![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 79 to 103 of 222. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 31, 2004, at 13:19:25
In reply to re: Lar's block, posted by lil' jimi on May 31, 2004, at 3:26:58
> the quality and magnitude of the negative impact on babble caused by this poster’s actions
> one, babble needed to be protected from
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. The last time you were blocked, it was for 1 week, so this time, I'm making it for 2.
If you have any questions or comments about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
or email me, or post a follow-up here after your block is over.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Sabina on June 1, 2004, at 15:12:15
In reply to re: blocked for 2 weeks » lil' jimi, posted by Dr. Bob on May 31, 2004, at 13:19:25
I'm really disappointed that Jim wasn't given the opportunity of a "Please be civil" instead of being summarily blocked, particularly since he expressed how it was "extremely complicated emotionally" for him to write the post in the first place. If you know him at all, you know he's the sweetest guy in the world who would never post anything wrong intentionally. I know, I know, you say you don't go by intent. I've seen a lot of people say a lot of things here; but it is my opinion that the courtesy of a "Please rephrase" would not have gone amiss in this case.
I'm even more disappointed that none of his questions and concerns about Larry's block which resulted in this two week break have been addressed. I think he deserves at least that much for offering so much time and concern for our friend Larry and for speaking openly about a topic that is still very painful for some people here.
I'll trust that you're still in the process of drafting a well thought out response to Jim's direct questions, Dr. Bob?
Posted by justyourlaugh on June 1, 2004, at 17:51:18
In reply to re: blocked for 2 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Sabina on June 1, 2004, at 15:12:15
"gone amiss" ..
i was wondering if you thought that other posters were offended or ignoring dr bob's "please rephrase"..
i think it is important for posters not to feel pressured at any time..
dr bob is the "umpire"
we can protest and replay..but he is the one that puts us in the box...right or wrong he had the stripes...
i do not want to imagine the "choas" if there were no blocks...
jyl
Posted by Sabina on June 2, 2004, at 10:13:01
In reply to re: blocked for 2 weeks » Sabina, posted by justyourlaugh on June 1, 2004, at 17:51:18
Your post seems to be bringing points that I was never broaching or contesting, which I found more than a bit confusing. Obviously, I did not explain myself clearly enough, for which I apologize. Hopefully, Dr. Bob will be able to make some sense out of it. I was actually posting to him about a very specific issue; but since you directed a reply to me, I will do my best to answer you.
> "gone amiss" ..
> i was wondering if you thought that other posters were offended or ignoring dr. bob's "please rephrase"..I’m not sure why you chose to include this one fragment from my original post out of context. I’m not certain if you fully took it's meaning as I intended or how it refers to your next sentence. Actually, I don't know what the next sentence means at all. I suppose I wasn't aware of any "other posters" who may potentially be offended by or ignoring a "please rephrase" request. I must have missed something here; but please don't enlighten me!
Pertinent sidebar: 'Cause see, I really don't want to go around and around on this. I was only trying to post to Dr. Bob out of frustration that Jim got blocked and never even got the courtesy of having his direct questions to Dr. Bob answered. It was like, Larry could no longer ask questions, so Jim did. Now Jim's gone, and I’m asking questions. Like...when's Dr. Bob going to answer Jim's questions? :-)
> i think it is important for posters not to feel pressured at any time..
Of course. I don't believe I advocated otherwise anywhere in my post.
> dr. bob is the "umpire"
Quite right, and precisely why I was writing to him to air my grievances.
> we can protest and replay..but he is the one that puts us in the box...right or wrong he had the stripes...
Please see my previous comment.
> i do not want to imagine the "chaos" if there were no blocks...
I was not protesting any block whatsoever. What I *did* say was that posters are commonly given PBC's and "please rephrase" options instead of being summarily blocked, as happened to Jim. I feel that it would not have gone amiss for him to have been given this opportunity as well.
Again, I apologize for my shortcomings in explaining myself sufficiently. I hope this helps. On a personal note, I hope you are doing better today.
Posted by fayeroe on June 3, 2004, at 7:00:22
In reply to re: blocked for 2 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Sabina on June 1, 2004, at 15:12:15
Sabina, I agree with you. I know Jim and he has a huge heart and I believe that he was just trying to get answers while hoping that things would improve. It seems that if you question things (which is what this board is for) you're very likely going to be punished. But if you scrape and bow, you're in like flynn..........That's why I never post on administration but I HAD to say something about Jim. xoxox to Jim!!!
Posted by spoc on June 3, 2004, at 11:25:14
In reply to re: blocked for 2 weeks » Sabina, posted by fayeroe on June 3, 2004, at 7:00:22
...my own participation was based on thinking this could all be a positive thing... And, that something which could reasonably be interpreted as a signal had been given that perhaps it was the right time at last to have these discussions again... But no input or feedback from where it matters was forthcoming, so I guess maybe that time hadn't come after all...
This is draining stuff and has all been done before, but I had thought maybe this time it was to be different and worth it. However, everything is still unacknowledged and in the dark (as may be the actual process that went into whatever verdict is issued in the primary case at hand)... I know many don't like to see these discussions and I wouldn't have wanted to do it for naught, if it was guaranteed to go the way of all the others...
If the validation of a dialogue of some type had been afforded, we might not just look like rebels without a cause posting over here... I thought it had been more or less *conceded* this time that there probably *was* a cause...
But it's so dark in here, I feel kind of uneasy and maybe a little ill over having risked/bothered to come out on this matter, only for us to receive no input or answers or feedback... which is tantamount to negative (behavior stopping) feedback. I think we did have good reason to believe a discussion was being encouraged and might be responded to ... Now I just feel exposed and somehow embarrassed.
But underneath it all I do know that this is valid and that to have at least tried to exercise a voice over very fundamental humanistic principles is better and healthier than not to have, so I have to fight the guilt I am prone to when the lesson I could learn from it would be regressive and faulty.
I get confused when a discussion like this is addressed with the statement that having punishments available is good and necessary, because I don't think anyone is saying otherwise, that there shouldn't be any. I don't see where it addresses what's at hand. It's just being said that one size does not fit all; the punishment should fit the 'crime' (if it's to teach positive conflict resolution and result in "improved" posters); and that consistency and the fate of individuals does matter. And that objections to improvement based on time/assistance factors and possible complications like biases surely *can* be worked out and overcome. Without requiring unreasonable additional resources or effort.
It's true that we are all free to go elsewhere at any time for any reason. But as important as positivity, good logic, education and constructive solutions are supposed to be to the very essence and reason for existence of this place, it's hard to believe that the bottom-line answer would be given that people should just leave rather than ask for things to be fair and make sense. In general, I thought all the concerns about supportiveness and civility were supposed to be teaching us that doing the best/right thing whenever possible is the best/right thing to do...
This place is *indeed* a great resource and I know everyone is grateful for that, but isn't it also more or less someone's current life work that we are contributing to, not just a service? Towards that, any reasonable improvements would seem like they'd be a positive thing on both ends. At what cost and based on what principles the shiny surface was achieved matters too...
This site is actually a very fascinating human interest story -- I'd almost be surprised if an outside source doesn't see the potential for a documentary or book about it someday. So we might as well all put on our Sunday finest and do things as right as possible!
Well, I have contributed some (probably old) suggestions, and was not out of others, nor the commitment to helping iron out logistical wrinkles. But given no reason to think this could be any different than all the other threads like this (or seen as the constructive interaction it could have been), I guess I (finally?) no longer see the point...
Posted by fayeroe on June 3, 2004, at 11:50:50
In reply to re: blocked for 2 weeks, posted by spoc on June 3, 2004, at 11:25:14
This place is *indeed* a great resource and I know everyone is grateful for that, but isn't it also more or less someone's current life work that we are contributing to, not just a service? Towards that, any reasonable improvements would seem like they'd be a positive thing on both ends. At what cost and based on what principles the shiny surface was achieved matters too...
AMEN!!!!!! Thanks for the reminder that this is a "research project" for the good doctor. And I am also in agreement with everything else you said. I've gone out on a limb before and ended up feeling like the village idiot when the core problem was NEVER addressed.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 3, 2004, at 16:19:34
In reply to re: blocked for 2 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Sabina on June 1, 2004, at 15:12:15
> I'm even more disappointed that none of his questions and concerns about Larry's block which resulted in this two week break have been addressed.
Sorry, could you repeat the questions? Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 3, 2004, at 16:22:37
In reply to re: blocked for 2 weeks » Sabina, posted by justyourlaugh on June 1, 2004, at 17:51:18
> i was wondering if you thought that other posters were ... ignoring dr bob's "please rephrase"...
I'm not sure what you had in mind, but that did remind me of:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040527/msgs/351378.html
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by justyourlaugh on June 3, 2004, at 17:48:56
In reply to re: please rephrase » justyourlaugh, posted by Dr. Bob on June 3, 2004, at 16:22:37
sorry ,
sometimes even i do not know what i am talking about..
?
jyl
Posted by Sabina on June 3, 2004, at 18:45:44
In reply to re: questions about Larry's block, posted by Dr. Bob on June 3, 2004, at 16:19:34
> > I'm even more disappointed that none of his questions and concerns about Larry's block which resulted in this two week break have been addressed.
>
> Sorry, could you repeat the questions? Thanks,
>
> BobThe questions are in the latter part of Jim's post that resulted in his block. I can only assume that you read the entire thing, since you are the one who found phrases in it to be uncivil. If not, here's a link:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040527/msgs/352296.html
Hopefully, your answers will include the information for which we've all been waiting - whether or not you plan to reduce Larry's block and when is he welcome back. Unless your post on the 28th of May "How about if I reduce his block from 6 to 4 weeks?" was some sort of an announcement and I just didn't get it. I haven't invested my time and energy in this thread for fun or because I like to stir things up, but I am becoming quite frustrated at the way things have (not) progressed in this matter. There's got to be a way to deal with this sort of thing in future instead of all this 'round and 'round, waiting, and still nothing seems to be resolved.
I'll say thanks and be quiet now...if you actually answer the questions and help us get this situation resolved, that is. ;-)
Posted by spoc on June 3, 2004, at 20:30:47
In reply to re: questions about Larry's block » Dr. Bob, posted by Sabina on June 3, 2004, at 18:45:44
Posted by chicklet on June 3, 2004, at 20:54:50
In reply to re: questions about Larry's block, posted by Dr. Bob on June 3, 2004, at 16:19:34
>>>> Sorry, could you repeat the questions? Thanks, Bob
That WAS a joke, right?
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 4, 2004, at 2:24:51
In reply to re: questions about Larry's block » Dr. Bob, posted by Sabina on June 3, 2004, at 18:45:44
> The questions are in the latter part of Jim's post that resulted in his block. I can only assume that you read the entire thing, since you are the one who found phrases in it to be uncivil.
I don't always read every line of every post, especially if it isn't civil...
> Hopefully, your answers will include the information for which we've all been waiting - whether or not you plan to reduce Larry's block and when is he welcome back... There's got to be a way to deal with this sort of thing in future instead of all this 'round and 'round, waiting, and still nothing seems to be resolved.
Sorry about the uncertainty, but I'd like to give this some more time, in case there's more discussion on this thread or by email. Thanks for your patience,
Bob
Posted by chicklet on June 4, 2004, at 3:45:57
In reply to re: questions about Larry's block, posted by Dr. Bob on June 4, 2004, at 2:24:51
>>>>> I don't always read every line of every post, especially if it isn't civil...
?
I've cut and pasted it for you, Dr. Bob. Could you please read it thoroughly so that we can come to some agreement here?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by lil' jimi on May 31, 2004, at 3:26:58In reply to re: Lar's block, posted by gabbix2 on May 30, 2004, at 16:32:20
this has come to me slowly here ... very slowly
it seems to me we have peculiarly inverse symmetry being dealt to us with this issue:
on the first hand
we had an incident where dr. bob had chosen to reduce a poster’s block without any mention to babble posters ... ... this had specific consequences for many posters, myself and larry included ... these consequences were negative personal impacts for myself and for lar ... ... ... my attempts to post about these inadequacies failed to meet the standards of civility and i was banned ... posting about it now is extremely complicated emotionally for me ... ... the fallout from that incident raised a significant hue and cry about administration’s stealth process for reducing her block ... ... ... dr. bob allowed as he would consider informing the babble posting public before exercising his discretion by reducing a blocked person’s sentence ...the particulars of that poster’s block; the quality and magnitude of the negative impact on babble caused by this poster’s actions, make for the sharpest contrast imaginable to lar’s block ...
this, when added to larry’s instrumental contributions to the discussion in the first incident ... about the inequity of not informing the babble community ... come to mind with fresh relevance now ... ... because it was larry who insisted that we should have an open process when the reduction of a block is being considered ... larry championed this innovation more than anyone ... ...
you see dr. bob not only allowed this poster to have her block reduced ... ... he was complicit in her returning to babble with a “new” identity with which to perpetrate her masquerade ... ... and we were told that this was indulged because dr. bob felt she was going to be supportive and could make a positive contribution ... ... there was some debate about this to say the least ... ... i tried to make my contributions to it ... ...
on the scale of the magnitude of possible malignancy of actions for which a poster could be blocked, where 10 would be the worst and a zero would not be blocked ... ... lar was a one half on his worst day ... ... as for this other poster, our rules of civility prohibit me saying any more under threat of i forget how many weeks of ban which hang over my head from my past crimes ... ... every one of which was committed under the influence of this particular issue/case ... ...
on the second hand,
we find
one of the most beneficial of babble posters who was/has been consistently and genuinely supportive in exceptionally useful ways for untold large numbers of posters and readers,
who i first got to know when he came to my rescue when i was panicked out of my wits by our subject on the first hand (see above),
who was the major force and voice of reason in addressing the inequities of dr. bob’s actions allowing her to return unannounced ... ...
who had barely rubbed the rules rough at all ... ... and then, ONLY for the protective benefit of those who someone was trying to panic ...
was banned for 6 weeks
for being in violation of a technique of language construction ... ... for which he was not afforded the graciousness of a commonly used “please rephrase” ... or any gentler warning or guidance or support ... ... only summarily shown the you-are-blocked exit, thank you very much ... ...if the potential for being supportive is still a criterion for reducing a block as dr. bob said it was for this other person, then larry has long ago earned a lifetime immunity from blocks ... ... or at the very very least to have this block eliminated ...
(with some plausible explanation for the leniency given to others, but which larry has to go through this subjugation to be considered for, maybe?)
i am trying to point out the day and night differences between these incidents and the posters involved
... besides being posters, there are no salient parallels ... ...
one, babble needed to be protected from ... ...
the other, babble needs the protection of.and that lar fomented and instigated having ban reductions done openly .... .... ....
seems ironic ... feels ironic
.... this inversion of things in this peculiar reversed symmetry
... ... it feels even odder to me ... ...
... how must it feel to larry? ...
... (what must he be sending to dr. bob, as he must be reading all of this with the special interest of those who have been judged and sit outside while their judgment is discussed?)this near perfect symmetry of what might pass for poetic justice to some gives off too much of the aroma of contrivance ... ... you know the badly written scripts in the movies where in protagonist suffers his comeuppance as the reversal of his situation has the shoe on the other foot? .. ... ... is it hard to imagine that there could be a possibility of trumped up charges brought on order to perpetrate such a deliberate plot twist?
perhaps only i, in my weakened, unrecovered mental state would see any of these things ... ...
but what force would free my fragile friends from feeling that these fragments fit the form of such an easily imaginable malice?
blocks have an essential role for babble: not an issue.
reducing blocks is not an issue because it has been done, at least once that we know of.
discussing reducing blocks is not an issue because we are doing that now.the only issue is larry’s block:
why did you propose to reduce larry’s block, dr. bob?
what point did larry make in his emails to you that moved you to consider reducing his block?
shouldn’t we be discussing that (whatever it is) if we are expected to make a contribution to your personal deliberations about larry’s fate?
was it merely the request to reduce his block that made you broach this issue here?
should we be discussing the particulars of your decision to ban larry?
are we to search out the inadequacies of the process you employed for banning larry?what do you feel would be worthwhile to have discussed here about reducing larry’s ban?
are we just going through the motions here? merely paying lip service to the notion of having this discussion?
is this just a matter of form?how is discussing reducing larry’s ban meaningfully useful to anyone?
it can not be because anyone has reason to fear lar is going to skulk into babble under some other guise to garner the ill-gotten confidence of unsuspecting posters and have them at the disadvantage ... ... this is where we experience the absurdity of the attempt to reverse the circumstances from the first hand ... ... we could put that shoe on the other foot, but it does not fit ... ...who could need to be protected from larry?
if this discussion were to be able to help get larry’s ban reduced (eliminated is too much, right? ... uh, like why?) surely that should be as good as done ...
but, independent of this or any other discussion, reducing or eliminating lar’s ban is solely up to you, of course, dr. bob, so that by any objective measuring, what we write now can hardly matter ... ...i do find this ironic element here deeply perplexing ... .... .... ...
has this been too long? ... sorry ... ... i am just staring to get warmed up here ...
take care,
~ jim~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>> Sorry about the uncertainty, but I'd like to give this some more time, in case there's more discussion on this thread or by email. Thanks for your patience,
Bob-it has been over a week since the possibility of a shorter block for Larry was mentioned. What are you waiting for exactly? Is it something specific? I believe that if there was to be more discussion on this thread it would have occurred by now. I also think that with the feedback many posters have provided here- and in emails to you--ample time has passed for an agreement. Why the uncertainty?
If you're just not sure and you feel as if you want to read things over, that's fine. But waiting a while isn't going to get us any closer to a decision.
Ya know?
Kar
Posted by fayeroe on June 4, 2004, at 7:35:39
In reply to re: questions about Larry's block, posted by Dr. Bob on June 4, 2004, at 2:24:51
I don't see how you can not read the entire post when you're PCBing or BLOCKING someone. Am I out of line if I say that reeks with "head in the sandism"? Either you're running this place or you're not. Dr. Bob, I'm a lot older than you and I know that acting like there's no elephant in my front room won't make him go away. I've learned that and so much more while working with people. Being present, totally, is what is reassuring to people who depend upon you for support. I can say for sure that Jim is always present for the people who need him. I just can't believe that you didn't read the entire post. You aren't going to catch anything. I've found that I always learn something valuable in tough situations. This whole situation, starting with Larry's block, is very distressing and more than a little frustating. Pat
Posted by Sabina on June 4, 2004, at 8:10:09
In reply to re: questions about Larry's block, posted by Dr. Bob on June 4, 2004, at 2:24:51
>> I don't always read every line of every post, especially if it isn't civil...
Wow. That one knocked the wind out of me.
What I've hear you saying, if you'll allow me some latitude to paraphrase, is that you block people for posting uncivil things while ignoring the civil, potentially important material left in that post that they've put theirs hearts into, then move on to something else...unless someone keeps harping on it. You pick out the bad without acknowledging the good.
It's good to know at last where I stand.
Posted by fayeroe on June 4, 2004, at 8:30:09
In reply to re: questions about Larry's block » Dr. Bob, posted by Sabina on June 4, 2004, at 8:10:09
Sabina, I too thought that it was a joke....I was totally floored when I realized he really doesn't read an entire post.....you said it very well. Pat
Posted by AuntieMel on June 4, 2004, at 10:29:48
In reply to re: questions about Larry's block » Dr. Bob, posted by Sabina on June 4, 2004, at 8:10:09
(Grit teeth, curl toes, *stay civil*)
I think in a long roundabout way we've all just realized the root of the problem.
Those of us who participate on the board, actively or by lurking, read and reread every word of anything that might remotely have anything to do with our problems. So, we tend to not even see things that by the letter of the law are considered uncivil.
On the other hand there is Dr. Bob, very well intentioned, but overworked. The board has gotten so large there just isn't enough time to read all the stuff out here. So if something uncivil by law gets written, it can be taken out of context and a block can be issued. If he tries to read the entire body of a post that contains something uncivil, along with the surrounding posts that set up the uncivilness, then another really nasty exchanged doesn't get seen. This has the strong potential to add to the feeling of unfairness.
It seems to be a catch-22.
Mel
Posted by spoc on June 4, 2004, at 14:23:33
In reply to re: questions about Larry's block » Sabina, posted by fayeroe on June 4, 2004, at 8:30:09
>... You pick out the bad without acknowledging the good. >
<<<< Can I try to save a day or two by heading off at the pass what could be the next response? I feel it in the air...
"But there shouldn't be any bad... Bad is what isn't allowed here, even when intentions are good..."
I'll skip my opinion on that or going on about how oversimplified it would be. And just add to Sabina's statement if I may by saying that in Jimi's case, the "bad" was probably the incident/already-conceded effects he was referring to. Not so much his own words; or spontaneous, uncorroborated opinion. And he couldn't have referenced the many other examples of what passed civility muster there, since much of it was even stronger. If something has changed with the passage of time, he couldn't have known that. All this would have made a please rephrase/PBC seem sufficient.
While I'm here, and being as concise as possible (which is not my forte, surprise surprise), I may as well try to restate what I see as some of the most important questions Jimi asked. To help prevent the necessity of clarifying what the questions were, the essence of them is contained between the asterisks (but the other stuff does help put it in context):
QUESTION: ***Given respective histories and indicators, how and why is it so much more complicated or questionable whether Larry would be supportive on return, than it was in the other case?*** Apparently even SO much more likely in the other case than here, that even slipping back in early, against non-negotiable rules, was ok. That it was close to the reworked unblock date doesn't negate the bad sign there (for that matter, a few days is half a block for some). If all due to mercy, why there. And in relation, why only just possibly here.
The above would in itself seem to call for Larry's acquittal, and render moot of the necessity of a deliberation process. He is probably at worst guilty of occasional sternness (still mature and fair enough). Even then, probably only when responding to a tone already taken (but not to an extent that was clear handling of incivility with incivility). I think that irony is another thing Jimi was lamenting, that in Larry's case it looks like reducing a block is the harder decision. While at the same time, we are of course all glad that something with at least some public component -- announcement of a possibility -- is going down.
QUESTION (though no question mark): Then, Jimi also inquired as to ***why some people virtually stop receiving PBCs or please rephrases, while others get them routinely and often nothing else. Seemingly irrespective of severity or the presence of words with negative connotations.*** In the first case, whatever that person is alleged to do tends to be in a gray area that could just as easily have been seen in the better light. While in the second case, that person may seem to vent or express themself freely and pretty clearly outside the rules, but only receive continuing PBCs with no (or rare) subsequent block(s).
It is also said that once someone has been admonished, they are simply always watched more closely. But neither that nor time considerations address how these things can often happen in a pattern, towards either harshness or leniency. For any poster who has a history of blocks, PBCs or a combination, it is taking the same amount of time to monitor them more carefully in the future. But only some get the luxury of continuing warnings.
Many of us may indeed favor certain people in real life, even when we manage them. But that is rarely as openly "in the faces" of all the others as it is in a forum like this. OR -- based on the kinds of things it could conceivably be based on here, which are almost all very personal and likely to feel that way. That adequate preventive measures are necessary would seem to be obvious.
Ok, stop there if more will obscure the questions, which are up there somewhere along with other surely ripe pickins. But also I saw Auntie Mel's post pop in, so didn't want to miss an opportunity ....
---------------------
... to reinforce that (surprise surprise) I myself don't feel that with an entire right-thinking, qualified planet's worth of sources out there, time shortages serve as a suitable explanation. (Are good intentions and meaning well generally accepted as reasons for slips around here? :)Refusal to delegate can cause problems that some go to therapy just to work on. Besides impeding progress or even maintenance of what already exists, it can also feel like an underestimation of the capabilities of others. But that's a lot of others in this case -- posters would not even be the only source for assistance, and I am very willing to bet that qualified people would even help on a volunteer basis.
Yes, this IS one person's oyster to do with as he pleases. But since that oyster involves so very many other human beings (and by design -- tired line but true -- fragile ones), it would seem like any reasonable means of accomodating that would just be standard care. "The good of the many" would *also* be served by fairly addressing and finally putting this stuff to rest, so that successive generations don't have to be worried anew about it or disheartened.
I don't mean for any of this to be other than contructive, or to throw the baby out with the bath water. In our lives, I think most of us have had -- even at several times -- someone who appreciates and generally thinks the world of us come to us and share an observation and suggestion over something we could/should improve. Something that may even hurt to hear... but maybe because it's true. Then we realize it, fix it, and know it was all good and right.
Posted by fayeroe on June 6, 2004, at 20:23:09
In reply to re: questions about Larry's block, posted by spoc on June 4, 2004, at 14:23:33
I came in from work and checked to see the reply to our posts and I guess we're just throwing words and feelings down a black hole. Nothing. Nada. Unless of course this is being addressed through private e.mails that I'm not aware of. Yet someone's concern over a PCB gets attention. What to do? What to do? Time for a self-block. Bye, Guys~~ I'm going to hang out with Jimi.
Posted by Jai Narayan on June 6, 2004, at 21:35:54
In reply to re: questions about Larry's block » spoc, posted by fayeroe on June 6, 2004, at 20:23:09
Well sweet woman I miss you. There is a lot of communication going on through emails. You are right so many words we will not see.
You are the best! I miss you.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 7, 2004, at 5:43:46
In reply to re: questions about Larry's block, posted by spoc on June 4, 2004, at 14:23:33
> What I've hear you saying, if you'll allow me some latitude to paraphrase, is that you block people for posting uncivil things while ignoring the civil, potentially important material left in that post that they've put theirs hearts into, then move on to something else...unless someone keeps harping on it. You pick out the bad without acknowledging the good.
>
> SabinaIf you'll allow me the same latitude, if someone doesn't want me to miss something potentially important, they should be civil.
> if something uncivil by law gets written, it can be taken out of context and a block can be issued. If he tries to read the entire body of a post that contains something uncivil, along with the surrounding posts that set up the uncivilness, then another really nasty exchanged doesn't get seen.
>
> AuntieMelI try my best to understand context. Even if that means reading and re-reading...
> I may as well try to restate what I see as some of the most important questions Jimi asked.
>
> Given respective histories and indicators, how and why is it so much more complicated or questionable whether Larry would be supportive on return, than it was in the other case?I think all these cases are complicated. I haven't meant to imply that this one was more so.
> why some people virtually stop receiving PBCs or please rephrases, while others get them routinely and often nothing else. Seemingly irrespective of severity or the presence of words with negative connotations.
>
> spocI think it's good to be flexible sometimes. I'm sorry if I've been unfair. It wouldn't be surprising if some people here were particularly sensitive to unfairness.
Bob
Posted by fayeroe on June 7, 2004, at 20:37:06
In reply to re: questions about Larry's block, posted by Dr. Bob on June 7, 2004, at 5:43:46
When the "other" poster was allowed more latitude than I could believe, I personally e.mailed you and told you of the very harmful and hurtful statements that she made to several people and also went to the trouble to e.mail you to let you know that she had changed her identity...I recognized her style.I also gave you a heads up on her behavior on another site so you would know her MO. Has Larry hurt anyone? Has Larry tried to sneak back in? I feel that you're being rather obstinate to prove a point. If I'm correct, please tell me what point you're trying to prove. Yes, I unblocked myself and came back to it after I read your answers to the other posters. That's an advantage of blocking yourself.
Posted by spoc on June 7, 2004, at 20:51:24
In reply to re: questions about Larry's block » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on June 7, 2004, at 20:37:06
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.