![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 42. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by shar on August 21, 2003, at 20:59:08
Two people have recently been blocked because IMO they were offended and played with, and afterward, deemed uncivil. IMO one block was extreme, and the other unwarranted.
Admin is in an uproar. It just began recently. Taking a look at the Admin posts, I am reminded of the bible verse "Therefore by their fruits you will know them" (Matthew 7:20).
I would never suggest that this chaos is the work of one person. But it ain't a great fruit.
Shar
Posted by jlo820 on August 21, 2003, at 22:52:46
In reply to Two Blocks, so far, posted by shar on August 21, 2003, at 20:59:08
Posted by Simcha on August 22, 2003, at 2:18:55
In reply to Two Blocks, so far, posted by shar on August 21, 2003, at 20:59:08
Yes,
I would not want to name anyone the source of chaos as that might be considered "uncivil" in these parts.
It does seem to me that people are played here and then get blocked for being offended for being played with.
I would not want to point any fingers... Because someone might feel "put down" or might be made "uncomfortable." I would never want anyone to feel that they could not "share" in such a way.
*wink*
Simcha> Two people have recently been blocked because IMO they were offended and played with, and afterward, deemed uncivil. IMO one block was extreme, and the other unwarranted.
>
> Admin is in an uproar. It just began recently. Taking a look at the Admin posts, I am reminded of the bible verse "Therefore by their fruits you will know them" (Matthew 7:20).
>
> I would never suggest that this chaos is the work of one person. But it ain't a great fruit.
>
> Shar
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2003, at 2:42:23
In reply to Two Blocks, so far, posted by shar on August 21, 2003, at 20:59:08
> Two people have recently been blocked because IMO they were offended and played with, and afterward, deemed uncivil.
1. They were blocked because they posted comments I deemed uncivil. The idea here is to be civil even if you're offended.
2. But if they had in fact been "played with" or offended, I should've addressed that, too. Can you show me where that happened? After their PBCs?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 22, 2003, at 6:55:14
In reply to Two Blocks, so far, posted by shar on August 21, 2003, at 20:59:08
Shar,
You wrote,
[...looking at the admin posts, I am reminded of a bible verse in Matthew...].
I like that verse that you cited, even though I am not a member of christiandom. I am going to have a bible expert look at this thread today and have him make a determination after the thread is finished as to whose fruits are good or bad. He is finishing his Phd at Duke University in biblical studies and is interested in this discussion.
I am also going to ask the B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation league to examine this thread for it is my opinion that there is malice here toward the poster that you are bringing up here and if that is me then I consider it defamation toward me for I was using the admin. board for its intended purpose and it was others that wrote what they wrote to cause anything including NikkiT2 who asked me for the posts that were defaming tpward me, and I consider her post to me saying, Lou, you are a nasty piece of work to be malicious. The phrase also goes back to the period of time in England when England was anti-Semitic. The king had made an edict in 1290 expelling the jews and England's writers reflect that in William Shakespear's "Merchant of Venice". Those that want to say that Shakespere was not anti-Semitic say that he wrote the play only to accomodate the anti-Semitism of his day. I consider that the same.
Shakespear used the phrase, "piece of work" in Hamlet. It was a refeerence to something made. When the phrase is used tpward a person, such as Lou, You are a nasty piece of work. then it is saying that what was made is nasty. Humans are made by God according to the people that used that phrase in 1600 or so in England. So it meant that God made me a nasty piece of work. My friends from Hull, England have emailed me about this and say it is worse to call someone a nasty piece of work today. If this board wants to ligitimise the use of that phrase and then use this board to hold me up to ridicule for me expressing my feelings of such, then lets see the rest of this thread.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 22, 2003, at 7:08:49
In reply to Re: Two Blocks, so far » shar, posted by Simcha on August 22, 2003, at 2:18:55
Simcha,
You wrote,[...] and then wrote after it,[...I would not want to point any fingers...] Then you wrote,[*wink*].
Well, do you think that what you wrote is acceptable on an internet mental health board? Do you not think that what you wrote is an attempt to arrouse ill-feelings toward the poster in question? Am I that poster in question that you are writing about? Is the [*wink*] some sort of code here that is to arrouse others to "pile on" with your same thought?
You present yopurself here as a person that counsels in mental health. Is it good for you to write what you wrote here for the mental helth of people like myself that could think that you are writing about me? Is it good for the people that just read and follow these discussions here in order to get support and education to see what you write here in this thread?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 22, 2003, at 7:18:20
In reply to Re: Two Blocks, so far, posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2003, at 2:42:23
Dr. Bob,
You wrote,[...can you show me where this happened...?].
Note my objection to the way this thread is going. I do not feel that it is appropriate for the moderator of a public forum to encourage, in any way, others to bring up another person {in the way it is being done in this thread}. I am asking you to not allow others to use innuendo here and requier them to state the name of the poster they are bringing up. That way, the poster iu nquestion will have the opportunity to be confronted with his/her accusers and have the opportunity to repond accordingly.
Lou Pilder
Posted by shar on August 22, 2003, at 12:42:08
In reply to Re: Two Blocks, so far, posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2003, at 2:42:23
> > Two people have recently been blocked because IMO they were offended and played with, and afterward, deemed uncivil.
>
> 1. They were blocked because they posted comments I deemed uncivil. The idea here is to be civil even if you're offended.
>
> 2. But if they had in fact been "played with" or offended, I should've addressed that, too. Can you show me where that happened? After their PBCs?.........well, I didn't see where Zen even got a PBC, unless it was a long time ago, and this block is just being tacked on because she was blocked previously for something else.
.......and for Nikki, I agree with the poster who stated that she used and "I" statement to indicate her opinion that what was done to her was nasty (not nice or supportive). And, IMO, it was not the first time she was not supportively treated by the same poster.
.........maybe the issue is wording. For example, I believe that Lou has characterized Nikki in a very negative fashion, but he has done it in a rather covert fashion and there have been no consequences. To wit:
"The phrase [nasty piece of work] also goes back to the period of time in England when England was anti-Semitic. The king had made an edict in 1290 expelling the jews and England's writers reflect that in William Shakespear's "Merchant of Venice". Those that want to say that Shakespere was not anti-Semitic say that he wrote the play only to accomodate the anti-Semitism of his day. I consider that the same."
"Shakespear used the phrase, "piece of work" in Hamlet. It was a refeerence to something made. When the phrase is used tpward a person, such as Lou, You are a nasty piece of work. then it is saying that what was made is nasty. Humans are made by God according to the people that used that phrase in 1600 or so in England. So it meant that God made me a nasty piece of work. My friends from Hull, England have emailed me about this and say it is worse to call someone a nasty piece of work today."
.........Thus, while nothing was ever said like "Nikki was anti-semitic and what she did was insensitive, and even worse today than it was in the olden days" that is certainly the message. At least as far as I'm concerned.
........This type of covert messaging happens quite frequently by this poster, but is allowed to continue because (I assume) it doesn't come right out and make a statement. Just general references to how something (in this case) was anti-semitic in the past, and done by a poster today, and even worse than it used to be (as the friends from Hull pointed out)...but wrapped up in enough words to be (apparently) acceptable.
......That's all from this quarter. And, just MHO, and not trying to insult or put down anyone. Just a different perspective about how even incivility can be done in seemingly "innocent" ways.
Shar
Posted by jlo820 on August 22, 2003, at 13:25:21
In reply to Re: Two Blocks, so far, posted by shar on August 22, 2003, at 12:42:08
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 22, 2003, at 13:35:27
In reply to Re: Two Blocks, so far, posted by shar on August 22, 2003, at 12:42:08
Shar,
You left out a lot involving the post by NikkiT2 to me. And there were other posts between NikkiT2 to me also that you have left out .
Perhaps there are those here that do not remember the post and that I offered NikkiT2 an opportunity to disclaim what I thought her post to me,"Lou, you are a nasty piece of work." She did not take the opportunity that I offered her to make a disclaimer at that time and it is my understanding that when an offer is made to someone to clarify and they refuse, then they are allowing to let what is written stand on it's face.
I do accept her apology that she has made to me now about her insensitivity and hold no ill feelings toward her. I have forgiven her. Why will not you allow this to pass and accuse me of "covert messaging". I have no secret message here about this, for NikkiT2 asked me to list the posts that I thought were defaming to me and I accomodated her request. I did not list the other posts by others, for I only wanted to answer NikkiT2's request to me. Now I would not like this to be something that people want to continue to make me address for it is very painfull for me to answer these type of posts here. And I did not innitiate this thread, but I can not allow it to go unanswered, for then the potential for others to make accusations that are false against me could continue
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2003, at 15:57:38
In reply to Re: Two Blocks, so far, posted by shar on August 22, 2003, at 12:42:08
> I didn't see where Zen even got a PBC
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20030818/msgs/252263.html
> maybe the issue is wording.
The issue often can be seen as wording.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2003, at 16:19:08
In reply to Lou's response to Shar's post » shar, posted by Lou Pilder on August 22, 2003, at 13:35:27
> her insensitivity
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. Sorry, but the last time you were blocked, it was for 16 weeks, so this time it's for 48. Best wishes,
Bob
Posted by Dinah on August 22, 2003, at 16:37:12
In reply to Re: blocked for 48 weeks » Lou Pilder, posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2003, at 16:19:08
I'm officially registering my objection to the length of this block. It will lead to a more peaceful board, to be sure. And I guess this is one of those instances where you think the good of the many outweighs the good of the one. But in this case, I mightily disagree with you about what constitutes the good of the many.
Posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 22, 2003, at 16:40:23
In reply to Lou's respomse to shar's post » shar, posted by Lou Pilder on August 22, 2003, at 6:55:14
I *really* don't think a Biblical expert could be any more helpful in sorting this all out than anyone else. Just my opinion. :-)
Posted by Dinah on August 22, 2003, at 17:11:01
In reply to Re: Blocked for 48 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on August 22, 2003, at 16:37:12
Sometimes I'm embarassed to call myself human.
It would be so easy for you to spend your forty-eight weeks mired in pain and bitterness at the rejection of your peers. I know you far to well to even consider the possibility that you would break the block by reregistering under another name.
But I sincerely hope that for your own wellbeing that instead you return to a contemplation of your gates. There is much wisdom in your journey, wisdom that might bring you peace in these trying times.
Please surround yourself with those who can support and who respect you. Please nourish your spirit. You are made in the image of God, as we all are. You deserve peace and solace, as do we all. I'm sorry you weren't able to find it here. I hope you are able to find a deep well of spiritual gifts from which to drink elsewhere.
I suspect I'll see you here in 48 weeks. I hope to see you in peace and good spirit.
Shalom, Lou. May you go in peace to love and serve your God.
Dinah
Posted by stjames on August 22, 2003, at 19:55:34
In reply to Re: Blocked for 48 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on August 22, 2003, at 16:37:12
> I'm officially registering my objection to the length of this block. It will lead to a more peaceful board, to be sure. And I guess this is one of those instances where you think the good of the many outweighs the good of the one. But in this case, I mightily disagree with you about what constitutes the good of the many.
Everytime lou is here there are issues, long threads, multiple replies, requestes to clarify
everything. He seems to really push our buttons.
Not to mention legal actions he threatens from
time to time.He is just one person. It seems to me the more difficult a poster the more "protection" they get.
At some time the needs of the many out weigh the needs for just one person. When some person has YEARS of this kind of behavior, it is time to stop blaming everybody else. How many times does this have to happen b4 Lou is held resonsible for this ?
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 22, 2003, at 21:25:19
In reply to Re: Blocked for 48 weeks, posted by stjames on August 22, 2003, at 19:55:34
> Everytime lou is here there are issues, long threads, multiple replies, requestes to clarify
> everything. He seems to really push our buttons.
> Not to mention legal actions he threatens from
> time to time.It didn't seem like healthy discussion to me. It felt like intimidation, rather than the more respectful "agreement to disagree". Any effort to be accomodating came only from one direction.
Lar
Posted by Dinah on August 22, 2003, at 22:16:06
In reply to Re: Blocked for 48 weeks, posted by stjames on August 22, 2003, at 19:55:34
Lou has been blocked for nearly a year. He can't defend himself or respond to your posts. Under the circumstances, is it necessary to say anything if you can't say something nice?
Lou is responsible for his own actions. Others are responsible for their actions. You said "Everytime lou is here there are issues, long threads, multiple replies, requestes to clarify everything." Are you saying that if someone has a style of communicating that others find difficult, it's ok to declare open season on them?
Tolerance for differences is a noble attribute, and one that Lou displayed far more than most people I know. I found much to respect about Lou. And if he was hurt and angry and defensive after coming back from his last block.... Well, I probably wouldn't have come back myself, but if I had, I'd have probably been hurt and angry and defensive too.
I suspect that we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one St. James.
Posted by Simcha on August 23, 2003, at 0:15:02
In reply to Re: Blocked for 48 weeks » stjames, posted by Dinah on August 22, 2003, at 22:16:06
Dinah,
> Lou is responsible for his own actions. Others are responsible for their actions. You said "Everytime lou is here there are issues, long threads, multiple replies, requestes to clarify everything." Are you saying that if someone has a style of communicating that others find difficult, it's ok to declare open season on them?
No, I think that StJames is saying that Lou's passive aggressiveness is very bad for many people on this board. I really believe that in my heart of hearts Lou means to hurt people here. I believe he is a predator. I know you have a soft spot in your heart for him. I find him as a passive-aggressive predator.
> Tolerance for differences is a noble attribute, and one that Lou displayed far more than most people I know. I found much to respect about Lou. And if he was hurt and angry and defensive after coming back from his last block.... Well, I probably wouldn't have come back myself, but if I had, I'd have probably been hurt and angry and defensive too.
I never once saw Lou tolerate any difference from any of his opininions. What I was was someone who passively-aggressively pursued people who he felt were vulnerable to his subtle attacks.
I fully agree with Dr. Bob and his close to a year blocking of Lou. Finally we will be free of passive-aggressive assaults, for at least 48 weeks.
Yes, we will have to agree to disagree. And I will not comment anymore due to Lou's inability to respond. I just wanted to support Dr. Bob in his decision.
Simcha
Posted by stjames on August 23, 2003, at 1:52:15
In reply to Re: Blocked for 48 weeks » stjames, posted by Dinah on August 22, 2003, at 22:16:06
> Lou has been blocked for nearly a year. He can't defend himself or respond to your posts. Under the circumstances, is it necessary to say anything if you can't say something nice?
Yes it is, I am effected by this, also.
> I suspect that we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one St. James.We ? Who do you speak for ?
Posted by Dinah on August 23, 2003, at 6:47:46
In reply to Re: Blocked for 48 weeks, posted by stjames on August 23, 2003, at 1:52:15
I speak for myself, St. James. You will not change my mind. I heve no belief that I could change yours.
Since I have no wish to argue with you, I was hoping to be able to agree to disagree with you. But of course, you are right. Your actions are your own. You do not have to agree to disagree. You may continue to say whatever you wish on the subject. And my actions are my own. I will not choose to respond to posts on this subject.
All the best, St. James.
Posted by Dinah on August 23, 2003, at 7:00:09
In reply to Re: Blocked for 48 weeks » stjames, posted by Dinah on August 23, 2003, at 6:47:46
Are you angry with me? Your last few posts have made me wonder....
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 23, 2003, at 7:48:00
In reply to Re: Blocked for 48 weeks » stjames, posted by Dinah on August 22, 2003, at 22:16:06
> Are you saying that if someone has a style of communicating that others find difficult, it's ok to declare open season on them?
> Tolerance for differences is a noble attribute, and one that Lou displayed far more than most people I know. I found much to respect about Lou. And if he was hurt and angry and defensive....
I'm not challenging you on your beliefs, Diana, but I'd have to ask you how you would interpret the suggestion that a lawyer had reason to fear for her professional standing.....
It may have been an empty "threat" (I'm using the word loosely), but the mere fact that the idea had to be considered is more than a defensive position. That's not a style of communication, as I use the concept. It's not a behaviour arising out of tolerance, as I understand the word.
Various other references, to complaints going out to Washington (American's with Disabilities Act), B'Nai Brith (spelling?) re: anti-Semitic inferences, Biblical scholars, etc.... I don't see those as style issues. I see them as the antithesis of tolerance.
Have I missed something? Is there an older thread that might shed light on the current dialogue?
Lar
Posted by Dinah on August 23, 2003, at 8:43:38
In reply to Re: Blocked for 48 weeks » Dinah, posted by Larry Hoover on August 23, 2003, at 7:48:00
Lar, last night I was angry at Dr. Bob's action. I also felt compelled to defend a man that was not here (because of that action) to defend himself. Especially since I have no great conviction in Dr. Bob rigorously enforcing the civility rules in this case. But I realize that my defense of Lou is just making this matter continue on and on in such a way that probably remains hurtful to Lou, who is only blocked from writing posts, not reading them. And so I am going to retire from this matter.
I cannot communicate anything from Lou to anyone else on the board without violating board standards. But I just want to make clear that I have Lou's permission to post his email address lpilder_1188@fuse and then dot net (to protect him from spammers), because I don't want anyone to think I am giving out information without permission. I think it would be more productive for you to direct any questions about his motivations or meaning directly to him. Anything I might tell you would just be speculation, unless it came from Lou. And if it came from Lou, it would violate board policy of not passing on communications from a blocked poster.
Posted by jlo820 on August 23, 2003, at 9:08:09
In reply to Re: Blocked for 48 weeks » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on August 23, 2003, at 8:43:38
>>> I also felt compelled to defend a man that was not here
I think you did a good job of defending him when he was here. You gave me a PBC for no apparent reason just because he seemed to take offense to a post of mine.
I am not sure why you feel you have to defend Lou anyway. He broke the rules which Dr. Bob set, and if people should comment on that, that is their right. It happened with Ace and others.
Lou gave me his e-mail in a reply to a post of mine and asked me to e-mail him. I think this is a bad idea and I told him I wasn't going to play that game with him. Anything he wanted to say, he could have posted here. But now since he has lost that privilege, I don't think it is appropriate to continue to communicate with him by other means. That is unless one is commuicating with him as a personal friend.
I am glad you realize that acting as a conduit for Lou would be a violation of the rules here.
Finally, I feel almost like you are being uncivil to me in a covert way. I think you need to consider that as Dr. Bob's deputy, you need to maintain a certain outward apperance of impartiality. I don't think you have done that.
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.