![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 13 of 13. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 7, 2004, at 8:18:12
In reply to Re: please be civil » djinnicht » Larry Hoover » Dave001, posted by Dr. Bob on September 6, 2004, at 9:31:37
>> A tad too self-congratulatory, mon ami.
>
>> P.S. The prohibition against posting to me stands.
>
>> Larry Hoover> Also, if you post to someone, it's always OK for them to post to you in response:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#harassedI just wish to make clear that my reiteration of the request to not post to me was an explicit reference to the exact wording in the FAQ. I only wanted the poster to address the scientific issues, but to not reply in any ad hominem manner (you ought to look up the meaning of e.g. "materflickenhund"). I do not agree that I was uncivil, but we have disagreed about that many times before. However, pointing to the harassment rules baffles me. As Dinah suggests, here is the explicit question.....Is it acceptable to address specific factual questions to a poster who has been asked to not post to me, under the expectation that a factual reply is permitted, but an ad hominem reply is a violation of the "do not post to me" request?
Lar
Posted by Dinah on September 7, 2004, at 8:30:09
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on September 7, 2004, at 8:18:12
Lar, my understanding of the actual rule as originally written was that a Do Not Post request was universal, not specific. And that posting to someone that you requested not post to you was in effect a lifting of the ban. So if I ask someone that I asked not to post to me a question, and they answer, they're in the clear. Their answer must, of course, follow the civility rules. But they're not in trouble for posting to me.
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 7, 2004, at 9:07:30
In reply to Re: from what I recall » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on September 7, 2004, at 8:30:09
> Lar, my understanding of the actual rule as originally written was that a Do Not Post request was universal, not specific. And that posting to someone that you requested not post to you was in effect a lifting of the ban. So if I ask someone that I asked not to post to me a question, and they answer, they're in the clear. Their answer must, of course, follow the civility rules. But they're not in trouble for posting to me.
That makes sense, but.....replying to a factual component of the thread is not a violation of the "do not post" rule.
"Posting to someone means directing either the subject line or the body of a post to them. Replying to posts by someone isn't necessarily posting to them."
If someone replied to the factual basis of the thread, or the debated subject, I would not consider that to be a post to me, and it appears that Bob would not, either. And that's explicitly what I was trying to do. Steer the poster to facts/contended implications, or don't post (in reply to me) at all.
Lar
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 7, 2004, at 23:07:37
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on September 7, 2004, at 8:18:12
> Is it acceptable to address specific factual questions to a poster who has been asked to not post to me, under the expectation that a factual reply is permitted, but an ad hominem reply is a violation of the "do not post to me" request?
No, as Dinah explained.
> replying to a factual component of the thread is not a violation of the "do not post" rule.
>
> > Posting to someone means directing either the subject line or the body of a post to them. Replying to posts by someone isn't necessarily posting to them.I consider directing a post to someone to be posting to them, whatever the subject matter.
> that's explicitly what I was trying to do. Steer the poster to facts/contended implications, or don't post (in reply to me) at all.
What if you just replied to facts/contended implications?
Bob
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 8, 2004, at 8:58:36
In reply to Re: requests not to be posted to, posted by Dr. Bob on September 7, 2004, at 23:07:37
> > > Posting to someone means directing either the subject line or the body of a post to them. Replying to posts by someone isn't necessarily posting to them.
>
> I consider directing a post to someone to be posting to them, whatever the subject matter.
>
> > that's explicitly what I was trying to do. Steer the poster to facts/contended implications, or don't post (in reply to me) at all.
>
> What if you just replied to facts/contended implications?
>
> BobThis is exactly the problem, Bob. This is what got chemist into trouble, and me, many times.
When you're not around, one-sided ad hominem content goes totally unchallenged. A deputy (if there is one) is explicitly precluded from sanctioning the ad hominem party unless and until the recipient of same also crosses the civility boundary. Even if there is a deputy, one is on one's own.
In this specific case, I asked my "debater" to remain civil, but he/she chose to intersperse ad hominem remarks with debate. I only want the debate (the facts/contended implications). And I am powerless to correct false statements, or to contend implications, without opening the door to further ad hominem remarks, because your rules do not do what they imply in the FAQ.
At some point in time, I might cross the line myself. Not because I'm so inclined, but because I am human, and provocation does have a limit. That's when you arrive on the scene, and sanction all concerned, rather than the provocateur.
The "do not post to me" guidelines are hopelessly unsuited. They are not worth even having, as they are presently constituted. They give free rein to derail debate, and do not permit civil posters the opportunity to restore order to the debate. If they did, your intervention might never be necessary.
Lar
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 8, 2004, at 10:18:54
In reply to Re: requests not to be posted to » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on September 8, 2004, at 8:58:36
Larry,
You wrote,[...the "do not post to me" policy...is unsuited...].
Well, I objected to the policy at its conception. I thought that a policy like that could be detrimental to a mental-health community.
Your post here seems to give credance to my original complaint.
I am requesting that the moderator think about your post here, and also my original complaint, and consider to remove the policy from the FAQ page and replace it with something like:
[...telling someone not to post to you is not conducive to a mental-health community's goals, for it is unsupportive to ask for someone to be excluded from replying to you...].
Lou Pilder
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 8, 2004, at 12:11:13
In reply to Lou's reply to Larry » Larry Hoover, posted by Lou Pilder on September 8, 2004, at 10:18:54
> Larry,
> You wrote,[...the "do not post to me" policy...is unsuited...].
> Well, I objected to the policy at its conception. I thought that a policy like that could be detrimental to a mental-health community.
> Your post here seems to give credance to my original complaint.
> I am requesting that the moderator think about your post here, and also my original complaint, and consider to remove the policy from the FAQ page and replace it with something like:
> [...telling someone not to post to you is not conducive to a mental-health community's goals, for it is unsupportive to ask for someone to be excluded from replying to you...].
> Lou PilderAlthough I disagree with you on the merits of a "do no post" rule, as it is presently constituted, the rule is quite toothless.
"Posting to someone means directing either the subject line or the body of a post to them. Replying to posts by someone isn't necessarily posting to them."
If poster A asks poster B to not post to them, what has changed?
1. Poster A cannot post to B, or the ban is automatically lifted.
2. Poster B can reply to poster A, talk about poster A, or I don't know what all else.The effect of the rule is mostly a limitation on A, not B.
Lar
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 8, 2004, at 12:20:52
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Larry » Lou Pilder, posted by Larry Hoover on September 8, 2004, at 12:11:13
Larry,
You wrote,[...although I disagree with you on the merits of the "do not post" rule,...].
Could you clarify if you are saying that I wrote that there are "merits" to the "do not post " rule? Since I do not belive that I posted any "merits" of the rule, could you clarify what you mean by what you wrote?
Lou
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 8, 2004, at 12:35:24
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Larry-2 » Larry Hoover, posted by Lou Pilder on September 8, 2004, at 12:20:52
> Larry,
> You wrote,[...although I disagree with you on the merits of the "do not post" rule,...].
> Could you clarify if you are saying that I wrote that there are "merits" to the "do not post " rule? Since I do not belive that I posted any "merits" of the rule, could you clarify what you mean by what you wrote?
> LouAs I see things, I think there could be merits to such a rule, you don't see any....we disagree on the issue of merit.
Lar
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 8, 2004, at 12:42:51
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Larry » Lou Pilder, posted by Larry Hoover on September 8, 2004, at 12:11:13
Larry,
You wrote,[...if poster A asks poster B not to post to them, what has changed?...].
Are you saying that:
A. There is no change?
B. others should not see a change?
C. A change can not be seen?
D. A change that can be seen can be ignored?
E. There is a change and others can point that out here if they see it?
F. Something else which is...
G. Something else which I will not state.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 8, 2004, at 12:56:04
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Larry-2 » Lou Pilder, posted by Larry Hoover on September 8, 2004, at 12:35:24
Larry,
You wrote,[...the "do not post to me" rule is hopelessly unsuited...not woth having..it derails debate...limits the restoration of order...].
You also wrote that you disagree with my observation that there are no merits to the rule Could you clarify what any merits are that you see in the "do not post to me" rule?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 8, 2004, at 16:22:14
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Larry » Lou Pilder, posted by Larry Hoover on September 8, 2004, at 12:11:13
Larry,
After looking through the archives, it appears that the meaning of your posts here are that you are advocating a different way that the "do not post to me" rule is to be administered.
Your statement that the rule is [...hopelessly unsuited"...not worth...having...] could take on a different meaning when one goes back and sees the posts that are not seen.
There is now no need to answer my previous querry.
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 8, 2004, at 19:02:22
In reply to Re: requests not to be posted to » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on September 8, 2004, at 8:58:36
> When you're not around, one-sided ad hominem content goes totally unchallenged.
1. It could be "challenged" by positive content.
2. Does it have to be challenged at all?> At some point in time, I might cross the line myself. Not because I'm so inclined, but because I am human, and provocation does have a limit.
Might there be some way to raise the limit?
> The "do not post to me" guidelines ... do not permit civil posters the opportunity to restore order to the debate.
Maybe not, but that's not their purpose. And restoring order is easier said than done...
Bob
This is the end of the 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.