![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 93 to 117 of 222. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by justyourlaugh on June 7, 2004, at 21:47:50
In reply to re: questions about Larry's block » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on June 7, 2004, at 20:37:06
fay,
i dont think my point our yours will be taken with much graditude..
maybe there should be a list of posters who are able to express and get feed back(personal emails)and a list of others who can be as helpful and supportive but only married into the family..
i just want to scream
"stop segregating us!"
j
Posted by fayeroe on June 7, 2004, at 21:59:58
In reply to re: questions about Larry's block » fayeroe, posted by justyourlaugh on June 7, 2004, at 21:47:50
I too thought of the segregation "mode" that we seem to be in. It's been this way as long as I've been coming here. And what really makes me sad is that it will probably stay like this and more people will leave as soon as they figure out the neighborhood.........you know the old railroad track theory.....There are posters on here who have never been acknowledged except when they are handed a PCB........Civil means so many things.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 8, 2004, at 0:43:24
In reply to re: questions about Larry's block » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on June 7, 2004, at 20:37:06
> Has Larry hurt anyone?
He may have. How does it matter?
> Has Larry tried to sneak back in?
I haven't looked.
> 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.
In what way do you feel I'm being obstinate?
Bob
Posted by spoc on June 8, 2004, at 7:40:41
In reply to re: questions about Larry's block, posted by Dr. Bob on June 8, 2004, at 0:43:24
> > Has Larry hurt anyone?
>
> He may have. How does it matter?<<<<<< This obviously has "startle value" on its face. Proceeding beyond that to try to answer the question, I would say that two of the reasons would be:
1] It's been stated previously that anticipated supportiveness upon return is a factor in block reduction. If someone was unquestionably seen as supportive and an asset; and additionally he didn't hurt anyone, that would surely be relevant to block reduction (and preferably initial levying of a block).
2] If you mean that technical interpretations only are used (such that assessing hurt does not play a role), first, that would be hard to separate if "civility" can be seen as largely serving the function of preventing hurt. Meaning that what is being scanned for are things that have the potential to hurt. And if that is indeed one definition of civility and how it is enforced, and someone has not in fact hurt anyone, that would indeed seem very material to whether they remain blocked (or if they could have been merely warned instead).
> > 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.
>
> In what way do you feel I'm being obstinate?<<<<<< It will soon be going on two weeks since a possible block reduction was announced. People apparently didn't understand what the process of deliberation was going to be. They probably got the idea that discussion, to some degree including you, was being welcomed. Or that they would be given some information as to what was transpiring. But perhaps you were thinking in terms of the matter not being "due" on the table until the four-weeks-since-block point, at which time the potential reduction would apply if granted. If so, that would probably have been another good thing to clarify at the outset, or at some point since.
As to whether the entire post (and possibly thread context) is considered, or just the “bad” part of a given post, I’m confused as to how this answer:
> I try my best to understand context. Even if that means reading and re-reading...
<<<<<< ...ties in with these:
> I don't always read every line of every post, especially if it isn't civil...
> If you'll allow me the same latitude, if someone doesn't want me to miss something potentially important, they should be civil...
<<<<<< Additionally, the first answer is hard to spot in action, when one of the classic complaints is about other, often more obvious violations on the thread being allowed to stand (including literal ones like cursing). And I thought the default explanation in those cases was that it was somehow too late or there wasn't time to go back and address other violations, even if it had only been hours/day(s). Not that they had been read and re-read and still somehow not seen.
> I 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.
<<<<< The last sentence is a recurring one, that seems to modify any apology with “…but it is their unique weakness” or something of that nature. Possibly meaning that the average person would not react that way. But I don’t understand how that can be said of being treated unfairly. The “burden” would seem to be on the perpetrator to hope that people wouldn’t be sensitive to having been treated unfairly, not on the recipient to agree that unfairness to them was ok or no big deal. "Average" sensitivity or not.
If unfairness is typically thought to be ok by all but the sensitivity-challenged, then I presume there would be no problem with prefacing any previous research and future articles/books with the caveat that the circumstances leading up to the findings contained weren't necessarily fair.
Posted by fayeroe on June 8, 2004, at 8:04:17
In reply to re: questions about Larry's block, posted by Dr. Bob on June 8, 2004, at 0:43:24
I'll answer one question with another. Has anyone told you that they were hurt by Larry?
Has anyone indicated that he's tried to come back with another identity?
Perhaps I should have used another term such as "digging your heels in" because you've let this go on and on and on and on without any acknowledgment of several posts and I feel left in the dark about it.I can read and I see you answering questions from the posse immediately. Example, did you notify Larry that you lifted part of his block? And I'm beginning to think that the word "ban" is better than block. If this is a board of the people and for the people, I don't understand why you're aren't more open about what is going on.
Posted by fayeroe on June 8, 2004, at 8:12:32
In reply to re: questions about Larry's block, posted by spoc on June 8, 2004, at 7:40:41
Thanks, spoc, for addressing some of this in a way that I can't. AND I forgot the "unfairness
sensitivity" line. I know several people<many actually< that don"t post here and guess what? tHEY DON'T LIKE UNFAIRNESS EITHER. SORRY ABOUT THE TYPING..MY KEYBOARD SUDDENLY TOOK ON A MIND OF IT'S OWN. TWO WEEKS IS A LONG TIME FOR THIS TO GO ON. MY GRASS GROWS FASTER THAN THIS.
Posted by AuntieMel on June 8, 2004, at 12:11:40
In reply to re: questions about Larry's block » spoc, posted by fayeroe on June 8, 2004, at 8:12:32
It's probably just me and the current slump I'm in, but following this is starting to make me feel like a part of some kind of social experiment.
Like a lab rat in a maze.
So, I'm going to exercise my choice and stick to social.
Posted by spoc on June 8, 2004, at 12:58:22
In reply to round and round the mulberry bush, posted by AuntieMel on June 8, 2004, at 12:11:40
> So, I'm going to exercise my choice and stick to social.
<<<<< Don't blame you a bit Mel. I mean to do that too, as I am pretty numb to this now actually. I just have trouble turning off my That-does-not-compute-dar specifically, the part that automatically scans for contradictions and derailments of the actual subject(s). I'm working on it though.
I do want to say, in case I haven't often enough, that I realize this is a great site and one very dear to many! To anyone seeing this as unnecessary/harmful unrest or negativity (including Dr. Bob if it applies), I would just answer that acknowledging the great parts and discussing important principles that should be improved upon are not mutually exclusive. There are many places I would draw the line myself on debate, given the objectives of this site. I know and understand why "Your free speech is limited here." For example I wouldn't be here to argue that something like political debate is necessarily a good idea to foster on the boards. But this is a different and more relevant kind of debate, and taking place in another room created for this kind of thing.
Yours in intending to knock it off anyway,
Spoc
Posted by AuntieMel on June 8, 2004, at 14:07:40
In reply to Re: round and round the mulberry bush, posted by spoc on June 8, 2004, at 12:58:22
Oh, I agree it's a great site. I credit it for saving my life (so far) I started with the archives and read forward, learning so many valuable things - like it's ok to question your doctor and sometimes one drug doesn't work, etc, etc, ad nauseum
It's just that I've never mastered one part of the serenity prayer - the part that says 'serenity to accept the things I cannot change'
So removing myself from this seems the least of all the evils.
Posted by fayeroe on June 8, 2004, at 15:34:51
In reply to Re: round and round the mulberry bush, posted by AuntieMel on June 8, 2004, at 14:07:40
If I didn't' believe that this is something that will help present and future posters, I wouldn't be in the mix. This is not the most fun I've ever had. I just feel that an open and transparent, if you will, message board is healthier for all. I include the administrator in that approach.
Posted by AuntieMel on June 8, 2004, at 16:05:21
In reply to Re: round and round the mulberry bush, posted by fayeroe on June 8, 2004, at 15:34:51
I agree. I'm usually one to jump into anything I think is morally right. And often I'll take risks to defend the underdog. But it seems to me that this is just going nowhere and I'm way, way too tired to fight right now.
Posted by fayeroe on June 8, 2004, at 19:27:39
In reply to Re: round and round the mulberry bush » fayeroe, posted by AuntieMel on June 8, 2004, at 16:05:21
BUT giving up is what is expected.......and I'm just not going to ignore the elephant in my living room. I may not get anything resolved, I may get blocked, I may get more frustrated than I already am but I've watched this go on and on and on over a couple of years and I'm sick of it. If you offer something like this, you do what's right and run it fairly and competently. There are times that if I didn't know someone who teaches at the University, I'd not believe all of this. If Bob can't step up to the plate and tell people what's going on, then I want him to tell us that he's not willing to disclose. I doubt that he would tell why but I want some accountability~~for once.
Posted by AuntieMel on June 9, 2004, at 8:11:29
In reply to Re: round and round the mulberry bush » AuntieMel, posted by fayeroe on June 8, 2004, at 19:27:39
You've got great points, all of them. Fairness is important, especially to this community.
It's just that I personally can't join you right now, but I wholeheartedly support your goals.
Posted by fayeroe on June 9, 2004, at 8:23:06
In reply to Re: round and round the mulberry bush » fayeroe, posted by AuntieMel on June 9, 2004, at 8:11:29
That's okay........I've only got one horse and one sword. Thanks.
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.