![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 15 of 15. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by OddipusRex on April 14, 2003, at 18:53:56
Is it civil to post to someone who has just said she believes her post to be uncivil that "you wrote what many of us are thinking? Isn't that allowing people to commit incivility by agreeing with uncivil comments? Thanks
>
> ((((((((Nikki)))))))))
>
> You wrote what many of us are thinking, IMHO.
>
> Hope you feel better! Sometimes, a good, ole-fashioned rant is just what's in order!!!!
>
> (((((((Nikki))))))))))
>
> Coral
Posted by OddipusRex on April 14, 2003, at 21:03:48
In reply to Please consider Bob, posted by OddipusRex on April 14, 2003, at 18:53:56
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/2000/20030125/msgs/219214.html
> Is it civil to post to someone who has just said she believes her post to be uncivil that "you wrote what many of us are thinking? Isn't that allowing people to commit incivility by agreeing with uncivil comments? Thanks
> >
> > ((((((((Nikki)))))))))
> >
> > You wrote what many of us are thinking, IMHO.
> >
> > Hope you feel better! Sometimes, a good, ole-fashioned rant is just what's in order!!!!
> >
> > (((((((Nikki))))))))))
> >
> > Coral
>
>
Posted by shar on April 17, 2003, at 23:11:40
In reply to Above refers to PB2000 post, posted by OddipusRex on April 14, 2003, at 21:03:48
Apparently there is a lot of very bad stuff going on over there that many people would have missed had it not been brought to their attention over here on Admin.
It might save a lot of time if you (Bob) just went over and looked at every PB 2000 post, so they don't have to be pulled over here to admin one-by-one.
Shar
Posted by Dinah on April 17, 2003, at 23:37:52
In reply to Dr. Bob--Evil lives in PB 2000 posts?, posted by shar on April 17, 2003, at 23:11:40
It's a public board and can be read by all. I sure wouldn't want to see "Dinah is a jerk" posted there and think that Dr. Bob would let it go un-PBC'd because it was on a restricted-posting board. Goodness, how unfair that would be to the post-2001ers. They'd need their own board to be able to say uncivil things about pre-2002ers.
If Dr. Bob wants any or all of the boards to be free from the civility guidelines I would hope he would make that point clear. Otherwise, I would hope he scans all posts equally.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 17, 2003, at 23:52:29
In reply to Re: Well, heavens, I hope he already does!, posted by Dinah on April 17, 2003, at 23:37:52
> I would hope he scans all posts equally.
I do. But it's also true that there have been very few problems over at 2000...
Bob
Posted by Oddipus Rex on April 18, 2003, at 8:09:59
In reply to Re: he already does, posted by Dr. Bob on April 17, 2003, at 23:52:29
> > I would hope he scans all posts equally.
>
> I do. But it's also true that there have been very few problems over at 2000...
>
along with not very many posts............there also haven't been any problems on the book forum and there are more posts there. Have you calculated the percentage of PBCs on each of the boards?
Posted by Oddipus Rex on April 18, 2003, at 10:04:42
In reply to Re: he already does, posted by Oddipus Rex on April 18, 2003, at 8:09:59
I was wrong about more posts at the book forum. There are more on PB2000. At least I think so if you archive at the same point for each forum.
> > > I would hope he scans all posts equally.
> >
> > I do. But it's also true that there have been very few problems over at 2000...
> >
> along with not very many posts............there also haven't been any problems on the book forum and there are more posts there. Have you calculated the percentage of PBCs on each of the boards?
>
>
Posted by noa on April 18, 2003, at 13:31:38
In reply to Dr. Bob--Evil lives in PB 2000 posts?, posted by shar on April 17, 2003, at 23:11:40
I know that some posts at 2000 were PBC'd recently, and some brought here, I think the most recent being from April 14th. But have there been more posts that are problems since then? How come I'm not seeing them?
Posted by shar on April 18, 2003, at 21:06:29
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob--Evil lives in PB 2000 posts?, posted by noa on April 18, 2003, at 13:31:38
Noa,
if you are referring to the date of my 'evil lives in PB 2000 posts?' post, that just has to do with when I get on the board (which is not every day). When I got on, I saw the wad of imported posts, and posted my comments then. Apparently a few days after the original complaint was made.Aren't we lucky that something as small as time doesn't stop me? 8-D
So, probably, there is nothing you're not seeing.
Shar
> I know that some posts at 2000 were PBC'd recently, and some brought here, I think the most recent being from April 14th. But have there been more posts that are problems since then? How come I'm not seeing them?
Posted by noa on April 19, 2003, at 6:42:27
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob--Evil lives in PB 2000 posts? » noa, posted by shar on April 18, 2003, at 21:06:29
OK, Thanks. Just a time lag. Makes sense to me now. After reading your other post in the thread above, regarding posting URLs instead of text, I think this is making more sense to me, too. I hadn't thought of that, but it is a good idea. Maybe a practice that should be "institutionalized" (no, not THAT kind of institutionalization!). Ie, if we want to have an "administrative" discussion about a post that is potentially hurtful, that instead of pasting the text into our post here, we just cite the url.
The only exception I can think of at the moment is when (as happened a few months ago), there is a dispute over whether the post in question is offensive and someone wants to make an argument to Dr. Bob and needs to cite actual text in support of their argument that certain language from the post is offensive or not.
As for "private" discussion. As y'all know, this is not private in any way, shape or form. Everything we post becomes a published document, and out there in perpetuity for anyone with internet access to read. The restricted boards are a "privilege" I think in that they limit the number of respondents to those with longevity at this site. (I assume Dr. Bob will add new restricted boards for 2002, etc. as time goes on). But we should keep in mind that anyone can read them. I think that people were feeling extremely frustrated and it was coming out in their posts, but I tend to doubt anyone believes that it is proper to say unkind things about other posters in the "safety" (pseudo) of a restricted board.
We all slip sometimes when we are frustrated.
Posted by Oddipus Rex on April 19, 2003, at 8:37:38
In reply to Re: Evil lives in posts......Shar,OR, Wendy, et al, posted by noa on April 19, 2003, at 6:42:27
Is there some way to put In reply to.... and insert the url automatically like it does when you reply to a post on the same board? That's what I thought would happen. That's why I had to go back and put all the this was posted by.....on PB2000 posts. I wouldn't have any objection to just posting the url here. But I don't see any real advantage either. Anyone can click on the link. And a quote makes it clear what the objection is.
I could have posted on Social but I thought I was avoiding arguments by coming here and asking Bob to deal with it rather than taking it on myself. I thought that was an indication to Lou that I didn't agree with what was being said without escalating things any further. So much for good intentions.
I understand that some people think if nothing is said it might not be noticed by the poster likely to be hurt. I think it is better to speak up and support the poster because it is a public record and there is no reason to assume he won't see it.I don't think I ever posted anything to suggest evil was living anywhere or said anything negative about anyone. I was disagreeing with what was posted and complaining about the posts.
> OK, Thanks. Just a time lag. Makes sense to me now. After reading your other post in the thread above, regarding posting URLs instead of text, I think this is making more sense to me, too. I hadn't thought of that, but it is a good idea. Maybe a practice that should be "institutionalized" (no, not THAT kind of institutionalization!). Ie, if we want to have an "administrative" discussion about a post that is potentially hurtful, that instead of pasting the text into our post here, we just cite the url.
>
> The only exception I can think of at the moment is when (as happened a few months ago), there is a dispute over whether the post in question is offensive and someone wants to make an argument to Dr. Bob and needs to cite actual text in support of their argument that certain language from the post is offensive or not.
>
> As for "private" discussion. As y'all know, this is not private in any way, shape or form. Everything we post becomes a published document, and out there in perpetuity for anyone with internet access to read. The restricted boards are a "privilege" I think in that they limit the number of respondents to those with longevity at this site. (I assume Dr. Bob will add new restricted boards for 2002, etc. as time goes on). But we should keep in mind that anyone can read them. I think that people were feeling extremely frustrated and it was coming out in their posts, but I tend to doubt anyone believes that it is proper to say unkind things about other posters in the "safety" (pseudo) of a restricted board.
>
> We all slip sometimes when we are frustrated.
Posted by coral on April 19, 2003, at 11:08:21
In reply to Re: Shar,OR, Wendy, et al, posted by Oddipus Rex on April 19, 2003, at 8:37:38
Perhaps a bit late to this fray, Oddipus Rex, I, too, would prefer that you complain to me directly about any of my posts. It might've afforded us to clear up any misunderstandings.
Coral
Posted by Oddipus Rex on April 19, 2003, at 12:16:07
In reply to Re: To Oddipus Rex, posted by coral on April 19, 2003, at 11:08:21
I will take your request into consideration.
However I may prefer to go straight to admin to avoid a "fray". It might be less likely to escalate if I do not address the poster directly.
Also, as in the case of your post I may have a general question about standards of civility for Bob.
Other posters have requested that I not quote from their posts. It would be difficult to clear up any misunderstandings without quoting to show you what I was referring to.
I would prefer that posters on restricted boards not post about posters not allowed to respond there but I don‘t expect it.
Hopefully this issue won’t come up again anyway.
Peace and civil harmony
> Perhaps a bit late to this fray, Oddipus Rex, I, too, would prefer that you complain to me directly about any of my posts. It might've afforded us to clear up any misunderstandings.
>
> Coral
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 19, 2003, at 12:58:55
In reply to Re: Shar,OR, Wendy, et al, posted by Oddipus Rex on April 19, 2003, at 8:37:38
> Is there some way to put In reply to.... and insert the url automatically like it does when you reply to a post on the same board? That's what I thought would happen.
Hmm, that would be nice... OK, since it starts a new thread with redirected posts, it used to assume they weren't replies, but I've tried to fix that now, thanks for the suggestion!
Bob
Posted by noa on April 20, 2003, at 2:13:31
In reply to Re: Shar,OR, Wendy, et al, posted by Oddipus Rex on April 19, 2003, at 8:37:38
There is actually a way to reply to a post on a different board.
When you reply, before you submit your post, you would select the board you want on the drop down menu entitled "Board", which is the first choice just above where you put your name in.
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.