Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 395111

Shown: posts 1 to 21 of 21. This is the beginning of the thread.

 

Lou's request to Dr.Hsiung for a determination

Posted by Lou Pilder on September 25, 2004, at 22:53:13

Dr.Hsiung,
I feel accused by the poster in the following.The poster writes,[...when that style(of posting) is used in an attempt to lure Dr.Bob into a response...].
If I am the one being discussed here in that thread, and I believe that there is enough infomation for that to be a possibility, then I feel accused (falsly) for I am not attempting to lure you into a response by using my style of posting and I am not trying to lure you into a response for any reason. One does not have to (lure) anyone . We are having a civil disagreement about something that I feel is inappropriate on the faith board and I am asking for it to be remedied via dialog on the administrative board . The poster writes that he/she used a [...veiled critical message in an attempt to avoid a pbc...]
I am asking that you make a determination as to if the post is going to remain unadmonished or not.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/395081.html.

 

I agree with Lou

Posted by Gabbix2 on September 25, 2004, at 23:15:17

In reply to Lou's request to Dr.Hsiung for a determination, posted by Lou Pilder on September 25, 2004, at 22:53:13

I would definitely have been offended by having someone assume what my motives are. And putting myself in Lou's shoes I also would have felt very hurt like I was overhearing people whispering about me.

 

Re: I agree with Lou

Posted by gardenergirl on September 25, 2004, at 23:46:35

In reply to I agree with Lou, posted by Gabbix2 on September 25, 2004, at 23:15:17

I agree as well. I was bothered about the concept that the poster it could be about, and I assumed that to be Lou, certainly can read the thread as well as the rest of us. And if I had thought it was about me, I would feel very hurt. Schoolyard cruelty triggered all over again.

gg

 

Meant to add....

Posted by gardenergirl on September 25, 2004, at 23:48:24

In reply to Re: I agree with Lou, posted by gardenergirl on September 25, 2004, at 23:46:35

Sorry, I meant to also say that I think direct communication, whether it be on Babble or via Babblemail seems likely to be more effective and respectful to me. I think Gabbi set a wonderful example.

gg

 

Re: Meant to add.... gardenergirl

Posted by Gabbix2 on September 26, 2004, at 1:22:01

In reply to Meant to add...., posted by gardenergirl on September 25, 2004, at 23:48:24

Thank you GardnerGirl, and yes, Schoolyard cruelty is *exactly* what it felt like to me also
You're so right about the trigger too, cause when I said felt, I meant it.

 

Re: Lou's request

Posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2004, at 9:58:13

In reply to Lou's request to Dr.Hsiung for a determination, posted by Lou Pilder on September 25, 2004, at 22:53:13

> I feel accused by the poster in the following.

> > if a poster uses an unconvetional style with another poster my guess is that the incivility threshold might be lower than when that style is used in an attempt to lure Dr. Bob into a response.

I'm sorry you feel accused, but I took it as a hypothetical statement.

Bob

 

Oh For crying in the Sink! Dr. Bob

Posted by Gabbix2 on September 27, 2004, at 12:57:04

In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2004, at 9:58:13


> > > if a poster uses an unconvetional style with another poster my guess is that the incivility threshold might be lower than when that style is used in an attempt to lure Dr. Bob into a response.
>
> I'm sorry you feel accused, but I took it as a hypothetical statement.
>
> Bob

I've used more well disguised *hypotheticals* than that and gotten blocked for a total of 12 weeks for doing it.

 

Re: Oh For crying in the Sink! - Dr. Bob Gabbix2

Posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 14:59:51

In reply to Oh For crying in the Sink! Dr. Bob, posted by Gabbix2 on September 27, 2004, at 12:57:04

I'm seeing a double standard here too. Is Lou somehow inferior because he has multiple posts????

 

Re: Oh For crying in the Sink! - Dr. Bob AuntieMel

Posted by Larry Hoover on September 27, 2004, at 15:37:19

In reply to Re: Oh For crying in the Sink! - Dr. Bob Gabbix2, posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 14:59:51

> I'm seeing a double standard here too. Is Lou somehow inferior because he has multiple posts????

How on Earth did the concept of inferior enter into this?

Lou has stated that his posting style is consistent with his thinking style. He asked that people be understanding of that. Fine. No problem. I understand.

Others have stated that the act of being questioned about posts makes them feel defensive. Makes them feel that they have failed to communicate effectively. Fine. No problem. I understand.

Is there a way to accomodate both, so that neither feels *unduly* forced to accomodate others? Yes, I think there is.

If it was made known that one had a single post within which to make one's point, I would think that a poster would be well-advised to craft a good post.....one that allowed them to make their full argument....BEFORE hitting the confirm button. Do a cut and paste, whatever it takes to assemble the message, but only once do you transmit it.

If it was also known that only a single post would ever be sent with respect to clarification or whatever, the recipient of that post would know that if they did not reply, they could let it go. It's over, if they so choose. No defense required.

I think that reasonably accomodates all posters. If a dialogue occurs, the "one post only" rule is renewed with each and every post in the dialogue.

Or, alternatively, I also think that maybe two posts might be a reasonable threshold, as P.S. type thoughts ought not to be wholly restricted.

Three posts? My absolute maximum acceptable number.

In any case, I don't think there should be unlimited opportunity to challenge the content of anyone else's post. The FAQ defines that as uncivil already (pressure/harassment).

If the rule is framed well, we do not need a special case for Bob, or for Admin issues, unless he fails to answer at all. So long as replies are forthcoming, the rule would permit further questioning. I'd hate to have a rule that allowed Bob to stonewall, though, so that would be an issue for me.

Lar

 

Re: Oh For crying in the Sink! Larry Hoover

Posted by All Done on September 27, 2004, at 16:15:53

In reply to Re: Oh For crying in the Sink! - Dr. Bob AuntieMel, posted by Larry Hoover on September 27, 2004, at 15:37:19

> In any case, I don't think there should be unlimited opportunity to challenge the content of anyone else's post. The FAQ defines that as uncivil already (pressure/harassment).

Larry,

Is the best answer then to do something that will limit all posters' opportunities to post ideas, questions, or kind, supportive words? Since this posting style seems to be considered pressure or harassment only when challenging another's post, shouldn't it still be reviewed for civility on a case by case basis? Or do you think we should or can apply the limited number of posts rule to only these challenging types of posts?

Laurie

 

Re: more well disguised hypotheticals Gabbix2

Posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2004, at 16:47:27

In reply to Oh For crying in the Sink! Dr. Bob, posted by Gabbix2 on September 27, 2004, at 12:57:04

> I've used more well disguised *hypotheticals* than that and gotten blocked for a total of 12 weeks for doing it.

Sorry about that, would you like me to take another look? If so, either post or email me a link...

Bob

 

Re: Oh For crying iout loud Larry Hoover

Posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 16:48:31

In reply to Re: Oh For crying in the Sink! - Dr. Bob AuntieMel, posted by Larry Hoover on September 27, 2004, at 15:37:19

See? I can't get it right in one post either!

What I think I was saying [using Lou as an example - sorry Lou if this bothers you:) ] is that for some people it is difficult, if not constitionally impossible, to make a point in one or two posts. So, if a person can't do that are they to not have an equal voice?

 

Re: Oh For crying in the Sink! - Dr. Bob Larry Hoover

Posted by verne on September 27, 2004, at 18:33:46

In reply to Re: Oh For crying in the Sink! - Dr. Bob AuntieMel, posted by Larry Hoover on September 27, 2004, at 15:37:19

Larry,

I've been meaning to apologize for the "tag team" remark some time ago. You didn't exhibit that behavior then or now.

Thought I would slip this into a thread you were following.

verne

 

Gabbi have you been holding out on us?

Posted by gardenergirl on September 27, 2004, at 23:10:23

In reply to Re: more well disguised hypotheticals Gabbix2, posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2004, at 16:47:27

Surely you must have a time machine of some sort?

;-)

gg

 

Re: Gabbi have you been holding out on us? gardenergirl

Posted by Gabbix2 on September 27, 2004, at 23:27:24

In reply to Gabbi have you been holding out on us?, posted by gardenergirl on September 27, 2004, at 23:10:23

> Surely you must have a time machine of some sort?
>
> ;-)
>
> gg

Yeah, but it only took me back to just before
I made the machine and then I had to make it all over again..


 

Dang! (nm) Gabbix2

Posted by gardenergirl on September 27, 2004, at 23:34:56

In reply to Re: Gabbi have you been holding out on us? gardenergirl, posted by Gabbix2 on September 27, 2004, at 23:27:24

 

Re: Oh For crying in the Sink! - auntie Mel

Posted by Gabbix2 on September 28, 2004, at 3:14:33

In reply to Re: Oh For crying in the Sink! - Dr. Bob AuntieMel, posted by Larry Hoover on September 27, 2004, at 15:37:19

> > I'm seeing a double standard here too. Is Lou somehow inferior because he has multiple posts????
>
> How on Earth did the concept of inferior enter into this?
>
> Lou has stated that his posting style is consistent with his thinking style. He asked that people be understanding of that. Fine. No problem. I understand.
>
Auntie Mel I was making reference to my post In which I agreed with Lou when he pointed out a post which he felt was uncivil toward him.
In my post afterward "for cryin in the sink'"
I said that I had made for more heavily veiled
"hypothetical" statements than the one Lou took issue with and I had been blocked for them.
However the one Lou found hurtful was given
the green light by Dr. Bob.

Is that the double standard you were speaking of? Questioning whether or not Lou recieves recieve equal treatment because of his posting style? That's what I took from your post but I've obviously been confused the last few days. I don't believe he recieved fair treatment in this case for sure.
But I'd also have to say that blocks have often been seen as erratic and I don't believe I recieved fair treatment for a long time.. so I couldn't really guess what the rationale is.

 

Re: Oh For crying in the Sink! - Dr. Bob verne

Posted by Larry Hoover on September 28, 2004, at 7:39:26

In reply to Re: Oh For crying in the Sink! - Dr. Bob Larry Hoover, posted by verne on September 27, 2004, at 18:33:46

> Larry,
>
> I've been meaning to apologize for the "tag team" remark some time ago. You didn't exhibit that behavior then or now.
>
> Thought I would slip this into a thread you were following.
>
> verne

I really appreciate it. I'd pretty much forgotten about it, but you didn't. I forgive you, and I hope you forgive you, too.

Lar

 

Re: Gabbi have you been holding out on us? Gabbix2

Posted by SLS on September 28, 2004, at 8:11:18

In reply to Re: Gabbi have you been holding out on us? gardenergirl, posted by Gabbix2 on September 27, 2004, at 23:27:24

> > Surely you must have a time machine of some sort?

> Yeah, but it only took me back to just before
> I made the machine and then I had to make it all over again..

LOL

:-)

Brilliant...


- Scott

 

Re: more well disguised hypotheticals Dr. Bob

Posted by Gabbix2 on September 28, 2004, at 10:58:42

In reply to Re: more well disguised hypotheticals Gabbix2, posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2004, at 16:47:27

> Sorry about that, would you like me to take another look? If so, either post or email me a link...
>
> Bob

S'okay Dr. Bob but thanks for the offer. It was a year ago now, and I do suppose it's time for me to let go...

 

Re: Lou's request Dr. Bob

Posted by Toph on October 1, 2004, at 16:43:33

In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2004, at 9:58:13

> > I feel accused by the poster in the following.
>
> > > if a poster uses an unconvetional style with another poster my guess is that the incivility threshold might be lower than when that style is used in an attempt to lure Dr. Bob into a response.
>
> I'm sorry you feel accused, but I took it as a hypothetical statement.
>
> Bob

I confess (as I have said elsewere) that I used a hypothetical and a rhetorical statement to comunicate what otherwise would probably be considered uncivil. But not in this case. In Larry's reply to me he spoke about the lines of uncivility in unconventional posting styles.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/394934.html
I replied that I think there may be a different threshold for unconventional styles directed at individuals than those directed at Bob. That IS a hypothetical statement. I still believe this to be the case. Perseverated posting notwithstanding, it has been my observation that Bob has tolerated sarcastic statements directed at him that he would never have permited be directed at another participant.


This is the end of the thread.


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD, dr-bob@uchicago.edu

Script revised: October 4, 2007
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-08 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.