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
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:248064
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030508/msgs/248456.html