![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 49 to 73 of 131. Go back in thread:
Posted by gardenergirl on September 15, 2006, at 9:59:28
In reply to Re: nothing to see here, move along SLS, notfred, posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 8:18:57
> This one person who desires to remove a deputy from service has not yet identified the deputy he wishes to have removed.Sorry for not yet moving along.
I just wanted to point out that we don't really know whether it's one, two or all deputies. All of us have received related requests in the past year. I would be very surprised if those feelings had changed.
And I thank you for summing up. It's better than 'splaining when you're short on time and have to go rescue the princess. ;)
gg
Posted by Racer on September 15, 2006, at 10:56:06
In reply to Re: nothing to see here, move along SLS, notfred » SLS, posted by gardenergirl on September 15, 2006, at 9:59:28
Posted by gardenergirl on September 15, 2006, at 12:06:11
In reply to Re: Words matter » gardenergirl, posted by SLS on September 14, 2006, at 19:53:48
> I can see that. I guess I never attached such a pejorative theme to the word because of my early interest in law. It was just a mechanism being part of a process.I can see that, and it's probably a much better way for me to look at it. It's certainly not the first time I've encountered legal terms in posts or messages about something Babble-related.
>
> > I see nothing wrong with making a post on admin announcing that an email has been sent to Dr. Bob about a concern about a deputy's actions.
>
> This provides visibility and might motivate others who feel the same way to register similar concerns to Dr. Bob.I think that would be a positive outcome if more felt empowered to voice their views.
>
> > I also believe that it's courteous, though not required, to inform the person you are making a complaint about regarding the nature of your complaint and your actions.
>
> Would this be through Babblemail?I hadn't really thought that far. I suppose if Babblemail were not an option, the poster could reply to the other with something along the lines of, "I've asked Dr. Bob about this" or something. I don't know. My thought about letting the person know relates to my thoughts about problem-solving. To me, it makes the most sense to go first to the person with whom you have a problem and try to resolve it at that level. Then you start moving up the chain.
gg
Posted by notfred on September 15, 2006, at 13:27:54
In reply to Words matter, posted by gardenergirl on September 14, 2006, at 14:35:11
I am bothered by the reoccurring accusations without any supporting information or proof offered in a public manner. When supporting proof or information is offered it is always with conditions. To me this feels like manipulation. It may not be intended that way, though.
Once an accusation is made it cannot be taken back as the damage is done. I feel that if one cannot or will not provide proof or supporting information out in the open then it is best to handle this off the board.
Posted by Racer on September 15, 2006, at 13:37:26
In reply to Re: Words matter, posted by notfred on September 15, 2006, at 13:27:54
>
>
> I feel that if one cannot or will not provide proof or supporting information out in the open then it is best to handle this off the board.Yes! Thank you! And that, in my own personal opinion which matters to me if not to anyone else, is why it's best these matters be handled via email.
And now, I plan to go do something offline. Because I can. I have the technology -- if not the motivation...
Posted by AuntieMel on September 15, 2006, at 13:38:32
In reply to Re: Words matter, posted by notfred on September 15, 2006, at 13:27:54
Posted by AuntieMel on September 15, 2006, at 13:45:57
In reply to Re: Words matter, posted by notfred on September 15, 2006, at 13:27:54
It is actually a difficult thing.
If all is handled offline, then there is a possiblilty that a person might have accusations made against them and no way to defend him(her)self.
On the other hand, if someone is bothered and doesn't want to publicly "tattle" offline might be better.
And on another hand, if everything is public it can be disruptive.
Yet another hand - well, I'm out of hands....
I think what I find bothersome is public insinuations without details. This gives the other members of the board no chance to decide for themselves if there is any basis in them.
Posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 14:13:34
In reply to Re: Words matter, posted by notfred on September 15, 2006, at 13:27:54
Hi NotFred.
I agree with the others who agree with you. If there are any who will agree with me, then I will agree with them too.
> Once an accusation is made it cannot be taken back as the damage is done. I feel that if one cannot or will not provide proof or supporting information out in the open then it is best to handle this off the board.
Very well stated.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 14:37:23
In reply to Re: the fine line (notbob) » notfred, posted by AuntieMel on September 15, 2006, at 13:45:57
> It is actually a difficult thing.
Yes. It would be an interesting experiment to see if thorough disputations can be presented that remain civil as prescribed within the PB guidelines of civility.
It would also be an interesting experiment to see how serial public disputations affect the psyches of those being accused of misconduct on a regular basis.
- Scott
Posted by Racer on September 15, 2006, at 14:41:44
In reply to Re: Words matter, posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 14:13:34
> Hi NotFred.
>
> I agree with the others who agree with you. If there are any who will agree with me, then I will agree with them too.What really frightens me about all this, is that I think I understand what you just wrote...
;-)
Posted by AuntieMel on September 15, 2006, at 15:19:36
In reply to Re: the fine line (notbob), posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 14:37:23
"It would also be an interesting experiment to see how serial public disputations affect the psyches of those being accused of misconduct on a regular basis."
It's not pretty. But I best not discuss this publicly, not now.
Posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 15:33:12
In reply to Re: public disputations » SLS, posted by AuntieMel on September 15, 2006, at 15:19:36
> "It would also be an interesting experiment to see how serial public disputations affect the psyches of those being accused of misconduct on a regular basis."
>
> It's not pretty. But I best not discuss this publicly, not now.Ok.
I look forward to seeing an argument made for complete transparancy.
- Scott
Posted by Racer on September 15, 2006, at 15:41:42
In reply to Re: public disputations, posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 15:33:12
> > "It would also be an interesting experiment to see how serial public disputations affect the psyches of those being accused of misconduct on a regular basis."
> >
> > It's not pretty. But I best not discuss this publicly, not now.
>
> Ok.
>
> I look forward to seeing an argument made for complete transparancy.
>
>
> - ScottYou won't get any such argument from me.
It may be that I'm shallow, or not interested enough in larger issues like Truth or Justice, but honestly? I think complete transparency is usually a bad idea -- except in many sorts of glass and some forms of acrylic.
Transparency in complaints against deputies and other posters, for instance, seem like a great way to make people feel unnecessariy bad. Much better, from my perspective, to do that sort of thing privately, so that spankings -- if any -- can be private. It feels more respectful, to me, and I can't see why it wouldn't get the job done just as efficiently without hurting any feelings.
Again, this is my perspective, and maybe it's a character flaw on my part. I just don't see any compelling reason to risk hurting feelings needlessly.
I guess the office analogy resonates a great deal with me, because I keep coming back to how I've felt when castigated in front of other employees.
The answer, by the way, is pretty $h*tty.
Posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 15:46:12
In reply to Re: public disputations, posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 15:33:12
> > "It would also be an interesting experiment to see how serial public disputations affect the psyches of those being accused of misconduct on a regular basis."
> >
> > It's not pretty. But I best not discuss this publicly, not now.
>
> Ok.
>
> I look forward to seeing an argument made for complete transparancy.Or maybe I have it backwards?
In any event:
:-)
- Scott
Posted by AuntieMel on September 15, 2006, at 16:03:03
In reply to Maybe it's some character flaw of mine, but » SLS, posted by Racer on September 15, 2006, at 15:41:42
I like your office analogy.
But - that same person would also get in trouble by hinting another person did something wrong, even without spelling it out.
I vote for one or the other, either complete transparancy or complete quiet. I just don't like hybrids - insinuations without details. That leaves people to use their imaginations, usually much jucier than the truth.
Posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 16:35:30
In reply to Maybe it's some character flaw of mine, but » SLS, posted by Racer on September 15, 2006, at 15:41:42
> > > "It would also be an interesting experiment to see how serial public disputations affect the psyches of those being accused of misconduct on a regular basis."
> > >
> > > It's not pretty. But I best not discuss this publicly, not now.
> >
> > Ok.
> >
> > I look forward to seeing an argument made for complete transparancy.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> You won't get any such argument from me.
>
> It may be that I'm shallow, or not interested enough in larger issues like Truth or Justice, but honestly? I think complete transparency is usually a bad idea -- except in many sorts of glass and some forms of acrylic.
>
> Transparency in complaints against deputies and other posters, for instance, seem like a great way to make people feel unnecessariy bad. Much better, from my perspective, to do that sort of thing privately, so that spankings -- if any -- can be private. It feels more respectful, to me, and I can't see why it wouldn't get the job done just as efficiently without hurting any feelings.
>
> Again, this is my perspective, and maybe it's a character flaw on my part. I just don't see any compelling reason to risk hurting feelings needlessly.
>
> I guess the office analogy resonates a great deal with me, because I keep coming back to how I've felt when castigated in front of other employees.
>
> The answer, by the way, is pretty $h*tty.
Well, I guess there are no in-betweens. You either make it completely transparant or completely invisible.Throughout this tiny debate - and I do mean tiny - I have remained of the opinion that complaints made against deputies should be handled via email to Dr. Bob or by any mechanism he puts in place that will handle the complaints privately and invisibly. However, I am still interested to hear opposing views to learn from. I think the desirability of transparancy varies from situation to situation.
There really isn't much to be debated in this matter. It really is tiny. It is the protection of those people who have invested themselves as volunteers, donating great amounts of time and effort in reviewing and evaluating the activity on 20 different posting boards, helping to maintain the operation of this website that is of the highest priority. These are real human beings with real thoughts and feelings. Any discussion of transparancy in this situation seems like an academic exercise and does not rise to the level of importance as does the protection of those thoughts and feelings. I don't think there is any danger of deputies being brought before the public to be scrutinized through a presentation of disputation for all the world to see. I think people can sit back, relax and perhaps contemplate the unmitigated impudence of cowbirds for laying their eggs in other birds' nests.
- Scott
Posted by zazenducky on September 15, 2006, at 16:35:35
In reply to Maybe it's some character flaw of mine, but » SLS, posted by Racer on September 15, 2006, at 15:41:42
--but aren't deputies in the business of administering VERY public spankings? maybe pbc's etc should be dealt with privately too. and offensive posts should be removed instead of left on the boards forever. that's what Psychcentral does isn't it? but sure start with protecting the deputies and maybe it will work it's way down!
yours for Truth and Justice ;)
zazenducky
>
>
Posted by gardenergirl on September 15, 2006, at 17:30:44
In reply to Re: Maybe it's some character flaw of mine, but, posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 16:35:30
> I think people can sit back, relax and perhaps contemplate the unmitigated impudence of cowbirds for laying their eggs in other birds' nests.
That is rather impudent of them! I'm not fond of the near ultra-sonic whistle call they make either.
Thanks for your support.
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on September 15, 2006, at 17:34:06
In reply to Re: public disputations » SLS, posted by AuntieMel on September 15, 2006, at 15:19:36
> "It would also be an interesting experiment to see how serial public disputations affect the psyches of those being accused of misconduct on a regular basis."
>
> It's not pretty. But I best not discuss this publicly, not now.I remember seeing someone else affected. If I remember correctly, there was even a plea/request to stop.
It was painful to see, though the affected poster is quite pretty. ;)
gg
Posted by Racer on September 15, 2006, at 17:37:14
In reply to Re: public disputations » AuntieMel, posted by gardenergirl on September 15, 2006, at 17:34:06
> > "It would also be an interesting experiment to see how serial public disputations affect the psyches of those being accused of misconduct on a regular basis."
> >
> > It's not pretty. But I best not discuss this publicly, not now.
>
> I remember seeing someone else affected. If I remember correctly, there was even a plea/request to stop.
>
> It was painful to see, though the affected poster is quite pretty. ;)
>
> gg
>In fact, that's the only reason I ever got involved in these things in the first place.
And she is quite pretty, isn't she?
Posted by gardenergirl on September 15, 2006, at 17:38:04
In reply to Re: Maybe it's some character flaw of mine, but, posted by AuntieMel on September 15, 2006, at 16:03:03
> That leaves people to use their imaginations, usually much jucier than the truth.
I'm guilty of crimes against slug-anity. And I'll do it again. Bwaa haa haa haa
Somebody take away my salt.
gg
Posted by AuntieMel on September 15, 2006, at 18:09:45
In reply to Re: public disputations » AuntieMel, posted by gardenergirl on September 15, 2006, at 17:34:06
More than one plea, but who's counting.
And she's *very* pretty.
Posted by AuntieMel on September 15, 2006, at 18:15:18
In reply to Allright, allright. I admit it. %^O » AuntieMel, posted by gardenergirl on September 15, 2006, at 17:38:04
Posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 18:27:29
In reply to Re: public disputations » gardenergirl, posted by AuntieMel on September 15, 2006, at 18:09:45
> More than one plea, but who's counting.
>
> And she's *very* pretty.Available?
- Scott
Posted by zazenducky on September 15, 2006, at 18:47:07
In reply to Re: public disputations, posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 18:27:29
i am pretty imperfect just like everyone else but i have positive feelings for others on both sides of this issue. i wish yall would have the grace to drop it
I saw a news special about mean girls on tv last night. about middle school..... I was frankly saddened by it too.
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.