![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 12 to 36 of 97. Go back in thread:
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 5, 2003, at 8:18:04
In reply to Hey Doc Bob, remember me... a few ??'s..., posted by kid a on August 4, 2003, at 14:19:07
> When I think of a good reason for a block, I think malicious intent to cause another reader distress or harm.That's pretty obvious.
>It may also included malicious intent to defer the nature of any one board (like posting obviously off topic posts in the faith board)...
Quite different.....those get redirected. If you're making these concepts equivalent, I would have to ask you to reconsider your reasons for doing so. I'm not sure you've thought it out.
> I don't think of bad language, or literature, (that was my faux paus for so long)...Clearly spelled out in the FAQ, and part of your acceptance of the site rules at sign-up. If you repetitively crossed that line, there is only one place to look for responsibility.
> The problem is that there is no disclaimer for age, so I can understand why you are sensitive about language.What has age got to do with it? Are you equating that with maturity? Still, I fail to see the relevance.
> Unfortunately, (can I start a sentence that way), it seems as if now you have adopted a heavy handed mandatory minimum type punishment.No, it's progressive.
> I've always thought your policy of blocking someone for 1 week first than 2 and so on was counter productive.To whom? The violator? Or the target?
> First, these people are often in intense emotional pain when they make these posts, they often don't think about them as clearly as they should.
The only thinking required comes at the time of hitting the send button. As all post *require* that you also confirm the message content, there is a double protection against inappropriate output.
And what about the target of the verbal assault? Are they not in pain as well?
>Perhaps if you gave someone the ability to go back and edit their post that would facilitate a civil environment much moreso.
You can't unsay words. That's the whole point of becoming your own editor. It's a life skill, ya know?
If someone says something to hurt me, even an apology doesn't fix it. You just can't go back to the pre-hurt condition, as on a whim.
> Instead you remove this person in pain, and you leave the post, like a head on a pike, still lingering to hurt whomever you think may be offended...Some posts disappear altogether. Others are edited. Moreover, blaming Bob for the aftermath is inappropriate attribution of responsibility. It isn't fair to externalize responsibility that way.
> What happens, and I think this might be purposefull, is that eventually the bad elements just go away, frustrated, (that's what happened to me)...If that's the only way you can cope with your posting responsibilities, then the time away is well spent, IMHO.
> and the civility level is softened out to a nice soothing pap, suitable for ages 8 to 80...
Perfect. I have experienced the unbridled assaults of unmoderated forums a number of times. If Babble goes that road, I'll be gone in a flash. I'm here because of the civility.
> I understand you are doing research on your posters and readers, and that it's important to have an environment where the propper data can be collected in a way that makes said data the most reliable, but I think that you are, loading the dice lets say.
If I recall correctly, the research was already completed, but I'll let the author himself address that. In any case, your comment is irrelevant, IMHO.
> A lot of times people are not civil, it is in our nature, but most of the time, we shake hands and continue on the next day... that's part of being a responsible adult.No, a responsible adult takes pains to avoid offense to others. You're focussing only on the perpetrators' experience. The victims of verbal assaults are presumably in just as much pain as are the perpetrators.
> I think you are taking a very Szasz (Thomas), like stance on this board in that rather than protecting the patients who may need the most help, you protect those who make the least waves. By distancing yourself, other than the father figure who delights in praise, you become this mythical Moloch the heavy judger of men.Somebody has to apply the rules of conduct that each of explicitly accepted at sign-up. What you're implying is like blaming the police for getting arrested when you know you've robbed a bank.
And, quite contrary to your opinion here, I believe that Bob is protecting those most in need of protection, those that are quiet, and who do not project their pain onto others.
> Just reading the few above blocks it seems like many people are disapointed in them.
Yes, and the debate about modifying the penalties for different types of transgression has so far come up with some good ideas that may be implemented. That is as it should be.
> And yet And Yet (impropper grammar), despite the discussion, there is no change EVER in your sentence... There is no reprieval from the governor... I don't know why you ask people to discuss the blocks at all since you have never to my knowledge done anything but what you choose to do regardless of what people say.
I think you haven't been paying close enough attention. There is evolution here, right in front of you.
> Now, personally If I had a grievance with you I would email you after I had been blocked, but who is it "Ace", re registered and posted it here, perhaps a bit unwitting of the rules,
Not true. He explicitly acknowledged opening a new account to bypass the block.
> instead of being compassionate to someone who is obviously in need of a peer group, the heavy hand comes down again and you double the sentence per you usual mandatory minium statute.
As explicitly described in FAQ. The responsibility lies with the poster. Period.
> You have to become involved with your readers bob, not just protect them from 'bad language' and perhaps a mysterious quote here and there...
He's very involved. I think he (or his assistants) read each and every post. That's a huge job, and the fact that few comments are made means that few comments are necessary. That means the process is working just fine, IMHO.
>You have to realise the responsibility you have in creating a mental health website is not just in providing an area where people can chat and some medications monograms and a good dosage of exponentially lengthened shocks.
The responsibility is to maintain a safe and protected environment, which has been quite admirably achieved.
> A good online comunity is made up of it's memembers, and as you have decided (wisely so, if you are collecting infromation on the participants), to not interact vis a vis with the users, you should at least show some compassion, and not expect that blocks which double for each offense, no matter what it may be, will correct a unique or different mind.There is no expectation that punishment will correct behaviour. It will bring attention to the behaviour, but the outcome does not arise from the punishment, per se.
>It only serves to rid the community of someone who might contribute to it.
Again, you externalize the responsibility. No one holds a gun to your head while you type. Or when you confirm your post.
> You have to understand, the mores and values of society have changed to a point where these things that you squelch do not so much offend people as they do make them feel at ease (in use of language) and perhaps make them think (in the use of quotes)...If the mores have changed that much, then I am even more grateful for this safe environment.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 5, 2003, at 8:20:08
In reply to Re: Hey Doc Bob, remember me... a few ??'s... » kid a, posted by NikkiT2 on August 4, 2003, at 16:34:26
> Have you ever been on the receiving end of someone being constantly abusive to you at a board on the net??
>
> I have, and its really not nice. Snide little comments here and there mixed in with some downright nasty comments. This has made me feel quite unsafe on many of the boards I have been using for years. But here I feel safe, and I would rather Dr Bob was a little heavy handed than end up having abuse hurled at me. Everyone needs a safe place to go, and this is many peoples.
>
> So many boards just end up full of abuse and swearing. Don't you think its a good thing to have somewhere that doesn't contain any of that, but still contains people that understabnd you??
>
> NikkiI want the wheat, and as little chaff as is achievable.
Right on, Nikki.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 5, 2003, at 8:42:21
In reply to Re: Hey Doc Bob, remember me... a few ??'s..., posted by paxvox on August 4, 2003, at 19:12:33
>I have been the recipient of the rule of exponentiality, in which punitive action is doubled, regardless of the level of the offense. I do not find it reasonable nor even logical.
It doesn't have to be reasonable or logical. It needs only to be understood.
Reasonableness and being logical are values we apply. We're all going to do that differently. Understanding is also an individual experience, but separate from the others. You explicitly accepted rules when you joined this community. If you didn't find them to be reasonable or logical, why did you join?
>Whereas I agree that the maintenance of civility on this or any other board is indeed a difficult task, the application of said maintenance should at least be even-handed and equitable.
*I* would argue that the dispute arising around Ace is because the rules *were* applied in an even-handed and equitable way. People are arguing for more discretion to be applied, not less.
>True, you might say, "life is not fair" and indeed I would have to agree. But in a closed, fairly sterile environment such as this, I believe those easily offended should be the ones to take their leave at their own choosing.
Oh, they do. In silence. Ever heard of the Silent Majority? Confrontation is hard for most people. Mistaking their silence for lack of emotional response is to exhibit a total lack of empathy.
I would argue that a large majority of the people using the Babble forums are here because they're having difficulty coping with the pressures of living their lives. They come for support, not further challenges to their ability to cope.
>I mean, I do not want to log onto a porn site and then complain about the content of what I see, therefore, I CHOOSE NOT to go there.
If you don't like the rules here......
> Of course, you might suggest, "what about those who come here for help"? Well, I am not of the belief that those with the mental facility to use and post on a computer, are necessarily those most at risk from eminent ill from some "harsh words" or "judgmental chatisement".
Then people need protection from you. Clearly, you don't understand.
> Indeed, if I don't want to get into a fight, I avoid bringing an issue to the brink of such activity.
Blaming the victim? I am very surprised that you would stoop to that.
>As a rule, those on this board who get flamed generally have been a nuicance to MANY other posters for quite a long period of time.
So, employ your own standard, expressed above, and "take your leave". Bob and his assistants have the responsibility for maintaining civility, not vigilantes like you.
>This goes on until someone like myself makes a curt remark out of sheer frustration that this person has been merely "babbling on" if not outright inciting "negative attention".
Own your reaction. Don't read a poster if you think they are babbling or seeking attention.
>I have been rebuked by people out of misunderstanding, but I have engaged them intellectually until I find what makes them tick.
That's fine, if you maintain an empathetic tone.
>This may, at times, seem caustic or "uncivil", but as the learned Kid_a has pointed out, WHAT, by golly, is even REMOTELY civil about the world we live in?
Indeed. All the more reason to have civility here.
> I refuse to have to "walk on eggshells" to keep from being blocked, I have better things to do with my time and talents.
You refuse to think about the impact of your rhetoric, which is more important than whether it will result in your being blocked.
>I am clearly more helpful to others on these boards than I have EVER been harmful.
The latter should be zero. There is no "balance" to consider.
>But using Dr, Bob's rule of exponential blocking,my next infringment, regardless of its level of "uncivility" will result in a block of a month. This, considering that I haven't been blocked in MANY months. So, should a brief moment of heated blood on my part lead to the removal of my possibly life-changing input to others?
Please reassess your ego.
> Who suffers more in that scenario? I don't NEED to post here, I CHOOSE to post here. However, several years ago when I first found this board, I DID need the advice of those with years of experience dealing with similar issues to those I face/d. When's the last time you have seen CAM here? He used to (as a pharmacist, I believe) provide excellent insight as to the pharmacological efficacy of meds. Why does he no longer post? Driven away so that others could remain in civilty. Hand out the Haldol, and we can all share in the 1000 yard stare.
I don't know CAM, but if he was "driven away" because of inappropriate postings resulting in blocks, then he must be a slow learner.
Lar
Posted by NikkiT2 on August 5, 2003, at 9:33:42
In reply to Re: blocked for 8 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Zo on August 5, 2003, at 1:04:25
I know of people with Aspergers that do a wonderful job of board moderation. And I think Dr Bob does a damned fine job here.
Now, I dont have aspergers, though as I have a fair amount of knowledge of Autism Spectrum Disorders I can see traits of it in myself. But, I feel it is very harsh, that just because Dr Bob has strict rules that MUST be adhered to, you accuse him of having Aspergers!!
90% of the posters here understand perfectly well what can and cannot be said, and though we all sometimes get a warning for saying stuff too rashly, why should we suffer by the hands of people who want to break these rules??
Your message seems only concerned with thos epeople upset by getting themselves banned.. what about those people that wisht o be protected from offensive language and behaviour?? Don't they have a right to be happy here??
Nikki
Posted by wendy b. on August 5, 2003, at 9:42:57
In reply to Re: Hey Doc Bob, remember me... a few ??'s... » paxvox, posted by Larry Hoover on August 5, 2003, at 8:42:21
Dear Dr Bob, Larry (and Pax, indirectly),
> If you didn't find them to be reasonable or logical, why did you join?
An unkind remark, which was uttered to put Pax down. Definitely NOT following the rules, which he so strongly defends.
>Mistaking their silence for lack of emotional response is to exhibit a total lack of empathy.Now he's telling Pax he's "exhibiting" no empathy. This is not just a casual observation, it is a remark made to put someone down. Again, not following Bob's rules...
> So, employ your own standard, expressed above, and "take your leave". Bob and his assistants have the responsibility for maintaining civility, not vigilantes like you.Now Larry calls Pax a name - vigilante. That's a definite no-no. Also a bit harsh, and shows he doesn't understand the original intent of Pax's comments, but maybe if he reads Pax's post again, he will understand. So again, Larry violates another civility rule by name-calling...
> >But using Dr, Bob's rule of exponential blocking,my next infringment, regardless of its level of "uncivility" will result in a block of a month. This, considering that I haven't been blocked in MANY months. So, should a brief moment of heated blood on my part lead to the removal of my possibly life-changing input to others?
>
> Please reassess your ego.And again, Larry replies to Pax's original post with *sarcasm*, which Bob has made very clear is not allowed, because he's PBC'd and blocked it in loads of other threads.
> > Who suffers more in that scenario? I don't NEED to post here, I CHOOSE to post here. However, several years ago when I first found this board, I DID need the advice of those with years of experience dealing with similar issues to those I face/d. When's the last time you have seen CAM here? He used to (as a pharmacist, I believe) provide excellent insight as to the pharmacological efficacy of meds. Why does he no longer post? Driven away so that others could remain in civilty. Hand out the Haldol, and we can all share in the 1000 yard stare.
>
> I don't know CAM, but if he was "driven away" because of inappropriate postings resulting in blocks, then he must be a slow learner.
>
> LarNow, this one I find really offensive. Read the archives, Larry, they're there for a reason. Cam is a guy who generously gave of his time and helped many people with medication questions. As a pharmacist, he spent endless hours looking up citations and posting them, advising about meds, etc., even though he himself was in a terrible amount of emotional pain. So, please, Larry, don't assess someone else's motivations or intellectual capacity (calling him a "slow learner") when you aren't familiar with the person or his posts. This is just simple politeness.
Larry, I don't have a problem with you personally. I just wonder why it is so important for you to so stridently defend everything Bob does as an administrator, as though he were a God Among Men. He's just human, and he MAY make mistakes now and then. In fact, I'm sure he has made mistakes and errors of judgement, but that's just IMHO; I post on this board a lot less frequently because I find the atmosphere a bit stifling.
But, you have your safe haven here, Larry, and that's fine. However, the casual observer will notice you have "violated" many of the rules of conduct you at the same time *defend.* So resorting to calling names, assessing motivations, being rude, and being sarcastic are now OK because...? It seems this site which you find so "safe," has become (through your own actions) exactly what you profess to want it not to be.
Wendy
Posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 5, 2003, at 11:58:55
In reply to Re: Hey Doc Bob, remember me... a few ??'s... » kid a, posted by NikkiT2 on August 4, 2003, at 16:34:26
> So many boards just end up full of abuse and swearing. Don't you think its a good thing to have somewhere that doesn't contain any of that, but still contains people that understabnd you??
>
> Nikki
EXACTLY!! Just the point I've been trying to get across, but for some reason had a rather difficult time putting it into words. Thank you for posting this. :-)
Posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 5, 2003, at 12:02:15
In reply to Re: Hey Doc Bob, remember me... a few ??'s..., posted by paxvox on August 4, 2003, at 19:35:44
> It's just that I won't get a warning anymore, just a block. And I was only warned ONCE, ever! Since then it has been "Well, last time you were blocked for one week, so this time it's two". That's not a warning.
Shouldn't one warning be enough?
Posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 5, 2003, at 12:03:10
In reply to Re: Hey Doc Bob, remember me... a few ??'s..., posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 5, 2003, at 11:58:55
Posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 5, 2003, at 12:06:28
In reply to Re: Hey Doc Bob, remember me... a few ??'s..., posted by shar on August 4, 2003, at 19:45:59
> .........Hmmmm, I think everyone should get a warning for separate offenses. Like if one is blocked for a week for saying "u*******l" and one does the block and returns only to later say "m*********8" they should get a please be civil before being blocked.
Oh okay, I see what you're saying... though I disagree on one thing--if a person has been warned for using one profane word before, than they should receive no more warnings for using *any* such words. Otherwise, for other offenses, I agree that a PBC is more appropriate the first time around.
> ..........But, even then, I feel if someone says something outrageously offensive, and has been blocked before, the swift application of a block (without a PBC) is ok.
Agreed.
Posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 5, 2003, at 12:23:35
In reply to Re: Hey Doc Bob, remember me... a few ??'s... » kid a, posted by Larry Hoover on August 5, 2003, at 8:18:04
> > What happens, and I think this might be purposefull, is that eventually the bad elements just go away, frustrated, (that's what happened to me) and the civility level is softened out to a nice soothing pap, suitable for ages 8 to 80...
>
> Perfect. I have experienced the unbridled assaults of unmoderated forums a number of times. If Babble goes that road, I'll be gone in a flash. I'm here because of the civility.I couldn't agree with you more--I wouldn't have been a regular poster here for the past nine months had it not been for Bob's wonderful civility guidelines.
> > A lot of times people are not civil, it is in our nature, but most of the time, we shake hands and continue on the next day... that's part of being a responsible adult.
>
> No, a responsible adult takes pains to avoid offense to others. You're focussing only on the perpetrators' experience. The victims of verbal assaults are presumably in just as much pain as are the perpetrators.Once again, *je suis d'accord*. :-)
> > I think you are taking a very Szasz (Thomas), like stance on this board in that rather than protecting the patients who may need the most help, you protect those who make the least waves. By distancing yourself, other than the father figure who delights in praise, you become this mythical Moloch the heavy judger of men.
>
> Somebody has to apply the rules of conduct that each of explicitly accepted at sign-up. What you're implying is like blaming the police for getting arrested when you know you've robbed a bank.
>
> And, quite contrary to your opinion here, I believe that Bob is protecting those most in need of protection, those that are quiet, and who do not project their pain onto others.And *again*, agreed.
> > instead of being compassionate to someone who is obviously in need of a peer group, the heavy hand comes down again and you double the sentence per you usual mandatory minium statute.
>
> As explicitly described in FAQ. The responsibility lies with the poster. Period.Period.
Posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 5, 2003, at 12:29:35
In reply to Re: blocked for 8 weeks » Zo, posted by NikkiT2 on August 5, 2003, at 9:33:42
> I know of people with Aspergers that do a wonderful job of board moderation. And I think Dr Bob does a d*mned fine job here.
Uh-oh, lol. ;-)
Posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 5, 2003, at 12:39:10
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry, posted by wendy b. on August 5, 2003, at 9:42:57
> Dear Dr Bob, Larry (and Pax, indirectly),
>
> > If you didn't find them to be reasonable or logical, why did you join?
>
> An unkind remark, which was uttered to put Pax down. Definitely NOT following the rules, which he so strongly defends.It is apparent to me that this remark was not meant as a put-down to Pax... it was a simple, reasonable, and relevant question.
> >Mistaking their silence for lack of emotional response is to exhibit a total lack of empathy.
>
> Now he's telling Pax he's "exhibiting" no empathy. This is not just a casual observation, it is a remark made to put someone down. Again, not following Bob's rules...He didn't say Pax was exhibiting a lack of empathy. He said that the *act* of mistaking their silence for lack of emotional response is to exhibit a total lack of empathy.
> > So, employ your own standard, expressed above, and "take your leave". Bob and his assistants have the responsibility for maintaining civility, not vigilantes like you.
>
> Now Larry calls Pax a name - vigilante. That's a definite no-no. Also a bit harsh, and shows he doesn't understand the original intent of Pax's comments, but maybe if he reads Pax's post again, he will understand. So again, Larry violates another civility rule by name-calling...A vigilante is defined by Webster's as "a member of an unauthorized organization to look after the interests, threatened in some way, of a group". It's hardly a derogatory term, and in no way should be considered an abusive epithet. In fact, I'd venture to guess that Pax wouldn't at all disagree with this label.
> > >But using Dr, Bob's rule of exponential blocking,my next infringment, regardless of its level of "uncivility" will result in a block of a month. This, considering that I haven't been blocked in MANY months. So, should a brief moment of heated blood on my part lead to the removal of my possibly life-changing input to others?
> >
> > Please reassess your ego.
>
> And again, Larry replies to Pax's original post with *sarcasm*, which Bob has made very clear is not allowed, because he's PBC'd and blocked it in loads of other threads.I don't see that as sarcasm. Simply a helpful suggestion.
> > > Who suffers more in that scenario? I don't NEED to post here, I CHOOSE to post here. However, several years ago when I first found this board, I DID need the advice of those with years of experience dealing with similar issues to those I face/d. When's the last time you have seen CAM here? He used to (as a pharmacist, I believe) provide excellent insight as to the pharmacological efficacy of meds. Why does he no longer post? Driven away so that others could remain in civilty. Hand out the Haldol, and we can all share in the 1000 yard stare.
> >
> > I don't know CAM, but if he was "driven away" because of inappropriate postings resulting in blocks, then he must be a slow learner.
> >
> > Lar
>
> Now, this one I find really offensive. Read the archives, Larry, they're there for a reason. Cam is a guy who generously gave of his time and helped many people with medication questions. As a pharmacist, he spent endless hours looking up citations and posting them, advising about meds, etc., even though he himself was in a terrible amount of emotional pain. So, please, Larry, don't assess someone else's motivations or intellectual capacity (calling him a "slow learner") when you aren't familiar with the person or his posts. This is just simple politeness.Okay, this one I agree was a violation.
Posted by paxvox on August 5, 2003, at 15:56:41
In reply to Re: Hey Doc Bob, remember me... a few ??'s... » paxvox, posted by Larry Hoover on August 5, 2003, at 8:42:21
I'm sorry, did I miss something? I find YOUR comments to be extremely offensive toward me personally. I was not "speaking to you" but initially to Nikki. I cleared up my misunderstanding of her position, and apologized if I had offended her in any way. My other comments were essentially MY OPINION, to which your response so ironically stomps all over. You suggest, with some self-perceived "authority" I might add, that I am some sort of malcontent toublemaker. You personally have attacked me here, and called me egotistical. Is that not uncivil? Your retort of my post is a dichotomized mixture of insult and reprobation clearly uncalled for. What gives YOU the right to slam me for making a subjective statement of belief? I don't have the right to an opinion? Your statements that people need to be "protected" from me and that I have "stooped" to "blaming the victims" are so anathematizing to me. Where is YOUR block for uncivility? Please Dr. Bob, don't I have any rights here?
PAX
Posted by paxvox on August 5, 2003, at 16:03:08
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry, posted by wendy b. on August 5, 2003, at 9:42:57
Thank you, Wendy, for your support. I posted a reply to Larry before reading your post. Perhaps you answered him much better than I did, and now I fear that Dr. Bob will find my reply to Larry as being uncivil, although I feel it was as "civil" as I could reply. This clearly points out the duplicity that I perceive to exist in the realm of who gets blocked and who does not. I'm glad that I am not alone in this perception.
PAX
Posted by paxvox on August 5, 2003, at 16:08:05
In reply to Re: Hey Doc Bob, remember me... a few ??'s... » paxvox, posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 5, 2003, at 12:02:15
One warning for ONE type of concern, yes. But one warning about two totally unrelated issues, no. I think, unless something is CLEARLY a total insult, like Larry's post to me, that each individual instance should start with a "reminder". Then, if that doesn't get the desired response, OK, do what has to be done. But to give one warning for one offense, and then a punishment w/o warning for a totally different offense is like verbally correcting a child for not picking up his clothes and then slapping the tar out of him for forgetting to take out the trash.
PAX
Posted by paxvox on August 5, 2003, at 16:15:27
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry » wendy b., posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 5, 2003, at 12:39:10
Are you and Larry friends? Vigilante IS to ME considered an INSULT. Yes, he was attacking my EGO, an insult to me, a put down TO ME! Helpful suggestion? PLEASE! Larry doesn't know me, and has no right to proffer such "helpful suggestions" that I PERSONALLY find offensive attacks of ME. I don't believe that you are showing any objectiveness in your defense of Larry's attack on me. So do I attack you in response? No, I just point out that your defense of Larry's attack of me condones that sort of activity, and indeed, reinforces it.
PAX
Posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 5, 2003, at 16:25:58
In reply to Re: Hey Doc Bob, remember me... a few ??'s..., posted by paxvox on August 5, 2003, at 16:08:05
Shouldn't we be aware of the policies in the first place and know what it means to be civil on this board anyway? In my opinion, one PBC, regardless of what it's referring to, should be enough of a reminder to the person in question that they need to watch what they say here.
Posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 5, 2003, at 16:42:18
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry, posted by paxvox on August 5, 2003, at 16:15:27
> Are you and Larry friends? Vigilante IS to ME considered an INSULT.
Well all I can say to that is your perceived definition of the word must be incorrect. Vigilante is hardly an insult, especially considering that's the role you're playing here.
> Yes, he was attacking my EGO, an insult to me, a put down TO ME! Helpful suggestion? PLEASE! Larry doesn't know me, and has no right to proffer such "helpful suggestions" that I PERSONALLY find offensive attacks of ME.
I don't see how you could find a statement which is simply saying to you, "Please don't feel you have a leg up on anyone else on this board due simply to the fact that you haven't been blocked in months," could offend you. In context, what he said is synonomous with that--he used no offensive language and, what's more, he even said please!
> I don't believe that you are showing any objectiveness in your defense of Larry's attack on me.
I'm sure you mean apart from having read *both* posts thoughtfully, and even employing dictionary definition? Sure, my opinion on the matter was subjective (as opinions tend to be), but my approach was entirely objective. You conveniently left out the fact that I *did* say that Larry was out of line when he said, "I don't know Cam, but if he was 'driven away' because of inappropriate postings resulting in blocks, then he must be a slow learner."
> So do I attack you in response? No, I just point out that your defense of Larry's attack of me condones that sort of activity, and indeed, reinforces it.
Now that's just plain silly.
Posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 5, 2003, at 16:45:33
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry, posted by paxvox on August 5, 2003, at 16:15:27
If you've been following this board closely, you will have realized that I very highly advocate the civility policies these boards have in place. If I truly felt Larry were being uncivil toward you, just believe me--I would have said so.
Posted by stjames on August 5, 2003, at 22:24:30
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry, posted by paxvox on August 5, 2003, at 16:15:27
Yes, he was attacking my EGO, an insult to me, a put down TO ME! Helpful suggestion? PLEASE!
He asked to to simply consider your ego envolvement in this. Hmmmmm, you OTOH, reacted in anger. Hmmmm.
Posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 5, 2003, at 22:46:10
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry, posted by stjames on August 5, 2003, at 22:24:30
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 5, 2003, at 23:00:26
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry » wendy b., posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 5, 2003, at 12:39:10
> > > I don't know CAM, but if he was "driven away" because of inappropriate postings resulting in blocks, then he must be a slow learner.
> > >
> > > Lar
> >
> > Now, this one I find really offensive. Read the archives, Larry, they're there for a reason. Cam is a guy who generously gave of his time and helped many people with medication questions. As a pharmacist, he spent endless hours looking up citations and posting them, advising about meds, etc., even though he himself was in a terrible amount of emotional pain. So, please, Larry, don't assess someone else's motivations or intellectual capacity (calling him a "slow learner") when you aren't familiar with the person or his posts. This is just simple politeness.
>
> Okay, this one I agree was a violation.Unfortunately, you both have misunderstood my intent; the referent to "slow learner" wasn't meant to be Cam, or anyone in particular. In saying I didn't know Cam, I was suggesting that I could not discuss him as an example. I was emphasizing the issue I had been raising repetitively throughout my posts of this a.m., about inappropriate attribution of responsibility. You simply cannot be "driven away" from Babble. Until such time as there is a rule which can lead to a permanent ban, that will remain the case.
Repeated violations of the rules, resulting in increasing times of blockade, *without the poster coming to recognize that it is becoming harder and harder to continue posting solely because of the poster's own behaviour*, would constitute an inability to learn from the pattern. Such a person would be slow to learn that it isn't the rules that are a problem, it isn't Bob, it's the poster's failure to expend the effort to change their own posting behaviour. And, if the poster chooses to move on, that is not being driven away. It's a decision to move on. Nothing more than that.
I'm sorry that my syntax left the impression that I was labelling Cam. That was not my intent.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 5, 2003, at 23:15:32
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry, posted by wendy b. on August 5, 2003, at 9:42:57
> Dear Dr Bob, Larry (and Pax, indirectly),
>
> > If you didn't find them to be reasonable or logical, why did you join?
>
> An unkind remark, which was uttered to put Pax down. Definitely NOT following the rules, which he so strongly defends.It wasn't unkind. It was intended to draw out the other unstated reasons for his joining the community, and futhermore, choosing to remain within it. He stated that he felt the rules were unreasonable and illogical. Despite that, he remains a poster here. There *must* be more to it than he has stated, and those other issues are just as important in the debate before us.
> >Mistaking their silence for lack of emotional response is to exhibit a total lack of empathy.
>
> Now he's telling Pax he's "exhibiting" no empathy.No, I very carefully did not. I presented a statement in an "if this, then that" format. I am in no position to know if Pax has ever mistaken silence for the absence of an emotional response. Only he can answer that. But if he thinks he may have, then empathy might be an issue for him.
>This is not just a casual observation, it is a remark made to put someone down. Again, not following Bob's rules...
It was an implied question, for him to answer about himself.
> > So, employ your own standard, expressed above, and "take your leave". Bob and his assistants have the responsibility for maintaining civility, not vigilantes like you.
>
> Now Larry calls Pax a name - vigilante.He as much as gave the classic definition himself, in his description of his actions and intentions. I merely saved bandwidth using the term which fits that description.
>That's a definite no-no.
His own words.
>Also a bit harsh, and shows he doesn't understand the original intent of Pax's comments, but maybe if he reads Pax's post again, he will understand. So again, Larry violates another civility rule by name-calling...
I think I demonstrated a very clear understanding of his statements.
> > >But using Dr, Bob's rule of exponential blocking,my next infringment, regardless of its level of "uncivility" will result in a block of a month. This, considering that I haven't been blocked in MANY months. So, should a brief moment of heated blood on my part lead to the removal of my possibly life-changing input to others?
> >
> > Please reassess your ego.
>
> And again, Larry replies to Pax's original post with *sarcasm*, which Bob has made very clear is not allowed, because he's PBC'd and blocked it in loads of other threads.I wasn't being sarcastic. The rules are meant to apply to everyone equally.
> > > Who suffers more in that scenario? I don't NEED to post here, I CHOOSE to post here. However, several years ago when I first found this board, I DID need the advice of those with years of experience dealing with similar issues to those I face/d. When's the last time you have seen CAM here? He used to (as a pharmacist, I believe) provide excellent insight as to the pharmacological efficacy of meds. Why does he no longer post? Driven away so that others could remain in civilty. Hand out the Haldol, and we can all share in the 1000 yard stare.
> >
> > I don't know CAM, but if he was "driven away" because of inappropriate postings resulting in blocks, then he must be a slow learner.
> >
> > Lar
>
> Now, this one I find really offensive. Read the archives, Larry, they're there for a reason. Cam is a guy who generously gave of his time and helped many people with medication questions. As a pharmacist, he spent endless hours looking up citations and posting them, advising about meds, etc., even though he himself was in a terrible amount of emotional pain. So, please, Larry, don't assess someone else's motivations or intellectual capacity (calling him a "slow learner") when you aren't familiar with the person or his posts. This is just simple politeness.Please see the post above this one, for my detailed response.
> Larry, I don't have a problem with you personally. I just wonder why it is so important for you to so stridently defend everything Bob does as an administrator, as though he were a God Among Men.I'm defending the process, not Bob.
> He's just human, and he MAY make mistakes now and then. In fact, I'm sure he has made mistakes and errors of judgement, but that's just IMHO;
No doubt.
>I post on this board a lot less frequently because I find the atmosphere a bit stifling.
That saddens me.
> But, you have your safe haven here, Larry, and that's fine. However, the casual observer will notice you have "violated" many of the rules of conduct you at the same time *defend.* So resorting to calling names, assessing motivations, being rude, and being sarcastic are now OK because...?I don't believe I did any of those. I certainly support your right to hold a different opinion of that, however.
>It seems this site which you find so "safe," has become (through your own actions) exactly what you profess to want it not to be.
>
>
> WendyClearcut challenges to a person's philosophies are not inherently uncivil. I was defending the "silent wounded" among us, as I was once one myself.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 5, 2003, at 23:34:38
In reply to Re: Hey Doc Bob, remember me... a few ??'s..., posted by paxvox on August 5, 2003, at 15:56:41
> I'm sorry, did I miss something? I find YOUR comments to be extremely offensive toward me personally.
I pointed to hard questions arising from your stated philosophies. I meant no offense.
>I was not "speaking to you" but initially to Nikki. I cleared up my misunderstanding of her position, and apologized if I had offended her in any way. My other comments were essentially MY OPINION, to which your response so ironically stomps all over.
I challenged you on the implications of your opinions, not your opinions per se. I'm sorry if that came across as "stomping all over". You see, I find that ironic, in that you describe yourself as more or less "stomping all over" other people....a behaviour worthy of challenge, IMHO.
> You suggest, with some self-perceived "authority" I might add, that I am some sort of malcontent toublemaker.
I did nothing of the sort.
>You personally have attacked me here, and called me egotistical.
No, I did not.
>Is that not uncivil?
It would be, if I had done so.
>Your retort of my post is a dichotomized mixture of insult and reprobation clearly uncalled for.
Seemed to flow quite naturally from your own comments, and limit itself solely to those natural extrapolations, if you seek my opinion on that.
No insults. Tough questions, explicit and implied. But I provided no conclusions or judgments about you.
>What gives YOU the right to slam me for making a subjective statement of belief?
If you feel slammed, I would ask you if I may perhaps have hit a tender subject or two?
>I don't have the right to an opinion?
Certainly. But do I not have a right to express mine, in direct, point by point, contrast to yours?
>Your statements that people need to be "protected" from me
That was conditional on the validity of your own self-descriptors. If what you said about yourself was true (I don't know that), then protecting others from you would be a reasonable concern.
>and that I have "stooped" to "blaming the victims" are so anathematizing to me.
But you did suggest that people bring on the flames you provide. That's just not the case. Your own internal justifications do that. I do think the defense of one's own inappropriate actions based on descriptions of another's "babbling on" is "blaming the victim".
>Where is YOUR block for uncivility?
We shall see. I'm glad it's not up to you (or Wendy) to decide that. You both have misunderstood many of my statements.
>Please Dr. Bob, don't I have any rights here?
The same as everyone else.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 5, 2003, at 23:44:10
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry, posted by stjames on August 5, 2003, at 22:24:30
> Yes, he was attacking my EGO, an insult to me, a put down TO ME! Helpful suggestion? PLEASE!
>
> He asked to to simply consider your ego envolvement in this.Thank you. I'm glad that my intent was clear to some people.
Lar
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.