![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 64. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by crushedout on May 24, 2005, at 15:27:23
When is it that we are allowed to ask a poster not to post to us anymore? I thought it was only if they were harassing us or something like that. Not simply because we disagree with or don't like their beliefs -- is that not right?
If I am right, Dr. Bob, I don't understand why you didn't inform this poster of that rule:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050517/msgs/501079.html
Posted by 10derHeart on May 24, 2005, at 16:15:36
In reply to don't post to me anymore requests, posted by crushedout on May 24, 2005, at 15:27:23
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#harassed
You're basically correct. But I'd rather you read it "directly from the horse's mouth" in the FAQs, than for me to use my words.
PS: To anyone wondering....no, I am not implying Dr. Bob is an actual equine. Nor am I being sarcastic or disprespecful. It's just a favorite expression of mine ;-)
Posted by crushedout on May 24, 2005, at 16:33:05
In reply to Re: don't post to me anymore requests » crushedout, posted by 10derHeart on May 24, 2005, at 16:15:36
Posted by so on May 24, 2005, at 17:47:39
In reply to don't post to me anymore requests, posted by crushedout on May 24, 2005, at 15:27:23
> When is it that we are allowed to ask a poster not to post to us anymore? I thought it was only if they were harassing us or something like that.
Wouldn't that require that we first allege harrasment? I think such an allegation is prohibited, in if so, such a precondition would tend to make use of do-not-post-to-me requests impractical within site guidelines.My understanding is the don't post to me option implies nothing more than a desire to disengage -- it doesn't even mean we don't agree with them or their beliefs. In the circumstance you cited, disengagement was the primary reason. And after a few hours, I comprimised the request by citing the particular threads that were becoming problematic for me, I suggested the person could address comments to the topic instead of to me, and changed my request to an informal request that we disengage on those threads only. In doing so, I noted that "do not post to me" is actually a request that we "do not post to each other", hence a way of controlling one's own activities as well.
So far as I can tell it was all within the rules. Admin peruses the board daily, and has apparently made the rounds twice since that time. Though his lack of commentary about someone's post that "... you must be too dumb to understand" suggests his reading in the past 48 hours might not have included every post, he did entered a comment directly in response to my do-not-post request, asking if I would like to elaborate, and thus implying he had seen it but had not found it to be a violation of any of his rules.
Perhaps this information will help clarify matters for you.
Not simply because we disagree with or don't like their beliefs -- is that not right?
>
> If I am right, Dr. Bob, I don't understand why you didn't inform this poster of that rule:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050517/msgs/501079.html
>
Posted by crushedout on May 24, 2005, at 19:44:05
In reply to Re: don't post to me anymore requests, posted by so on May 24, 2005, at 17:47:39
that definitely didn't clarify a thing for me, but thanks for trying, i guess.you might want to check out tender's post and the link she provides. from the parts of your post that i could understand, i gathered you had not already done so.
Posted by so on May 24, 2005, at 20:53:50
In reply to Re: don't post to me anymore requests » so, posted by crushedout on May 24, 2005, at 19:44:05
10der's reference was to information about what to do if one feels harrassed, not about the scope of the "do not post to me" option.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 24, 2005, at 21:08:06
In reply to Re: don't post to me anymore requests, posted by so on May 24, 2005, at 17:47:39
Of the 'do not post to me'.
> Wouldn't that require that we first allege harrasment? I think such an allegation is prohibited, in if so, such a precondition would tend to make use of do-not-post-to-me requests impractical within site guidelines.
You are allowed to say which bits of their posts you felt harrassed by...
That doesn't imply that they were harrassing you...
> My understanding is the don't post to me option implies nothing more than a desire to disengage -- it doesn't even mean we don't agree with them or their beliefs.
Ah. I typically show disengagement by not responding. Or posting something saying 'I don't think I will be responding anymore'.
>In the circumstance you cited, disengagement was the primary reason. And after a few hours, I comprimised the request by citing the particular threads that were becoming problematic for me,
Right... I'm a little unclear on that. Was it every thread aside from the current one (where you were hoping that I would 'back' your 'cause'?)
>I suggested the person could address comments to the topic instead of to me, and changed my request to an informal request that we disengage on those threads only. In doing so, I noted that "do not post to me" is actually a request that we "do not post to each other", hence a way of controlling one's own activities as well.
Right. You really can feel free not to respond to me, you know. In fact... I like to think that people will do this if I annoy them. Reinforce the threads you like, ignore the threads you don't; and lets just see what sort of posts Babble can shape out of me :-)
> Though his lack of commentary about someone's post that "... you must be too dumb to understand" suggests his reading in the past 48 hours might not have included every post,Yes... I was a little puzzled by that...
Though, on rereading the post in question...He wasn't accusing you of being dumb...
He was saying that the tone of your post to me seemed to imply that you thought that I was dumb.
I will be interested to see the civility determination on that one, myself...>he did entered a comment directly in response to my do-not-post request, asking if I would like to elaborate, and thus implying he had seen it but had not found it to be a violation of any of his rules.
I thought he was attempting to get you to have a think and sort out how much you were responding to me and how much you were responding to your past demons in considering me to be 'authoritarian'...
Please clarify the extent of the: do not post to me request.
I have been PBC'd before for posting to someone after they have made that request to me and I know I will get blocked if I do that again.
But I am unclear on the scope of the request.
Ta.
Posted by crushedout on May 24, 2005, at 21:30:17
In reply to Re: don't post to me anymore requests, posted by so on May 24, 2005, at 20:53:50
no, that actually *is* the scope of the do-not-post-to-me option. that is the only rule that provides for asking another poster not to post to you, and as the rule makes clear, dr. bob discourages such requests.
Posted by crushedout on May 24, 2005, at 21:37:20
In reply to Re: I'm not so clear on the scope... » so, posted by alexandra_k on May 24, 2005, at 21:08:06
just to clarify, i don't think it violates a rule to ask someone not to post to you in the absence of feeling harassed, but i think dr. bob could just say that the request need not be honored. actually, i'd like to know whether dr. bob agrees that this would be the proper remedy, as i'm not sure.and yes, "so," as you pointed out, dr. bob responded to your do-not-post-to-me post and did not bring this up, which is precisely what prompted me to start this thread. it was puzzling.
given the hugeness of this board, however, it's not surprising that dr. bob does not manage to catch and respond to every issue that comes up. when they're important (and even sometimes when they're not) we bring them to his attention, or we try to anyway.
Posted by so on May 24, 2005, at 22:20:48
In reply to Re: I'm not so clear on the scope... » so, posted by alexandra_k on May 24, 2005, at 21:08:06
> Ah. I typically show disengagement by not responding.
I don't know what your typical behavior has to do with my choices.
> Right... I'm a little unclear on that. Was it every thread aside from the current one (where you were hoping that I would 'back' your 'cause'?)
Maybe it would be more clear to you if you reread the post in which I answered the question yesterday - which you properly addressed to "no one in particular" in the context of the status of my request at that time.
> Right. You really can feel free not to respond to me, you know.
You have access to scant information about what I can feel; none beyond the very little I have provided here in posts. I have written that I feel very little at all.
> In fact... I like to think that people will do this if I annoy them.What you like to think about what people will do might not be informative about what they will do.
> He wasn't accusing you of being dumb...
> He was saying that the tone of your post to me seemed to imply that you thought that I was dumb.Now I see, having more carefully investigated the usage, unfamiliar to me, of "ie", which I am more accustomed to reading with punctuation, (i.e.) to present, "id est", or "that is" that the writer implied I thought you must be dumb.
Again, however, that was not my statement - my statement addressed my sense of value for my time spent explaining my view vis a vis your preference for understanding your view. Several alternatives preclude that ignorance on your part would be the reason it is not worth my while explaining my views to you, including that you might not be interested in understanding my views, and that I might not have time to compose an adequate explanation of my views to inform your understanding of a topic so unique to your experience. I might consider it not worth my time to explain Russian or Chinese language, either, but that wouldn't I think mean you are dumb. It could mean I don't consider myself a qualified instructor.You confirmed your understanding in a later post that our efforts to understand each other might not be a worthwhile use of our time.
I doubt I would be allowed to write that another person here was implying a third person was dumb because they were not quick to understand views they do not embrace. If I were to broach the topic of what I thought someone thought of someone else, I believe I would be required to write it as an "I statement" about my feelings, and in my experience, not using the self-referential prepositional phrase "to me" to indicate my perception, and certainly not as a finding of fact phrased "I find".
Posted by so on May 24, 2005, at 22:30:35
In reply to scope » so, posted by crushedout on May 24, 2005, at 21:30:17
> no, that actually *is* the scope of the do-not-post-to-me option.
That might be the scope of explanations of the options, then, but I don't recognize from having read the board that is the entire scope of how it is used. Frankly, I would rather no one reply to me and I would rather I and everyone else write to the topic and never to a person, but I am influenced by local culture.
>that is the only rule that provides for asking another poster not to post to you, and as the rule makes clear, dr. bob discourages such requests.
I have not recently comprensively reviewed the entire collection of rules along with a comprehensive record of how they have been enforced, so I have no reliable basis beyond my experience and due diligence in once reading the guidelines upon which to confirm or deny agreement with you.
Posted by crushedout on May 24, 2005, at 22:40:21
In reply to Re: scope » crushedout, posted by so on May 24, 2005, at 22:30:35
I was not seeking your agreement and frankly have no interest in finding out whether or not you agree with me.
Posted by 10derHeart on May 24, 2005, at 23:45:44
In reply to thanks, tender! you're full of info! (nm), posted by crushedout on May 24, 2005, at 16:33:05
Posted by so on May 24, 2005, at 23:47:14
In reply to Re: scope, posted by crushedout on May 24, 2005, at 22:40:21
>
> I was not seeking your agreement and frankly have no interest in finding out whether or not you agree with me.Do you have an interest in me knowing how little interest you have in finding out whether I agree with you?
I ask because your statement is addressed to me, though I'm not sure exactly what it is you don't care if I agree about.
Posted by 10derHeart on May 24, 2005, at 23:58:18
In reply to scope » so, posted by crushedout on May 24, 2005, at 21:30:17
Thanks for helping clarify that, crushed. The title of that part of the FAQs *is* a little misleading, until you read down through the entire thing.
(so nice to see you back babbling a little...give us a visit at PBP, too, okay?)
Posted by crushedout on May 25, 2005, at 8:58:56
In reply to Re: scope, posted by so on May 24, 2005, at 23:47:14
Posted by so on May 25, 2005, at 11:44:01
In reply to nope. (nm) » so, posted by crushedout on May 25, 2005, at 8:58:56
then I wonder whose interests were served by you addressing to me a post about your interests.
Posted by crushedout on May 25, 2005, at 11:58:11
In reply to whose interests then..., posted by so on May 25, 2005, at 11:44:01
I definitely am feeling harassed. The irony is amazing.
Posted by crushedout on May 25, 2005, at 12:01:06
In reply to Re: scope » crushedout, posted by 10derHeart on May 24, 2005, at 23:58:18
> (so nice to see you back babbling a little...give us a visit at PBP, too, okay?)I don't wander far. I lurk more than I post. :)
Posted by 10derHeart on May 25, 2005, at 12:12:06
In reply to Re: scope, posted by crushedout on May 25, 2005, at 12:01:06
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 25, 2005, at 13:19:58
In reply to Re: scope » crushedout, posted by so on May 24, 2005, at 22:30:35
> Frankly, I would rather no one reply to me and I would rather I and everyone else write to the topic and never to a person, but I am influenced by local culture.
>Good to know. I find what much of you write to be incredibly interesting, and I have a wry admiration for your directness. My automatic response to posts I find informative/interesting is to say "Thanks!" or add a comment. In your case I shall refrain. Starting now, obviously.
Posted by so on May 25, 2005, at 14:06:41
In reply to Re: scope » so, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 25, 2005, at 13:19:58
> > Frankly, I would rather no one reply to me and I would rather I and everyone else write to the topic and never to a person, but I am influenced by local culture.
> >
>
> Good to know. I find what much of you write to be incredibly interesting, and I have a wry admiration for your directness. My automatic response to posts I find informative/interesting is to say "Thanks!" or add a comment. In your case I shall refrain. Starting now, obviously.
Comments are useful. I hope they continue. I'm not commenting on the contribution of comments, but rather on the voice in which they are submitted. To clarify, saying "thanks" is a comment to me about my involvement and that could be useful to me, because sometimes it is difficult to tell why people are responding. One could as well say "I appreciate what So writes," though the second-person voice might more specifically encourage me to write more. I probably can't say whether I am more gratified by second-person compliments or by third-person compliments about my work. It might not matter, unless I were trying to promote my work.But a second-person acknowledgement of a person's contribution doesn't seem as limiting, in the way I read, as does a second-person presentation of opinions about other matters. At least in keeping with the way I have learned to write my best material comments written for a broad audience are most effective in third person. I might be influenced my lack of appreciation for use of second-person statements by broadcasters who attempt to personalize their product by phrasing news, weather and sports in the second-person to whomever happens to be listening. I'm like, "Who, me?" A personal approach might better engage otherwise undifferentiated listeners to a broadcast service, but third person voice can make it easier for a broad audience to internalize messages written in a particular context that might otherwise be perceived as a one-to-one conversation.
To go a step further, in trying to discern which voice to use to promote the goals developed by the administrator of this site, one might say "thanks" if they enjoy the post, but if they just don't care about someone else's opinion on a particular matter, a third-person voice (i.e. "I just don't care what some people think about my opinion.") might be less likely to encourage a reply than second-person statement. In either case, though, if one doesn't want a particular person involved at all in a conversation they start, it might be best to start the conversation in a more private venue. This particular context can be complicated, for sure, because it tends to address uniquely personal matters, including conversational style.
To review, this post uses first-person and third-person voice. But people who care about the topic might internalize it just as well as, if not better than if the entire post were written in the second-person voice to someone in particular.
Of course, the order of the thread -- in which the Perl script tagged this response as in response to a particular post, and the inclusion of a citation from a particular person's post, helps clarify the context in which the third-person statements are presented. Selecting "add name of previous" can help to further specify the intended primary audience for an entry otherwise written in the third-person voice to be read by anyone with Internet access.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 26, 2005, at 2:45:49
In reply to Re: don't post to me anymore requests, posted by so on May 24, 2005, at 17:47:39
> My understanding is the don't post to me option implies nothing more than a desire to disengage
I think wanting to disengage would be a reasonable way of generalizing that policy:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#harassed
> his lack of commentary about someone's post that "... you must be too dumb to understand" suggests his reading in the past 48 hours might not have included every post
Sorry, I either missed that or haven't gotten to it yet. Busy lately, plus technical problems... :-(
Bob
Posted by crushedout on May 26, 2005, at 2:54:01
In reply to Re: don't post to me anymore requests, posted by Dr. Bob on May 26, 2005, at 2:45:49
anytime you want to disengage for *any* reason, dr. bob, you can request that a poster not post to you???wow, that seems new. very good to know though. i may be using that option a lot more frequently in that case. :)
> I think wanting to disengage would be a reasonable way of generalizing that policy:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#harrassed
>
> > his lack of commentary about someone's post that "... you must be too dumb to understand" suggests his reading in the past 48 hours might not have included every post
>
> Sorry, I either missed that or haven't gotten to it yet. Busy lately, plus technical problems... :-(
>
> Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 26, 2005, at 3:10:40
In reply to disengage? » Dr. Bob, posted by crushedout on May 26, 2005, at 2:54:01
> anytime you want to disengage for *any* reason, dr. bob, you can request that a poster not post to you???
You don't think that's such a great idea? What kinds of reasons do you have in mind?
Bob
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.