![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 97 to 121 of 154. Go back in thread:
Posted by alesta on September 1, 2004, at 16:06:35
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by alesta on September 1, 2004, at 16:04:59
Posted by Emme on September 1, 2004, at 17:32:14
In reply to I must agree, Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on August 31, 2004, at 11:28:31
I have to agree. It looks to me like Chemist was trying to keep his cool under attack. I think he was being literal and not sarcastic; we're familiar with his writing style. I don't agree with the block.
Emme
> Unless you have evidence that Chemist was trying to be sarcastic, is it fair to make that assumption? Isn't it equally likely that he was doing his best to be civil under trying circumstances with no administrative assistance, and the awkwardness of trying to stick to the precise rules of the civility guidelines merely came across as sarcasm to you?
>
> Perhaps a please rephrase?
Posted by KaraS on September 1, 2004, at 21:22:06
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by KaraS on September 1, 2004, at 15:29:38
> > > they insulted him so viciously
> >
> > Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused.
> >
> > If you or anyone else has questions about this or about posting policies in general, or is interested in alternative ways of expressing oneself, please see the FAQ:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Bob
>
>
> OK, let me rephrase that to:
>
> They made comments that 99.999 percent of the thinking, feeling, breathing human population would interpret as being "viscious". I honestly don't wish to be rude here but there's just no way that a reasonable person could argue otherwise. I think your response to give me a PBC begs the question at hand.
>
> I have reread that entire post in question here and I do note a fair amount of sarcasm on Chemist's part that obviously enraged flmm and a couple of others. Perhaps my issue with Chemist's block has more to do with the blocking system itself. By increasing the amount of time an individual is blocked based only on the number of previous blocks that person has incurred, you don't leave enough room for assigning a punishment that correlates with the severity of the offense involved. It also does not take into account that the person being punished utilized a fair amount of restraint given the level of insults leveled against him.
>
>I don't like that last sentence. Please change the last few words to:
"...given the level of insults directed towards him."
Also, I changed my spelling of "vicious" to "viscious" when I saw Scott spell it that way but my dictionary insists that the first spelling is correct.
(and, yes, I'm more than a little bit compulsive...)
-K
Posted by alesta on September 1, 2004, at 22:21:34
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by KaraS on September 1, 2004, at 21:22:06
i think i have found perhaps the underlying
source of the problem--a misunderstanding.all right, I just looked over this thread again, and I see a situation where chemist corrected dr. bob, when dr. bob was actually right, b/c chemist thought bob was talking about a different comment he had made than the one dr. bob was actually referring to. Here is chemist’s quote:
“hello there, chemist here...i am not being sarcastic. dr. bob has deemed my response to flmmm sarcastic, and dr. bob is incorrect. i am quite interested in hearing from flmm in re: self-esteem boosting dietary products. “
now, the ironic part is, Dr. bob and chemist are talking about 2 entirely different comments, hence chemist felt the need to tell Dr. bob that this was untrue, naturally. So, really this whole thing is based on a misunderstanding. Perhaps if chemist could just apologize for telling Dr. bob that he was wrong because he thought dr. bob was referring to something else chemist had said, this whole thing could be cleared up. (here is the quote dr. bob was referring to:)
"i agree with your subjective assessment of your knowledge of the subject being discussed in this thread - limited - and applaud the depth of your self-realization.)"
well, i've invested enough effort into this thing...but I can totally see now why dr. bob would be upset with chemist, if that is the reason. I just wish I’d known the reason before, if that is the reason (it’s the only reason that really makes sense to me). I suppose us posters really need to hear a valid reason when we see a fellow poster blocked for such a long period of time. Dr. bob, if you’re reading, I’m sorry for missing that important detail...maybe chemist can apologize for what he said due to the misunderstanding and maybe have the block removed and we can all be one big, happy family again...well, a wish everyone a good night...you too, dr. bob...:) sorry if I was disrespectful in any manner...I’m putting this topic (and myself) to bed....
amy :)p.s. i really hope this makes sense to people! i am PMS-ing so hard right now that i'm not even sure myself....:)
Posted by AuntieMel on September 2, 2004, at 0:16:24
In reply to Re: I must agree, Dr. Bob, posted by Emme on September 1, 2004, at 17:32:14
(smiling)Maybe you'll answer this one?
It has been suggested that mercy might be considered if chemist emails you. Is there a snowball's chance?
Posted by AuntieMel on September 2, 2004, at 0:18:15
In reply to Re: I must agree, Dr. Bob, posted by Emme on September 1, 2004, at 17:32:14
That no one has come to the defense of the other two in this mess?
Says a lot for chemist, doncha think?
Posted by Dinah on September 2, 2004, at 0:31:22
In reply to Has anyone noticed?, posted by AuntieMel on September 2, 2004, at 0:18:15
I'm guessing a lot of that has to do with the length of the block as compared to the severity of the offense. Which isn't the way Babble works, but it does tend to be a bit upsetting.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 2, 2004, at 3:06:14
In reply to Re: please be civil - insults --to sls and dr. bob, posted by alesta on September 1, 2004, at 11:36:26
> what flmm had to say... It is BRUTAL.
>
> these outrageous insultsPlease don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused.
> There is nothing civil about a forum that will not allow you to defend yourself. The “attacker” should be banned, not the attacked.
And if the attacked defend themselves by attacking back? Two wrongs don't make a right.
If you or anyone else has questions about this or about posting policies in general, or is interested in alternative ways of expressing oneself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 2, 2004, at 3:10:17
In reply to Another question for Dr. Bob., posted by AuntieMel on September 2, 2004, at 0:16:24
> OK, let me rephrase that to:
>
> They made comments that 99.999 percent of the thinking, feeling, breathing human population would interpret as being "viscious".IMO, that still could lead someone to feel accused.
> there's just no way that a reasonable person could argue otherwise.
I'm not arguing otherwise, I'm asking people to be civil.
> By increasing the amount of time an individual is blocked based only on the number of previous blocks that person has incurred, you don't leave enough room for assigning a punishment that correlates with the severity of the offense involved. It also does not take into account that the person being punished utilized a fair amount of restraint given the level of insults leveled against him.
>
> KaraSI did make it 4 weeks instead of 6...
--
> It has been suggested that mercy might be considered if chemist emails you. Is there a snowball's chance?
>
> AuntieMelNever say never...
Bob
Posted by SLS on September 2, 2004, at 6:56:43
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by KaraS on September 1, 2004, at 21:22:06
> Also, I changed my spelling of "vicious" to "viscious" when I saw Scott spell it that way but my dictionary insists that the first spelling is correct.
LOL
Dear Kara,
You shouldn't give me so much credit. :-)
I had placed quotation marks around the word to indicate to Dr. Bob that I understood the word to require a subjective characterization or judgment of intent for its use. I wasn't questioning your spelling abilities. Obviously, you should continue to question mine.
LOL
- Scott
Posted by KaraS on September 2, 2004, at 9:02:22
In reply to Re: please be civil - Kara's spelling, posted by SLS on September 2, 2004, at 6:56:43
> > Also, I changed my spelling of "vicious" to "viscious" when I saw Scott spell it that way but my dictionary insists that the first spelling is correct.
>
> LOL
>
> Dear Kara,
>
> You shouldn't give me so much credit. :-)
>
> I had placed quotation marks around the word to indicate to Dr. Bob that I understood the word to require a subjective characterization or judgment of intent for its use. I wasn't questioning your spelling abilities. Obviously, you should continue to question mine.
>
> LOL
>
>
> - Scott
Scott,I did know that was why you had the word in quotes. I just thought the way you spelled it looked correct (but I'll certainly question you from now on!) :-)
-K
Posted by Sad Panda on September 2, 2004, at 9:16:13
In reply to Re: please be civil - Kara's spelling » SLS, posted by KaraS on September 2, 2004, at 9:02:22
> > > Also, I changed my spelling of "vicious" to "viscious" when I saw Scott spell it that way but my dictionary insists that the first spelling is correct.
> >
> > LOL
> >
> > Dear Kara,
> >
> > You shouldn't give me so much credit. :-)
> >
> > I had placed quotation marks around the word to indicate to Dr. Bob that I understood the word to require a subjective characterization or judgment of intent for its use. I wasn't questioning your spelling abilities. Obviously, you should continue to question mine.
> >
> > LOL
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
>
> Scott,
>
> I did know that was why you had the word in quotes. I just thought the way you spelled it looked correct (but I'll certainly question you from now on!) :-)
>
> -K
>
>BudInSki here, I blame the drugs :) I've been relatively free of cognitive problems from these meds except for spelling. I have a lot of difficulty with words that aren't spelt the way the sound on these meds.
Cheers,
Panda.
Posted by AuntieMel on September 2, 2004, at 11:34:17
In reply to Re: Another question, posted by Dr. Bob on September 2, 2004, at 3:10:17
> > It has been suggested that mercy might be considered if chemist emails you. Is there a snowball's chance?
> >
> > AuntieMel
>
> Never say never...
>
> BobWell, obviously it is up to chemist, but I know that *I* would have trouble doing that. I spent too many years *not* defending myself when I thought I was right, and I'm just now starting to do so. Sucking up my pride and asking for mercy for such a small thing would set me back in my 'recovery'
Mel
Posted by alesta on September 2, 2004, at 12:50:51
In reply to Re: please be civil » alesta, posted by Dr. Bob on September 2, 2004, at 3:06:14
> > what flmm had to say... It is BRUTAL.
> >
> > these outrageous insults
>
> Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused.dr. bob, respectfully, it was necessary for me to state that observation in order to discuss this administrative matter.
> > There is nothing civil about a forum that will not allow you to defend yourself. The “attacker” should be banned, not the attacked.
>
> And if the attacked defend themselves by attacking back? Two wrongs don't make a right.well, we are emotional creatures after all. i don't know if i would have been so "civil" under the circumstances. we are not perfect people that come to this forum. not to mention there is an innate need to "save face" when being attacked viciously, and to deny a person that seems a bit uncivil to me.
i think this doctrinal enforcement of civility may be having a paradoxical effect at this point...
i hope i am not blocked for responding to your comments. i am a peace-loving individual and don't like to see conflict between the owner or its recipients. if i have hurt or offended anyone, i am truly sorry.
amy
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 2, 2004, at 21:29:28
In reply to Re: please be civil--dr. bob, posted by alesta on September 2, 2004, at 12:50:51
> > > what flmm had to say... It is BRUTAL.
> > >
> > > these outrageous insults
>
> it was necessary for me to state that observation in order to discuss this administrative matter.I disagree, couldn't you have just said:
> i don't think chemist could've been any cooler. At this point he is merely defending himself! I don’t know ***ANYBODY*** who would just sit there and take what flmm had to say. (see flmm's quote below) if that was grounds for banishment, then none of us should be here....
>
> Now, I ask you, or anyone, would you just sit there and take it??? Be honest...and remember, too, that these comments are made in a public forum.> > > There is nothing civil about a forum that will not allow you to defend yourself. The “attacker” should be banned, not the attacked.
> >
> > And if the attacked defend themselves by attacking back? Two wrongs don't make a right.
>
> well, we are emotional creatures after all... we are not perfect people that come to this forum. not to mention there is an innate need to "save face"But in that case, should even the original attacker be blocked? Isn't he also an emotional creature, and not perfect? Maybe he felt an innate need to attack?
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on September 2, 2004, at 23:49:12
In reply to Re: emotional creatures, posted by Dr. Bob on September 2, 2004, at 21:29:28
"Maybe he felt an innate need to attack?"
Now, *that* is an interesting concept. Is this in the DSM IV? If so, as posters, what can we do to help? If it is part of an illness, what would be the correct way to handle situations like this? Arguing back doesn't seem to be sensitive to his needs. Ignoring it could make him feel worse if this is a cry for attention. And letting it slide and continue posting might encourage more of the same behavior, letting this person feel his behavior is socially acceptable.
Seriously. If the poster is wanting to support the person with the 'need to attack,' what is the best way to handle it?
Posted by gardenergirl on September 3, 2004, at 1:20:34
In reply to Re: emotional creatures » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on September 2, 2004, at 23:49:12
Hmmmm, Mel your questions relate to my post to JenStar about why I responded the way I did to ron1953. I think I was trying to be more therapeutic, but it's hard when you don't understand the need. But your take on either arguing or ignoring make sense to me, and I think I was trying something different.
Warmly,
gg
Posted by AuntieMel on September 3, 2004, at 8:14:28
In reply to Re: emotional creatures » AuntieMel, posted by gardenergirl on September 3, 2004, at 1:20:34
It was a serious question. Now to see if I get an answer:)
Mel
Posted by alesta on September 3, 2004, at 9:49:19
In reply to Re: emotional creatures, posted by Dr. Bob on September 2, 2004, at 21:29:28
(note: i haven't yet read gg or auntie mel's responses, so if i happen to repeat anything they have already said, i apologize...)
<But in that case, should even the original attacker be blocked? Isn't he also an emotional creature, and not perfect? Maybe he felt an innate need to attack?
but my point here is that the attacker *provoked* the emotion in the attackee.
an additional point i'd like to make is, i think if administrative assistance is not available, especially when requested, as in this case (see chemist's posts on this administrative board, pleading for help) then administation should come down a little easier on the attacked.
> I disagree, couldn't you have just said:
>
> > i don't think chemist could've been any cooler. At this point he is merely defending himself! I don’t know ***ANYBODY*** who would just sit there and take what flmm had to say. (see flmm's quote below) if that was grounds for banishment, then none of us should be here....
no, because i don't feel it gets my point across as effectively. these descriptive adjectives, i feel, are necessary to convey my point more effectively. i'm not going to tiptoe around the facts. why not point them out so we can put all of the cards on the table and thoroughly discuss the issue? i am not insulting him directly, but discussing his behavior, as this is a forum dealing with administrative issues.amy
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 3, 2004, at 10:22:15
In reply to Re: emotional creatures--dr. bob, posted by alesta on September 3, 2004, at 9:49:19
> my point here is that the attacker *provoked* the emotion in the attackee.
>
> an additional point i'd like to make is, i think if administrative assistance is not available, especially when requested, as in this case (see chemist's posts on this administrative board, pleading for help) then administation should come down a little easier on the attacked.I agree, those are relevant points.
> > I disagree, couldn't you have just said:
> >
> > > i don't think chemist could've been any cooler. At this point he is merely defending himself! I don’t know ***ANYBODY*** who would just sit there and take what flmm had to say. (see flmm's quote below) if that was grounds for banishment, then none of us should be here....
>
> no, because i don't feel it gets my point across as effectively. these descriptive adjectives, i feel, are necessary to convey my point more effectively. i'm not going to tiptoe around the facts. why not point them out so we can put all of the cards on the table and thoroughly discuss the issue?It might have been a less effective way of expressing how you felt, but IMO, it would have conveyed your point well enough, and been civil, and being civil is a more effective way of having a discussion.
Bob
Posted by alesta on September 3, 2004, at 10:49:18
In reply to Re: emotional creatures, posted by Dr. Bob on September 3, 2004, at 10:22:15
thanks for acknowledging the validity of my points, dr. bob. i appreciate that.:)
> It might have been a less effective way of expressing how you felt, but IMO, it would have conveyed your point well enough, and been civil, and being civil is a more effective way of having a discussion.
but isn't it prudent to communicate in the most effective way possible under these circumstances? i think you might be taking civility to extremes here...perhaps it is uncivil to even talk about what flmm did at all...and then we wouldn't even be able to have this discussion...
i believe civility is relative, and no rewriting of rules is going to solve the problems this board is facing, because in the end it all comes down to a judgement call...yours.
perhaps a compassionate, intuitive outlook is called for, one that keeps context and circumstance in mind...(actually, i think you are pretty much operating your site that way...)
amy :)
Posted by AuntieMel on September 3, 2004, at 13:52:13
In reply to Re: emotional creatures, posted by Dr. Bob on September 3, 2004, at 10:22:15
Any chance you can respond to this? It was a serious question.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/385861.html
Thank you...
Posted by Racer on September 3, 2004, at 13:57:06
In reply to Re: emotional creatures--dr. bob, posted by alesta on September 3, 2004, at 10:49:18
(Warning: this is the sort of subject where I can see so many sides that I never seem to reach a conclusion. This is just rambling on the idea.)
In my own very amorphous opinion, this is a really tough call for Dr Bob. He has a lot of conflicting needs to balance, and there's probably no way to make everyone happy with his decision. Having hard and fast rules, which he has, is likely to set off these little tempests now and again, when a popular poster is blocked, but making a different set of rules for popular posters would pretty well defeat the purpose of the basic rules, and of the boards here as a whole.
Now, personally, I do like chemist a great deal, I think he provides a heck of a lot of really great information for a lot of people, and that there's a great deal of value in the information he provides. And, personally, from the parts I've read of the original thread, I think that the information chemist provided about MDMA was absolutely appropriate, that the first response to it was an example of someone with a conflicting need -- in this case, seeminly, a need to contradict -- expressing that need, and that the post which followed that was -- trying to be civil here, and not to interpret another person's intent based on my response to it -- perhaps not exactly on point in its reaction to chemist's post.
Having seen earlier exchanges between some of the posters involved here, my view of the whole thread is deeply colored by that history. I was struck by the fact that chemist really was quite restrained, and seemed to be making a very great effort to remain civil. Since I rarely come by the Admin board, I didn't see his request for assistance here, but I can see how he would become quite frustrated when he was doing his best to conform to the civility policy and there was no protection from the administration of the site. Frankly, I'm pretty sure I'd have gone beyond sarcastic myself, in a similar situation.
On the other hand, there is the issue of being a Good Administrator. That doesn't always mean being democratic, in any sense of the word. I think SLS said it effectively way back at the start of this thread, so I won't bother to reiterate.
In the end, Dr Bob makes mistakes, he's not perfect, some of his decisions upset people. He may even keep these boards around for his own research projects, and may be playing games to further that end. For that matter, he may keep these boards up solely because he's got a sadistic need to torture us all, to make us all even sicker than when we found this place. The bottom line, for me, is that he does keep these boards up, we do have a safe place to create a community for ourselves, and I do think that he tries to apply his rules fairly -- even when I don't agree, and even when my own feelings get hurt.
If I were Empress of the Universe, I'd give a Free Pass to most of the 'regulars' and the 'old guard' here. That would defeat the purpose, wouldn't it? If I could persuade Dr Bob to commute chemist's sentence, I would. On the other hand, it's still the thin end of the wedge. I don't think chemist deserved a four week block. But changing the rules might be a precedent that comes at a very high cost for the site.
In conclusion, and the firmest conclusion I can reach for myself on this matter, I'm just glad it's Dr Bob's call and not mine!
Posted by gardenergirl on September 3, 2004, at 14:17:30
In reply to Re: emotional creatures » gardenergirl, posted by AuntieMel on September 3, 2004, at 8:14:28
I'm sorry if my post seemed to indicate that I didn't think your question was serious. I was just reacting, because it kind of helped me to put together more coherently what I was trying to say to JenStar.
gg
Posted by AuntieMel on September 3, 2004, at 14:36:53
In reply to Re: emotional creatures » AuntieMel, posted by gardenergirl on September 3, 2004, at 14:17:30
No, No, No, I thought that you thought I was completely serious. I even took it to mean I had a valid point.
It's just that I seem to have such a hard time getting a response from the good doctor. And I thought it might be because of the amount of traffic, so I was putting in a reminder.
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.