definition could be as to a reasonable time lapse?
C. If there are outstanding notifications, would you reply to another member's notification before you reply to those notifications that are outstanding, or at least send a message to the sender of the notification as to why you are allowing the notification to remain outstanding? If so, what could be your rationale for responding to a notification when there are outstanding notifications?
D. What does it mean from any member of the admin here when a notification is outstanding, reminders are posted, and there is no reply to the one sending the notification and no post in the thread in question and no reply as to why there is no reply?
E. Other aspects not stated.
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on July 11, 2009, at 14:14:55
In reply to Re: inviting of more conflict » rskontos, posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2009, at 9:52:18
> > Will someone explain to me why this post is not considered uncivil. Don't get me wrong GG, I don't have anything against you I am just trying to understand what Bob deems civil and not civil. Because I would feel if you said this to me that it was uncivil and inviting of more conflict.
>
> If you think a post might be uncivil, please don't post that, the other poster might feel accused. Instead, use the "notify administrators" button below the post.Dr. Bob, it would be fine with me if you made an exception in this case. I don't feel put down or accused by rskontos's question.I don't anticipate feeling either accused or put down by a civil discussion using my post as an example. In fact, I'd appreciate it, as there does seem to be a perception that I get special treatment here, and I welcome opportunities to challenge that perception.
Thanks,
gg
Posted by henrietta on July 11, 2009, at 14:30:07
In reply to Re: disengage » henrietta, posted by gobbledygook on July 10, 2009, at 22:53:53
Thank you both for your kind words.
henrietta
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 13, 2009, at 10:48:38
In reply to Re: inviting of more conflict, posted by rskontos on July 11, 2009, at 12:19:38
> Dr. Bob, it would be fine with me if you made an exception in this case. I don't feel put down or accused by rskontos's question.I don't anticipate feeling either accused or put down by a civil discussion using my post as an example. In fact, I'd appreciate it, as there does seem to be a perception that I get special treatment here, and I welcome opportunities to challenge that perception.
>
> ggOK, thanks.
> I still feel it invited more conflict
>
> rskIt's not necessarily uncivil to invite more conflict. Not agreeing with someone could be seen as inviting more conflict, but reasonable people can disagree -- and be civil at the same time.
Bob
Posted by fayeroe on July 13, 2009, at 10:53:12
In reply to Re: inviting of more conflict, posted by Dr. Bob on July 13, 2009, at 10:48:38
> > Dr. Bob, it would be fine with me if you made an exception in this case. I don't feel put down or accused by rskontos's question.I don't anticipate feeling either accused or put down by a civil discussion using my post as an example. In fact, I'd appreciate it, as there does seem to be a perception that I get special treatment here, and I welcome opportunities to challenge that perception.
> >
> > gg
>
> OK, thanks.
>
> > I still feel it invited more conflict
> >
> > rsk
>
> It's not necessarily uncivil to invite more conflict. Not agreeing with someone could be seen as inviting more conflict, but reasonable people can disagree -- and be civil at the same time.
>
> BobI thought conflict was uncivil here.
Posted by Dinah on July 13, 2009, at 11:44:45
In reply to Re: inviting of more conflict, posted by fayeroe on July 13, 2009, at 10:53:12
> I thought conflict was uncivil here.
The administrative board does not seem to be evidence of conflict being against site rules.
Anger and disagreement can be expressed without being uncivil. They can even be expressed with incredible civility and much respect. The expression of anger and disagreement can be made with so much respect that they enhance understanding and strengthen a relationship instead of the opposite.
Posted by henrietta on July 13, 2009, at 19:24:53
In reply to Re: inviting of more conflict, posted by Dr. Bob on July 13, 2009, at 10:48:38
It's a well-known theory, used by tabloids, Hollywood types, tv competition cooking shows, reality tv, , the publishing industry, every sleazy endeavor you can imagine, that conflict sells. I've long suspected that Bob adheres to this perception of the benefits of permitting and even fanning conflict ---unless it hits too close to home, in which case, there's the handy block. BUT, of course, blocks cause a great increase in traffic to this site, they 're very useful in resuscitating sluggish traffic. They're wonderful for sales. Now, that's something I can RESPECT.
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.