![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 148 to 172 of 173. Go back in thread:
Posted by Ron Hill on July 12, 2005, at 12:16:40
In reply to Re: Larry Hoover's Block » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 12, 2005, at 4:42:42
Posted by Ron Hill on July 12, 2005, at 12:19:21
In reply to Re: Larry Hover's Block » Dr. Bob, posted by crushedout on July 12, 2005, at 9:24:24
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 12, 2005, at 12:20:34
In reply to Lou's response to Larry Hoover's block-abolu(2), posted by Lou Pilder on July 12, 2005, at 12:04:34
Friends,
For a determination to be made by you , for your own thinking, as to if the [...do not post to me ...]rule is a sound mental health practice or not in a mental-health community, I would like for you to consider understanding and researching the following if you are going to post to my posts here in this thread. Could you ask yourself the following?
A.Do you have an understanding of the process of depersonalizing someone?
B. Do you have an understanding of the process of dehumanizing a person?
C. Do you have an understanding of the ramifications of isolating a person?
D. Do you have an understanding of the ramifications of excluding someone?
E. Do you consider that the removal of Larry is necessarry? If so, is it for an ideology?
Lou
Posted by gabbii on July 12, 2005, at 18:42:07
In reply to You're a Very Good Writer with a Very Sweet Spirit (nm) » Dinah, posted by Ron Hill on July 12, 2005, at 12:16:40
DO NOT ANSWER THAT
Posted by gabbii on July 12, 2005, at 18:42:53
In reply to Double Bingo!! (nm) » crushedout, posted by Ron Hill on July 12, 2005, at 12:19:21
Posted by Tamar on July 12, 2005, at 19:02:51
In reply to Triple Bingo !!! Crushed out (nm), posted by gabbii on July 12, 2005, at 18:42:53
Sorry, I'm confused. Is all this bingo stuff about a suggestion that Dr Bob has been inconsistent in his view of the DNP?
I didn't read it that way. I thought both times he was saying that merely disengaging wasn't an ideal reason for a DNP, or words to that effect.
Where have I gone wrong? Or have I completely misunderstood the game of bingo?
Tamar
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 13, 2005, at 0:47:20
In reply to Re: Larry Hoover's Block » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 12, 2005, at 4:42:42
> > > He misunderstood the application of the DNP rule.
> >
> > Even after it was clarified?
>
> You mean my post explaining common useage? I'm not sure he saw that as definitive. He was going by the FAQ. Perhaps if you saw my post and agreed with it you could have put a more official stamp on it.Sure, but you did explicitly say:
> Dr. Bob will correct me (I'm sure) if I'm wrong.
Besides, I do think Emmy could've felt harassed.
> I doubt that anyone requests a DNP for no reason at all. Desiring to disengage or trying to avoid blowing up and being uncivil is an internal reason ... but it seems valid.
Right, the question is what reasons to consider valid. Should feeling angry, for example, be considered a valid reason?
> > And this one I think is ambiguous as it stands:
> >
> > > "I regret that we have never agreed on wall color."
>
> Yet this is the one that Lar was blocked under. The use of "we" in context of the rest of the post.The issue with Larry's post didn't have anything to do with the use of "we".
> > > 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.
> >
> > So "no" wouldn't mean "no"? That would be fine with me, if that's what everyone would like...
>
> No would mean no. It's just no with a warning. Especially in the early stages of a rule which is still being worked out.Again, that would be fine with me if that's the consensus. But "no" would mean "only one more time" for a while, and then mean "no"? I've treated this differently than the civility rules because those have to do with my wishes, whereas this has to do with those of other posters.
Bob
Posted by crushedout on July 13, 2005, at 8:41:09
In reply to Dinah, do you ever stop being freaking amazing?, posted by gabbii on July 12, 2005, at 18:42:07
you are hilarious gabbi
Posted by crushedout on July 13, 2005, at 8:44:49
In reply to Re: Larry Hoover's Block, posted by Dr. Bob on July 13, 2005, at 0:47:20
> The issue with Larry's post didn't have anything to do with the use of "we".
my head is spinning too much to argue with you on all of the things in your post, dr. bob. i hope dinah or someone else will take it on, or maybe when i have more time....but, one question: if it wasn't the use of "we," what made larry's post directed at emmy?
Posted by AuntieMel on July 13, 2005, at 10:47:18
In reply to Losing at bingo, posted by Tamar on July 12, 2005, at 19:02:51
Because in May when the topic came up he said that disengaging *was* a valid reason for a DNP.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050517/msgs/503044.html
Posted by AuntieMel on July 13, 2005, at 10:53:51
In reply to Re: Larry Hoover's Block » Dr. Bob, posted by crushedout on July 13, 2005, at 8:44:49
Well, actually the bits quoted when the block was issued didn't use the word 'we.'
But in light of the fact that the post was directed to Dinah and he was defending himself point by point I don't see why these bits were considered "directed" to Emmy either.
Though, even on the off chance they were I would think "I'm sorry" and "I shan't forget" would be exceptions.
Busted for politeness.
-----------------------------------
> > I am unable to respond in a civil fashion to Larry. So, the DNP prevents further disruption of the board.
>
> I'm sorry.
>
> > If he would stop posting to me and/or about me, all the attention would disappear. Simple. I'd like that please.
>
> Fine. I shan't forget.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 15, 2005, at 7:44:01
In reply to Re: using 'we' » crushedout, posted by AuntieMel on July 13, 2005, at 10:53:51
> in light of the fact that the post was directed to Dinah and he was defending himself point by point I don't see why these bits were considered "directed" to Emmy either.
Larry responded to a post by Emmy, not by Dinah...
> Though, even on the off chance they were I would think "I'm sorry" and "I shan't forget" would be exceptions.
>
> Busted for politeness.Is it really that polite to post to someone who's asked not to be posted to?
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on July 15, 2005, at 15:38:31
In reply to Re: Larry Hoover's Block, posted by Dr. Bob on July 15, 2005, at 7:44:01
Well, if I asked someone to not post to me and they said "I'm sorry" and the equivilent of "I won't forget your request" I would not get upset.
In fact I would be happy to see it. Otherwise I would continue to think they *weren't* sorry and I would stay upset and mad longer than is necessary.
How else would they tell me they were sorry? Why take the ability apologize away from them?
Posted by Dinah on July 15, 2005, at 16:20:33
In reply to Re: politeness » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on July 15, 2005, at 15:38:31
The do not post rule actually has so many ways around it that it is easy enough to apologize and to express an intent to honor the request.
The apology just has to be addressed to the board in general, or to Dr. Bob.
An example would be:
"I want to apologize to Dr. Bob (or to everyone) for xxxx. I'd like everyone to know that my reasons for doing so were yyyyy. But I have no intention of distressing anyone so in the future I will refrain from xxxx."
That's one thing civility buddies are very good for. I've offered to be Lar's civility buddy anytime he'd like. Or his any other kind of buddy for that matter. I'm always glad to hear from him.
Posted by crushedout on July 15, 2005, at 16:25:48
In reply to Re: politeness » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on July 15, 2005, at 16:20:33
larry's a lucky guy
Posted by crushedout on July 15, 2005, at 16:30:10
In reply to Re: politeness » Dinah, posted by crushedout on July 15, 2005, at 16:25:48
in case that sounded sarcastic or otherwise negative, it wasn't. you are so sweet sometimes dinah i could just hug you.
Posted by Dinah on July 15, 2005, at 16:34:39
In reply to p.s., posted by crushedout on July 15, 2005, at 16:30:10
Aw, Crushed. You know you're welcome to email me too. I'm not great at email, but I try to be a bit better when someone asks me a civility question.
Posted by crushedout on July 15, 2005, at 16:39:12
In reply to Re: p.s. » crushedout, posted by Dinah on July 15, 2005, at 16:34:39
thanks, dinah. oh yeah, i also didn't mean it to sound envious or pathetic or anything, although i specialize in being either and both. :)
Posted by gabbii on July 15, 2005, at 16:46:21
In reply to Re: p.s. » Dinah, posted by crushedout on July 15, 2005, at 16:39:12
The thinking woman's brand of sweetness, brought to you by Dinah..
Posted by crushedout on July 15, 2005, at 16:48:10
In reply to Isn't she sweet?, posted by gabbii on July 15, 2005, at 16:46:21
Posted by AuntieMel on July 15, 2005, at 17:29:58
In reply to Re: politeness » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on July 15, 2005, at 16:20:33
All true, but that wasn't Dr. Bob's question and I didn't want to confuse the answer. <grin>
And I thought Larry's I'm sorry was just general, not posted *to* anyone.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 15, 2005, at 23:09:30
In reply to Re: politeness » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on July 15, 2005, at 15:38:31
> Why take the ability apologize away from them?
I'd rather lines of communication stayed open, too...
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on July 16, 2005, at 16:08:44
In reply to Re: politeness, posted by Dr. Bob on July 15, 2005, at 23:09:30
I would think that being able to say you're sorry should be a key right. DNP or not - if a person feels he has done something wrong he should be able to say so.
Larry's post was directed toward Dinah, and he said "I'm sorry"
I don't see how that should be a blocking offense. And if it is currently a blocking offense I don't it should be.
Isn't the whole point about gettin along better??
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 17, 2005, at 0:46:34
In reply to Re: politeness » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on July 16, 2005, at 16:08:44
> I would think that being able to say you're sorry should be a key right.
More key than not being harassed? Maybe we should just agree to disagree on this...
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on July 18, 2005, at 12:09:44
In reply to Re: politeness, posted by Dr. Bob on July 17, 2005, at 0:46:34
I guess it depends on your definition of harassment.
I wouldn't call an apology harassment.
But I guess you are saying that respecting boundaries is more important than apologies? Oh, well.
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.