![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 124 to 148 of 193. Go back in thread:
Posted by gabbix2 on January 9, 2004, at 13:17:19
In reply to Re: please be civil » stjames, posted by SLS on January 9, 2004, at 13:07:19
Zen was just blocked for 6months for what she said to Dr Bob, and yet the same civility rules were cited to her:
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
Posted by stjames on January 9, 2004, at 13:23:38
In reply to Re: please be civil » stjames, posted by SLS on January 9, 2004, at 13:07:19
> Well, you didn't call just *anybody* a horrible thing. You called the moderator a horrible thing. I'm not sure that you would have been treated so specially had you called me a pedophile.See what gabbix2 just posted
>
> Are you angry that Larry Hoover was blocked?
>
> I am.Gee scott, that should be clear.
Posted by SLS on January 9, 2004, at 13:36:10
In reply to Re: please be civil » SLS, posted by gabbix2 on January 9, 2004, at 13:17:19
> Zen was just blocked for 6months for what she said to Dr Bob, and yet the same civility rules were cited to her:
>
> Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.Is this the first time James has done anything as "spectacular" as this?
As was described earlier by Karen_kay, Dr. Bob was placed in a no-win position. I think it created an unusual situation for which the doctor might not have been well-prepared to handle with precision. Dr. Bob is just a man. I guess he lost this particular chess game.
I think some mistakes were made that will hopefully be corrected, or at least move in that direction.
- Scott
Posted by gabbix2 on January 9, 2004, at 13:50:58
In reply to Re: please be civil » gabbix2, posted by SLS on January 9, 2004, at 13:36:10
You know, I honestly can't answer that.
I think the fact that St. James new enough ahead of time that he wouldn't get blocked says something significant though.
I do know he's recieved more P.B.C's without a block than any poster I know of. I worked out that if it had been me, I would be blocked for two years right now (at least)
I've doubted the fairness of the board before, and really didn't want to think it was purposeful.
For me this confirmed what I thought might be only my negative thinking and I appreciate that it has been cleared up (in my mind) so succinctly.
Posted by stjames on January 9, 2004, at 14:03:50
In reply to Re: please be civil » SLS, posted by gabbix2 on January 9, 2004, at 13:50:58
> I think the fact that St. James new enough ahead of time that he wouldn't get blocked says something significant though.
> I do know he's recieved more P.B.C's without a block than any poster I know of. I worked out that if it had been me, I would be blocked for two years right now (at least)
> I've doubted the fairness of the board before, and really didn't want to think it was purposeful.
> For me this confirmed what I thought might be only my negative thinking and I appreciate that it has been cleared up (in my mind) so succinctly.
>Hmm, I guess I should say "glad I can be of help"
but glad is not how I feel. Why does one have to go to such lengths to prove a point ?Well, there goes my "special treatment" !
I wish I could of passed it to Lar, ex post facto.
This does beg the point, why me and not him.
Posted by gabbix2 on January 9, 2004, at 14:16:35
In reply to Re: please be civil » gabbix2, posted by SLS on January 9, 2004, at 13:36:10
>I think some mistakes were made that will hopefully be corrected, or at least move in that direction.
Yes Dr. Bob is only human, and is entitled to mistakes. In Larry's case, (as in many others) if he'd honestly believed he'd made a mistake it would have been easy enough to rescind his ever lengthening blocks and thus far he has refused to do so.
Posted by stjames on January 9, 2004, at 14:29:44
In reply to Re: please be civil SLS., posted by gabbix2 on January 9, 2004, at 14:16:35
> Yes Dr. Bob is only human, and is entitled to mistakes. In Larry's case, (as in many others) if he'd honestly believed he'd made a mistake it would have been easy enough to rescind his ever lengthening blocks and thus far he has refused to do so.
Sorry, that does not wash with me. If he cannot
police the board do to time constraits (which is totally understandable) then he should allow others to take a greater roal in this than they are at present.Basically, saying "I am real busy, sorry I missed it" is a cop out once it happens several times.
This situation (and us) deserve a solution and not an automatic response.
Posted by gabbix2 on January 9, 2004, at 14:37:16
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by stjames on January 9, 2004, at 14:03:50
Hmm, I guess I should say "glad I can be of help"
but glad is not how I feel. Why does one have to go to such lengths to prove a pointI saw why you went to such lengths.. nothing else was working. You did it because you cared about fairness, and people being hurt, after all this IS a board devoted to mental health. Some will probably still think what you did was easy that you did it for some self indulgent entertainment value. I don't think so.
Posted by Elle2021 on January 9, 2004, at 15:03:31
In reply to Re: please be civil SLS., posted by stjames on January 9, 2004, at 14:29:44
Were you trying to get Bob to block you? I'm getting that impression. I agree with Karen, that you put Bob in a no-win situation. If he blocked you then everyone would be in an uproar, if he didn't, then everyone would wonder why.
Elle
Posted by stjames on January 9, 2004, at 15:08:50
In reply to Re: please be civil SLS. » stjames, posted by Elle2021 on January 9, 2004, at 15:03:31
If he blocked you then everyone would be in an uproar,
I fail to see why anyone would object if Dr Bob blocked me. I totally do not understand why anyone would object. It galls me that anyone would see that as being unfair.
Posted by stjames on January 9, 2004, at 15:09:55
In reply to Re: please be civil SLS. » stjames, posted by Elle2021 on January 9, 2004, at 15:03:31
> Were you trying to get Bob to block you? I'm getting that impression. I agree with Karen, that you put Bob in a no-win situation. If he blocked you then everyone would be in an uproar, if he didn't, then everyone would wonder why.
> ElleAND, when has Dr Bob ever shown consern for what we think about specific blocks.
Posted by Elle2021 on January 9, 2004, at 15:21:56
In reply to Re: please be civil SLS., posted by stjames on January 9, 2004, at 15:08:50
I think that some would defend you by saying that you were only trying to make a point, and that a block would be unfair. This would just make Bob appear to be even more unfair than some people are trying to make him appear. I think he really just doesn't have time to look at every single post and issue pbc's. I didn't think you were going to get blocked.
Elle> If he blocked you then everyone would be in an uproar,
>
> I fail to see why anyone would object if Dr Bob blocked me. I totally do not understand why anyone would object. It galls me that anyone would see that as being unfair.
Posted by Elle2021 on January 9, 2004, at 15:22:35
In reply to Re: please be civil SLS., posted by stjames on January 9, 2004, at 15:09:55
> AND, when has Dr Bob ever shown consern for what we think about specific blocks.
Not often.
Elle
Posted by SLS on January 9, 2004, at 15:55:13
In reply to Re: please be civil SLS., posted by stjames on January 9, 2004, at 14:29:44
> > Yes Dr. Bob is only human, and is entitled to mistakes. In Larry's case, (as in many others) if he'd honestly believed he'd made a mistake it would have been easy enough to rescind his ever lengthening blocks and thus far he has refused to do so.
> Sorry, that does not wash with me. If he cannot police the board do to time constraits (which is totally understandable) then he should allow others to take a greater roal in this than they are at present.
>
> Basically, saying "I am real busy, sorry I missed it" is a cop out once it happens several times.
>
> This situation (and us) deserve a solution and not an automatic response.
I'm glad this thread is continuing.James, given the limitations of the moderator, what would you like to see happen?
- Scott
Posted by stjames on January 9, 2004, at 16:08:02
In reply to Re: please be civil SLS., posted by Elle2021 on January 9, 2004, at 15:21:56
> I think that some would defend you by saying that you were only trying to make a point, and that a block would be unfair. This would just make Bob appear to be even more unfair than some people are trying to make him appear.
When the words are mean the reason behind them matters not. That is, at least, what Dr Bob would say.
Posted by Dinah on January 9, 2004, at 16:43:23
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dinah, posted by mair on January 9, 2004, at 11:44:49
I'm afraid I was upset this morning, over unrelated issues, and misread your post a bit.
I misread "would be given as wider or even wider berth" as meaning you thought I had been uncivil and had been given wide berth. Upon rereading it, I can see that that is not what you said. I still disagree in concept. I think if anything Dr. Bob would expect me to be extra civil, although I must confess that that may be just my projection. Dr. Bob has made it clear that I am just a regular poster, and have no special responsibilities in that regard.
I also read your last paragraph as an admonishment to me, and I sincerely apologize if it wasn't meant that way. As I said, I wasn't at my best when I read or replied.
Posted by Dinah on January 9, 2004, at 16:45:36
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dinah, posted by SLS on January 9, 2004, at 12:25:08
Scott, you make me want to read the meds board more often to get to know you better. You have been an oasis of calm on this thread, and I really appreciate it, as well as your kind words.
Posted by Elle2021 on January 9, 2004, at 16:53:50
In reply to Re: please be civil SLS., posted by stjames on January 9, 2004, at 16:08:02
> When the words are mean the reason behind them matters not. That is, at least, what Dr Bob would say.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that. Can you clarify?
Elle
Posted by stjames on January 9, 2004, at 16:58:45
In reply to Re: please be civil SLS. » stjames, posted by Elle2021 on January 9, 2004, at 16:53:50
> > When the words are mean the reason behind them matters not. That is, at least, what Dr Bob would say.
>
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that. Can you clarify?
> Elle
>Uncivil is uncivil, & Dr Bob has never considered
mitigating factors. Very clinical.
Posted by Jai Narayan on January 9, 2004, at 19:37:01
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Jai Narayan, posted by sb417 on January 8, 2004, at 0:11:19
> Hello Jai. I have often wondered about that, too. I think it is much better to say something like, "I took that medicine, and I took x number of milligrams," or "I've read that product xyz is excellent for this condition. It has helped me (or it hasn't helped me)." I think it would be better to put things in terms of one's own experience or to post literature references rather than to pose as a physician. Most REAL physicians probably know better than to prescribe over the Internet to strangers! They WOULD be sued!
>
Thank you for responding and being real. I have felt pretty alone in this posting. I think the reality is the reality....not 2 ways about it. but thank you. I really appreciate your resonse. I am in awe of anyone who would post against the common thread. thanks.
Posted by Karen_kay on January 9, 2004, at 19:54:31
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks, posted by Jai Narayan on January 9, 2004, at 19:37:01
I too am in awe of someone who continues to post against the common thread to state their opinion. You take quite a bit of flack for doing that Jai! I support you, and will continue!
I agree that it's not in the best interest to direct someone as to which medications or dose is effective. It is quite appropriate to state which has been effective for "you."
With that I'm done with this one,
Karen
Posted by Elle2021 on January 10, 2004, at 0:46:09
In reply to Re: please be civil SLS., posted by stjames on January 9, 2004, at 16:58:45
>
> Uncivil is uncivil, & Dr Bob has never considered
> mitigating factors. Very clinical.I understand now. There was some posting not long ago about whether he should start trying to differentiate between sarcasm and purposefully hurtful remarks.
Elle
Posted by mair on January 10, 2004, at 10:43:32
In reply to Re: I apologize » mair, posted by Dinah on January 9, 2004, at 16:43:23
Dinah
It seems pretty strange to have you apologizing to me - I think the apology should be from me to you.
Of course I know that you expect Bob to treat you the same as any other poster and I would never think that you would appeal to him for special treatment. But I do think some posters get away with civility lapses (a crummy term but I can't think of a better one) more easily than others and I don't think that some of the examples of this are necessarily sinister on Bob's part. One of his jobs is to put out forest fires. I think when he's pressed for time and can't really go through all of the posts, he gets drawn to messages written by posters who've, in his mind, created problems before. Let's face it, if he needs to spot trouble quickly, he's probably not going to spend alot of time reading your posts, or Scott's, or Noa's or probably mine for that matter. So when some people feel they've been unfairly targeted for the types of statements which might be overlooked if made by you, they are probably right. I think once you've crossed Bob a time or two, your leash gets shorter because he's more apt to jump on something you've written much more quickly. So I guess that although there are time's when he's deliberately given preferential treatment to certain posters, more frequently the appearance of a double standard arises not from preferential treatment, but more from the way it seems he goes after people who've run afoul of him before. And because of his system of doubling up on block times, his sanctioning of someone like Larry or zen, seems way out of proportion to their civility breaches. I was particularly upset about zen not because I necessarily thought Bob should ignore her outburst, but more because a 6 month ban seems so harsh. I know there are people here who rely on her contributions and her most recent outburst notwithstanding, I think she had been making a sincere attempt to stick around for awhile after her last block ....and I know her well enough to know she's been having a difficult time lately and could benefit from being able to stay in contact with posters here.
As to the other stuff (whether I was accusing you of incivility), any comment I might make which could even remotely be construed as that (a criticism I mean) should have been made off the Board in an email. I'll try to send you one soon to explain what I meant.
I'm sorry you had a bad day yesterday. I hope things are looking up.
Mair
Posted by Dinah on January 10, 2004, at 11:13:14
In reply to Re: I apologize » Dinah, posted by mair on January 10, 2004, at 10:43:32
> As to the other stuff (whether I was accusing you of incivility), any comment I might make which could even remotely be construed as that (a criticism I mean) should have been made off the Board in an email. I'll try to send you one soon to explain what I meant.
>There's no need to do that again, Mair.
Really.
I'm sure that you mean well, and I realize that you read my posts differently than I intend them. But perhaps it's best just to agree to disagree.
And I don't have therapy again till Tuesday.
Dinah
Posted by Dinah on January 10, 2004, at 12:26:09
In reply to Re: I apologize, posted by Dinah on January 10, 2004, at 11:13:14
Since I'm feeling a bit defensive right now about being considered uncivil, and since jumping to conclusions would be considered uncivil.
> As to the other stuff (whether I was accusing you of incivility), any comment I might make which could even remotely be construed as that (a criticism I mean) should have been made off the Board in an email. I'll try to send you one soon to explain what I meant.
>There's no need to do that again, Mair.
Really.
I'm sure that you mean well, and I realize <from what you said in your other email to me> that you read my posts differently than I intend them. But perhaps it's best just to agree to disagree.
And I don't have therapy again till Tuesday.
Dinah
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.