![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 140 to 164 of 173. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 12, 2005, at 2:49:57
In reply to Re: Dinah is a brilliant woman - I agree!!! » Dinah, posted by crushedout on July 11, 2005, at 19:51:39
> (how might i redirect this portion of the conversation to social? partly just to advertise your brilliance on more than one board :-D)
Here's a link:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050708/msgs/526565.html
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 12, 2005, at 3:04:41
In reply to Re: sidewalk skipping » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 11, 2005, at 17:32:54
> Lar's last block was for a completely different sort of violation of the civility rules. Surely that makes a difference?
In general, some difference, yes. Because they might be unaware. But Larry wasn't unaware.
> He misunderstood the application of the DNP rule.
Even after it was clarified?
> 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.The difference is that anyone could request a DNP for any reason? That came up before. I'm afraid there would be too many then.
> For example, which of the following would be considered violations of the DNP?
This one:
> "You have always preferred blue while I like green for walls."
Not these:
> "I disagree with XXX's statement, and I think that green is the best color for walls."
>
> "I regret that XXX and I have never agreed on wall color."
>
> "It has been stated that blue walls are best. I personally prefer green walls."And this one I think is ambiguous as it stands:
> "I regret that we have never agreed on wall color."
> 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...
> I still believe different violations from normally guideline abiding citizens should start over from scratch as far as block length.
How would "normally" be defined?
> 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?
I agree, what could be done then?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on July 12, 2005, at 4:42:42
In reply to Re: Larry Hover's Block, posted by Dr. Bob on July 12, 2005, at 3:04:41
> > Lar's last block was for a completely different sort of violation of the civility rules. Surely that makes a difference?
>
> In general, some difference, yes. Because they might be unaware. But Larry wasn't unaware.That seems like something of an assumption. I realize you have to use assumptions all the time. But being aware that a civility rule exists doesn't mean you understand the permutations of its applicability.
>
> > 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.
> > 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.
>
> The difference is that anyone could request a DNP for any reason? That came up before. I'm afraid there would be too many then.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 (having to do with the requestor rather than the requestee), but it seems valid. Even if it is later rescinded. After all, the whole thing is somewhat subjective anyway. Since if you consider that someone is harassing another poster, I imagine you act under the civility guidelines.
>
> > For example, which of the following would be considered violations of the DNP?
>
> This one:
>
> > "You have always preferred blue while I like green for walls."
>
> Not these:
>
> > "I disagree with XXX's statement, and I think that green is the best color for walls."
> >
> > "I regret that XXX and I have never agreed on wall color."
> >
> > "It has been stated that blue walls are best. I personally prefer green walls."
>
> 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. As you said, it is ambiguous. Wouldn't a clarification that it was not acceptable or a short block have been sufficient? A second post of the same sort would have brought longer consequences.
>
> > 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. I advocate the same thing for some of the other new rules. The three post rule, the three complaint rule, etc.
>
> > I still believe different violations from normally guideline abiding citizens should start over from scratch as far as block length.
>
> How would "normally" be defined?Careful Dr. Bob. You don't want to be uncivil here, and if I were Lar, I think I'd take that personally and feel a bit put down. Given the number of posts that Lar so generously makes, and his overall attempts to not only live within the civility guidelines, but to help clarify them to others and help maintain the board stability, I think normally would fit this situation.
>
> > 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?
>
> I agree, what could be done then?
>
> BobI don't know that anything can be done, except requesting rewordings, if that is applicable. Or explaining the rules, if that is applicable. Before lengthy blocks.
I am aware that you value Lar's input as much as anyone, and I appreciate your recent expressions of that. I hope that Lar understands that as well, and can find it in his heart to come back to Babble. I know all of us, you included, would feel the loss.
Just as all of us, you included, would feel the loss of Emmy, or any of the people involved in and hurt by this administrative discussion. And I appreciate your recent expressions of that as well.
Posted by crushedout on July 12, 2005, at 9:24:24
In reply to Re: Larry Hover's Block, posted by Dr. Bob on July 12, 2005, at 3:04:41
> The difference is that anyone could request a DNP for any reason? That came up before. I'm afraid there would be too many then.
Dr. Bob,
In our recent exchange on this subject, I was saying just that: that I thought the guideline you were approving was too broad ("just wanting to disengage") and you disagreed with me (implicitly if not explicitly) and I accepted that. Now you're changing your mind? I don't see how wanting to disengage puts any limit on the DNP. That's not a *reason* -- that what you *do* when you DNP -- you disengage.
If you can't even make up your mind what the rule is, how on earth was Larry supposed to know what it is, especially when he can't be expected to read every single one of your posts and keep up with your state of mind?
Posted by AuntieMel on July 12, 2005, at 9:50:10
In reply to Re: Larry Hover's Block » Dr. Bob, posted by crushedout on July 12, 2005, at 9:24:24
Posted by crushedout on July 12, 2005, at 11:17:57
In reply to Re: Larry Hoover's Block » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 12, 2005, at 4:42:42
> > 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. As you said, it is ambiguous.Excellent point, Dinah. Dr. Bob, you are saying at once that Larry *knew* (or should have known) he was violating the DNP but that you *yourself* think it's ambiguous! How does that make any sense? If you don't know if that's a violation, how could *he* have known?
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 12, 2005, at 11:43:00
In reply to Re: Larry Hover's Block, posted by Dr. Bob on July 12, 2005, at 3:04:41
Friends,
Larry Hoover has been requierd to be blocked from posting for 6 weeks here. What are the issues here?
The issues posted are those that could be of the rule . But could I ask you to consider if the rule is a sound mental-health practice or not?
Let us look at the origin of the rule and what could have promted its formulation.
There was a group of posters here that objected to me requesting clarification. I think that the requests are important for dialog, and invite you to go back into the archives and see.
Dr. Hsiung then proposed the [...do not post to me...] rule.
But the rule prohibits me from requesting anything to a poster, or even replying to a poster, for I remember a post that asked if one could write something like,[...good post...] to a poster that invoked the [...do not post to me...]rule to them and I think that I remember that there was a reply by Dr. Hsiung about that.
With that in mind, I will now proceed with a series that I would like to give so that you can make a decision on your own as to if having the rule on a mental-health community is a sound mental-health practice or not. If the rule is abolished, then Larry could return to the forum. And if the rule is abolished, then I could request clarification from others also.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 12, 2005, at 12:04:34
In reply to Lou's response to Larry Hoover's block-abolu, posted by Lou Pilder on July 12, 2005, at 11:43:00
> Friends,
> Larry Hoover has been requierd to be blocked from posting for 6 weeks here. What are the issues here?
> The issues posted are those that could be of the rule . But could I ask you to consider if the rule is a sound mental-health practice or not?
> Let us look at the origin of the rule and what could have promted its formulation.
> There was a group of posters here that objected to me requesting clarification. I think that the requests are important for dialog, and invite you to go back into the archives and see.
> Dr. Hsiung then proposed the [...do not post to me...] rule.
> But the rule prohibits me from requesting anything to a poster, or even replying to a poster, for I remember a post that asked if one could write something like,[...good post...] to a poster that invoked the [...do not post to me...]rule to them and I think that I remember that there was a reply by Dr. Hsiung about that.
> With that in mind, I will now proceed with a series that I would like to give so that you can make a decision on your own as to if having the rule on a mental-health community is a sound mental-health practice or not. If the rule is abolished, then Larry could return to the forum. And if the rule is abolished, then I could request clarification from others also.
> Lou
>
> Friends,
If we look at what could happen if the rule is abolished here, then;
A. Lou, or anyone else here, would be able to request clarification from anyone about what they wrote and no one could prevent him from doing so.
B. Larry Hoover would be immediatly reinstated and the block expunged from his, and other's, records here.
C. Those that object to me, or anyone else here, requesting clarification to them would have to find some other way to deal with my requests.
D. Those that want to keep a particular poster from replying to them in a civil manner could not do so.
E. Some posters here could leave and go to another board where they can keep a particular person from replying to them.
F. The 3 consecutive post rule could be looked at as to if it also is a sound mental-health practice or not.
G. The 3 posts about requesting a determination about a particular poster's posts could be looked at as to if it is a sound mental-health practice or not here.
H. If the rule was abolished by Dr. Hsiung, then could there be the potential for othere to think that the rule is an unsound mental- health practice as being on a mental-health internet forum?
K. If the rule is abolished, then could there be the potential for some others to think that the lines of communication to remain open, in a mental-health community, could be more important than a poster's invocation of a rule that cuts those lines?
M. other good and just ramifications if the rule is abolished.
Lou
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.
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.