![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 136 to 160 of 193. Go back in thread:
Posted by Elle2021 on January 9, 2004, at 15:22:35
In reply to Re: please be civil SLS., posted by stjames on January 9, 2004, at 15:09:55
> AND, when has Dr Bob ever shown consern for what we think about specific blocks.
Not often.
Elle
Posted by SLS on January 9, 2004, at 15:55:13
In reply to Re: please be civil SLS., posted by stjames on January 9, 2004, at 14:29:44
> > Yes Dr. Bob is only human, and is entitled to mistakes. In Larry's case, (as in many others) if he'd honestly believed he'd made a mistake it would have been easy enough to rescind his ever lengthening blocks and thus far he has refused to do so.
> Sorry, that does not wash with me. If he cannot police the board do to time constraits (which is totally understandable) then he should allow others to take a greater roal in this than they are at present.
>
> Basically, saying "I am real busy, sorry I missed it" is a cop out once it happens several times.
>
> This situation (and us) deserve a solution and not an automatic response.
I'm glad this thread is continuing.James, given the limitations of the moderator, what would you like to see happen?
- Scott
Posted by stjames on January 9, 2004, at 16:08:02
In reply to Re: please be civil SLS., posted by Elle2021 on January 9, 2004, at 15:21:56
> I think that some would defend you by saying that you were only trying to make a point, and that a block would be unfair. This would just make Bob appear to be even more unfair than some people are trying to make him appear.
When the words are mean the reason behind them matters not. That is, at least, what Dr Bob would say.
Posted by Dinah on January 9, 2004, at 16:43:23
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dinah, posted by mair on January 9, 2004, at 11:44:49
I'm afraid I was upset this morning, over unrelated issues, and misread your post a bit.
I misread "would be given as wider or even wider berth" as meaning you thought I had been uncivil and had been given wide berth. Upon rereading it, I can see that that is not what you said. I still disagree in concept. I think if anything Dr. Bob would expect me to be extra civil, although I must confess that that may be just my projection. Dr. Bob has made it clear that I am just a regular poster, and have no special responsibilities in that regard.
I also read your last paragraph as an admonishment to me, and I sincerely apologize if it wasn't meant that way. As I said, I wasn't at my best when I read or replied.
Posted by Dinah on January 9, 2004, at 16:45:36
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dinah, posted by SLS on January 9, 2004, at 12:25:08
Scott, you make me want to read the meds board more often to get to know you better. You have been an oasis of calm on this thread, and I really appreciate it, as well as your kind words.
Posted by Elle2021 on January 9, 2004, at 16:53:50
In reply to Re: please be civil SLS., posted by stjames on January 9, 2004, at 16:08:02
> When the words are mean the reason behind them matters not. That is, at least, what Dr Bob would say.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that. Can you clarify?
Elle
Posted by stjames on January 9, 2004, at 16:58:45
In reply to Re: please be civil SLS. » stjames, posted by Elle2021 on January 9, 2004, at 16:53:50
> > When the words are mean the reason behind them matters not. That is, at least, what Dr Bob would say.
>
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that. Can you clarify?
> Elle
>Uncivil is uncivil, & Dr Bob has never considered
mitigating factors. Very clinical.
Posted by Jai Narayan on January 9, 2004, at 19:37:01
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Jai Narayan, posted by sb417 on January 8, 2004, at 0:11:19
> Hello Jai. I have often wondered about that, too. I think it is much better to say something like, "I took that medicine, and I took x number of milligrams," or "I've read that product xyz is excellent for this condition. It has helped me (or it hasn't helped me)." I think it would be better to put things in terms of one's own experience or to post literature references rather than to pose as a physician. Most REAL physicians probably know better than to prescribe over the Internet to strangers! They WOULD be sued!
>
Thank you for responding and being real. I have felt pretty alone in this posting. I think the reality is the reality....not 2 ways about it. but thank you. I really appreciate your resonse. I am in awe of anyone who would post against the common thread. thanks.
Posted by Karen_kay on January 9, 2004, at 19:54:31
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks, posted by Jai Narayan on January 9, 2004, at 19:37:01
I too am in awe of someone who continues to post against the common thread to state their opinion. You take quite a bit of flack for doing that Jai! I support you, and will continue!
I agree that it's not in the best interest to direct someone as to which medications or dose is effective. It is quite appropriate to state which has been effective for "you."
With that I'm done with this one,
Karen
Posted by Elle2021 on January 10, 2004, at 0:46:09
In reply to Re: please be civil SLS., posted by stjames on January 9, 2004, at 16:58:45
>
> Uncivil is uncivil, & Dr Bob has never considered
> mitigating factors. Very clinical.I understand now. There was some posting not long ago about whether he should start trying to differentiate between sarcasm and purposefully hurtful remarks.
Elle
Posted by mair on January 10, 2004, at 10:43:32
In reply to Re: I apologize » mair, posted by Dinah on January 9, 2004, at 16:43:23
Dinah
It seems pretty strange to have you apologizing to me - I think the apology should be from me to you.
Of course I know that you expect Bob to treat you the same as any other poster and I would never think that you would appeal to him for special treatment. But I do think some posters get away with civility lapses (a crummy term but I can't think of a better one) more easily than others and I don't think that some of the examples of this are necessarily sinister on Bob's part. One of his jobs is to put out forest fires. I think when he's pressed for time and can't really go through all of the posts, he gets drawn to messages written by posters who've, in his mind, created problems before. Let's face it, if he needs to spot trouble quickly, he's probably not going to spend alot of time reading your posts, or Scott's, or Noa's or probably mine for that matter. So when some people feel they've been unfairly targeted for the types of statements which might be overlooked if made by you, they are probably right. I think once you've crossed Bob a time or two, your leash gets shorter because he's more apt to jump on something you've written much more quickly. So I guess that although there are time's when he's deliberately given preferential treatment to certain posters, more frequently the appearance of a double standard arises not from preferential treatment, but more from the way it seems he goes after people who've run afoul of him before. And because of his system of doubling up on block times, his sanctioning of someone like Larry or zen, seems way out of proportion to their civility breaches. I was particularly upset about zen not because I necessarily thought Bob should ignore her outburst, but more because a 6 month ban seems so harsh. I know there are people here who rely on her contributions and her most recent outburst notwithstanding, I think she had been making a sincere attempt to stick around for awhile after her last block ....and I know her well enough to know she's been having a difficult time lately and could benefit from being able to stay in contact with posters here.
As to the other stuff (whether I was accusing you of incivility), any comment I might make which could even remotely be construed as that (a criticism I mean) should have been made off the Board in an email. I'll try to send you one soon to explain what I meant.
I'm sorry you had a bad day yesterday. I hope things are looking up.
Mair
Posted by Dinah on January 10, 2004, at 11:13:14
In reply to Re: I apologize » Dinah, posted by mair on January 10, 2004, at 10:43:32
> As to the other stuff (whether I was accusing you of incivility), any comment I might make which could even remotely be construed as that (a criticism I mean) should have been made off the Board in an email. I'll try to send you one soon to explain what I meant.
>There's no need to do that again, Mair.
Really.
I'm sure that you mean well, and I realize that you read my posts differently than I intend them. But perhaps it's best just to agree to disagree.
And I don't have therapy again till Tuesday.
Dinah
Posted by Dinah on January 10, 2004, at 12:26:09
In reply to Re: I apologize, posted by Dinah on January 10, 2004, at 11:13:14
Since I'm feeling a bit defensive right now about being considered uncivil, and since jumping to conclusions would be considered uncivil.
> As to the other stuff (whether I was accusing you of incivility), any comment I might make which could even remotely be construed as that (a criticism I mean) should have been made off the Board in an email. I'll try to send you one soon to explain what I meant.
>There's no need to do that again, Mair.
Really.
I'm sure that you mean well, and I realize <from what you said in your other email to me> that you read my posts differently than I intend them. But perhaps it's best just to agree to disagree.
And I don't have therapy again till Tuesday.
Dinah
Posted by mair on January 10, 2004, at 13:02:17
In reply to Re: An OCD clarification, posted by Dinah on January 10, 2004, at 12:26:09
I think what you're saying is that you don't want me to try to explain everything and make things worse. That's perfectly legit - I don't want to make things worse either.
Take care
Mair (hailing from a place where the temperature was -24 early this morning)
Posted by Dinah on January 10, 2004, at 13:06:21
In reply to Re: An OCD clarification » Dinah, posted by mair on January 10, 2004, at 13:02:17
Posted by shar on January 10, 2004, at 20:45:48
In reply to Re: I apologize » Dinah, posted by mair on January 10, 2004, at 10:43:32
>
> But I do think some posters get away with civility lapses (a crummy term but I can't think of a better one) more easily than others and I don't think that some of the examples of this are necessarily sinister on Bob's part. One of his jobs is to put out forest fires. I think when he's pressed for time and can't really go through all of the posts, he gets drawn to messages written by posters who've, in his mind, created problems before. Let's face it, if he needs to spot trouble quickly, he's probably not going to spend alot of time reading your posts, or Scott's, or Noa's or probably mine for that matter..................Exactly. I was thinking about that on the way home from the grocery store. If he is tired or time-limited he's going to look at certain posters before certain others.
>So when some people feel they've been unfairly targeted for the types of statements which might be overlooked if made by you, they are probably right. I think once you've crossed Bob a time or two, your leash gets shorter because he's more apt to jump on something you've written much more quickly.
.........Exactly.
>So I guess that although there are time's when he's deliberately given preferential treatment to certain posters, more frequently the appearance of a double standard arises not from preferential treatment, but more from the way it seems he goes after people who've run afoul of him before. And because of his system of doubling up on block times, his sanctioning of someone like Larry or zen, seems way out of proportion to their civility breaches.
............agreed again.
>I was particularly upset about zen...
.............me, too
>I know there are people here who rely on her contributions and her most recent outburst notwithstanding, I think she had been making a sincere attempt to stick around for awhile after her last block ....and I know her well enough to know she's been having a difficult time lately and could benefit from being able to stay in contact with posters here.
>
...........yet another point agreed upon! Which is why I believe there should be caps on blocks.Thanks, Mair, for use of your little gray cells in a way that would not come together for me.
Shar
Posted by Ron Hill on January 10, 2004, at 21:30:09
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by stjames on January 8, 2004, at 23:11:04
> > Wow, Dr. Bob. If I had a bunch of PBC's on my record, and made that statement, I'd pretty much expect a block. I kind of think I'd get one too....
> >
> > <Dinah>> Yep, some of us get "special" treatment.
> I feel I have gotten special treatment for some time. So I selected my subject with care, to prove
> my point. If you did not like it, why are not you asking why I was not blocked ?
>
> <James>
----------------------------------------Dear James and Dr. Bob:
James, I have great respect for you because of your post. Your candor and honesty are refreshing. Like you, I too have noticed that you have received special treatment for some time. In the past, I have restrained myself from pointing this out because I did not want to run the risk of hurting your feelings (and I still don’t want to hurt you). However, now that you yourself have publicly announced your belief that Bob is (and has been) giving you special treatment, I would like to take this opportunity to specifically document the special treatment that Bob has been giving you (either consciously or unconsciously).
Below, I have provided the links to as many of your PBC’s and blocks as I could find. Finding them is no easy task for a couple of reasons. First, the google and PB search functions on this site leave a lot to be desired. Second, you have used several names while posting at PB including (but perhaps not limited to): saintjames, oracle, saint james, and stjames. I don’t know if I found all of your PBC’s and blocks, but I did my best. I have made every attempt possible to remain unbiased in conducting the archive search. For example, I have included each and every one of the PBC’s and blocks that I found (I did not selectively omit any of them).
Further, I wish that I could also have found (and listed) the posts you wrote that, in my opinion, should have received a PBC or a block, but instead were given passes by Dr. Bob. I know said posts are in the archives because I remember thinking to myself at the time that they deserved either a PBC or block. However, finding them in the archives is too unwieldy. Therefore, I will use only your PBC’s and blocks to make my point. And my sole point in this post is to present data to Dr. Bob which demonstrate that he is inconsistent in the implementation of his rules on this site (even though he must surely already realize this).
Dr. Bob, please click on each of the following links:
Stjames’ PBC’shttp://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20010315/msgs/1265.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010731/msgs/72734.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20011222/msgs/88581.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020731/msgs/114584.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020914/msgs/119915.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030221/msgs/203634.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030221/msgs/204384.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20030520/msgs/228552.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20030619/msgs/236532.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20030908/msgs/264578.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20031015/msgs/271297.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031120/msgs/282236.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031120/msgs/297957.html
Stjames’ Blockshttp://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020103/msgs/89108.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20021217/msgs/132533.html
Dr. Bob, based on the data provided above (which covers the time period from May 2001 until present), James has received at least 13 PBC’s and has been blocked at least twice. Also, as a subset of these data, please note that in the past year, you issued eight PBC’s to James and yet ZERO, ZIP, NO block was issued.So let me see if I’ve got this right. James skated through the past year without a block in spite of the fact that he: 1) has a history of repeated PBC’s in prior years; 2) has a history of being blocked in prior years; and 3) has received eight PBC’s during the twelve month period in question. And yet, at the same time, you aggressively use your multiplier factor when it comes to blocking other posters. Do you see the inconsistency?
In particular, I am VERY upset that you PBC’ed Larry Hoover while he was bending over backwards trying to be polite to maxx. And to add insult to injury, you blocked Larry for two weeks for simply telling you the truth when he said:
> claims of "wiping hardware" and "deep destruction" are more than just simple opinion. They are provocative and threatening.
< http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031120/msgs/296967.html >How can Larry’s post warrant a two-week block and yet, at the same time, none of James’ eight PBC’ed posts in the past twelve months rise to the level of a block? Do you see the inconsistenty?
In protest to Larry’s unfair PBC and two week block, I will not post further until his block is over. At the end of Larry’s block I will make a decision whether to stay or leave (i.e.; on a long-term basis). The thing is, I hate to leave because PB is a very helpful site; and people helping people is a great thing. But, your inconsistency in the enforcement of your site rules drives us NUTS!! Can’t you see that? Be fair for goodness sake! And if you don’t have the time required to monitor the site adequately by yourself, then let go of your control issues and let others help you.
My leaving this site will not be all that great of a loss to the PB e-community. But to lose Larry is HUGE! I hope that he graciously gives you another chance and returns after his block.
-- Ron
Posted by Dinah on January 10, 2004, at 21:39:28
In reply to Re: Inconsistencies In Site Moderation » Dr. Bob » stjames, posted by Ron Hill on January 10, 2004, at 21:30:09
Apparently Dr. Bob took St. James point to heart.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20030908/msgs/299104.html
Posted by Dinah on January 10, 2004, at 21:40:32
In reply to Re: Inconsistencies In Site Moderation, posted by Dinah on January 10, 2004, at 21:39:28
And by the way, I would find that your absence was a great loss to the site. And hope, perhaps selfishly, that you decide to stay.
And that Lar decides to stay.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2004, at 22:16:05
In reply to Re: Inconsistencies In Site Moderation » Dr. Bob » stjames, posted by Ron Hill on January 10, 2004, at 21:30:09
> based on the data provided above (which covers the time period from May 2001 until present), James has received at least 13 PBC’s and has been blocked at least twice.
>
> How can Larry’s post warrant a two-week block and yet, at the same time, none of James’ eight PBC’ed posts in the past twelve months rise to the level of a block? Do you see the inconsistenty?I can see how it might seem inconsistent. But you haven't presented comparable data on Larry (maybe because it wouldn't be civil), and I don't see it as a simply numerical issue, anyway.
This isn't always easy, and I do my best, but I know I'm not perfect...
Bob
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 11, 2004, at 7:14:43
In reply to Re: Inconsistencies In Site Moderation, posted by Dinah on January 10, 2004, at 21:39:28
When takiing everything else he has said into account, its quite laughable that he get blocked for that post! I don't understand how he was putting christianity down by point out that someone should do some reading up, when the thread was about christianity and paganism.
Nikki
Posted by Dinah on January 11, 2004, at 9:14:09
In reply to Re: Inconsistencies In Site Moderation » Dinah, posted by NikkiT2 on January 11, 2004, at 7:14:43
I was waiting for most of that thread to get moved to Social. But I'm not reading things very clearly the last few days from stress and tiredness so I might have missed how it was supportive to religion.
Posted by SLS on January 11, 2004, at 9:50:17
In reply to Re: Inconsistencies In Site Moderation, posted by Dinah on January 10, 2004, at 21:39:28
> Apparently Dr. Bob took St. James point to heart.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20030908/msgs/299104.html
The problem here has nothing to do with favoritism. It never has.IMHO (in my hopeful opinion)
If anything, the problem lies in the attempt of the moderator to exercise his policy with an exacting precision, hoping to attain perfect objectivity and thus perfect impartiallity. It is not working.
I remain purposefully naive.
"When the noble idea of the one becomes the shared goal of the many, thus are mountains moved."
- Scott
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 11, 2004, at 10:55:04
In reply to Re: Inconsistencies In Site Moderation » NikkiT2, posted by Dinah on January 11, 2004, at 9:14:09
I agree that the post wasn't supportive to christianity (though maybe towards paganism, so "not supportive to religion" is maybe too wide a cover), but I don't think it was unsupportive. Maybe had stjames said that "xxx happened, and that makes christians nasty" I could understand better, but simply pointing out that the reader might like to read up further on a subject I don't see as un-supportive.
But, I guess it could also depend on your religious point of view - I've upset many a christian by saying that I didn't believe god exists!
Nikki x
Posted by tealady on January 13, 2004, at 6:35:03
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks, posted by Jai Narayan on January 7, 2004, at 23:31:03
> > Do you feel you stayed within the bounds of the civility guidelines?
> <Dear poster, I have stated what I thought was going on for a while. I was worried about the legal ramifications about Larry's postings.Is that so bad to question?
> I think it is not.
> To question is not that same as to make statements. Do you not agree?
>
No..DON'T AGREE To question anyone's posts just after they have been blocked so they cannot reply for themselves is not something I would agree with.To question is fine..so why didn't you question Lar at the time of his postings since you were so concerned about the legal ramifications of them.
You said,
"I too thought he was a wonderful and thoughtful person ..
OK, so why didn't you question his postings then at that time??? and directly question him and express your concerns?
I'm assuming here you do have some knowledge of the legal ramfications and were concerned about someone you thought was "wonderful and thoughtful"I have been hurt and assaulted by his attitudes and the people who think Larry " can do no wrong".
I do not know to whom you are referring to here..but speaking for myself, I assure you I have no illusions that anyone is perfect.
I'm not even going to comment on your use of the word ASSAULTED
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.