![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 15 to 39 of 42. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 23, 2003, at 9:11:16
In reply to Re: Blocked for 48 weeks » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on August 23, 2003, at 8:43:38
I'm pretty clear on Lou's beliefs, I think, and I have no interest in communicating with him directly. I was interested in your beliefs, and I can also understand why you want to let the matter drop. That's fine with me, too.
Lar
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 23, 2003, at 10:32:51
In reply to Re: Blocked for 48 weeks » Dinah, posted by Simcha on August 23, 2003, at 0:15:02
> I really believe that in my heart of hearts Lou means to hurt people here. I believe he is a predator.
>
> What I [saw] was someone who passively-aggressively pursued people who he felt were vulnerable to his subtle attacks.
>
> I will not comment anymore due to Lou's inability to respond. I just wanted to support Dr. Bob in his decision.Thanks for your support, but if you change your mind about commenting, please remember not to post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, thanks.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 23, 2003, at 10:48:26
In reply to Re: Blocked for 48 weeks, posted by jlo820 on August 23, 2003, at 9:08:09
> 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.
Just for the record, it's fine with me if people communicate with him by other means, whether or not he's blocked and whether or not they consider him a personal friend.
> I think you need to consider that as Dr. Bob's deputy, you need to maintain a certain outward apperance of impartiality.
I disagree. I think that when deputies make administrative decisions, they need to try to be impartial, but the rest of the time, they should be able to voice their opinions as freely as anyone else. Including, and maybe even especially, regarding my own administrative decisions.
Bob
Posted by jlo8200 on August 23, 2003, at 11:21:59
In reply to Re: communication by other means and impartiality, posted by Dr. Bob on August 23, 2003, at 10:48:26
>>> Just for the record, it's fine with me if people communicate with him by other means, whether or not he's blocked and whether or not they consider him a personal friend.
I disagree, but it really doesn't matter because the only people that would communicate with him are personal friends.
>>> I disagree. I think that when deputies make administrative decisions, they need to try to be impartial, but the rest of the time, they should be able to voice their opinions as freely as anyone else. Including, and maybe even especially, regarding my own administrative decisions.
I agree with you, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I just think your deputy was not being impartial while acting in that capacity.
Posted by Susan J on August 23, 2003, at 11:36:02
In reply to Re: Blocked for 48 weeks » Dinah, posted by Larry Hoover on August 23, 2003, at 7:48:00
Hi, guys,
Yeah, I got drawn into the debate about defamation -- debating is fun for me, although it can become exasperating.
I do want to say that I REALLY tried to reach out to Lou at first. I could see there were problems with communication in those threads. Like Angelina Jolie said, "I don't know why I think I can help. All I know is that I really want to."
Sometimes when I see threads like these, I wonder if someone, or several people, have any medical disorders such as Aspergers, Borderline Personality Disorder, or Passive-Agressive Disorder. I'm not a psychologist in any way, but I do know those types of conditions may make communication more difficult. I DON'T MEAN THAT IN A BAD WAY OR CONDESCENDING WAY AT ALL. There is nothing I like better than to know the truth. I feel more confident in my actions if I know what playing field I'm truly on.
And if I listed all my faults here, I'd make Dr. Bob's server crash. :-)
But I "do" know sometimes it's easier for me to accept a person's foibles if I know it's the result of something outside of his/her control, and not because of any anger or ill will directed at me personally. Does that make sense at all? I "wish" I could be totally accepting and patient all the time, every time, but I can't.
I didn't get any sense Lou felt hurt or frustrated in these threads. I asked him directly and he never responded. That's totally OK -- I'm a total stranger. I guess I just couldn't tell from the threads that he "may" be hurting. I never meant to hurt anyone, even in my frustration at the circular arguments the threads inevitably took.
I'm sorry if I hurt Lou, or anyone at all. I'm a big believer in civility. It's a noble goal to strive for and makes life easier for all of us.
I'll try not to post again unless I can provide something constructive for all, not just constructive for me.
Susan
(the lawyer, who's NOT practicing law, just trying to find her sanity.)
Posted by Dinah on August 23, 2003, at 12:55:31
In reply to Re: communication by other means and impartiality, posted by jlo8200 on August 23, 2003, at 11:21:59
Dinah here, acting as deputy for Dr. Bob.
You aren't supposed to post while blocked, so I've doubled your block to two weeks.
Dr. Bob's email address is below. If you wish to communicate with him while blocked, you can email him directly.
Dinah
Posted by Dinah on August 23, 2003, at 13:03:01
In reply to Re: Blocked for two weeks » jlo8200, posted by Dinah on August 23, 2003, at 12:55:31
I didn't realize you were on board.
Posted by shar on August 23, 2003, at 13:50:27
In reply to Re: Blocked for two weeks » jlo8200, posted by Dinah on August 23, 2003, at 12:55:31
Dinah,
I must have missed the original block for jlo8200; can you point me to it? Was it in this thread? I looked at the list of posts and didn't see one that said jlo was blocked.If you don't want to bother, that's ok, too.
Thanks,
shar
Posted by shar on August 23, 2003, at 13:54:17
In reply to Re: Blocked for two weeks » Dinah, posted by shar on August 23, 2003, at 13:50:27
I saw the block in another thread, sorry to bother you.
Shar
Posted by stjames on August 23, 2003, at 14:46:11
In reply to Re: By the way St James, posted by Dinah on August 23, 2003, at 7:00:09
> Are you angry with me? Your last few posts have made me wonder....
>You seem blind to the amount of hurt Lou
causes. You also hurt me with the "we" statement.
Then totally avoided my question on why you used it.
Posted by Dinah on August 23, 2003, at 15:12:23
In reply to Re: By the way St James, posted by stjames on August 23, 2003, at 14:46:11
> > Are you angry with me? Your last few posts have made me wonder....
> >
>
> You seem blind to the amount of hurt Lou
> causes. You also hurt me with the "we" statement.
> Then totally avoided my question on why you used it.
>I think I must be confused as to what you mean. I thought I did answer the question. But I'll try to answer it in greater detail.
I said:
"I suspect that we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one St. James." I meant that you and I had different views of Lou, and that since neither of us were likely to change the other's mind, you and I would have to agree to disagree. I was somewhat taken aback that you appeared to disagree that we could agree to disagree. Because we probably won't agree to agree about Lou. And I don't really want to disagree about disagreeing about Lou.
I'm sorry if my statement hurt you. It was meant as a... Oh, my head hurts, and I can't think of the word. But it certainly wasn't meant to hurt you. I'm sorry if it did.
If that didn't answer your question either, perhaps you could be more specific, because I'm rather at a loss.
Posted by stjames on August 23, 2003, at 17:36:46
In reply to Re: By the way St James, posted by Dinah on August 23, 2003, at 15:12:23
>I suspect that we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one St. James.
Now that i read this I think I misunderstood "we'll" to mean everyone
else vs myself. I now realize you must of
ment "we'll" in terms of you and me.
Sorry I went the wrong way on this, and assumed.
Posted by Dinah on August 23, 2003, at 17:42:24
In reply to Re: By the way St James, posted by stjames on August 23, 2003, at 17:36:46
Sorry for the confusion.
Posted by Brio D Chimp on August 26, 2003, at 18:28:41
In reply to Re: blocked for 48 weeks » Lou Pilder, posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2003, at 16:19:08
Bob I am upset by your recent insensitivity towards several of your posters particularly Lou.
I believe under the new sentencing guidelines I am entitled to 3 months. Thank you. And Happy Thanksgiving to all who Babble!!!
Brio D Chimp
> > 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
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.