![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 108 to 132 of 173. Go back in thread:
Posted by KaraS on July 10, 2005, at 22:47:44
In reply to Re: Please, everyone . . . » KaraS, posted by gabbii on July 10, 2005, at 19:55:48
> > > 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.
>
I was agreeing with Auntie Mel on that so it might as well have been directed to me. (You can't tell by reading that sentence, but it isn't meant to sound snotty - just factual. I couldn't think of how to rephrase that better so I'm explaining it instead.)Anyway, I'm sure that Emmy had her reasons for what she said. I'm just saying that as an outsider, who wasn't privy to those reasons, it was chilling to read her response and I think it helps to explain the backlash she's been experiencing.
k
Posted by gabbii on July 10, 2005, at 22:54:46
In reply to Re: Please, everyone . . . » gabbii, posted by KaraS on July 10, 2005, at 22:47:44
>
>
> I was agreeing with Auntie Mel on that so it might as well have been directed to me.Well not really, I do know you a bit, so I was fairly sure you'd see the other side as well.
And you'd made reference to it before to in a previous post.I actually mentioned what I did in my post to the people who might be angry and not have thought of it. (if there are any)
Posted by AuntieMel on July 11, 2005, at 7:53:27
In reply to Re: Please, everyone . . . » KaraS, posted by gabbii on July 10, 2005, at 22:54:46
Well, Gabbi. I *had*thought about it and *had* already considered the things you've said.
Try as I can (and you know I always prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt) and I'm still angry.
Posted by gabbii on July 11, 2005, at 8:54:38
In reply to Re: Please, everyone . . . » gabbii, posted by AuntieMel on July 11, 2005, at 7:53:27
> Well, Gabbi. I *had*thought about it and *had* already considered the things you've said.
>
> Try as I can (and you know I always prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt) and I'm still angry.
I know you do, it's a crucial part of your personality and I think it's expected to be angry when someone you care about get's hurt.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 9:06:59
In reply to Re: Shocked at how far this has gone... » thuso, posted by gabbii on July 10, 2005, at 11:55:56
> Please do not post/babblemail to me. » gabbii
>
> jayThat was in response to a post by her to So, not to you, so may I ask why it made you feel harassed -- or for some other reason want to disengage?
--
> No, I do not feel comfortable sharing. At least not publicly. Just asking me that question is asking me to say something that will come out as accusing - and I'm not going to go there.
Thanks for keeping it civil here. If you'd feel comfortable sharing by email, I'd still be interested...
> Those involved know what I mean. Or they should.
>
> AuntieMelWell, sometimes things we "should" know ourselves have to be pointed out to us... :-)
--
> when someone posts something that has all kinds of information about you and what you have done and you don't think it's fair or accurate, how do you set the record straight?
Is may not always be necessary to, um, revise the record, but if it is, that can be done without replying to someone who's asked not to be replied to.
> I think that Emmy is also a victim here. Because the block was so long, and even she felt it was out of proportion to the alleged offense, she is feeling the wrath of other babblers and so now she is leaving here. The unfairness of the length of the block put her in a very bad situation too. She needed her concerns listened to and acted upon. I think that had Larry been given adequate clarification and warning, he would have desisted. She would have felt relieved and both of them would still be with us!
>
> KaraI agree that both have been hurt, but I still don't think it's all because of the block, or because of insufficient clarification. IMO, it's also just a challenge to co-exist sometimes. Some ideas have already been posted, but I still wonder how Larry and Emmy might co-exist more successfully. And how their friends might help.
--
> 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.
>
> gabbiiI think it makes it even harder to agree if some people are taking into account factors that others aren't even aware of...
Bob
Posted by gabbii on July 11, 2005, at 9:28:04
In reply to Re: how far this has gone..., posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 9:06:59
> I think it makes it even harder to agree if some people are taking into account factors that others aren't even aware of...
>
> BobDr. Bob the truth can't be ignored simply because it makes it harder for people to agree.
My point was that if you realize you aren't aware of all that's going on in situations like this, (and who is? ) maybe judgement should be suspended, at least publically. That's why I said arguing the length of a block is one thing, but making negative judgements is another.
Posted by gabbii on July 11, 2005, at 9:30:42
In reply to Re: how far this has gone..., posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 9:06:59
> > Please do not post/babblemail to me. » gabbii
> >
> > jay
>
> That was in response to a post by her to So, not to you, so may I ask why it made you feel harassed -- or for some other reason want to disengage?
>
I think that was just coincidence. Jay and I decided mutually to disengage. Part of coexisting is knowing when you cannot.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 11, 2005, at 10:03:21
In reply to Re: how far this has gone..., posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 9:06:59
============================================
> Please do not post/babblemail to me. » gabbii
>
> jayThat was in response to a post by her to So, not to you, so may I ask why it made you feel harassed -- or for some other reason want to disengage?
================================================
What???? This whole thing started out of a misunderstanding of the "rules"
Larry didn't think he was harassing anyone, but got blocked AFTER he was told by Dinah that harassment wasn't required AND quit posting. Double punishment for the same thing, in my book.
According to what came out of this, and the way it was applied, I can ask *anyone* not to post to me for absolutely no reason at all. And then that person has no right, none! to ask me why I did it.
At least that's how the "rule" was applied towards Larry. Who, if you will look back, knows babbles definition of harassment backwards and forwards.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 11, 2005, at 10:16:26
In reply to Re: how far this has gone..., posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 9:06:59
>>> No, I do not feel comfortable sharing. At least not publicly. Just asking me that question is asking me to say something that will come out as accusing - and I'm not going to go there.
>>Thanks for keeping it civil here. If you'd feel comfortable sharing by email, I'd still be interested...
Well, sometimes it feels like sending email to you is like sending it into a black hole.....
I figure if you want to ask, you know where to find me.
<grin>
Posted by jay on July 11, 2005, at 12:05:28
In reply to Re: how far this has gone..., posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 9:06:59
> > Please do not post/babblemail to me. » gabbii
> >
> > jay
>
> That was in response to a post by her to So, not to you, so may I ask why it made you feel harassed -- or for some other reason want to disengage?
>
> BobBob, the reason being is it is a trigger for me. It involves posts from the past as well as babble-mails. In honesty, I don't feel supported by the mentioned poster in past posts (I said that civilly, right?), so I'd rather discontinue my distress from further posts. I am sorry it has come down to this, but I have to protect my mental health as well. I hope that makes sense. Thanks...
Jay
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 12:19:18
In reply to Re: how far this has gone... » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on July 11, 2005, at 10:16:26
> My point was that if you realize you aren't aware of all that's going on in situations like this, (and who is? ) maybe judgement should be suspended, at least publically. That's why I said arguing the length of a block is one thing, but making negative judgements is another.
Sorry, I haven't intended to make any negative judgments. And I do realize I'm never aware of all that's going on in any situation!
> Jay and I decided mutually to disengage. Part of coexisting is knowing when you cannot.
>
> gabbiiKnowing when you can't interact? I agree, and if you accept the DNP, I guess I don't need a reason from him.
--
> According to what came out of this, and the way it was applied, I can ask *anyone* not to post to me for absolutely no reason at all. And then that person has no right, none! to ask me why I did it.
No, it was broadened, but not opened up completely. They shouldn't ask you if you've asked them not to post to you, but I still could.
> Well, sometimes it feels like sending email to you is like sending it into a black hole.....
>
> I figure if you want to ask, you know where to find me.
>
> AuntieMelSorry about that, just sent you an email...
Bob
Posted by gabbii on July 11, 2005, at 12:29:25
In reply to Re: how far this has gone..., posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 12:19:18
>> Sorry, I haven't intended to make any negative judgments. And I do realize I'm never aware of all that's going on in any situation!
>
> > Jay and I decided mutually to disengage. Part of coexisting is knowing when you cannot.
> >
> > gabbii
>
> Knowing when you can't interact? I agree, and if you accept the DNP, I guess I don't need a reason from him.
>
Yes, cannot interact, and I initiated the D.N.P privately, or suggested it, so it's perfectly acceptable to me. I'm afraid I haven't been able to be supportive because past posts and personal relationships add another layer to any babble interaction.
Posted by All Done on July 11, 2005, at 13:15:51
In reply to Re: Sorry GG, All Done, Gabbi, posted by AuntieMel on July 10, 2005, at 10:08:09
I'm so sorry you're going through such a difficult time right now.
Take care,
Laurie
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 13:19:56
In reply to Re: how far this has gone... » Dr. Bob, posted by gabbii on July 11, 2005, at 12:29:25
> I'm afraid I haven't been able to be supportive because past posts and personal relationships add another layer to any babble interaction.
There certainly can be lots of layers, which can make it really hard. Thanks for doing your best!
Bob
Posted by gabbii on July 11, 2005, at 14:17:48
In reply to Re: how far this has gone..., posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 13:19:56
> There certainly can be lots of layers, which can make it really hard. Thanks for doing your best!
>
> BobYou just about made me cry there Dr. Bob, that's a first. Thank you, I have been trying my best (though the results may not look like it) it's been really really hard.
Thank you for the acknowledgement it meant a lot
Posted by Dinah on July 11, 2005, at 17:32:54
In reply to Re: sidewalk skipping, posted by Dr. Bob on July 8, 2005, at 0:03:30
But Dr. Bob, Lar's last block was for a completely different sort of violation of the civility rules. Surely that makes a difference?
And surely you know Lar well enough by now to know that he does *not* intentionally disobey the rules. He doesn't post while blocked, for example.
He misunderstood the application of the DNP rule. A misunderstanding that seems quite reasonable considering that you are again asking people for a reason for their DNP request, which you didn't a week ago. (And personally, I don't think you should be doing now.)
How about a compromise that will suit everyone?
You can change the FAQ on the DNP to state that a DNP is an option that you prefer people not to use, that you would prefer that they first try to work out their differences, but that if a DNP is requested it should be honored. And it should not be perceived as an endorsement by the administration of the idea that the receiver of a DNP has done anything wrong.
Then you could post examples of what would or would not be a violation of the DNP.
For example, which of the following would be considered violations of the DNP?
"I disagree with XXX's statement, and I think that green is the best color for walls."
"I regret that we have never agreed on wall color."
"I regret that XXX and I have never agreed on wall color."
"You have always preferred blue while I like green for walls."
"It has been stated that blue walls are best. I personally prefer green walls."
Once the FAQ accurately reflect the actual application of the DNP, a poster violating the DNP should be given a Please Honor the Do Not Post, and a statement of the consequences of future DNP violations.
And you can lift the remainder of Lar's block, with the condition that it will be added on to any additional blocks he receives for the same violation.
I still believe different violations from normally guideline abiding citizens should start over from scratch as far as block length.
As far as people being willing to help others before being blocked, I am always willing to try to help as best I can by Babblemail, if anyone has any questions about posts. But the trouble comes when they don't realize their post is questionable, don't you think?
Posted by Dinah on July 11, 2005, at 17:44:51
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? Would you mind clarifying?
Posted by Dinah on July 11, 2005, at 17:49:24
In reply to Re: Larry Hover's Block, posted by AuntieMel on July 8, 2005, at 12:23:40
As a clarification, that's the way I tend to talk. I use a lot of qualifiers, in general. I'm sorry if that led to confusion in this circumstance.
What I usually (see I'm doing it again), mean by putting in qualifications is "I follow admin actions very closely, and I have a pretty good understanding of what's going on, but if I'm wrong, Dr. Bob will correct me and I don't want to look foolish (or arrogant) so I'll put in some qualifying words so that if I'm wrong I can save face."
Now, you see? That sounds horribly arrogant, and would be vastly improved by many many qualifiers.
Posted by Dinah on July 11, 2005, at 17:55:28
In reply to Re: Larry Hover's Block, posted by TofuEmmy on July 9, 2005, at 6:57:01
Emmy, you don't have to do that, and no one wants you to do that that I'm aware of.
I value your contribution to Babble, and more personally, your support and friendship to me.
My point is that the FAQ should be revised for clarity, and that blocks for completely different violations should start from scratch.
Posted by Dinah on July 11, 2005, at 18:08:19
In reply to Re: co-existing » Dr. Bob, posted by gabbii on July 10, 2005, at 15:32:11
Posted by crushedout on July 11, 2005, at 18:28:24
In reply to Re: sidewalk skipping » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 11, 2005, at 17:32:54
And I think she's making a ton of sense here. Dr. Bob, I hope you will heed her words of wisdom. And please don't let me endorsing her let you think any less of what she said. Because it shouldn't.
Posted by gabbii on July 11, 2005, at 19:32:41
In reply to Dinah is a brilliant woman, posted by crushedout on July 11, 2005, at 18:28:24
>
Yes she is!
> And I think she's making a ton of sense here. Dr. Bob, I hope you will heed her words of wisdom.And please don't let me endorsing her let you think any less of what she said. Because it shouldn't.
>Sad/funny, that's kind of the thing I would say.
((Crushed))
And Dinah, Bless you and your little dog too..
Posted by Dinah on July 11, 2005, at 19:33:14
In reply to Dinah is a brilliant woman, posted by crushedout on July 11, 2005, at 18:28:24
I need to talk with you more often. :)
You asked me a question somewhere, but I can't find it. About "you"? You were right. I was working from memory, and I think it was "we" when I went back and looked. But I think Dr. Bob answered the overall question, and it was his interpretation that really mattered.
Posted by Dinah on July 11, 2005, at 19:34:14
In reply to Dinah is a brilliant woman, posted by crushedout on July 11, 2005, at 18:28:24
See, not so brilliant. :D
Posted by Dinah on July 11, 2005, at 19:37:02
In reply to Re: Dinah is a brilliant woman-Dinah » crushedout, posted by gabbii on July 11, 2005, at 19:32:41
Thanks Gabbi.
I thought I'd keep the subject line going. lol.
Poor lolli. She's looking poorly again. Time for her meds.
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.