![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 19 of 19. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by IsoM on September 29, 2002, at 1:24:02
...from someone who said the Dr. Bob had traced their IP & violated the privacy policy that he had set down himself for joining his board?
Why was it removed? Why aren't we allowed to know what happened. If that link is tried now
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7620.html
it says Error: Couldn't find post 7620, sorry! Please go "back" and try again.
But it can't be tried again, it's gone, deleted.What gives? I'm puzzled & a little worried to know that the policy wasn't followed.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 29, 2002, at 3:27:09
In reply to What Happened to the previous post..., posted by IsoM on September 29, 2002, at 1:24:02
> ...from someone who said the Dr. Bob had traced their IP & violated the privacy policy that he had set down himself for joining his board?
>
> Why was it removed? Why aren't we allowed to know what happened.I removed it because they're supposed to be blocked. You're allowed to know what happened: I notified their Internet service provider of an abusive post. Which is covered in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#anonymous
Bob
Posted by shar on September 30, 2002, at 13:22:12
In reply to Re: What Happened to the previous post..., posted by Dr. Bob on September 29, 2002, at 3:27:09
We have only seen the original post in which you were accused of violating privacy info, and your post that said you did contact the person's isp.
The part leaving me confused was the background for that. Like if that person had a history of being abusive or disruptive or contacting you repeatedly or something. And, whether you had told him/her or warned him/her not to do that stuff.
In brief, we on the boards are sort of left with the idea that registering with the alias "dr. boob" might be enough for you to contact our isp and identify us as sending harassing or abusive posts (which could have serious consequences for some people).
Any chance you could address some of those issues?
Shar
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 1, 2002, at 8:18:53
In reply to Any chance for more info, Dr. Bob?, posted by shar on September 30, 2002, at 13:22:12
> We have only seen the original post in which you were accused of violating privacy info, and your post that said you did contact the person's isp.
>
> The part leaving me confused was the background for that. Like if that person had a history of being abusive or disruptive or contacting you repeatedly or something. And, whether you had told him/her or warned him/her not to do that stuff.Yes, they had already been disruptive, and I had warned (and blocked) them, several times.
> In brief, we on the boards are sort of left with the idea that registering with the alias "dr. boob" might be enough for you to contact our isp and identify us as sending harassing or abusive posts (which could have serious consequences for some people).
If it were just that, I would've responded differently. Context matters. But actions here can in fact have serious consequences. I think civility (ie, safety) is really important.
Bob
Posted by Anyuser on October 1, 2002, at 13:18:01
In reply to Re: more info, posted by Dr. Bob on October 1, 2002, at 8:18:53
If a poster posts from work, and that poster's email address is [yourname]@[yourcompany].com, does that mean the ISP is the poster's place of work? If so, and if a poster is abusive, then you'll notify the employer? If so, do you give the abusive poster any specific warning that her/his ISP/employer will be told unless the abuse stops?
Does repeated "mere" incivility constitute abuse, or is abuse categorically different from incivility? It is easy to suppose that intentional effort either to offend another poster or to sabotage/vandalize the site would be abusive. But I wonder if either repeated failure to get the tone right (sarcasm, for example) or repeatedly pressing points or topics uncomfortable to others would constitute abuse.
You say, "But actions here can in fact have serious consequences." Could you elaborate?
Posted by shar on October 1, 2002, at 13:34:53
In reply to Re: more info, posted by Dr. Bob on October 1, 2002, at 8:18:53
Posted by shar on October 1, 2002, at 14:03:53
In reply to I don't get this » Dr. Bob, posted by Anyuser on October 1, 2002, at 13:18:01
Just a general comment. I hesitated to even ask the question I did because I put myself in Dr. Bob's shoes and thought how every time he explains something, there is always a price to pay. He gets disagreement heaped on him, criticism for his actions, lectures, insults, questions and more questions on every detail of each step he took. I wondered if I was in his position, if I would be up for the sh*t storm a response (*any* response) would be bound to create.
The down side of that behavior on our part, of course, is that we stop getting info about his decisions, which he is under no obligation to provide anyway. I'm not sure what the up side is.
I'm not telling anybody what to write or not to write, or how to write it, and certainly Dr. Bob is an adult and can make his own decisions about how he will deal with things. I just hate that asking a simple question, and getting a reasonable answer will likely result in negative chaos.
This is my opinion only, and is not a discourse on both sides (or all sides, because I'm sure there are more than two) of the issue. Thus, I can say with certainty in advance that attacking me for my opinion, or for failing to mention all the opinions that exist, won't accomplish anything. I am not speaking for anyone else, just myself.
Shar
Posted by oracle on October 1, 2002, at 14:50:20
In reply to I don't get this » Dr. Bob, posted by Anyuser on October 1, 2002, at 13:18:01
If you are posting from work, reguardless of what account you are using, the courts have ruled that
work can be held responsible for what you say. Work can also read this mail w/o your knowlage.In this case, it seems bob had a past history
with this person so it seems he has already warned this person. So there is nothing wrong
with taking this issue up with the ISP.
Posted by BeardedLady on October 1, 2002, at 15:11:44
In reply to To say or not to say, posted by shar on October 1, 2002, at 14:03:53
Shar:
I'm not interested in posting much, but I did want to respond to this post.
> I'm not telling anybody what to write or not to write, or how to write it,
No, but it sounds to me (not an accusation) as if you're admonishing others for feeling compelled to ask a question and expressing disappointment with the answer.
>I just hate that asking a simple question, and getting a reasonable answer will likely result in negative chaos.
First, the question you asked wasn't simple. And whether an answer is reasonable is subjective: some may think it is; others may think it isn't. (This isn't an issue of concern to me, so I'm neutral.)
But I don't understand why expressing a different opinion is termed "negative chaos"? That opinion has often been a show of support for others, and I don't see it any more chaotic than the discussion of a movie, for instance.
> Thus, I can say with certainty in advance that attacking me for my opinion, or for failing to mention all the opinions that exist, won't accomplish anything. I am not speaking for anyone else, just myself.
Does this mean folks who disagree with you are "attacking [you] for [your] opinion"? Because I would like to think that most of us are not interested in attacking others but instead wish to impart our own opinions, even if they're different —in fact *because* they are different.
I was raised to question authority—if and when that authority begs questioning. Sometimes it does; sometimes it doesn't. I'm not an "America: Love it or Leave it" type of girl. I'd rather work to make it better, and sometimes that means questioning the authority when the authority seems unfair.
I think that's why you asked your question, and the answer you got was satisfactory to you. But don't be surprised if it's not satisfactory to someone else.
We're all different. My daughter got into the car today with an orange juice bottle cap, which she found on the ground. I said to her, "Please do not bring trash into the car with you!" She said, "Mom, it's my treasure."
Respectfully,
Beardy
Posted by Anyuser on October 1, 2002, at 15:53:20
In reply to I don't get this » Dr. Bob, posted by Anyuser on October 1, 2002, at 13:18:01
I don't want to pick a fight with anybody. I don't mean to suggest Dr. Bob did anything inappropriate. I don't know anything about the poster that precipitated (including the nature of the abuse) this thread, and sure as heck have no interest in defending her/him. Up with civility, down with abuse.
Posted by oracle on October 1, 2002, at 17:02:42
In reply to Clarification, posted by Anyuser on October 1, 2002, at 15:53:20
> I don't want to pick a fight with anybody.
Disagreeing is not picking a fight.
I don't mean to suggest Dr. Bob did anything inappropriate. I don't know anything about the poster that precipitated (including the nature of the abuse) this thread, and sure as heck have no interest in defending her/him.
In this thread Dr bob said:
Yes, they had already been disruptive, and I had warned (and blocked) them, several times.
There is your precipitation.
Posted by shar on October 1, 2002, at 21:48:10
In reply to Re: To say or not to say » shar, posted by BeardedLady on October 1, 2002, at 15:11:44
> Shar:
>
> I'm not interested in posting much, but I did want to respond to this post.........I expected you would.
>
> > I'm not telling anybody what to write or not to write, or how to write it,
>
> No, but it sounds to me (not an accusation) as if you're admonishing others for feeling compelled to ask a question and expressing disappointment with the answer.........Not admonishing. Just stating that I was not trying to tell people what to write or how to write it. Like the sentence said. Others are completely free to do what they like.
>
> >I just hate that asking a simple question, and getting a reasonable answer will likely result in negative chaos.
>
> First, the question you asked wasn't simple.....In your opinion.
>
>And whether an answer is reasonable is subjective: some may think it is; others may think it isn't. (This isn't an issue of concern to me, so I'm neutral.)
>
........Very true re subjectivity. In my post, that was my opinion I was expressing, and to me, in my very own opinion, it was a reasonable answer. I was not stating that it should or would be reasonable for everyone, a point I tried to make abundantly clear. I went so far as to point out that I was not trying to represent all possible points of view in my post.
>
>
> But I don't understand why expressing a different opinion is termed "negative chaos"?
That opinion has often been a show of support for others, and I don't see it any more chaotic than the discussion of a movie, for instance.......A different opinion is not "negative chaos." I was referring to the sh*t storms that have erupted in the past. I believe I mentioned that. And, I know those terms are subjective, as they should be, since I was expressing my own opinion which is intrinsically subjective.
>
> > Thus, I can say with certainty in advance that attacking me for my opinion, or for failing to mention all the opinions that exist, won't accomplish anything. I am not speaking for anyone else, just myself.
>
> Does this mean folks who disagree with you are "attacking [you] for [your] opinion"?........No, it means people who attack me are attacking me.
>
>Because I would like to think that most of us are not interested in attacking others........I would like to think that also.
>
>but instead wish to impart our own opinions, even if they're different —in fact *because* they are different.........I agree. When people express a different opinion that is freedom of speech to me. If they do so by referencing the original situation (instead of, say, my post) and own their opinions (for example, using "I" statements, and, in this instance, talking about Dr. Bob contacting someone's ISP) it even feels like they would be expressing their very own opinion.
>
> I was raised to question authority—if and when that authority begs questioning. Sometimes it does; sometimes it doesn't. I'm not an "America: Love it or Leave it" type of girl. I'd rather work to make it better, and sometimes that means questioning the authority when the authority seems unfair..........I agree completely.
>
> I think that's why you asked your question, and the answer you got was satisfactory to you. But don't be surprised if it's not satisfactory to someone else.........It would surprise and amaze me if it WAS satisfactory to everybody else.
>
> We're all different..........Yep. That's why I made it so clear (or made a concerted effort to be as crystal clear as I possibly could) that I was expressing my OWN opinion. Just mine. Only from my point of view. Not speaking for everyone else, or anyone else. Not saying other people should feel that way, too. Simply expressing how I felt, and my own opinion. Really tried to be clear about that, I did.
Shar
Posted by BeardedLady on October 2, 2002, at 5:02:40
In reply to Re: To say or not to say » BeardedLady, posted by shar on October 1, 2002, at 21:48:10
Shar:
Your post did, indeed, say all those things: that you weren't trying to tell others what to say, that you were giving your opinion, that you were speaking for yourself.
But writers often say one thing and mean another. The tone of your post suggested, to me, another meaning.
Thank you for the clarification.
Respectfully,
Beardy
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 2, 2002, at 11:48:29
In reply to To say or not to say, posted by shar on October 1, 2002, at 14:03:53
> If a poster posts from work, and that poster's email address is [yourname]@[yourcompany].com, does that mean the ISP is the poster's place of work? If so, and if a poster is abusive, then you'll notify the employer? If so, do you give the abusive poster any specific warning that her/his ISP/employer will be told unless the abuse stops?
It may be "yourcompany", but it may also be based on an IP address rather than the email address. Lots of people use hotmail, for example, for email but not Internet service per se.
The warning is in the FAQ.
> Does repeated "mere" incivility constitute abuse, or is abuse categorically different from incivility?
>
> AnyuserIt depends what you mean by "mere". It comes down to a judgment call. And is therefore subjective. And context matters. And I do appreciate that this is a sensitive issue...
----
> The down side of that behavior on our part, of course, is that we stop getting info about his decisions, which he is under no obligation to provide anyway. I'm not sure what the up side is.
>
> SharThe up sides are that you get to express your opinions and I get to hear them. As Beardy said, you might feel it's important to support others, question authority, etc.
> I just hate that asking a simple question, and getting a reasonable answer will likely result in negative chaos.
There may be chaos in the sense of differences of opinion, but I'll try harder to keep it civil. And having deputies should help...
Bob
Posted by Phil on October 2, 2002, at 19:30:23
In reply to Re: To say or not to say » BeardedLady, posted by shar on October 1, 2002, at 21:48:10
I liked your tone as always, shar. Good midrange,
smoking bass, and the highs are clear as a bell.
On a silent board, you're acoustically brilliant.Phil
Posted by Big-Sally on October 4, 2002, at 11:29:38
In reply to I don't get this » Dr. Bob, posted by Anyuser on October 1, 2002, at 13:18:01
Hmm my post didn't show up.
As I said the orginal post was from a Pricneton student who got an email from the University calling him an abuser becaue Dr. Bob complained about him to his or her Unvirsty.
The original one said he didn't ever abuse or even really be uncivil but Dr Bob traced his location using IP logs which are only supposed to be used for statistics, NEVER to identify individual. That's his privacy policy.
But that's exactly what Dr. Bob did. He used them to locate and then complain about the student to the University administration, getting him in trouble there. He didn't use the email address but the IP logs.
So Dr Bob is being a little disingenuous here in saying that he had warned the person many times and all and followed his policy. That would be true if he had been abusive and if Dr. Bob had traced the person using email. But he used the IP logs he says he didn't used to trace someone down just for using the name Boob, whcih is just SILLY not abusive.
Anyway I dodn't think its good to post here if Dr.; Bob violatees his policy Still good info tho.
Big Sally
Posted by oracle on October 4, 2002, at 15:54:09
In reply to Re: I don't get this » Anyuser, posted by Big-Sally on October 4, 2002, at 11:29:38
> The original one said he didn't ever abuse or even really be uncivil but Dr Bob traced his location using IP logs which are only supposed to be used for statistics, NEVER to identify individual. That's his privacy policy.
You need to read the FAQ, you have your facts wrong
Posted by Big-Sally on October 7, 2002, at 10:34:55
In reply to Re: I don't get this, posted by oracle on October 4, 2002, at 15:54:09
I don't think so Oracle. I think you're wrong. Can you cite the portion of the FAQ that says anything different?
> You need to read the FAQ, you have your facts wrong
Posted by oracle on November 27, 2002, at 16:34:19
In reply to Re: I don't get this » oracle, posted by Big-Sally on October 7, 2002, at 10:34:55
> I don't think so Oracle. I think you're wrong. Can you cite the portion of the FAQ that says anything different?
>
> > You need to read the FAQ, you have your facts wrongjust reread it please
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.