![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 15 to 39 of 39. Go back in thread:
Posted by Zo on April 8, 2002, at 3:50:14
In reply to Re: A special request to Dr. Bob » Lou Pilder, posted by OCDdiddy on April 7, 2002, at 11:36:30
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 8, 2002, at 11:36:23
In reply to Re: Beardy's PBC » Dr. Bob, posted by Zo on April 8, 2002, at 3:24:28
> Does this really jump out at you, Beardy's post? I mean, you see the whole board at once, and so have a perspective. . .but it always pains me to people like Beardy, like Elizabeth, get a PBC.
It pains me, too, they could set an example instead...
> I read Beardy's post as ironic. And this form, and your criteria, really handicap, even punish, irony. The capability for irony is an adult quality...
But is it supportive?
> In fact, I don't see how you can do this whole thing without taking the person into account.
The tricky thing about taking the person into account is it can seem like favoritism...
> PS. I don't think you answered on what basis you decide how many weeks to block someone. Thanks.
Did you follow the link in my earlier post?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020308/msgs/3894.html
> PPS. Spike emails that he is blocked until June 2003. I think he might be exaggerating a little. What do you think? ;o)
I think that's what I posted. See above.
Bob
Posted by trouble on April 8, 2002, at 11:45:42
In reply to Dr. Bob: I'm being a tattletale. Shame on me., posted by beardedlady on April 7, 2002, at 10:58:52
After you've been blocked once is your record clean and you start over, w/ a warning next time or no?
And is the next one 2 weeks?thanks
trouble
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 8, 2002, at 12:54:46
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob: question about blocking, posted by trouble on April 8, 2002, at 11:45:42
> After you've been blocked once is your record clean and you start over, w/ a warning next time or no?
There, I think it depends...
> And is the next one 2 weeks?
Probably...
Bob
Posted by Zo on April 9, 2002, at 0:10:07
In reply to Re: irony and blocking, posted by Dr. Bob on April 8, 2002, at 11:36:23
Posted by wendy b. on April 10, 2002, at 13:08:34
In reply to follow the link?. .. duh. . .. (nm) » Dr. Bob, posted by Zo on April 9, 2002, at 0:10:07
Zo,
You have to follow the link within the link, text is copied and supplied below. Thread is on "Do's and Don't after being blocked..." I think it's Dr Bob's list. They could stand repeating in another thread, like this one right here...
W.
**************> o Do review the reasons for which you have been blocked. Some violations are included in the FAQ... others may be common sense (or, you may have been previously warned that such behaviour is unacceptable on the Babble boards). If you are still not sure why you have been blocked, you can search the archives...
I try to give a reason when I tell someone they're blocked, so it shouldn't be a mystery.
> o Do try to understand the feelings that led to your inappropriate post(s)... Remember that the length in weeks of your blockage is proportianate to the number of times you have been blocked (after a while, your record (or Dr. Bob's memory) may be nulled).
What I actually have in mind is to double it, rather than just increase it by one week, each time. And I don't rely on my memory anymore, I keep a list.
> o Do use your lost Babble time to pursue other activities.
>
> o Don't subvert your block. Don't register as another user. Doing so will result in an extra week of downtime. You and your posts are easily identifiable for many reasons (none of which I will list).See above regarding the amount of extra time. I'm not sure I'd say "easily", though that might have some deterrent effect. :-)
> o Don't take anger you may have from being blocked out on yourself, other babblers, Dr. Bob, or Babble. Take responsibility for your actions, but don't obsess over things you cannot change. Being blocked is not a personal attack.
It's definitely not meant to be an "attack". It could be argued that it's "personal", in the sense of "relating to a person", but it's not meant to be insulting or anything like that.
Bob
Posted by Elizabeth on April 11, 2002, at 17:06:00
In reply to Re: irony and blocking, posted by Dr. Bob on April 8, 2002, at 11:36:23
> > I read Beardy's post as ironic. And this form, and your criteria, really handicap, even punish, irony. The capability for irony is an adult quality...
>
> But is it supportive?I think it's reasonable to distinguish irony from sarcasm. When you're being sarcastic, there's a good chance you might be hurting somebody's feelings. Irony isn't necessarily sarcasm, though.
What bothers me about "The Rules" is that I can't read other people's minds. (Well, that generally bothers me. :-) ) Some of the people here are very sensitive and are easily offended. It's hard for me to guess what might upset a hypersensitive person even if I specifically go through something I've written looking for "potentially offensive" bits. I think there's a real problem with trying to follow a rule that has to do with someone else's subjective state of mind (and I do try to follow this rule).
> The tricky thing about taking the person into account is it can seem like favoritism...
I agree. The same standard should apply to everyone. If a distinction is to be made, it should be based on the context, not on the individual making the remark.
> > PPS. Spike emails that he is blocked until June 2003. I think he might be exaggerating a little. What do you think? ;o)
>
> I think that's what I posted. See above.My goodness. What did he do? I think I must have missed something.
-elizabeth
Posted by IsoM on April 11, 2002, at 21:00:40
In reply to Re: irony and blocking - Dr. Bob, Zo, posted by Elizabeth on April 11, 2002, at 17:06:00
Dr. Bob, is Spike really blocked that long & like Elizabeth asked, what did he do? Do you have *proof* that the other posts were his?
I don't think those other posts were his AT ALL. I never, ever believed they were. Not his style (& I 'read' people well, we e-mail each other off & on) - just the Spike's Twin Brother bits were.
Without solid evidence, I urge you to reconsider your thoughts that it was Spike posting them. If you don't have proof, I'd err on the side of mercy, if I were you. We all can jump to the wrong conclusions from time to time. You're a very reasonable person, Dr. Bob.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 11, 2002, at 23:44:19
In reply to Re: irony and blocking - Dr. Bob, Zo, posted by Elizabeth on April 11, 2002, at 17:06:00
> > > I read Beardy's post as ironic. And this form, and your criteria, really handicap, even punish, irony. The capability for irony is an adult quality...
> >
> > But is it supportive?
>
> I think it's reasonable to distinguish irony from sarcasm. When you're being sarcastic, there's a good chance you might be hurting somebody's feelings. Irony isn't necessarily sarcasm, though.But is it supportive?
> What bothers me about "The Rules" is that I can't read other people's minds... It's hard for me to guess what might upset a hypersensitive person even if I specifically go through something I've written looking for "potentially offensive" bits. I think there's a real problem with trying to follow a rule that has to do with someone else's subjective state of mind (and I do try to follow this rule).
Thanks for trying. It's not always easy, and no one's perfect.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 12, 2002, at 0:53:05
In reply to Spike Blocked That Long??, posted by IsoM on April 11, 2002, at 21:00:40
> Dr. Bob, is Spike really blocked that long & like Elizabeth asked, what did he do? Do you have *proof* that the other posts were his?
>
> I don't think those other posts were his AT ALL. I never, ever believed they were. Not his style ... just the Spike's Twin Brother bits were.
>
> Without solid evidence, I urge you to reconsider your thoughts that it was Spike posting them. If you don't have proof, I'd err on the side of mercy, if I were you. We all can jump to the wrong conclusions from time to time. You're a very reasonable person, Dr. Bob.Spike is blocked at least that long. It may now actually be more like 1024 weeks.
What constitutes proof? Writing style?
It's hard to argue against "mercy". But I'm trying to think of the community as a whole and not just one individual. Who, after all, is free to go elsewhere for support. "The good of the many outweighs the good of the few."
Bob
Posted by IsoM on April 12, 2002, at 1:53:08
In reply to Re: Spike Blocked That Long, posted by Dr. Bob on April 12, 2002, at 0:53:05
Bob, when I mentioned proof, I was referring to stuff like ISP addresses, not writing style. I can easily imitate the style of another or change mine so you wouldn't know it was me - it's a piece of cake. But because I use cable, my ISP address would remain the same, but Spike might just have a phone connection - I don't know.
Still, going back a way, when Jill K posted that Spike was blocked & gave his e-mail address, you thought it was Spike posting. Correct me if I'm wrong.
It started a flurry of comments & posts from others, so I kept back, letting them emote. But I didn't think it to be Spike. You see, I was going to say the exact same thing Jill K did but when I went to post, her post was already there explaining Spike being unable to answer.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020307/msgs/96981.htmlAs for mercy, I don't mean lifting the ban when you KNOW who the post comes from. Instead, I was referring to posts that are uncertain of the true identity of the person - it could even be a prank post from someone else who decided to make life more difficult for the other banned person.
All I'm asking is that you only extend a ban when you know for a CERTAINTY who the post comes from. If it's already the case that you DO know, I'll kindly back down. I'm not asking for retraction of previous banning.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 12, 2002, at 11:58:53
In reply to Proof » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on April 12, 2002, at 1:53:08
> when I mentioned proof, I was referring to stuff like ISP addresses, not writing style.
But two posts can come from the same IP address and not be posted by the same person. So should even that really be considered *proof*?
> but Spike might just have a phone connection
And of course that's another issue.
> I didn't think it to be Spike. You see, I was going to say the exact same thing Jill K did but when I went to post, her post was already there explaining Spike being unable to answer.
But just because you were going to say the same thing doesn't mean it *wasn't* him...
Bob
Posted by mist on April 12, 2002, at 14:07:35
In reply to Re: Proof, posted by Dr. Bob on April 12, 2002, at 11:58:53
Posted by Mitchell on April 12, 2002, at 18:06:24
In reply to Re: irony and blocking, posted by Dr. Bob on April 11, 2002, at 23:44:19
> > > > ...The capability for irony is an adult quality...
> > >
> > > But is it supportive?
> >
> > ... Irony isn't necessarily sarcasm, though.
>
> But is it supportive?The idea of "support" as represented here has always seemed like so much, well, psychobabble. Support for what? It is a subject without a verb. The sentence fragment of sorts, to me, implies an unspoken, undefined set of shared values.
Yes, recognition of someone else's perspective of irony, or to articulate irony that affects another would tend to be supportive, by the pseudo-scientific concept of support offered here.
There are those who do not find support here. The subjective set of values represented here as a universally acceptable standard of civility is non-supportive of some people, many of whom will not likely find support elsewhere. I think a more accurate word to describe what is called support here would be "reinforcement." People can find reinforcement here for certain ideas.
Those of us who hold ideas outside the social norms of our place in time, norms that may be fatally flawed, may do best to learn to function without reinforcement. For us iconoclasts, anti-hedonists and non-capitalists, our best contributions sometimes can be to contribute to the life-sustaining values of a community without reinforcing or endorsing flawed cultural values of communities from which we have little chance of escaping.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 12, 2002, at 18:56:37
In reply to Re: irony and blocking, posted by Mitchell on April 12, 2002, at 18:06:24
> There are those who do not find support here. The subjective set of values represented here as a universally acceptable standard of civility is non-supportive of some people, many of whom will not likely find support elsewhere.
True, this site can't be all things to all people. But I'd like it to be as supportive as possible for as many people as possible.
Bob
Posted by IsoM on April 12, 2002, at 19:19:55
In reply to Re: Proof, posted by Dr. Bob on April 12, 2002, at 11:58:53
Either you're being very cryptic or my brain isn't up to par. It's a moot point anyway as it's your forum & perhaps you have strong reasons for thinking or "knowing" who the poster actually was.
Please humour me, Dr. Bob. Are you being purposefully cryptic or am I just confused about this? There's been times in my life before when I've asked questions & had people give me funny looks & cryptic answers.
Being somewhat naive, I persisted in questioning them, thinking their explanation was just convolated & I wanted to clear it up. When I'd finally get (from someone else), "they're not going to give you a straight answer because they don't want to answer you", I'd understand & stop asking. Trouble is, it made me feel like such a dolt. I don't play games well with people. When I don't want to give answers (all of us are like that a times), I state directly & as politely as possible "sorry, it's not a question that I feel should be answered now." I wish others would do the same to me.
Is this what the above is all about?
Posted by Mark H. on April 12, 2002, at 22:30:15
In reply to Re: Proof » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on April 12, 2002, at 19:19:55
Hi IsoM,
You're on my short-list of people I'd love to see take over the admin functions of the board for Dr. Bob on some occasion. I hope you've responded to his call for future volunteers.
I thought I'd offer my perspective on your question (while making it clear that I am *not* answering for Dr. Bob, who may completely disagree with what I have to say).
When intervening, I believe that anyone having to decide what is "civil" or not has two basic choices: either to say the minimum needed to get the job done so as not to over-influence the participants' discussion (nor take up too much of the moderator's time), or to be specific and risk creating endless additional "rules," which by virtue of our diversity will never be complete or completely satisfactory.
I tend to be a "rules" sort of guy, and I don't feel quite right unless I know what they are. But even my brief assignment to admin duties gave me an entirely different perspective on Dr. Bob's minimalist style.
I quickly learned the value of trusting the community to take care of itself, of interfering as little as possible, and of being only as specific as needed to encourage people to return to being positive and supportive.
I now believe with all my heart that these boards are *not* the place to argue or even to debate issues and ideas, civilly or otherwise. Instead, we can make "parallel" observations that differ, but without comment on the validity of another person's viewpoint or opinion.
Likewise, this is not the place to challenge people on their "stuff," even when their stuff is outrageous and annoying. Every time I've railed against these limitations in one form or another in the past, Dr. Bob has consistently come back to me with the same basic response.
The seminal moment for me was when I wrote the following more than a year and a half ago: "There is an element here among the wounded ... who respond to dark humor, and perhaps we experience a bit of resentment about certain types of unrestrained behavior because we suck it up all day long every day and avoid lashing out at those who may deserve it." To which Dr. Bob replied, "Humor is fine, but not if it involves, or could be perceived to involve, making fun of others. In other words, please suck it up here, too. :-)" That's what it took for me to finally get it. And it's not just about humor and parody; "please suck it up" is one way to define the type of civility that Dr. Bob expects.
In a sense, we're not just talking with one another here, we're also providing information and support to a larger audience of lurkers who may or may not ever post to a certain thread. They need our information and support as well. They need our honesty *about our own issues* (not about others' issues). They do *not* need to read about our negative, hurtful, angry, distrustful, accusatory and/or judgmental opinions of each other, regardless of how valid those opinions may seem to us at the time. That means we have to say less than our whole truth at times and still be kind to one another while doing it.
My answer to your question is this: I don't think Dr. Bob can afford to be as direct as you would like him to be. I don't think he's being evasive; I think he's striving for economy and non-interference except when needed to keep the peace. For him to say more would only invite further argument and discussion. In the end, there's nothing to discuss -- it's his call, as you rightly pointed out.
Yet even within the limitations of a public forum, isn't this still a great place to be?
With appreciation,
Mark H.
Posted by IsoM on April 13, 2002, at 14:22:02
In reply to Civility and the Rules of the Board » IsoM, posted by Mark H. on April 12, 2002, at 22:30:15
No disagreement with you at all, Mark (as you probably guessed). I'm just feeling very thick lately - I'm having trouble distinguishing between my inability to see the obvious due to a fuzzy brain with what really isn't obvious.
I've been off adrafinil for close to a month now & feel so foggy-headed again. (Wail!!! When is my new supply going to get here?) My lightning mind now is working only in fits & starts. My mood is much bleaker & blacker again too - kind of like "I just don't give a damn" but I really am trying hard not to direct it to any purely innocent bystanders. But it's weird how dark I feel like this.
I never swear, not out loud or in my mind - but the other day, a heavily loaded van with work equipment pulled out in front of me from a side-street instead of stopping first as he should've. This necessitated my braking for him & then he drove along under the speed limit & being slow to take off from traffic lights. I kept thinking "you stupid, j*ck*ss b*st*rd" & tail-gated him the whole time - I was seething inside. If he had stopped, I would've punched his lights out. That's such a "not-me" reaction. That's how my depression manifests itself. I can be reasonably patient & loving to those 'worthy' of it (though my skin crawls still), but it gets so hard to extend it to others who are jerks.
In fact the other day, I was so ticked off with my supervisor (who I like, mind you) with her comment that she thinks I 'selectively' listen to what I want (instead of believing me when I told her politely that she often speaks to me as she's turning & walking away so I don't hear her clearly), that I quit right there. She was shocked & I told her I don't like being told that basically, I'm a liar. I take honor in being honest & that means no 'white lies' too. She pleaded with me & told me we could work it out. I was adamant & said I've already been doing the best I could with my ADD & my trouble distinguishing certain sounds from background noises, but she hasn't believed me.
The whole thing did work out -I'm thinking of quitting when the garden season is finished anyway, she bent over backwards & was doing all sorts of little concillitory actions (plus I remembered without that job, my meds & dental aren't covered). I'm trying to keep my anger in check - I've years of practicing self-control to fall back on, but oh - do my claws & teeth emerge at such times. I still never swear or raise my voice, but there's no doubt in others mind what my eyes say! I think it may be good for others to realise that Judy isn't all sunshine & fluttery butterflies - I do have claws & teeth & will use them when needed. Strange that that sort of thing gets more respect than treating people nicely all the time.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 13, 2002, at 17:18:16
In reply to Re: Proof » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on April 12, 2002, at 19:19:55
> Either you're being very cryptic or my brain isn't up to par. It's a moot point anyway as it's your forum & perhaps you have strong reasons for thinking or "knowing" who the poster actually was.
Sorry, could you repeat the question?
Bob
Posted by Elizabeth on April 19, 2002, at 0:15:43
In reply to Re: irony and blocking, posted by Dr. Bob on April 11, 2002, at 23:44:19
> > When you're being sarcastic, there's a good chance you might be hurting somebody's feelings. Irony isn't necessarily sarcasm, though.
>
> But is it supportive?Irony isn't necessarily *un*supportive (and I can think of some situations where it could be actively supportive). I certainly don't see it as something that should be banned. (I have no idea what particular remark or post brought up this topic, BTW, so I can only speak in general terms.)
"Support" is a transitive verb. You don't just support; you support *someone* or *something*. Who or what are we supposed to be supporting? Everyone? Just the person we're addressing at a given time? The opinions expressed by others on the board? The opinions of the American Psychiatric Association? :-)
Seriously: are we expected to support everything that anyone says here? I definitely would fail on that criterion. But as to how other people *feel*, I don't think it's fair or reasonable to expect us to be able to predict that. And if we really can't say anything that might offend anyone...well, it seems obvious to me that this is far too sweeping and would rule out just about anything that anyone wanted to say. I think that very broad censorship is potentially unrealistic in two senses: the expectation is unrealistic, and it results in unrealistic dialogue where people don't feel like they're allowed to say anything of substance.
(BTW: "but is it supportive?" doesn't provide any information.)
-e
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 19, 2002, at 14:04:49
In reply to Re: irony and blocking » Dr. Bob, posted by Elizabeth on April 19, 2002, at 0:15:43
> Irony isn't necessarily *un*supportive (and I can think of some situations where it could be actively supportive). I certainly don't see it as something that should be banned.
Did I ever say I thought it was *necessarily* unsupportive? It's not absolutely contraindicated, it just has a low "supportive index". :-)
> as to how other people *feel*, I don't think it's fair or reasonable to expect us to be able to predict that.
I know it's not always easy and no one's perfect. But it still may be a lot to expect. Maybe think of it as an inclusion criterion?
> And if we really can't say anything that might offend anyone...well, it seems obvious to me that this is far too sweeping and would rule out just about anything that anyone wanted to say.
You'd agree, wouldn't you, that there have been at least a couple things that people have said here that I haven't ruled out? :-)
Bob
Posted by Zo on April 21, 2002, at 21:50:01
In reply to Re: irony and blocking, posted by Dr. Bob on April 11, 2002, at 23:44:19
Elizabeth made some interesting additions to my original Irony post. She distinguished between sarcasm and irony.
Your response was, "But is it supportive?"
I am answering, "Yes."
You cannot get away from reading the whole post, and determining its intent. There is no other way to pick out what is Supportive from What Is Not.
Zo
Posted by Zo on April 21, 2002, at 21:56:46
In reply to Re: irony and blocking, posted by Dr. Bob on April 8, 2002, at 11:36:23
>>.but it always pains me to people like Beardy, like Elizabeth, get a PBC.>It pains me, too, they could set an example instead...
Bob,
This doesn't seem civil, to take some words I meant in respect and turn them around.
And I have to take exception--Beardy and Elizabeth set a fine example here.
Sometimes I think maybe you're whipping out a few too many comments and little lessons and maybe oughtta go home early and cut a little slack? You know, kick back!
Zo
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 21, 2002, at 22:30:01
In reply to Re: irony and blocking » Dr. Bob, posted by Zo on April 21, 2002, at 21:56:46
> Sometimes I think maybe you're whipping out a few too many comments and little lessons and maybe oughtta go home early and cut a little slack? You know, kick back!
OK, no lessons here. Though I guess this might count as a comment. :-)
Bob
Posted by jay on April 27, 2002, at 1:37:13
In reply to Re: irony and blocking » Dr. Bob, posted by Zo on April 21, 2002, at 21:50:01
> Elizabeth made some interesting additions to my original Irony post. She distinguished between sarcasm and irony.
>
> Your response was, "But is it supportive?"
>
> I am answering, "Yes."
>
> You cannot get away from reading the whole post, and determining its intent. There is no other way to pick out what is Supportive from What Is Not.
>
> ZoYes you can, as there is always a certain amount of subjective perception, and Dr. Bob as a professional who moderates this board has a right to that discrimination.
Jay
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.