![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 79 to 103 of 173. Go back in thread:
Posted by gabbii on July 9, 2005, at 19:54:48
In reply to Re: All of this... » AuntieMel, posted by 10derHeart on July 9, 2005, at 19:19:33
you're just lovely, tenderheart
Posted by 10derHeart on July 9, 2005, at 21:57:57
In reply to Re: All of this... » 10derHeart, posted by gabbii on July 9, 2005, at 19:54:48
Posted by gardenergirl on July 9, 2005, at 23:04:19
In reply to Re: psych central, posted by All Done on July 9, 2005, at 18:02:22
I take a bit of time away and I fall down the rabbit hole without realizing it.
Can somebody else who is supposed to know what the hell any of this has to do with PC please explain it to me? Apparently I should know, but either I'm dense or clueless or both. Feel free to babblemail me or to post it, I don't mind either.
But I's confused.
gg
Posted by KaraS on July 9, 2005, at 23:53:00
In reply to Well bless my whiskers!, posted by gardenergirl on July 9, 2005, at 23:04:19
> I take a bit of time away and I fall down the rabbit hole without realizing it.
>
> Can somebody else who is supposed to know what the hell any of this has to do with PC please explain it to me? Apparently I should know, but either I'm dense or clueless or both. Feel free to babblemail me or to post it, I don't mind either.
>
> But I's confused.
>
> gg
>
I'm guessing it's the fact that PC was the cause for the arguments between Lar and Emmy which led her to request the DNP to begin with.
Posted by gardenergirl on July 10, 2005, at 0:13:34
In reply to Re: The PC Connection » gardenergirl, posted by KaraS on July 9, 2005, at 23:53:00
Um, I see. That was back when? Oh yes, early April. And um, let's see....it's the connection between Lar and Em's disagreement, right?
Not mine.
Not Laurie's.
Not Gabbi's.
'cept that two out of the three above post there.
sigh...still confused. But I respect that folks need to do what they need to do, and I don't always need to understand.
gg
Posted by thuso on July 10, 2005, at 0:19:33
In reply to Well bless my whiskers!, posted by gardenergirl on July 9, 2005, at 23:04:19
I'm really shocked at how far this has gone. I've tried my best to read the thread where all this controversy started and have a question about an alternative that Larry could have done (or any of us for that matter).
In Larry's case, since he felt obligated to defend himself, couldn't he just have posted in Admin asking if what he wanted to write in the thread would not violate the DNP rule? First of all, he then wouldn't have posted to the person at all. It would have been a clarification post. Secondly, he would have gotten his views out in the open for everyone to see whether or not his proposed post would have been deemed acceptable. This method is used all the time in the court room and by different media outlets. I'm curious as if the way I just mentioned would be acceptable, since there really are many ways to get around a DNP if needed.
But I also wanted to mention that I really liked Lou's post about how Dr. B was just following the rule that people here requested. Since it seems to me that a lot of people are unhappy with the vagueness and inconsistencies this rule has caused, why doesn't everyone start giving suggestions to Dr. B in that thread below this one started by crushedout ? I'm sure no one wants this to happen again, but it inevitably will if some clarifications are not made in the rules.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050628/msgs/525511.htmlAfter all that reading (phew!), I think I understand all sides of the coin and why so many people are up in arms. Hopefully, this won't leave too much of a bitter taste for those who stay.
Posted by gabbii on July 10, 2005, at 4:49:56
In reply to Shocked at how far this has gone..., posted by thuso on July 10, 2005, at 0:19:33
? I'm sure no one wants this to happen again, but it inevitably will if some clarifications are not made in the rules.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050628/msgs/525511.html
>
> After all that reading (phew!), I think I understand all sides of the coin and why so many people are up in arms. Hopefully, this won't leaveIt's difficult for me to see how Dr. Bob was "just following the rules" when the rules are not clear! Dr.Bob himself says there was much grey area here. The post Lar was actually blocked for was not posted to Emmy, it was a general post, and Dr. Bob interpreted it as being a direct response to her. Additionally The actual "rules" are different from those listed in the offical F.A.Q, and when the rules changed there was not even a subject heading that brought attention to the changes, it was all done in conversation style.
Just following the rules? I think not.
And how on earth is 6 weeks justified in all the confusion?It frustrates me when people who don't know the details of the situation make asessments as to the acceptabiity of the outcome.
Posted by gabbii on July 10, 2005, at 4:55:04
In reply to Shocked at how far this has gone..., posted by thuso on July 10, 2005, at 0:19:33
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050628/msgs/525647.html
I just discovered everything I wanted to say, had already been said.
Posted by alexandra_k on July 10, 2005, at 9:14:24
In reply to Shocked at how far this has gone..., posted by thuso on July 10, 2005, at 0:19:33
> I'm really shocked at how far this has gone.
Yup. If it is any consolation this sort of thing does happen on Babble sometimes. Sometimes I worry that the boards will never be the same. But it always blows over... Eventually.
> In Larry's case, since he felt obligated to defend himself, couldn't he just have posted in Admin asking if what he wanted to write in the thread would not violate the DNP rule? First of all, he then wouldn't have posted to the person at all. It would have been a clarification post. Secondly, he would have gotten his views out in the open for everyone to see whether or not his proposed post would have been deemed acceptable. This method is used all the time in the court room and by different media outlets. I'm curious as if the way I just mentioned would be acceptable, since there really are many ways to get around a DNP if needed.I'm not sure... I think so. You can post comments to the general reader to defend yourself against what someone is saying - but if they have requested you not post to them you have to be very careful.
You can also Babblemail someone as a 'civility buddy' before posting. You could even Babblemail Dr Bob and ask whether it is ok to post your post (though you might have to wait a while for a reply).
> But I also wanted to mention that I really liked Lou's post about how Dr. B was just following the rule that people here requested. Since it seems to me that a lot of people are unhappy with the vagueness and inconsistencies this rule has caused, why doesn't everyone start giving suggestions to Dr. B in that thread below this one started by crushedout ?
Good idea. It is easy to criticise. Much harder to come up with a viable alternative.
> After all that reading (phew!), I think I understand all sides of the coin and why so many people are up in arms. Hopefully, this won't leave too much of a bitter taste for those who stay.
Yeah. Time... Time tends to help a lot.
I quite liked what gg had to say about here:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050628/msgs/525696.html
Posted by AuntieMel on July 10, 2005, at 10:08:09
In reply to Well bless my whiskers!, posted by gardenergirl on July 9, 2005, at 23:04:19
I shouldn't have included you. Please accept my apology.
Posted by thuso on July 10, 2005, at 11:02:53
In reply to Re: Shocked at how far this has gone... » thuso, posted by gabbii on July 10, 2005, at 4:49:56
> It's difficult for me to see how Dr. Bob was "just following the rules" when the rules are not clear! Dr.Bob himself says there was much grey area here. The post Lar was actually blocked for was not posted to Emmy, it was a general post, and Dr. Bob interpreted it as being a direct response to her. Additionally The actual "rules" are different from those listed in the official F.A.Q, and when the rules changed there was not even a subject heading that brought attention to the changes, it was all done in conversation style.
>
> Just following the rules? I think not.
> And how on earth is 6 weeks justified in all the confusion?
>Obviously the post wasn't general enough or Dr. Bob wouldn't have blocked him. I think Larry's post was right on the edge of general or directed towards Emmy. I could see Dr. B's decision going either way. But remember, it's his opinion and not ours that counts. Yes, there are plenty of grey areas with this DNP rule. Yes, they need to be addressed so this doesn't happen again. Yes, the new rules should have been laid out in an area that all could view them. But isn't it better for the poster to always err on the side of caution, especially on this site? There are different paths that could have been taken that would have avoided this entire situation. It's too late for that now, but hopefully we'll learn from this.
I know the current DNP rules are different from those in the FAQ. The FAQ is clear that it requires harassment (as Larry pointed out), but that obviously isn't the case anymore. Did anyone point that out to Dr. B before this situation erupted? I don't know the answer, but if no one did I have quite a few comments about that.
Regarding the 6 week block...I've stated in other posts that the punishment structure is known, so the fact that a person gets more than what some people deem as "acceptable for the crime" doesn't really matter. Dr. B states that the last time Larry was blocked was for 6 weeks. According to the punishment structure here, he could have made it 12 weeks. Being confused about a situation doesn't matter. If there was confusion, it should have been addressed before the infamous post (whether by Larry or someone else). Unfortunately, Larry is the one that got caught in the cross-fire. I feel for him because of that. Just remember that this could have happened to any one of us.
So yes, I think Dr. B was following the rules. This issue isn't a question about if the DNP request was valid or not. It was about a response and whether or not it was directed towards the person or in general. Those aspects of the DNP rule seem pretty laid out to me in the FAQ. It was just a matter of the interpretation of Larry's post. It was interpreted to not be general enough by both Dinah and Dr. B (who happen to be the two people with authority). You disagree?
> It frustrates me when people who don't know the details of the situation make assessments as to the acceptability of the outcome.
>First of all, how do you know that I don't know the details of the situation??? Everything here is archived and I happened to be on PC for that whole April Fool's thing and read most of the posts (and controversy) regarding it. It's not hard to find specific posts here. So, please don't assume anything about me or what I don't know. And besides, I have the opinion that someone can offer a lot of input about a situation even if they weren't involved at the time. A person who was not emotionally caught up in the situation can often bring a different perspective. Isn't that what a lot of therapy is? Why are you frustrated when I'm just bringing my outside perspective to the table?
Posted by AuntieMel on July 10, 2005, at 11:21:54
In reply to Please, everyone . . ., posted by TamaraJ on July 9, 2005, at 11:23:40
I'm not protesting because Larry is popular. I post on different boards than he does and our paths rarely cross.
I'm protesting because he seems to have been blindsided at a time when he was reaching out for help. On 6/6 he posted on social "Acting as if", clearly reaching out. And on the same day, one on the med board "Nuerontin to Topomax" with severe side affects.
So, through pain and depression - he also posted to Emmy - a post that looks to me like he was trying to just kid around with an old pal, and
the answer he got was"What part of DO NOT POST TO ME did you not understand?"
I'd have felt blindsided, too. But he didn't try to defend himself then. He just said, basically, 'sorry, i won't do it again' and went on with his life, NOT posting, until a new thread was started days later about him *not* getting blocked.
And I get very angry when it seems to me like ....
well, I'll babblemail you the rest of the sentence.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 10, 2005, at 11:22:53
In reply to Please, everyone . . ., posted by TamaraJ on July 9, 2005, at 11:23:40
Posted by AuntieMel on July 10, 2005, at 11:34:25
In reply to Re: oops, no babblemail (nm) » TamaraJ, posted by AuntieMel on July 10, 2005, at 11:22:53
Posted by TamaraJ on July 10, 2005, at 11:35:07
In reply to Re: oops, no babblemail (nm) » TamaraJ, posted by AuntieMel on July 10, 2005, at 11:22:53
I am sorry if I offended you. I could have worded that sentence better. The point that I was trying to make, as I made previously in the original thread where all this started is that it is not about popularity, it is ambiguity and inconsistency. I will stop now. I am crying, and am finding it hard to be at Babble these days. This whole situation has hurt more than just Larry and Emmy, as you and others know too well. Feel free to e-mail me your concerns. If I have done something to upset you, I do apologize.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 10, 2005, at 11:41:15
In reply to It's on now, AuntieMel for a short time » AuntieMel, posted by TamaraJ on July 10, 2005, at 11:35:07
You haven't done anything to upset me. I was just trying to converse and explain part of why I'm protesting.
babblemail on the way.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 10, 2005, at 11:45:26
In reply to Re: Please, everyone . . ., posted by AuntieMel on July 10, 2005, at 11:21:54
I was trying to say I'm not doing this because Lar is a friend, but because I just feel it's wrong....
You had mentioned popularity, which is why I guess I directed it towards you, but I was actually agreeing that popularity wasn't the issue - and other things should be considered.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 10, 2005, at 11:46:43
In reply to Re: I mean » AuntieMel, posted by AuntieMel on July 10, 2005, at 11:45:26
Posted by gabbii on July 10, 2005, at 11:55:56
In reply to Re: Shocked at how far this has gone... » gabbii, posted by thuso on July 10, 2005, at 11:02:53
heading that brought attention to the changes, >
> Obviously the post wasn't general enough or Dr. Bob wouldn't have blocked him.
Bob's perception isn't 100%
I think as Kara said, you may want to be around for a bit and see what you think of the rules then..
Yes, there are plenty of grey areas with this DNP rule. Yes, they need to be addressed so this doesn't happen again. Yes, the new rules should have been laid out in an area that all
could view them. But isn't it better for the > > It frustrates me when people who don't know the details of the situation make assessments as to the acceptability of the outcome.
> >
>
> First of all, how do you know that
Everything here is archived and I happened to be on PC for that whole April Fool's thing and read most of the posts (and controversy) regarding it. It's not hard to find specific posts here. So, please don't assume anything about me or what I don't know.I didn't say *you* I said people, and if I'd meant you in particular I would have had no problem saying it.
What I meant by knowing all the details was what happens behind the scenes to bring this about, extenuating circumstances.
It isn't all just what is on the board.And besides, I have the opinion that someone can offer a lot of input about a situation even if they weren't involved at the time. A person who was not emotionally caught up in the situation can often bring a different perspective. Isn't that what a lot of therapy is? Why are you frustrated when I'm just bringing my outside perspective to the table?
I've not had therapy, so I don't know.
And I was speaking in general, I'm quite particular to use general terms when I mean them, and not as a hint toward one person in particular. I apologize that in the context of a post directed to you it made it look like I was singleing you out.
I wasn't.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 10, 2005, at 12:02:58
In reply to Re: Shocked at how far this has gone... » thuso, posted by gabbii on July 10, 2005, at 11:55:56
behind the scenes. You're right there.
I apologized above, but I'd like to repeat it. I shouldn't have included you in the dnp.
Posted by gabbii on July 10, 2005, at 12:20:02
In reply to Re: exactly » gabbii, posted by AuntieMel on July 10, 2005, at 12:02:58
Don't give it another thought.
We all have extreme reactions to stress, It's just that everyone does it in a different way.
Posted by gardenergirl on July 10, 2005, at 13:40:18
In reply to Re: Sorry GG, All Done, Gabbi, posted by AuntieMel on July 10, 2005, at 10:08:09
No worries.
gg
Posted by gabbii on July 10, 2005, at 15:32:11
In reply to Re: co-existing, posted by Dr. Bob on July 9, 2005, at 16:01:09
Speaking of co-existing, that may also apply to John and me...
>
> Bob: )
Maybe you just need to ask him to come play "Spiderman" with you and the guys.
Posted by KaraS on July 10, 2005, at 18:31:05
In reply to Re: Please, everyone . . ., posted by AuntieMel on July 10, 2005, at 11:21:54
> I'm not protesting because Larry is popular. I post on different boards than he does and our paths rarely cross.
>
> I'm protesting because he seems to have been blindsided at a time when he was reaching out for help. On 6/6 he posted on social "Acting as if", clearly reaching out. And on the same day, one on the med board "Nuerontin to Topomax" with severe side affects.
>
> So, through pain and depression - he also posted to Emmy - a post that looks to me like he was trying to just kid around with an old pal, and
> the answer he got was
>
> "What part of DO NOT POST TO ME did you not understand?"
>
> I'd have felt blindsided, too. But he didn't try to defend himself then. He just said, basically, 'sorry, i won't do it again' and went on with his life, NOT posting, until a new thread was started days later about him *not* getting blocked.
>
> And I get very angry when it seems to me like ....
>
> well, I'll babblemail you the rest of the sentence.
Lots of good points there. It took me back to the whole history of this block and I think it helps to explain a lot of the anger that people have felt towards Emmy. When I read her response of"What part of DO NOT POST TO ME did you not
understand?"coming after that deeply heartfelt apology message by Larry (that wasn't even directly to her if I remember correctly), I couldn't believe what I had read. It had such an incredibly chilling effect on me. It took my breath away. I felt indescribably bad for Larry at that point.
Posted by gabbii on July 10, 2005, at 19:55:48
In reply to Re: Please, everyone . . . » AuntieMel, posted by KaraS on July 10, 2005, at 18:31:05
> > I'm protesting because he seems to have been blindsided at a time when he was reaching out for help. On 6/6 he posted on social "Acting as if", clearly reaching out. And on the same day, one on the med board "Nuerontin to Topomax" with severe side affects.
> >
> > So, through pain and depression - he also posted to Emmy - a post that looks to me like he was trying to just kid around with an old pal, and
> > the answer he got was
> >
> > "What part of DO NOT POST TO ME did you not understand?"
> >
> > I'd have felt blindsided, too. But he didn't try to defend himself then. He just said, basically, 'sorry, i won't do it again' and went on with his life, NOT posting, until a new thread was started days later about him *not* getting blocked.
Those were the mitigating behind the scenes circumstances I was referring to in my post to Thuso, the things that don't make this
"clear as day" or "cut and dried"But, I think it's important to realize that we can't know what Emmy was going through (or has been through)to make her react as she did either, or how those posts looked to her.
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.