![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 8 to 32 of 90. Go back in thread:
Posted by gardenergirl on July 27, 2006, at 18:29:09
In reply to Re: How do you circumcise Dr. Bob?, posted by capricorn on July 27, 2006, at 17:30:04
Shirley you jest.
Posted by capricorn on July 28, 2006, at 6:05:01
In reply to Suggesting violence against women is humorous? » capricorn, posted by gardenergirl on July 27, 2006, at 18:29:09
> Shirley you jest.
I don't pay attention to whether the mods are male or female here.
I am not a great fan of deputies/moderators.Not saying it applies in all cases but many mods seem to have had an honesty/integrity bypass.
Posted by Dinah on July 28, 2006, at 8:17:06
In reply to Re: Suggesting violence against women is humorous?, posted by capricorn on July 28, 2006, at 6:05:01
> Not saying it applies in all cases but many mods seem to have had an honesty/integrity bypass.
Please respect the views of others even if you think they're wrong. Please be sensitive to their feelings even if yours are hurt.
You've already been asked to be civil, so I'm going to block you from posting for a week.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Dr. Bob is always free to override or adjust deputy decisions. His email is on the bottom of each page. Please feel free to email him if you believe this decision was made in error.
Dinah, acting as deputy for Dr. Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on July 28, 2006, at 9:35:29
In reply to Re: Suggesting violence against women is humorous?, posted by capricorn on July 28, 2006, at 6:05:01
I realize you can't reply at the moment, but I wanted to clarify something. Feel free to ignore or to reply when you are able.
> I don't pay attention to whether the mods are male or female here.
> I am not a great fan of deputies/moderators.That's well and good. I have no problem with you not being a fan.
But then that still leaves this: whether male or female, someone suggesting violence against *anyone*, or perhaps at least against those you are not fans of, is humorous to you?
gg
Posted by cloudydaze on July 30, 2006, at 19:08:18
In reply to Blocked for a week » capricorn, posted by Dinah on July 28, 2006, at 8:17:06
I am confused as to how this block came about...
The first one I can understand (the joke teller) - I felt the joke was crude. I was not offended personally, but i can see why some are.
But the second block I don't really understand, unless I am missing something.
IMO The person only stated that they found the joke funny - a personal opinion, not meant to condone real violence of any sort. I've heard the same joke millions of time, with different people in it. It's more about sexual favors than violence. Yes there is violence in it too, but if I said i thought this joke was funny it does not mean I'd think it was funny if it happened in real life. Crude as it may be, it's not meant to be taken seriously.
Again i understand the initial joke teller's infraction - but the other? Thinking something is funny is a crime against humanity?
(in my list of things not to do on babble, I will now add "stating that I think something is funny," because other people may not think it is)
Also, doesn't this person have a right to not like deputies if he'she wishes? This person never expressed dislike in any particular person, just moderators in general, and followed up by presenting a valid reason for the dislike of some moderators. I also saw that this person said "most moderators", not all moderators. In other words, no one was specifically attacked...it seems to me that this person was just showing disappointment in certain authority figures he/she has come in contact with in the past (possibly even from another site entirely!)
(now adding "do not express disappointment in anyone or to anyone" to my list of what not to do on babble)
I must be really dumb. I do not understand.
Posted by ClearSkies on July 30, 2006, at 20:29:38
In reply to Re: Blocked for a week, posted by cloudydaze on July 30, 2006, at 19:08:18
>
> IMO The person only stated that they found the joke funny - a personal opinion, not meant to condone real violence of any sort. I've heard the same joke millions of time, with different people in it. It's more about sexual favors than violence. Crude as it may be, it's not meant to be taken seriously.
Well, personally, I find it offensive; I find your implication above offensive, and neither of them the least bit funny.
ClearSkies
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 31, 2006, at 15:36:13
In reply to Re: Blocked for a week, posted by cloudydaze on July 30, 2006, at 19:08:18
> doesn't this person have a right to not like deputies if he'she wishes? This person never expressed dislike in any particular person, just moderators in general ... In other words, no one was specifically attacked...it seems to me that this person was just showing disappointment in certain authority figures he/she has come in contact with in the past
People have a right not to like deputies. In their case, I think it's even OK to post:
> > I don't like deputies.
But it's not OK to accuse them of being dishonest. Your freedom of speech is limited here. And accusing them in general instead of specifically doesn't make it OK and may even make it worse.
People also have a right not to like other posters, but I wouldn't consider it civil to post that. It's OK, however, to post:
> > I feel disappointed in certain authority figures I've come in contact with in the past.
> I must be really dumb. I do not understand.
You're not dumb. It's complicated. If you haven't yet, please consider taking a look at:
http://www.crnhq.org/windskill4.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/320097.htmlBob
Posted by Declan on August 1, 2006, at 17:44:20
In reply to Re: Suggesting violence against women is humorous?, posted by capricorn on July 28, 2006, at 6:05:01
I hadn't realised this thread was still going on. Perhaps people come here to practice.
I hope anyone won't feel put down if I say (sounding like my mother) that the whole thing seems really unneccessary.
Declan
Posted by Declan on August 1, 2006, at 17:51:20
In reply to Re: Suggesting violence against women is humorous?, posted by Declan on August 1, 2006, at 17:44:20
So all the deputies are female? I don't know whether to be more upset by sexism at psychobabble or by the loss of certain ironic possibilities that might have been raised by the original post had this not been so.
You can't all be as bored as I am.
Posted by cloudydaze on August 2, 2006, at 15:57:17
In reply to Re: a right to not like others, posted by Dr. Bob on July 31, 2006, at 15:36:13
> > doesn't this person have a right to not like deputies if he'she wishes? This person never expressed dislike in any particular person, just moderators in general ... In other words, no one was specifically attacked...it seems to me that this person was just showing disappointment in certain authority figures he/she has come in contact with in the past
>
> People have a right not to like deputies. In their case, I think it's even OK to post:
>
> > > I don't like deputies.
>
> But it's not OK to accuse them of being dishonest. Your freedom of speech is limited here. And accusing them in general instead of specifically doesn't make it OK and may even make it worse.
>
> People also have a right not to like other posters, but I wouldn't consider it civil to post that. It's OK, however, to post:
>
> > > I feel disappointed in certain authority figures I've come in contact with in the past.
>
> > I must be really dumb. I do not understand.
>
> You're not dumb. It's complicated. If you haven't yet, please consider taking a look at:
>
> http://www.crnhq.org/windskill4.html
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/320097.html
>
> BobSo, this all about a bad choice of words?
If I'm not mistaken, the poster said "It may not apply in all cases, but many mods....blah blah blah"Meaning, this person got blocked because he/she seems to believe that dishonest mods exist somewhere? Do we know for sure that all mods everywhere are fantastic people? I've personally come into contact with not-so-good mods ON OTHER SITES - i know they exist.
I could understand it if this person had said that about all mods/deputies, or if the poster said "mods in general are...blah"
But he/she did not say that.In fact, I think that second post by capricorn was purely trying to explain WHY he/she thought the joke was funny - so people WOULDN'T be offended.
That's all.
Posted by cloudydaze on August 2, 2006, at 16:03:33
In reply to Re: Blocked for a week » cloudydaze, posted by ClearSkies on July 30, 2006, at 20:29:38
> >
> > IMO The person only stated that they found the joke funny - a personal opinion, not meant to condone real violence of any sort. I've heard the same joke millions of time, with different people in it. It's more about sexual favors than violence. Crude as it may be, it's not meant to be taken seriously.
>
>
> Well, personally, I find it offensive; I find your implication above offensive, and neither of them the least bit funny.
> ClearSkies
>
>I am sorry you find it offensive. I am however curious as to why. You can babblemail me if you wish, or just choose not to answer, but I would like to know!
Posted by Dinah on August 2, 2006, at 16:15:46
In reply to Re: a right to not like others, posted by cloudydaze on August 2, 2006, at 15:57:17
So you think he was trying to explain why he found a joke about DR BOB'S DEPUTIES being (insert term here) by saying it was because he found many moderators on sites totally unrelated to DR BOB's as having had honesty/integrity bypass as an effort to make sure he hadn't offended, say, DR BOB's DEPUTIES, by finding a joke that found DR BOB's DEPUTIES to engage in sexual acts with DR BOB.
And that explaining that he has found moderators ELSEWHERE to be lacking in integrity and honesty, that's why he found the joke about DR BOB's DEPUTIES to be so funny?
And that his purpose was to make sure that no one was offended by his finding that funny, he made sure to mention about the honesty and integrity.
Is that what you're trying to say, not once, but repeating again?
You believe that Capricorn holds DR BOB's DEPUTIES in nothing but the highest esteem, but found the joke about DR BOB''s DEPUTIES funny because of his feeelings about the integrity of moderators on totally unrelated sites?
Posted by Dinah on August 2, 2006, at 16:21:25
In reply to Re: a right to not like others, posted by Dr. Bob on July 31, 2006, at 15:36:13
> People have a right not to like deputies. In their case, I think it's even OK to post:
>
> > > I don't like deputies.1) Is it ok for Poster A to post "I don't like Poster B".
2) Is it ok for poster A to post "I don't like Deputy X".
3) Is it ok for Deputy X to post "I don't like Poster A".
4) Is it ok for Poster A to post "I don't like deputies" (as long as Poster A doesn't specify which ones).
5) Is it ok for Poster A to post "I don't like Social Board posters" (as long as Poster A doesn't specify which ones)
6) Is it ok for Poster A to post "I don't like posters who post that they eat cheese" as long as more than one poster has recently admitting to eating cheese? How about if only one poster has recently admitted to eating cheese? Of course, this question has no relevance if 1) is ok.
Posted by Dinah on August 2, 2006, at 17:09:18
In reply to Re: a right to not like others » cloudydaze, posted by Dinah on August 2, 2006, at 16:15:46
I apologize for my post to cloudydaze. I should have walked away again. And I will now.
But I would like my clarifying post answered, if you don't mind.
Posted by Estella on August 2, 2006, at 20:09:50
In reply to Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on August 2, 2006, at 17:09:18
Posted by cloudydaze on August 2, 2006, at 20:12:19
In reply to Re: a right to not like others » cloudydaze, posted by Dinah on August 2, 2006, at 16:15:46
> So you think he was trying to explain why he found a joke about DR BOB'S DEPUTIES being (insert term here) by saying it was because he found many moderators on sites totally unrelated to DR BOB's as having had honesty/integrity bypass as an effort to make sure he hadn't offended, say, DR BOB's DEPUTIES, by finding a joke that found DR BOB's DEPUTIES to engage in sexual acts with DR BOB.
***He obviously feels that some moderators have a tendency to try too hard at their job, or try to throw their weight around,(which I have seen on other sites - forgive me if i broke any rules by saying).
>> And that explaining that he has found moderators ELSEWHERE to be lacking in integrity and honesty, that's why he found the joke about DR BOB's DEPUTIES to be so funny?
>
> And that his purpose was to make sure that no one was offended by his finding that funny, he made sure to mention about the honesty and integrity.****He made sure to mention that the reason he found the deputy joke funny was because of the way he found SOME moderators can be. Are you saying that all moderators are great people? I don't believe that you know every single moderator on the face of the earth, do you? How can you vouch for their character?
>
> Is that what you're trying to say, not once, but repeating again?
>
> You believe that Capricorn holds DR BOB's DEPUTIES in nothing but the highest esteem, but found the joke about DR BOB''s DEPUTIES funny because of his feeelings about the integrity of moderators on totally unrelated sites?
>
>
>
>What I am saying is that there was NOTHING in capricorn's wording that said or even implied that DR BOB's DEPUTIES were blah blah blah..
For instance...someone might find a joke about...say, police oficers funny, but that doesn't mean he hates all police officers. Some people just hate the IDEA of authority figures for various reasons....they may or may not hate any particular police officers...
Capricorn has a right to his/her sense of humor. The fact that capricorn did not tell the joke is relevant. And, the fact that capricorn tried to explain himself/herself is relevant too. The fact that the wording wasn't the best is unfortuante, but I don't think it's grounds for a block.
Sorry.
Posted by cloudydaze on August 2, 2006, at 20:17:05
In reply to Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on August 2, 2006, at 17:09:18
> I apologize for my post to cloudydaze. I should have walked away again. And I will now.
>
> But I would like my clarifying post answered, if you don't mind.An apology isn't necessary :)
Again, would like to make sure you know I am not trying to hurt or offend you or anyone else. Trying to keep this a friendly as possible, while fulfilling my urges to be heard...
It's nothing personal, really. It's about policy.
Posted by ClearSkies on August 2, 2006, at 21:32:41
In reply to Re: Blocked for a week, posted by cloudydaze on August 2, 2006, at 16:03:33
> > >
> > > IMO The person only stated that they found the joke funny - a personal opinion, not meant to condone real violence of any sort. I've heard the same joke millions of time, with different people in it. It's more about sexual favors than violence. Crude as it may be, it's not meant to be taken seriously.
> >
> >
> > Well, personally, I find it offensive; I find your implication above offensive, and neither of them the least bit funny.
> > ClearSkies
> >
> >
>
> I am sorry you find it offensive. I am however curious as to why. You can babblemail me if you wish, or just choose not to answer, but I would like to know!
>Sure - it's just that I find jokes with sexual themes or innuendos to be inappropriate here at Babble. There are entire websites for jokes like that.
Posted by gardenergirl on August 2, 2006, at 22:50:27
In reply to Re: Suggesting violence against women is humorous?, posted by gardenergirl on July 28, 2006, at 9:35:29
I cannot let this issue go without trying to express how I feel about the original post, subsequent posts, and this discussion. I’ve chosen to use what some, including myself, might consider crude language in order to be as clear and direct as I can be.
I felt deeply offended after reading the original post in this thread, particularly within the context of recent off-board communication (which I cannot share). I can say without hesitation that essentially I felt accused of being a c*cksucker—specifically, of being in a position where one might envision me performing that act on Dr. Bob. In unpacking my feelings about this, I find traces of humiliation, shame, and embarrassment in addition to anger and shock. Cognitively, I can delineate to myself what is and what is not “rational” and adaptive in my reaction, and this reframing serves to reduce the intensity of my emotional response to the post. But doing so does not negate the shock and anger, which comprise the bulk of my reaction.
I felt offended not only in response to the sexual overtones to the message, but also in response to the suggestion of violence. I was shocked and disturbed at the visual image I experienced when reading the post. I experienced renewed anger and outrage when reading that others found humorous what can be interpreted as a suggestion of violence against the deputies.
I support the section of the civility guidelines which asks that others not “treat injury or death lightly, [nor] suggest that others harm …themselves or others. I believe it adds to the perceived safety of this site, and that sense of safety facilitates the giving and receiving of support on the boards. I believe that all posters here deserve this respect, including deputies.
I understand and accept that volunteering as a deputy can increase the likelihood of hearing criticism and being disliked.
I cannot and will not accept abuse for having chosen to help out here. This is my boundary, and I will continue to work hard to maintain it.
Regards,
gg
Posted by cloudydaze on August 2, 2006, at 23:41:24
In reply to Re: Blocked for a week, posted by ClearSkies on August 2, 2006, at 21:32:41
> > > >
> > > > IMO The person only stated that they found the joke funny - a personal opinion, not meant to condone real violence of any sort. I've heard the same joke millions of time, with different people in it. It's more about sexual favors than violence. Crude as it may be, it's not meant to be taken seriously.
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, personally, I find it offensive; I find your implication above offensive, and neither of them the least bit funny.
> > > ClearSkies
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I am sorry you find it offensive. I am however curious as to why. You can babblemail me if you wish, or just choose not to answer, but I would like to know!
> >
>
> Sure - it's just that I find jokes with sexual themes or innuendos to be inappropriate here at Babble. There are entire websites for jokes like that.maybe you misunderstood what i was trying to say...i didn't mean to say that i thought the telling of the joke was appropriate, just that I thought thinking it was funny wasn't a ban-able offense...
I understand the joke should not have been posted - i agree with that much!
Posted by cloudydaze on August 2, 2006, at 23:54:00
In reply to Suggesting violence--**trigger: crude**, posted by gardenergirl on August 2, 2006, at 22:50:27
> I cannot let this issue go without trying to express how I feel about the original post, subsequent posts, and this discussion. I’ve chosen to use what some, including myself, might consider crude language in order to be as clear and direct as I can be.
>
> I felt deeply offended after reading the original post in this thread, particularly within the context of recent off-board communication (which I cannot share). I can say without hesitation that essentially I felt accused of being a c*cksucker—specifically, of being in a position where one might envision me performing that act on Dr. Bob. In unpacking my feelings about this, I find traces of humiliation, shame, and embarrassment in addition to anger and shock. Cognitively, I can delineate to myself what is and what is not “rational” and adaptive in my reaction, and this reframing serves to reduce the intensity of my emotional response to the post. But doing so does not negate the shock and anger, which comprise the bulk of my reaction.
>
> I felt offended not only in response to the sexual overtones to the message, but also in response to the suggestion of violence. I was shocked and disturbed at the visual image I experienced when reading the post. I experienced renewed anger and outrage when reading that others found humorous what can be interpreted as a suggestion of violence against the deputies.
>
> I support the section of the civility guidelines which asks that others not “treat injury or death lightly, [nor] suggest that others harm …themselves or others. I believe it adds to the perceived safety of this site, and that sense of safety facilitates the giving and receiving of support on the boards. I believe that all posters here deserve this respect, including deputies.
>
> I understand and accept that volunteering as a deputy can increase the likelihood of hearing criticism and being disliked.
>
> I cannot and will not accept abuse for having chosen to help out here. This is my boundary, and I will continue to work hard to maintain it.
>
> Regards,
> gg
>Maybe I've heard that joke a million times before, so it did not phase me - I figured others knew what it meant too.
Once again, it's not supposed to be about violence - heck, it's not even REALLY about sexual stuff. It's just about someone's attitude towards authority. It's unfortunate that you took it another way.
I must be a brick wall of emotion, because very few things offend me. Yet, I am offended when people speak of hurting themselves or commiting suicide - to me this is the biggest form of treating death lightly - or rather treating life lightly...
Why is it okay and acceptable here to talk about hurting ourselves, but not ok to make a reference to violence toward others (esp since it was not meant to be serious)? Is hurting oneself more acceptable....why?
Posted by Estella on August 3, 2006, at 0:23:54
In reply to Re: Suggesting violence--**trigger: crude**, posted by cloudydaze on August 2, 2006, at 23:54:00
Hey.
I understand about finding it funny...
But I also understand about people feeling offended.
Especially given the sexual theme.
I don't feel very good (I feel disgusted in fact) when someone makes a sexual joke at my expense.
Some people are tougher. I used to have a girlfriend that would feel kinda flattered and she would get a kick out of it. But not me.
I guess the idea is that we should be careful to be sensitive to how other people are likely to feel in response to what we post.
I wonder whether the poster was intending to make a joke at the expense of the moderators / whether the poster was intending to make the moderators feel embarrassed... No way of knowing I guess... But I'm glad other posters aren't allowed to make that joke at my expense...
Posted by Declan on August 3, 2006, at 3:10:45
In reply to Re: a right to not like others » cloudydaze, posted by Dinah on August 2, 2006, at 16:15:46
Don't you think this is a beat-up? The joke wasn't funny, but by pretending it is we make a point about the deputies? Doesn't this make anyone feel tired? And then talking about violence against women. Which I shall bore you by saying I am against.
Declan
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 3, 2006, at 7:31:28
In reply to Re: a right to not like others, posted by cloudydaze on August 2, 2006, at 20:12:19
> So, this all about a bad choice of words?
That's all that we have here, so I take seriously which ones are chosen.
> Are you saying that all moderators are great people? I don't believe that you know every single moderator on the face of the earth, do you?
The issue isn't moderators everywhere, it's people here. Deputies and also people who just post here, but moderate elsewhere. You have a right to think some of them aren't great people, but not to post that. Your freedom of speech is limited here.
> someone might find a joke about...say, police oficers funny, but that doesn't mean he hates all police officers. Some people just hate the IDEA of authority figures for various reasons....
Whether or not someone hates all police officers, it might not be considered civil here to post a joke about them, since there might be police officers here who might feel accused or put down.
OTOH, it's fine to post that one just hates the idea of authority figures.
> He obviously feels that some moderators have a tendency to try too hard at their job, or try to throw their weight around,(which I have seen on other sites - forgive me if i broke any rules by saying).
Please don't jump to conclusions about others or post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 3, 2006, at 7:32:27
In reply to Just to clarify » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on August 2, 2006, at 16:21:25
> 1) Is it ok for Poster A to post "I don't like Poster B".
>
> 2) Is it ok for poster A to post "I don't like Deputy X".
>
> 3) Is it ok for Deputy X to post "I don't like Poster A".
>
> 4) Is it ok for Poster A to post "I don't like deputies" (as long as Poster A doesn't specify which ones).
>
> 5) Is it ok for Poster A to post "I don't like Social Board posters" (as long as Poster A doesn't specify which ones)
>
> 6) Is it ok for Poster A to post "I don't like posters who post that they eat cheese" as long as more than one poster has recently admitting to eating cheese?Deputies need to be able to take some heat, so I guess my feeling right now would be that 2 and 4 would be OK, while the rest wouldn't. Since they are, after all, I-statements. What do you think?
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.