![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 11 to 35 of 73. Go back in thread:
Posted by tabitha on December 11, 2003, at 19:25:07
In reply to Re: does anyone else think i was unfairly blocked?, posted by Karen_kay on December 11, 2003, at 16:55:54
Karen, it's hard to know what to do with reactions like that. It's acceptable to just post about how upset you feel, as long as you're careful not to say anything too critical of the post that upset you. Personally I don't feel right exposing all my hurt feelings in that case. What if they were actually trying to hurt me? Then I've just rewarded them by showing how effective it was. Of course you do get some comforting replies, so it's a trade-off.
Posted by Dinah on December 11, 2003, at 19:32:32
In reply to Re: does anyone else think i was unfairly blocked? » Karen_kay, posted by tabitha on December 11, 2003, at 19:25:07
Wish I could achieve it.
Posted by tabitha on December 11, 2003, at 20:21:04
In reply to Re: I admire your restraint. Very wise. » tabitha, posted by Dinah on December 11, 2003, at 19:32:32
Posted by crushedout on December 11, 2003, at 21:47:05
In reply to Re: I admire your restraint. Very wise. » tabitha, posted by Dinah on December 11, 2003, at 19:32:32
I feel understood and supported, and also understand better how not to get into hot water now. It was very helpful.I could have written the same thing (although I probably should have written it here instead of on psychological babble) without repeating my criticisms of the poster, and then I probably wouldn't have gotten into trouble. It appears I was wrong in thinking that I was being punished for criticizing Dr. Bob, since that seems to be pretty kosher. :-) If not, then I guess we're all gonna get in trouble! ;)
Posted by kara lynne on December 13, 2003, at 1:34:26
In reply to does anyone else think i was unfairly blocked?, posted by crushedout on December 10, 2003, at 23:50:59
Posted by crushedout on December 13, 2003, at 2:33:34
In reply to yes (nm), posted by kara lynne on December 13, 2003, at 1:34:26
wow, thanks. i wasn't expecting that. i feel better now.
Posted by kara lynne on December 13, 2003, at 17:28:21
In reply to Re: yes » kara lynne, posted by crushedout on December 13, 2003, at 2:33:34
Good. I wanted to say something from the very beginning but I'm sorry to say I succombed to the futility and inequity of the situation. For the life of me I cannot even find one sentence that qualifies you for a block.
Posted by kara lynne on December 13, 2003, at 17:35:19
In reply to Re: yes, posted by kara lynne on December 13, 2003, at 17:28:21
Reading all of the above I guess there was some sentence you were pbc'd for that you repeated and that's why you were blocked. I didn't know that, nor do I know the sentence. I wanted to ask at the beginning specifically why you were blocked, for the exact words. Then I might understand better.
But I don't think it would change that I felt it was unfair.
Posted by crushedout on December 13, 2003, at 21:40:10
In reply to Re: yes, posted by kara lynne on December 13, 2003, at 17:35:19
hmm, well, here's a question: if i repeat it here, do i risk getting blocked *again*? the last time i repeated it was simply to illustrate another point (the unfairness of dr. bob's blocking practices) and still i got into trouble.see how tricky this is?
> Reading all of the above I guess there was some sentence you were pbc'd for that you repeated and that's why you were blocked. I didn't know that, nor do I know the sentence. I wanted to ask at the beginning specifically why you were blocked, for the exact words. Then I might understand better.
>
> But I don't think it would change that I felt it was unfair.
Posted by kara lynne on December 14, 2003, at 1:52:26
In reply to Re: yes, posted by crushedout on December 13, 2003, at 21:40:10
I guess you could just point me to the post with the words that got you pbc'd, and then where you repeated them.
Posted by crushedout on December 14, 2003, at 3:04:38
In reply to Re: yes, posted by kara lynne on December 14, 2003, at 1:52:26
oh my. i just went back to find my original pbc and realized that i had posted to someone *else* whose posts i found offensive. i mixed the two posters up. this is embarrassing.i dunno if that changes your evaluation. here's a link to my most recent post, for which i was blocked.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20031123/msgs/285693.htmlsorry for being a flake. i'm not usually like this, i swear.
> I guess you could just point me to the post with the words that got you pbc'd, and then where you repeated them.
Posted by kara lynne on December 14, 2003, at 12:18:47
In reply to Re: yes, posted by crushedout on December 14, 2003, at 3:04:38
No need to be embarrassed, it gets confusing sometimes. Yes, I saw that post. While I don't think it was block-worthy it seems to be a typical example of a post that will inevitably get blocked: a reasonable reaction to feeling insulted, eg. But what had you said before that that warranted your pbc? Because in that post I still don't understand the specific crime--that you found something 'outrageous and offensive'?
I'm just wondering what rule was violated.
Posted by crushedout on December 14, 2003, at 12:40:16
In reply to Re: yes, posted by kara lynne on December 14, 2003, at 12:18:47
well, my outrage was toward dr. bob, and although to be perfectly frank, he was very opaque in explaining to me why i was blocked (both online and off), it seems that part wasn't what did it. i think it was my assertion that the poster's posts had been offensive and making inappropriate assumptions about people. now, one question that folks haven't addressed is why *i* was blocked and others weren't, when in a later thread, people kind of let him have it way more than i did (you guys know what i'm talking about? i think the thread started as "mind's eye" or something). perhaps the distinction was that he *asked* for the criticism when they did it.
i'm certainly not advocating for those others to *also* be blocked, since i agreed wholeheartedly with what they wrote. i'm just trying to understand why *i* was blocked and they weren't.
my previous pbc was for a much more glaring violation, now that i look back at it. but i was new at the time and didn't understand the rules at all.
here it is, if you must see it (i'm a little embarrassed by it, because i may have been overreacting, but also please remember i was new):
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20031011/msgs/268926.html
(i can't believe i'm laying out my crime history for all to see! i hope this can't be used against me in a court of law.)
> No need to be embarrassed, it gets confusing sometimes. Yes, I saw that post. While I don't think it was block-worthy it seems to be a typical example of a post that will inevitably get blocked: a reasonable reaction to feeling insulted, eg. But what had you said before that that warranted your pbc? Because in that post I still don't understand the specific crime--that you found something 'outrageous and offensive'?
>
> I'm just wondering what rule was violated.
Posted by crushedout on December 14, 2003, at 12:47:44
In reply to Re: yes » kara lynne, posted by crushedout on December 14, 2003, at 12:40:16
i also for the life of me cannot understand why the poster that offended me (and so many others) was never told to be civil. i think that really makes no sense. especially since he attacked dinah directly, accusing her of "grumbling and obligatory thinking," whatever that means. to make yourself vulnerable on this site and then be criticized directly by someone that doesn't even know you seems like it should violate the rules.right now i'm so mad at dr. bob that i can't bring myself to respond to his email asking me if he was "missing something." hello. yes, he was.
> well, my outrage was toward dr. bob, and although to be perfectly frank, he was very opaque in explaining to me why i was blocked (both online and off), it seems that part wasn't what did it. i think it was my assertion that the poster's posts had been offensive and making inappropriate assumptions about people. now, one question that folks haven't addressed is why *i* was blocked and others weren't, when in a later thread, people kind of let him have it way more than i did (you guys know what i'm talking about? i think the thread started as "mind's eye" or something). perhaps the distinction was that he *asked* for the criticism when they did it.
>
> i'm certainly not advocating for those others to *also* be blocked, since i agreed wholeheartedly with what they wrote. i'm just trying to understand why *i* was blocked and they weren't.
>
> my previous pbc was for a much more glaring violation, now that i look back at it. but i was new at the time and didn't understand the rules at all.
>
> here it is, if you must see it (i'm a little embarrassed by it, because i may have been overreacting, but also please remember i was new):
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20031011/msgs/268926.html
>
> (i can't believe i'm laying out my crime history for all to see! i hope this can't be used against me in a court of law.)
>
> > No need to be embarrassed, it gets confusing sometimes. Yes, I saw that post. While I don't think it was block-worthy it seems to be a typical example of a post that will inevitably get blocked: a reasonable reaction to feeling insulted, eg. But what had you said before that that warranted your pbc? Because in that post I still don't understand the specific crime--that you found something 'outrageous and offensive'?
> >
> > I'm just wondering what rule was violated.
>
>
Posted by kara lynne on December 14, 2003, at 13:22:07
In reply to one more mini-rant (please bear with me), posted by crushedout on December 14, 2003, at 12:47:44
"grumbling and obligatory thinking,"
That got to me too! I don't know why that wasn't addressed.
As for being embarrassed, I still wouldn't be. You were new and didn't know the drill. And as you can see, we're all still trying to figure it out.
Posted by NikkiT2 on December 14, 2003, at 14:14:36
In reply to Re: yes » kara lynne, posted by crushedout on December 14, 2003, at 12:40:16
You weren't blocked for your comments.
What you were blocked for, was repeating the comments after having been asked not to (as thats what a PBC really is)..
Thats why YOU were blocked and others weren't. Other didn't repeat what they had said after being asked not to.
It's quite easy really to follow the rules. When ever I have been PBC'd or blocked, I knew full well that it was coming and I had made that choice to use the words I had used and to face the consequences.
Nikki
Posted by NikkiT2 on December 14, 2003, at 14:16:39
In reply to one more mini-rant (please bear with me), posted by crushedout on December 14, 2003, at 12:47:44
Well, Dr Bob is a busy man, he cannot be expected to notice everything. He has a full time job, and life.. I don;t work but don't have time to look at every single post made here.
Plus he has the administrative side to deal with.
I think some people here expect way too much of him.
And wasn't Dr Rod PBC'd for his comments??
Nikki
Posted by crushedout on December 14, 2003, at 14:22:02
In reply to Re: yes » crushedout, posted by NikkiT2 on December 14, 2003, at 14:14:36
but that doesn't make sense because then the others would have at least gotten PBC'd and they didn't.
and, it turns out (because i'm a dork), that i wasn't repeating anything. i thought i was, but in fact, it had been a totally separate conversation with a different poster for which i was pbc'd.
> You weren't blocked for your comments.
>
> What you were blocked for, was repeating the comments after having been asked not to (as thats what a PBC really is)..
>
> Thats why YOU were blocked and others weren't. Other didn't repeat what they had said after being asked not to.
>
> It's quite easy really to follow the rules. When ever I have been PBC'd or blocked, I knew full well that it was coming and I had made that choice to use the words I had used and to face the consequences.
>
> Nikki
Posted by crushedout on December 14, 2003, at 14:32:26
In reply to Re: one more mini-rant (please bear with me) » crushedout, posted by NikkiT2 on December 14, 2003, at 14:16:39
> And wasn't Dr Rod PBC'd for his comments??
absolutely not. that was my whole point. he was asked what kind of doctor he was, and when he didn't respond, was told he had to re-register with a different name. he was never asked to be civil in relation to his comments to dinah.
Posted by stjames on December 14, 2003, at 16:00:19
In reply to Re: one more mini-rant (please bear with me) » crushedout, posted by NikkiT2 on December 14, 2003, at 14:16:39
> Well, Dr Bob is a busy man, he cannot be expected to notice everything. He has a full time job, and life.. I don;t work but don't have time to look at every single post made here.
>
> Plus he has the administrative side to deal with.
>
> I think some people here expect way too much of him.
>
> And wasn't Dr Rod PBC'd for his comments??
>
> NikkiWhile I agree totally with what you say, in this case it was well pointed out to Dr Bob the issues others had with Dr Rod.
Posted by kara lynne on December 14, 2003, at 16:45:49
In reply to Re: yes, posted by crushedout on December 14, 2003, at 14:22:02
-and, it turns out (because i'm a dork), that i wasn't repeating anything. i thought i was, but in fact, it had been a totally separate conversation with a different poster for which i was pbc'd.-
so I still am, as I originally was, confused about why *exactly* you were blocked.
I also never saw Dr. Rod get civilized over that comment to Dinah.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 14, 2003, at 18:22:15
In reply to one more mini-rant (please bear with me), posted by crushedout on December 14, 2003, at 12:47:44
> he attacked dinah directly, accusing her of "grumbling and obligatory thinking," whatever that means.
In which post did he do that? Sorry if I missed something...
Bob
Posted by crushedout on December 14, 2003, at 18:33:26
In reply to Re: grumbling and obligatory thinking, posted by Dr. Bob on December 14, 2003, at 18:22:15
> > he attacked dinah directly, accusing her of "grumbling and obligatory thinking," whatever that means.
>
> In which post did he do that? Sorry if I missed something...
>
> Bobright here:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20031123/msgs/284894.html
but that's only the tip of the iceberg, dr. bob. you missed a lot more than that.
see the "mind's eye" thread, shortly after that one, and especially the following summary of comments that at least one person pointed out as having great potential to touch nerves (i'm trying to put this gently):
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20031202/msgs/286082.html
please don't block joslyn for this. i'm really not interested in getting her in trouble. just in getting you to see what the problem is.
crushed
Posted by crushedout on December 14, 2003, at 18:38:57
In reply to Re: grumbling and obligatory thinking, posted by Dr. Bob on December 14, 2003, at 18:22:15
> > he attacked dinah directly, accusing her of "grumbling and obligatory thinking," whatever that means.
>
> In which post did he do that? Sorry if I missed something...
>
> BobAdmittedly, Dr. Rod seemed fairly receptive to this criticism and seems to be mending his ways (i'm actually not sure if this is true since i stopped reading his posts awhile ago). But if that's an option (getting verbally schooled by other posters rather than being PBC'd or blocked), i should have been given that same opportunity. Which is why I've been annoyed with you. You've been oblivious to this inequity, despite my repeatedly trying to point it out to you.
Posted by kara lynne on December 14, 2003, at 19:12:36
In reply to Re: grumbling and obligatory thinking, posted by Dr. Bob on December 14, 2003, at 18:22:15
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.