Shown: posts 1 to 25 of 89. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 22, 2010, at 13:51:48
In reply to Re: yeah..some of them have probs..-To Med Emp, posted by bulldog2 on June 20, 2010, at 2:48:18
> you have become arrogant to others here
>
> You breed intolerance
>
> You play lose with facts.Please don't 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, and I'm sorry if this hurts you.
It's up to you to decide whom you interact with. Sometimes interacting with others may be frustrating, staying civil may be a challenge, and new skills may be required. If you're open to developing new skills (I know that may not be why you came in the first place), that's another way in which you might be able to be supported by other posters.
I do hope that you choose to remain a member of this community and that this community helps you, if needed, to avoid future blocks. mrtook and Dinah, thanks for trying to help this time.
Christ_empowered, I'm also sorry if you felt hurt.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express oneself, including a link to a nice post by Dinah on I-statements, are/is in 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
PS: According to the formula:
duration of previous block: 1 week
period of time since previous block: 1 week
severity: 2 (default) + 1 (uncivil toward particular individual) = 3
block length = 2.96 rounded = 3 weeks
Posted by chujoe on June 22, 2010, at 13:51:48
In reply to Re: blocked for 3 weeks » bulldog2, posted by Dr. Bob on June 21, 2010, at 10:39:36
I'm taking a voluntary three week block in solidarity with Bulldog2. Christ-empowered did indeed play loose with the facts, which is offensive to intellectual honesty and dangerous to those in need of help. This is not pro-med or anti-med, it is pro-truth and pro-tolerance. If allowed, I'll see everyone again on July 12.
Posted by Dinah on June 22, 2010, at 13:51:48
In reply to Re: blocked for 3 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by chujoe on June 21, 2010, at 11:21:43
Dr. Bob has never taken the stance that it's ok to be uncivil as long as what is said is "true".
I'm fat and none too attractive. If someone said I was a fat and ugly, the fact that it was true wouldn't make it civil.
You said you believe in treating your students with respect, and not shaming them. Do you think Christ empowered would feel respected by your words? Would you feel respected by those words? What if you later discovered you were mistaken about something in a post? Would it be ok for someone to say those things to you if they were true?
Pro tolerance of who? Tolerance sometimes requires tolerance of ideas and truths that differ from what we believe.
You can always present other facts to counterbalance what misinformation you perceive in the posts of others. While maintaining a stance of tolerance and respect towards the poster.
I look forward to seeing you again. And I hope I managed to write this post in the spirit it was intended. As a way to offer an alternative viewpoint, not with any lack of respect at all.
Posted by Toph on June 22, 2010, at 13:51:48
In reply to Re: blocked for 3 weeks » chujoe, posted by Dinah on June 21, 2010, at 16:25:23
> Dr. Bob has never taken the stance that it's ok to be uncivil as long as what is said is "true".
>
> I'm fat and none too attractive. If someone said I was a fat and ugly, the fact that it was true wouldn't make it civil.
>Hi Dinah,
I haven't been around for a while and the discussions seem lively. That's good.
I have never understood who decides which descriptors are acceptable and which are not. Clearly to me ugly is pejorative, fat probably is (you are neither as I recall BTW). Obese is more clinical, so is it okay? If someone says to me, "you are male", a fact, would this be uncivil as it could have all kinds of implied meaning? Descerning intent has never been a part of the discipline system here yet intent is assumed all the time when determining uncivil conduct.
Posted by Dinah on June 22, 2010, at 13:51:49
In reply to Re: blocked » Dinah, posted by Toph on June 22, 2010, at 9:30:07
I daresay context would be important.
I was just using it as an example to illustrate my point that truth doesn't necessarily mean something is civil. I figure it's an example that has only to do with me, and so it's a safe enough one to use.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 22, 2010, at 19:28:01
In reply to Re: blocked » Dinah, posted by Toph on June 22, 2010, at 13:51:48
> I haven't been around for a while and the discussions seem lively. That's good.
It's good to have you around again, too. :-)
> I have never understood who decides which descriptors are acceptable and which are not.
I (and the deputies) do.
> Descerning intent has never been a part of the discipline system here yet intent is assumed all the time when determining uncivil conduct.
Assumed by others, but not by us, you mean?
Bob
Posted by Toph on June 23, 2010, at 8:52:22
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Dr. Bob on June 22, 2010, at 19:28:01
> > Descerning intent has never been a part of the discipline system here yet intent is assumed all the time when determining uncivil conduct.
>
> Assumed by others, but not by us, you mean?
>
> BobWhat I meant was if something is deemed not civil, in my experience saying my intent was not to cause harm is no defense against something assumed by you or the deputies to be harmful.
Posted by ron1953 on June 23, 2010, at 14:26:33
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Dr. Bob on June 22, 2010, at 19:28:01
Pretzel logic.
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 23, 2010, at 16:21:51
In reply to Re: the system here » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on June 23, 2010, at 8:52:22
> > > Descerning intent has never been a part of the discipline system here yet intent is assumed all the time when determining uncivil conduct.
> >
> > Assumed by others, but not by us, you mean?
> >
> > Bob
>
> What I meant was if something is deemed not civil, in my experience saying my intent was not to cause harm is no defense against something assumed by you or the deputies to be harmful.Toph,
In looking at what you posted here above as a reply to Mr. Hsiung, I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean. If you could post answers here to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
In, [...no defense...]
A. Could this mean then that the practice here of the manager of the site calling a member out to change what they said as a condition to not be ostracized from the community to be a practice that could cause psychological/emotional harm to that member called out to do that?
B. Could you be wanting to mean that since the manager of the site has posted here that if someone posts here what could lead another to feel put down, that the posting of whatever could lead tht person to feel put down coud cause harm to the recipiant of the statement even though the intent of the poster of such posts that it is not their intent to cause harm?
C. Now if the above are true to you, could it be considered that there could be an issue here about what is known as {two wrongs do not make a right}?
D. What mental-health practice, if any, could you see in this situation, if you could, as the practice being analogous that could involve infliction of emotional distress?
Lou
Posted by Toph on June 23, 2010, at 18:30:15
In reply to Lou's request-nolodfndo » Toph, posted by Lou Pilder on June 23, 2010, at 16:21:51
I don't know, someone gets sanctioned because the administration assumes there was an intent to harm another. Then I read Bob apologizing to the purported victim because he assumes the person was hurt. It just seems like there's a lot of assuming going on here.
Posted by fayeroe on June 23, 2010, at 21:15:47
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Dr. Bob on June 22, 2010, at 19:28:01
Posted by jade k on June 25, 2010, at 16:05:50
In reply to Re: being blocked again, posted by Dr. Bob on June 20, 2010, at 3:25:34
> Would anyone be willing to try to show [poster] how he might rephrase the above or to encourage him to apologize? You may have the power to help him avoid being blocked again.
>
Just curious,Has this ever worked?
~Jade
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2010, at 0:40:48
In reply to Re: Lou's request-nolodfndo, posted by Toph on June 23, 2010, at 18:30:15
> What I meant was if something is deemed not civil, in my experience saying my intent was not to cause harm is no defense against something assumed by you or the deputies to be harmful.
> I don't know, someone gets sanctioned because the administration assumes there was [harm]. Then I read Bob apologizing to the purported victim because he assumes the person was hurt. It just seems like there's a lot of assuming going on here.
I wouldn't say we assume there actually to have been harm. I'd say we use our judgment to consider there to have been potential harm.
Like when someone gets a ticket for going over the speed limit, it's not implied that there actually was harm (or intent to harm). But there could have been harm, and if they keep speeding there could be harm in the future.
Bob
Posted by fayeroe on June 26, 2010, at 1:20:55
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2010, at 0:40:48
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 26, 2010, at 8:41:23
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2010, at 0:40:48
> > What I meant was if something is deemed not civil, in my experience saying my intent was not to cause harm is no defense against something assumed by you or the deputies to be harmful.
>
> > I don't know, someone gets sanctioned because the administration assumes there was [harm]. Then I read Bob apologizing to the purported victim because he assumes the person was hurt. It just seems like there's a lot of assuming going on here.
>
> I wouldn't say we assume there actually to have been harm. I'd say we use our judgment to consider there to have been potential harm.
>
> Like when someone gets a ticket for going over the speed limit, it's not implied that there actually was harm (or intent to harm). But there could have been harm, and if they keep speeding there could be harm in the future.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung, you wrote that in your system,
[...we use our judgment to consider there to have been potential harm...there could be harm in the future...]
That is your system.Looking at the post here that I am requesting that you post in the thread wher it is as to if or if not you consider the statement in and of itself to be supportive or not, I also ask for you to consider in that you say it is your system here to consider if there has been potential harm or there could be harm in the future as a criteria for you to use to sanction a statement .
Here is the statement in quuestion in the link in the link:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/200100321/msgs/951879.html
Now that statement could cause others here to think that you consider it to be supportive, for you state here that support takes presedence and that antisemitic statements are not to be posted which are those that if a Jew reads it they could be led to feel put down/accused. Your system her, as in your TOS, state not to post what could lead someone to feel put down/accused. In fact your sytem states not to post {anything} that could lead someone to feel put down.
History has shown what could happen to Jews and others when the {state} allows to be promulgated statemnts that could preclude Jews and others that do not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior from forgivness and Eternal Life. The statement then could mean to some that could think in such terms, that the Jewish children murderd and subjected to atrocities, that have been determined to have been crimes against humanity commited by those that are antisemites and claim superiority, to be precluded from forgivness and Eternal Life. Not only thast, but there are those that could think from the statement in question who do accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior that the ones that commited the atrocities have forgivness and Eternal Life if they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.
Now I am asking that you post in that thread as to if you consider the statement in and of itself to be supportive or not sdo that the members her could make their own determination as to what you mean here as to if in your system as to you using your judgement as ti if there could be harm to someone from the post in question without you posting in that thread as to if you consider the statement supportive or not. Fot members could think that you do consider it supportive because you state that support takes precedence and not to post what could lead someone to feel put down.
Now you state here that you will take rsponsibility for what you post here. And you state that your TOS states that to not post what could lead someone to feel put down. When I became a member here and looked at your system, I took you at your word.
You could continue to leave my request unanswerd and there is IMHO the potential of me being a victim of antisemitic violence. Would you take responsibility for that? You sated here that the forum is for support so I think that it falls in your TOS of your system to not leave that thread in question with the ambiguity as to if the statement in question is supportive to you or not.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 26, 2010, at 8:46:10
In reply to Lou's response to {your system}- » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on June 26, 2010, at 8:41:23
> > > What I meant was if something is deemed not civil, in my experience saying my intent was not to cause harm is no defense against something assumed by you or the deputies to be harmful.
> >
> > > I don't know, someone gets sanctioned because the administration assumes there was [harm]. Then I read Bob apologizing to the purported victim because he assumes the person was hurt. It just seems like there's a lot of assuming going on here.
> >
> > I wouldn't say we assume there actually to have been harm. I'd say we use our judgment to consider there to have been potential harm.
> >
> > Like when someone gets a ticket for going over the speed limit, it's not implied that there actually was harm (or intent to harm). But there could have been harm, and if they keep speeding there could be harm in the future.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung, you wrote that in your system,
> [...we use our judgment to consider there to have been potential harm...there could be harm in the future...]
> That is your system.Looking at the post here that I am requesting that you post in the thread wher it is as to if or if not you consider the statement in and of itself to be supportive or not, I also ask for you to consider in that you say it is your system here to consider if there has been potential harm or there could be harm in the future as a criteria for you to use to sanction a statement .
> Here is the statement in quuestion in the link in the link:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/200100321/msgs/951879.html
> Now that statement could cause others here to think that you consider it to be supportive, for you state here that support takes presedence and that antisemitic statements are not to be posted which are those that if a Jew reads it they could be led to feel put down/accused. Your system her, as in your TOS, state not to post what could lead someone to feel put down/accused. In fact your sytem states not to post {anything} that could lead someone to feel put down.
> History has shown what could happen to Jews and others when the {state} allows to be promulgated statemnts that could preclude Jews and others that do not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior from forgivness and Eternal Life. The statement then could mean to some that could think in such terms, that the Jewish children murderd and subjected to atrocities, that have been determined to have been crimes against humanity commited by those that are antisemites and claim superiority, to be precluded from forgivness and Eternal Life. Not only thast, but there are those that could think from the statement in question who do accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior that the ones that commited the atrocities have forgivness and Eternal Life if they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.
> Now I am asking that you post in that thread as to if you consider the statement in and of itself to be supportive or not sdo that the members her could make their own determination as to what you mean here as to if in your system as to you using your judgement as ti if there could be harm to someone from the post in question without you posting in that thread as to if you consider the statement supportive or not. Fot members could think that you do consider it supportive because you state that support takes precedence and not to post what could lead someone to feel put down.
> Now you state here that you will take rsponsibility for what you post here. And you state that your TOS states that to not post what could lead someone to feel put down. When I became a member here and looked at your system, I took you at your word.
> You could continue to leave my request unanswerd and there is IMHO the potential of me being a victim of antisemitic violence. Would you take responsibility for that? You sated here that the forum is for support so I think that it falls in your TOS of your system to not leave that thread in question with the ambiguity as to if the statement in question is supportive to you or not.
> Lou Pildercorrected:
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/951879.html
Posted by jade k on June 26, 2010, at 13:26:40
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2010, at 0:40:48
> > What I meant was if something is deemed not civil, in my experience saying my intent was not to cause harm is no defense against something assumed by you or the deputies to be harmful.
>
> > I don't know, someone gets sanctioned because the administration assumes there was [harm]. Then I read Bob apologizing to the purported victim because he assumes the person was hurt. It just seems like there's a lot of assuming going on here.
>
> I wouldn't say we assume there actually to have been harm. I'd say we use our judgment to consider there to have been potential harm.
>
> Like when someone gets a ticket for going over the speed limit, it's not implied that there actually was harm (or intent to harm). But there could have been harm, and if they keep speeding there could be harm in the future.
>
> Bob
"there could be harm in the future"? Yikes!!I'd "encourage" you to slow down Toph, but alas, its just not in my nature...(what kind of car do you drive btw?)
~Jade
Posted by Fred23 on June 26, 2010, at 15:01:29
In reply to Re: blocked for 3 weeks » bulldog2, posted by Dr. Bob on June 22, 2010, at 13:51:48
> PS: According to the formula:
>
> duration of previous block: 1 week
> period of time since previous block: 1 week
> severity: 2 (default) + 1 (uncivil toward particular individual) = 3
> block length = 2.96 rounded = 3 weeksIt would be simpler just to block everyone in the thread for the same length of time.
Posted by fayeroe on June 26, 2010, at 15:07:07
In reply to Re: blocked for 3 weeks, posted by Fred23 on June 26, 2010, at 15:01:29
Posted by jade k on June 26, 2010, at 15:24:23
In reply to Re: blkd 4 3 wks.all for one and one for all! :-) (nm) » Fred23, posted by fayeroe on June 26, 2010, at 15:07:07
Posted by fayeroe on June 26, 2010, at 15:34:09
In reply to Re: 3 wks? Let me check my calendar :-) (nm), posted by jade k on June 26, 2010, at 15:24:23
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2010, at 2:03:07
In reply to Re: blocked for 3 weeks, posted by Fred23 on June 26, 2010, at 15:01:29
> It would be simpler just to block everyone in the thread for the same length of time.
Everyone in a thread that turns uncivil or everyone who's uncivil?
It would be simpler if everyone were uncivil in the same way, and with the same frequency. :-)
Bob
Posted by Toph on June 28, 2010, at 9:53:00
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2010, at 0:40:48
> Like when someone gets a ticket for going over the speed limit, it's not implied that there actually was harm (or intent to harm). But there could have been harm, and if they keep speeding there could be harm in the future.
>
> BobFollowing your metaphor, I see Babble as a sort of support group for impaired drivers. Some will be speeders. Your system penalizes speeding members it is designed to help. Babble has had a lot of mental speeders over the years.
Posted by jade k on June 28, 2010, at 11:14:39
In reply to Re: simpler, posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2010, at 2:03:07
>
> It would be simpler if everyone were uncivil in the same way, and with the same frequency. :-)
>
> Bob
Want us to work on that? It does seem unfair that you're alone in this. :-)~Jade
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 29, 2010, at 19:23:52
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Toph on June 28, 2010, at 9:53:00
> Following your metaphor, I see Babble as a sort of support group for impaired drivers. Some will be speeders. Your system penalizes speeding members it is designed to help. Babble has had a lot of mental speeders over the years.
What would the goal of a support group for impaired drivers be? What kind of help would it try to provide?
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.