![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 27 to 51 of 64. Go back in thread:
Posted by AuntieMel on May 26, 2005, at 9:20:02
In reply to Re: disengage? » Dr. Bob, posted by crushedout on May 26, 2005, at 4:33:48
I see a couple of possible problems with using it to disengage.
The 'do not post' request lasts forever - or until the requestor rescinds it. If a poster is using it to disengage he/she needs to remember to rescind it when feeling strong enough to re-engage. And hope the other poster sees it.
And it's possible that a 'do not post' might cause some hurt feelings, where a simple 'let's just agree to disagree' wouldn't.
So - my understanding is that it *can* be used for this purpose, but some serious thought is strongly recommended before using it.
Posted by crushedout on May 26, 2005, at 9:52:22
In reply to Re: disengagement » crushedout, posted by AuntieMel on May 26, 2005, at 9:20:02
these are good thoughts.> I see a couple of possible problems with using it to disengage.
>
> The 'do not post' request lasts forever - or until the requestor rescinds it. If a poster is using it to disengage he/she needs to remember to rescind it when feeling strong enough to re-engage. And hope the other poster sees it.
>
> And it's possible that a 'do not post' might cause some hurt feelings, where a simple 'let's just agree to disagree' wouldn't.
>
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 28, 2005, at 11:57:13
In reply to Re: disengage? » Dr. Bob, posted by crushedout on May 26, 2005, at 4:33:48
> I'm okay with the idea. It's just that in the past you've said that you wanted to restrict people's ability to use it (I asked you on Admin many moons ago when I could use it and you said only when I felt harassed) because you thought it should be used sparingly.
I'd still like it to be used sparingly, but think this might be a reasonable extension. Hmm, if the goal is disengagement, and A asks B not to post to him or her, maybe A shouldn't post to B, either?
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on May 28, 2005, at 12:50:20
In reply to Re: disengage?, posted by Dr. Bob on May 28, 2005, at 11:57:13
Isn't that the rule now? If A asked B not to post, A can't post to B, unless they are wiling to rescind the do not post.
gg
Posted by crushedout on May 28, 2005, at 14:02:28
In reply to Re: disengage? » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on May 28, 2005, at 12:50:20
yes, that's what i thought too.dr. bob, if you want it used sparingly, you have to have a bright line rule and just wanting to disengage does not meet that standard at all. i don't think it's going to work to say you want it used sparingly but then have a rule that is so subjective and unclear. my 2 cents. as i said, i don't care what the rule is as long as it's applied consistently and fairly.
Posted by 10derHeart on May 28, 2005, at 17:26:01
In reply to Re: disengage? » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on May 28, 2005, at 12:50:20
....and it seems Dr. Bob is technically accurate in his post above.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#harassed
There is nothing banning A from posting to B, even after A has requested B not post to A.However, as you said, B is then allowed to reply without having committed any sort of infraction. But, I think I took this to mean B can reply to ONLY that post. But then, what if A replies to B's reply....can B keep on replying? Does it rescind the DNP forever the first time A posts to B?
To me, the wording almost suggests it's not only fine, but encouraged for A to post to B after a DNP request to B, as this would lead to a possibility of an affirmative rescinding of the DNP, which seems to be the desired outcome.
The rules are hard for me to understand.
I'm not stupid.
And I'm really trying.
:-(
Posted by alexandra_k on May 28, 2005, at 17:30:52
In reply to Actually, reread the FAQ... » gardenergirl, posted by 10derHeart on May 28, 2005, at 17:26:01
> There is nothing banning A from posting to B, even after A has requested B not post to A.
Yup.
> However, as you said, B is then allowed to reply without having committed any sort of infraction. But, I think I took this to mean B can reply to ONLY that post.Yup. If A does direct a post B's way then B has a right of response to that post (but only that post).
>But then, what if A replies to B's reply....can B keep on replying?
I think B has a right of response (maybe only 1 response??) to each post that A directs B's way.
>Does it rescind the DNP forever the first time A posts to B?
I don't think so.
I think that to rescind it A actually has to post something saying that it is rescinded.
> To me, the wording almost suggests it's not only fine, but encouraged for A to post to B after a DNP request to B, as this would lead to a possibility of an affirmative rescinding of the DNP, which seems to be the desired outcome.Yeah. Thats happened with me before.
At least...
Thats just my understanding.
I'm a little unclear on precisely what counts as a response that it directed to B.
Still, I suppose B just has to try and be as 'vague' about 'replying' as A was about 'adressing' their post...But maybe I have things a bit wrong...
Posted by gardenergirl on May 28, 2005, at 22:24:09
In reply to Re: Actually, reread the FAQ... » 10derHeart, posted by alexandra_k on May 28, 2005, at 17:30:52
Wow, I never interpreted it that A posting to B after a DNP request allowed a reply ONLY to that post. I interpreted it as the DNP being rescinded.
So if y'all are right and I am wrong, then A could "toy with" B all A wants by posting to B whenever A feels like a dialog, but otherwise B is prevented from posting to A. That seems rude to me.
gg
Posted by 10derHeart on May 28, 2005, at 23:39:31
In reply to Re: Actually, reread the FAQ..., posted by gardenergirl on May 28, 2005, at 22:24:09
>>Wow, I never interpreted it that A posting to B after a DNP request allowed a reply ONLY to that post. I interpreted it as the DNP being rescinded.
Yeah. That's kind of why I tried to write it out here - to see how others were "reading between the lines." I'd rather interpret it your way. Seems like that would just make sense, and tend to prevent the "stringing along" one-sided thing you mentioned.
I dunno.One reason I think A would have to post something explicit, e.g., "it's okay to post to me now," or "I wish to rescind my DNP to me request," like alex said, is because of the way in the FAQ, it immediately states that your request stays in effect until you change your mind.
No need to even say that if by A posting anything to B, your request was automatically rescinded, right?
I'm wondering if this part of the FAQ needs some refining, as I shouldn't have to resort to quite so much reading between the lines and interpretation, maybe...?
But that's just me.
Logic and precise meaning of words I enjoy, but
They often are a bit of a stretch and an effort
As I operate out of intuition and feeling my way
So much more naturally
Not very balanced of an approach IRL, though....
So, thanks for allowing me to try to reason this simple concept out with you guys
Usually I'm far too intimidated to join even the simplest thread like this.
Dumb way to feel, I suppose.
Even though I still swear I'm not stupid ;-)
Posted by 10derHeart on May 28, 2005, at 23:45:30
In reply to Re: Actually, reread the FAQ... » 10derHeart, posted by alexandra_k on May 28, 2005, at 17:30:52
Hey, thanks for going through that.
I feel better once your sharp mind has been applied to something.
>> I'm a little unclear on precisely what counts as a response that it directed to B.
Still, I suppose B just has to try and be as 'vague' about 'replying' as A was about 'adressing' their post...<<I know. Me, too. That last paragraph in the FAQ could induce quite a headache if you ask yourself too many questions.
>>But maybe I have things a bit wrong...<<
Well, I don't know about wrong.
I'm sure Dr. B intended to keep it simple, but..
Seems it isn't, really.Any suggestions to make it better?
Posted by crushedout on May 29, 2005, at 0:46:53
In reply to Re: Actually, reread the FAQ..., posted by gardenergirl on May 28, 2005, at 22:24:09
I never read it that way, either. It can't possibly mean that, because it would make no sense, and be completely unfair.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 29, 2005, at 0:59:28
In reply to Re: Actually, reread the FAQ... » gardenergirl, posted by crushedout on May 29, 2005, at 0:46:53
>
> I never read it that way, either. It can't possibly mean that, because it would make no sense, and be completely unfair.I'm sure it doesn't mean that. There have been clarifications from Dr. Bob about it before, and once A has posted directly to B the block is rescinded. It does have to be a direct reply and not simply a response to "B"'s post or thread though, and that could be pretty vague I think.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 29, 2005, at 5:30:10
In reply to Re: Actually, reread the FAQ... » alexandra_k, posted by 10derHeart on May 28, 2005, at 23:45:30
> I feel better once your sharp mind has been applied to something.
Oh dear...
I don't think you should...
Sometimes I create much more difficulty than there was in the first place..
:-)I did think that A could still post to B if A liked.
Hope ya don't mind Dinah,
But this reminds me of when Dinah requested I not post to her.
She directed something my way..
I got the chance to respond..
Then we had a bit of a chat that way..
And then the DNP request was rescinded.I think it can work quite nicely like that to sort the situation out.
But it can feel a bit frustrating if someone can post to you whenever but you aren't allowed to post to them.
Even more frustrating when it is hard to tell if it counts as being addressed to you or not...
Posted by Dinah on May 29, 2005, at 8:25:51
In reply to Re: Actually, reread the FAQ... » 10derHeart, posted by alexandra_k on May 29, 2005, at 5:30:10
Well, I don't recall the specifics.
But if I directed something to you, I'm sure I realized that was a rescinding. If I commented on something you said, either to Dr. Bob or in general terms, I'm relatively certain it was just that, a comment. If you commented to my comment to Dr. Bob or the board in general with a comment to Dr. Bob or the board in general, you would have been within your rights.
Which is why I think the DNP is toothless, but on the other hand, it's also theoretically sound.
But... I doubt that's why I rescinded the DNP. If I'd have seen the pattern, I'd have been more likely to be irritated by the DNP limitations than anything else.
I probably rescinded the DNP because I genuinely like you, Alexandra, and believe you don't mean to hurt or frustrate me. I just needed a cooling off period. When I felt cool, I rescinded it. When the same thing happens with Dr. Bob, I usually throw a tantrum and self block myself from the board, vowing never to return. (I tried a less extreme tactic this time.) With you, I used the DNP. Much less dramatic.
I reiterate. I don't think you (or Dr. Bob) intend to frustrate me. I think that's just your characteristic style, and sometimes I feel too intensely about a topic and find that I get really frustrated and am better off disengaging before the temper tantrum stage.
Just wanted to clarify, because I didn't want you to think that your interpretation of the events on that occasion meant that indirect responses to me should I ever issue a DNP again is the best way to go about rapprochement. Depending on how distressed I still feel, it might not be *at all*. But I think that you can count on my liking for you to allow me to rescind the DNP (should it ever happen again) once I cool down a bit.
Posted by gardenergirl on May 29, 2005, at 10:35:27
In reply to Re: Actually, reread the FAQ..., posted by 10derHeart on May 28, 2005, at 23:39:31
Not stupid at all! I think your thinking on this is just fine. And I think perhaps the FAQ does need refining if there are different ways to interpret it that seem equally valid. I know Dr. Bob clarified for us, but that message will get archived at some point and new posters will not have the benefit of that clarification.
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 29, 2005, at 14:08:33
In reply to Re: Actually, reread the FAQ... » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on May 29, 2005, at 8:25:51
> There is nothing banning A from posting to B, even after A has requested B not post to A.
>
> However, as you said, B is then allowed to reply without having committed any sort of infraction... Does it rescind the DNP forever the first time A posts to B?
>
> 10derHeartI think I like the idea of having a post from A to B rescind the DNP. Any objections?
> I don't think ... Dr. Bob ... [intends] to frustrate me. I think that's just [his] characteristic style
I'm characteristically frustrating? Let's not have a poll on that one... :-)
Bob
Posted by Dinah on May 29, 2005, at 14:21:43
In reply to Re: rescind the DNP, posted by Dr. Bob on May 29, 2005, at 14:08:33
And I always thought that was the way it worked already.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 29, 2005, at 15:31:21
In reply to Re: rescind the DNP, posted by Dr. Bob on May 29, 2005, at 14:08:33
>> I'm characteristically frustrating? Let's not have a poll on that one... :-)
>
> BobTo quote a heroine of mine "You have many fine and useful qualities Dr. Bob" And a great deadpan sense of humour. Or at least I hope that's what it is. : )
Posted by Dinah on May 29, 2005, at 16:46:45
In reply to Re: rescind the DNP » Dr. Bob, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 29, 2005, at 15:31:21
Posted by alexandra_k on May 29, 2005, at 18:08:49
In reply to Re: Actually, reread the FAQ... » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on May 29, 2005, at 8:25:51
> Just wanted to clarify, because I didn't want you to think that your interpretation of the events on that occasion meant that indirect responses to me should I ever issue a DNP again is the best way to go about rapprochement.
Oh no, that wasn't it.
I replyed to someone elses post.
You responded to my reply.
So I posted to you (right of response)
Managed not to piss you off ;-)
So you posted another one to me
Managed not to piss you off again ;-)
Then you rescinded.I thought it was a useful way of going about it.
You make little, tentative posts to me
And I try and be a bit careful...
And not too annoying...
And then eventually you figure that I'm not so bad ;-)I thought it worked out quite well...
That wasn't about replying to you in general terms..
Posted by alexandra_k on May 29, 2005, at 19:54:02
In reply to Re: Actually, reread the FAQ... » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on May 29, 2005, at 18:08:49
Actually...
With respect to 'replying in general terms'
I am most likely to do that when I read DNP requests as an attempt to silence me from expressing my opinion on certain topics.As I have said before DNP requests will not work to silence me...
Most especially when I haven't been uncivil...
Posted by gardenergirl on May 30, 2005, at 0:33:10
In reply to Re: rescind the DNP, posted by Dr. Bob on May 29, 2005, at 14:08:33
> I think I like the idea of having a post from A to B rescind the DNP. Any objections?
So just to clarify, because I am very confused, now...
What if poster A posts to poster B but does not make a statement rescinding the DNP? What can poster B do and not do?
gg
Posted by crushedout on May 30, 2005, at 9:58:37
In reply to Re: rescind the DNP » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on May 30, 2005, at 0:33:10
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 31, 2005, at 3:31:31
In reply to Re: rescind the DNP » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on May 30, 2005, at 0:33:10
> > I think I like the idea of having a post from A to B rescind the DNP. Any objections?
>
> So just to clarify, because I am very confused, now...
>
> What if poster A posts to poster B but does not make a statement rescinding the DNP? What can poster B do and not do?Sorry, I didn't word that very well. The idea is that posting anything to B would automatically rescind the DNP. So no explicit statement would be necessary...
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on May 31, 2005, at 5:02:33
In reply to Re: rescind the DNP, posted by Dr. Bob on May 31, 2005, at 3:31:31
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.