![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 36 to 60 of 173. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 8, 2005, at 13:28:12
In reply to Re: sidewalk skipping and rain, posted by Dr. Bob on July 8, 2005, at 10:33:07
Friends,
It is written in this thread a lot about what others think is a blocking of Larry Hoover that they would like recinded. Some even write about what could have the potential to mean that some others are considering leaving, or boycotting this forum.
But let me ask you that are posting here to consider the following if you are going to post to this thread.
A. Was there not a great effort by some here to get Dr. Hsiung to make some kind of rule to prohibit me from requesting clarification from others here?
B. And was not the [...do not post to me ...]rule a rule that could have the potential for some others to think that it was made to accommodate other's wishes to in some way prevent me from requesting clarification, if you go back and examine the origin of the rule ?
C. Could you consider, as to why, that I do not post to anyone here unless they direct a post to me with my name?
D. Could you consider if the rule is made for the members of the forum, or are the members made for the rule?
E. Could you consider if the rule is a sound mental-health practice?
F. Could you consider if the rule is a rule that will be good for the community as a whole? If so, could you reserch the origin of the concept of .[...good for the community as a whole...]as to how it has been used historically and by who?
Lou
Posted by AuntieMel on July 8, 2005, at 15:03:01
In reply to Re: Larry Hover's Block, posted by AuntieMel on July 8, 2005, at 12:23:40
and I may just bow out of the debate for a spell. I found out today my best friend has cancer. He's over in the UK and I'm stuck here. I'm going to crawl into bed for a week.
Posted by gardenergirl on July 8, 2005, at 15:25:01
In reply to Re: Larry Hover's Block ^^^ above for dr. bob ^^^, posted by AuntieMel on July 8, 2005, at 15:03:01
Posted by TamaraJ on July 8, 2005, at 15:25:40
In reply to Re: Larry Hover's Block ^^^ above for dr. bob ^^^, posted by AuntieMel on July 8, 2005, at 15:03:01
For your efforts, diplomacy and way with words, and just for being you. I am sorry about your friend. It can't be easy for you, especially being so far away when I am sure all you want to do is wrap your arms around your friend and comfort and support them as only a good friend can do. Strength to you, AuntieMel, and to your friend as well. My thoughts are with you.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 8, 2005, at 15:31:06
In reply to (((AuntieMel))) » AuntieMel, posted by TamaraJ on July 8, 2005, at 15:25:40
but right now i'm not feeling strong
Posted by so on July 8, 2005, at 15:45:53
In reply to **Boycotting Board** re: Larry Hover's Block.., posted by jay on July 5, 2005, at 13:36:24
It is wonderful that people react when somebody popular is the subject of a perceived unfairness. But there are others who have long been the subject of similar situations who have received little support from frequent flyers on this board. It is likely that there are scores of potentially valuable contributors who either refuse to participate or who participate only in a stance of protest because of longstanding policies at this particular forum.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 8, 2005, at 15:56:00
In reply to Re: **Boycotting Board** re: Larry Hover's Block.., posted by so on July 8, 2005, at 15:45:53
I've seen (and done) as much protesting when the person isn't as popular.
Posted by so on July 8, 2005, at 16:10:47
In reply to Re: **Boycotting Board** re: Larry Hover's Block.., posted by so on July 8, 2005, at 15:45:53
I find no basis to acknowledge untruth in my statements.
That one person represents that they have has protested particular administrative actions against any particular less popular member does not contravene the statement that, "there are others who have long been the subject of similar situations who have received little support from frequent flyers on this board." The ones who one writer asserts to have supported might not be the same ones who received little support.
Whether or not a particular member has on one or more occassions supported less popular members during an administrative contraversy does not inform the truth of the statement that, "It is likely that there are scores of potentially valuable contributors who either refuse to participate or who participate only in a stance of protest because of longstanding policies at this particular forum."
Posted by gabbii on July 8, 2005, at 18:18:33
In reply to Truth, posted by so on July 8, 2005, at 16:10:47
I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying So,
actually there was a block I thought was very unfair just a few months ago, and only two people posted about it.
I just wanted to add that sometimes there isn't as much protest when people aren't as "Popular" or who post as much as Larry does simply because not as many people are aware that they have been blocked.
If someone posts on most of the boards, when they dissappear other posters want to find out why. However, obviously if someone isn't as well known, they can dissappear for weeks at a time and no one knows it's because of an administrative decision.
Posted by Jen Star on July 8, 2005, at 20:48:13
In reply to Re: **Boycotting Board** re: Larry Hover's Block.., posted by so on July 8, 2005, at 15:45:53
It is interesting, isn't it? It makes me wonder about popularity, and what it takes to become such a beloved poster. I think it has a lot to do with the amount of time spent here (months, years!) and the amount of helpful posts that people share. I believe Larry has helped multitudes of people with his posts and insight. People seem to miss him because he's become close to them, helpful, and a friend.
I think other people are not missed as much during blocks b/c they have not developed such strong mutual relationships with others here or haven't bonded so closely with other babblers.
Do you see it differently?
JenStar
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 9, 2005, at 1:25:34
In reply to Re: Larry Hover's Block, posted by AuntieMel on July 8, 2005, at 12:23:40
> The first one was an unofficial post from Dinah - not acting as deputy, trying to sort out what the rule was. If you read it, you can see that it wasn't worded as "This is how it works now', but had a lot of 'i think' and 'i remember' and 'just a vague recollection' and so-on. Vague. Hardly what I would call a clarification.
>
> > > > I don't think Dr. Bob has required harassment to be present to uphold the do not post requirement. The only thing I remember him saying is that you can't DNP in response to a post that was to someone else entirely and didn't affect you, and I'm not even sure of that. It's just a vague recollection.
> > > >
> > > > He seems to be allowing and upholding DNP requests in a broad range of circumstances.
> > > >
> > > > Just fyi, and Dr. Bob will correct me (I'm sure) if I'm wrong.True, she didn't say she was posting as a deputy. But IMO, she still did add clarity. And I didn't correct anything.
> this post was the post of a person in pain trying to explain himself. The vast majority was to a general audience about the points in her post. Was he just supposed to not respond at all? Crawl into a corner?
>
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/511944.htmlThe vast majority was fine. And not responding isn't necessarily crawling into a corner.
> > the post that led to my blocking him (and that Dinah had responded to with her second post).
>
> Exactly. Dinah responded to that one in an official mannerHmm, if someone posts through a DNP once, do you think I should remind them of the DNP or block them? If it's an uncivil post, I remind them, but with this issue, my feeling has been "no" means "no", not "only one more time".
> I doubt he comes back, from what I'm hearing. And I can't say that I blame him.
I wouldn't blame him, either, but it would be a loss for the community. And if he does return, is there some way to try to keep this from happening again?
> This whole thing has got me so ticked off - but if I say more right now, I'll get blocked. I prefer to leave under my own steam, thank you.
I'm sorry this has also been hard for others. I value them, too, and hope they don't leave, either!
Bob
Posted by Sarah T. on July 9, 2005, at 1:29:29
In reply to Re: **Boycotting Board** re: Larry Hover's Block.. » so, posted by Jen Star on July 8, 2005, at 20:48:13
> It is interesting, isn't it? It makes me wonder about popularity, and what it takes to become such a beloved poster. I think it has a lot to do with the amount of time spent here (months, years!) and the amount of helpful posts that people share. I believe Larry has helped multitudes of people with his posts and insight. People seem to miss him because he's become close to them, helpful, and a friend.>>> JenStar
Hi JenStar,
I agree with you. Larry is the embodiment of what Psychobabble is all about -- or what it's *supposed* to be about: EDUCATION and SUPPORT. We protest his block NOT because he's popular, but because of his unique qualities that, incidentally, have made him popular.Like many of us, Larry has had a very difficult life. From what I understand, he still struggles with mental and physical illness; yet, in spite of his illnesses, he reaches out to help others in a constructive, healthy, exemplary way. He does NOT use his illness as an excuse to misbehave or act crazy. If his difficulties became too great to bear, I am convinced that he would go to a therapist and/or a psychopharmacologist for help instead of "acting out" and tormenting others on a message board. I have NEVER seen him harass anyone and, in spite of his vast, encyclopedic knowledge, I have never seen him behave in a supercilious or "holier than thou" manner or engage in vigilantism.
For those of us who struggle daily with mental and physical pain, merely getting up in the morning can seem like a daunting task. We constantly search for answers, for a way out of our distress. One way to do that is through medicines. Another way is through talk therapy, where we can verbalize our feelings. But the true path out of our misery is to rise above it by helping others, and that is exactly what Larry does, sharing his knowledge and offering support.
Larry's block is pointless, senseless and incomprehensible, and it says more about the blocker than it does about the blocked.
Posted by All Done on July 9, 2005, at 2:53:15
In reply to Re: **Boycotting Board** re: Larry Hover's Block.. » Jen Star, posted by Sarah T. on July 9, 2005, at 1:29:29
> Larry's block is pointless, senseless and incomprehensible, and it says more about the blocker than it does about the blocked.
>
>Sarah,
I don't disagree with many of the things you've said about Larry. I just wonder if you would think that a block was "pointless, senseless and incomprehensible" if you had repeatedly asked someone not to post to you (for whatever reason), yet the poster continued to do so anyway.
Laurie
Posted by TofuEmmy on July 9, 2005, at 6:57:01
In reply to Re: Larry Hover's Block, posted by Dr. Bob on July 9, 2005, at 1:25:34
"And if he does return, is there some way to try to keep this from happening again?"
Absolutely -- I won't be coming back to Babble.
My pals all know how to reach me.
em
P.S. Sarah - thank you for your honesty. I'm sure you said what a lot of people were thinking.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 9, 2005, at 7:38:00
In reply to Re: **Boycotting Board** re: Larry Hover's Block.., posted by so on July 8, 2005, at 15:45:53
Friends,
It is written here that some others are in some way outraged over Dr. Hsiung's blocking of Larry Hoover for replying to a poster that wrote to not post to him/her.
But is it not what this forum wanted? Is there not the potential for some to see that the conception of the [...do not post to me...] rule had it's origins in when I requested clarification from others as going back to the rule's conception when some objected to me requesting clarification from them? Could you examine the archives?
When you look at the rule, if someone invoked the rule to me, then I could not ask them to clarify anything, for if I did, then I would be {...posting to someone that told me not to post to them...]. How be it that Larry could be an exception to the rule? Is this not what some others wanted here? Is not Dr. Hsiung giving those that wanted this rule what they wanted? If I was Larry, would there be this same thread? Is it not said in the halls of justice,[...what is good for the goose is good for the gander...]? And has not Larry posted that he was in some way in favor of the 3 consecutive post rule? Well, if he was in favor of that rule, could not this rule in question have that same favor?
I hold Dr. Hsiung blameless in this matter. If one posts here in some way that the {blocker}is at fault, then I say that I find no fault with the blocker. Could not the fault lie in the hands of those that concieved the rule? I find Dr. Hsiung's hands clean because is he not just accomodating the wishes of some here?
Lou
Posted by alexandra_k on July 9, 2005, at 7:58:27
In reply to Re: Larry Hover's Block, posted by TofuEmmy on July 9, 2005, at 6:57:01
> "And if he does return, is there some way to try to keep this from happening again?"
> Absolutely -- I won't be coming back to Babble.I don't think that is the ideal solution :-(
I'm not sure if you remember or not but we had a bit of a fall out once. Quite a while back now. We managed to sort it out. I don't really know what happened between you and Larry but I wish you guys could sort it out.I'm sorry you are getting such a hard time around this.
If you do leave I'll miss you. I hope you decide to stay.
I think the issue is more around what all of us can do to prevent situations escalating so that people end up being blocked. Sometimes people do post things warning others to be careful or whatever. A well timed apology can work wonders. Maybe we need to do this more. I don't know. I'm not sure what we can do.
Posted by gabbii on July 9, 2005, at 9:27:08
In reply to Re: Larry Hover's Block, posted by TofuEmmy on July 9, 2005, at 6:57:01
> "And if he does return, is there some way to try to keep this from happening again?"
>
> Absolutely -- I won't be coming back to Babble.
>
> My pals all know how to reach me.
>
> em
Aw cr*p Emmy, it looks like the lengthy block managed to do in both of you, now you get to look like "Eve" for speaking up.
I know some things can't be smoothed over, I'm so sorry this disaster happened and I wish you wouldn't leave.
Posted by All Done on July 9, 2005, at 9:42:29
In reply to Re: Larry Hover's Block, posted by TofuEmmy on July 9, 2005, at 6:57:01
> "And if he does return, is there some way to try to keep this from happening again?"
>
> Absolutely -- I won't be coming back to Babble.
>
> My pals all know how to reach me.
>
> em(((emmy))),
I don't want you to go.
I'd understand because you are hurting and that sucks, but...
I don't want you to go.
:-(
Laurie
Posted by AuntieMel on July 9, 2005, at 9:54:12
In reply to Re: Larry Hover's Block, posted by TofuEmmy on July 9, 2005, at 6:57:01
I'm confused here, Emmy. I've always enjoyed chatting with you, but I'm really bumfuzzled here.
You say you think 6 weeks was too long, but why did you bring it up here if this wasn't the intended consequence?
And why does it hurt that people come to Larry's defense? Is it a surprise?
Posted by AuntieMel on July 9, 2005, at 10:16:07
In reply to Re: Larry Hover's Block, posted by TofuEmmy on July 9, 2005, at 6:57:01
And forget answering the questions. I have decided the answers don't matter to me.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 9, 2005, at 10:16:45
In reply to Larry Hoover's block » TofuEmmy, posted by gabbii on July 9, 2005, at 9:27:08
Posted by AuntieMel on July 9, 2005, at 10:17:31
In reply to Re: Larry Hover's Block » TofuEmmy, posted by All Done on July 9, 2005, at 9:42:29
Posted by AuntieMel on July 9, 2005, at 10:18:55
In reply to ((((Auntie Mel)))) (nm), posted by gardenergirl on July 8, 2005, at 15:25:01
Sorry, gg. I love you dearly, but I need to protect myself and the only way to do that is not talk to any one that also posts on the 'other site.'
Posted by Jen Star on July 9, 2005, at 11:02:36
In reply to Re: **Boycotting Board** re: Larry Hover's Block.. » Sarah T., posted by All Done on July 9, 2005, at 2:53:15
I'm sorry Larry's away for a while, but I don't agree that the block was senseless. I think most of us know what will get a block (or might get one!) but post certain things anyway.
I think this is especially true for people who've been posting for a long time. Like me, for example! I recently had a week-long block for saying something I was pretty sure MIGHT get me a block...but I said it anyway (b/c I was feeling peevish). I probably shouldn't presume to think for others, but I ASSUME that many other people also have a feel for what's blockable and what's not. And sometimes our emotions get the better of us and we blurt something out that gets us in trouble.
I think the rules are there to make sure that people stay in check.
Do you think that people who've been posting a long time have MORE responsibility for upholding and role-modeling the rules to "youngsters", or less? Should they get free passes b/c they're highly loved?
But it IS cool to see how many people really like & miss Larry. Very interesting. It seems that it would be hard to leave a board like this after participating for so long. Do you think he'll come back?
JenStar
Posted by TamaraJ on July 9, 2005, at 11:23:40
In reply to Larry Hoover's block » TofuEmmy, posted by gabbii on July 9, 2005, at 9:27:08
What happened has been a sad thing in so many ways. Some people assume that the protesting of Larry's block is based soley on his popularity. Many have, however, acknowledged, that, although Larry is a well-liked and valuable member of the community, the protest was more about the block being given in spite of the fact that there not only clearly was ambiguity in the rules, but also administrative action for such an offense had been inconsistently applied previously.
The hard part, for me at least, is, although the rules do provide posters with a safe and secure environment, the rigid enforcement of those rules can, in some instances, do more harm than good, resulting in hurt feelings, strained or even ruined friendships, feelings of vulnerability and insecurity and good people leaving a site that is here to provide a community of supportive and compassionate people who are struggling with the same or similar demons and issues. It is clear that the rules, in some instances, can pit posters again posters, and the damage that does to a people's confidence, sense of self-worth and feelings of safety and security can be deep and long-lasting. Nobody should be leaving because of disagreements over the enforcement of the rules, but, unfortunately, it is happening and has happened, and that is a bloody shame.
Perhaps not a popular opinion, but the "spare the rod, spoil the child" theory of discipline is not necessarily effective in modifying behaviour (I know we are not children, so I do apologize for not being able to come up with a more suitable expression). In my own experience, I have always found that people of all ages learn more valuable and lasting lessons in civility, decorum and appropriate/acceptable behaviour by being given the opportunity to correct their behaviour immediately, rather than being given a "time out" or being harshly punished. I believe that, for certain breaches, a poster should be asked to rephrase, retract or apologize, or a combination the three. I think people do learn just as much from having to really think about how their words can affect others, and being able to do something about that and apply lessons learned sooner rather than later.
I don't expect others to agree with me, and I am not looking for a debate. I just had to express my feelings on this.
Tamara
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.