![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 10 to 34 of 34. Go back in thread:
Posted by Susan47 on January 16, 2006, at 13:03:05
In reply to Re: A Question...., posted by Susan47 on January 16, 2006, at 13:01:17
> But unfortunately what we say has consequences, doesn't it, and it's up to those making accusations to prove that their interpretation is correct if they want to make a case out of something. So that's probably the way things work. You'd have to make a case, or someone else would, without physical evidence for a crime. With physical evidence, on the other hand, it's all pretty much a breeze. The law is usually open to interpretation. Gross interpretation, sometimes.
Gross interpretation to match gross circumstances, maybe? Are we having fun, yet?
Sorry if I've jumped in here, inappropriately. I just couldn't help myself, I had to pick this up.
Posted by Sarah T. on January 19, 2006, at 2:13:56
In reply to Re: A Question...., posted by Susan47 on January 16, 2006, at 13:03:05
Hi Susan,
Are you an attorney?
Sarah
Posted by Susan47 on January 19, 2006, at 8:50:35
In reply to Re: A Question.... » Susan47, posted by Sarah T. on January 19, 2006, at 2:13:56
> Hi Susan,
>
> Are you an attorney?
>
> Sarah
No, I'm observing.
Posted by one woman cine on January 19, 2006, at 14:53:19
In reply to Re: A Question...., posted by Susan47 on January 16, 2006, at 13:03:05
"Gross interpretation to match gross circumstances, maybe? Are we having fun, yet?
Sorry if I've jumped in here, inappropriately. I just couldn't help myself, I had to pick this up."I'm not sure if you are meaning this sarcastially or not. I asked a question which was valid and that I was very concerned about. & the answer to your question "Are we having fun yet", is no I'm not. I don't understand the nature of your post, I guess. I have been staying away from PB because of some very real fears I have. & your post sounds as if you are making light of that. Are you?
Posted by one woman cine on January 19, 2006, at 14:59:46
In reply to Re: A Question...., posted by Susan47 on January 16, 2006, at 12:43:56
I have been staying away from PB because I HAVE been stalked several times, 2 of them ending up in criminal prosecution & there was no "physical evidence" per se. There were messages on my machine, etc. etc. & their hard drives were confiscated after warrants were executed. Since I can only explain what has happened to me, (& for obvious reasons, not in great detail) I would appreciate it if any legal observations be left as just that, interpretative; and not the authority.
Posted by one woman cine on January 19, 2006, at 16:51:58
In reply to Just FYI, posted by one woman cine on January 19, 2006, at 14:59:46
Under the current circumstances, I'm asking you not to post to me - even if you don't specifically put my name in the subject line.
Posted by Susan47 on January 20, 2006, at 3:15:43
In reply to And...... Susan47 DNP, posted by one woman cine on January 19, 2006, at 16:51:58
> Under the current circumstances, I'm asking you not to post to me - even if you don't specifically put my name in the subject line.
I apologize for upsetting onewomancine. I did not mean to have that effect upon her. I am trying to make light of my own terrible situation and in doing so, I have upset her. I am sorry, and I have babbled her telling her so. She did not say I couldn't babble her. I am not stalking her if that's what she is thinking.
Posted by Susan47 on January 20, 2006, at 3:26:25
In reply to Just FYI, posted by one woman cine on January 19, 2006, at 14:59:46
> . Since I can only explain what has happened to me, (& for obvious reasons, not in great detail) I would appreciate it if any legal observations be left as just that, interpretative; and not the authority.
Exactly. Everything I say here is interpretative and I haven't claimed to be the authority on anything.
I'm sorry this is so serious an issue for one woman cine and if I upset her in any way with my interpretations then I apologize.
Posted by one woman cine on January 20, 2006, at 7:21:07
In reply to Re: Just FYI, posted by Susan47 on January 20, 2006, at 3:26:25
Listen, I know you need to post on PB & I do not want you to get blocked, but if you post me again, I will ask that you be. Please respect my request.
Posted by one woman cine on January 20, 2006, at 7:26:29
In reply to Susan47, please respect my wishes and DNP to me!!!, posted by one woman cine on January 20, 2006, at 7:21:07
Actually, nevermind - I can't reply to you & I did ask that you not post to me because I do not want you to post to me or vice versa. But by posting to me, not once but twice after I ask that you not to do that, you have forced this issue. I'm sorry, but I did ask you not to post.
Posted by Dinah on January 20, 2006, at 9:04:04
In reply to Re: Susan47, please respect my wishes and DNP to me!!!, posted by one woman cine on January 20, 2006, at 7:26:29
I *think* that Dr. Bob has just said that it was ok for someone to post an apology that refers to the poster in third person. He can check it out when he comes to the board, because it's apparently a very complex rule to enforce.
I also think that speaking to the person you asked not to post to gives them the right to reply.
I'm assuming from what you wrote that you don't wish your posts to rescind the Do Not Post, or that you want them reinstated, or whatever the technicalities of the rule may be?
Posted by one woman cine on January 20, 2006, at 9:49:18
In reply to Do not posts » one woman cine, posted by Dinah on January 20, 2006, at 9:04:04
Yes, I do not want to rescind my do not post, for reasons I have already explained. & in my opinion, it was not just an apology, as seen by her post which included this...
"I am trying to make light of my own terrible situation and in doing so, I have upset her." ... "I am not stalking her if that's what she is thinking."
I didn't ask anyone what they thought, I simply stated my request. & also, in her Babblemail to me, I felt it was also not a simple apology - she basically was justifying her position.
It is not my intention to cause anyone harm here. I have withdrawn from posting to Susan47 because she stated it caused her to be upset. I am only requesting that she extend the same courtesy to me. I apologize if it seems like I am splitting hairs - but I feel like my feelings don't count in this matter & they do.
& also feel as if the letter of law can be followed in regards to civility rules, but not the spirit of it. ie, apologies that can also include incivilities that cause someone to feel put down, sarcastic remarks, etc. etc.
If I state DNP, it is not an endeavor I take lightly & something I have put alot of thought into.
Posted by Dinah on January 20, 2006, at 9:53:16
In reply to Re: Do not posts, posted by one woman cine on January 20, 2006, at 9:49:18
Oops. I forgot the babblemail, and I'm not sure Dr. Bob has ruled on that yet.
I personally think that Babblemail should count on posts, but since Dr. Bob hasn't answered, shall we wait for him to come to the board?
On the other hand, you might want to check the FAQ, because it clearly states that the DNP doesn't stop the poster from posting on a thread you started, or posting about what you said.
Posted by one woman cine on January 20, 2006, at 10:39:45
In reply to Re: Do not posts » one woman cine, posted by Dinah on January 20, 2006, at 9:53:16
This the portion of the FAQ..
"Posting to someone means directing either the subject line or the body of a post to them. Replying to posts by someone isn't necessarily posting to them."
As previous post entitled "Re:FYI" by Susan47, is posting directly to me & not just a third person apology, the previous post "To everyone" includes interpretations and assumptions made as to what I may be thinking.
Believe me, I have spent some time on this issue & I can appreciate all the work that goes into this.
Posted by Dinah on January 20, 2006, at 11:37:34
In reply to Portion of the FAQ..., posted by one woman cine on January 20, 2006, at 10:39:45
Dr. Bob will rule on it, unless one of the other deputies understands the rules better than I do and wants to do something.
As you might have seen from the recent conversations on this board, I'm still trying to feel comfortable with my understanding of this.
Posted by gardenergirl on January 20, 2006, at 11:48:47
In reply to Re: Portion of the FAQ... » one woman cine, posted by Dinah on January 20, 2006, at 11:37:34
And I don't think we ever got a "ruling" on whether someone is allowed to babblemail someone else who has requested a DNP.
I tend to think not. I think I DNP should also include Do not Babblemail, and I'd like to see that clarified.
gg
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 20, 2006, at 15:04:20
In reply to Re: Portion of the FAQ... » Dinah, posted by gardenergirl on January 20, 2006, at 11:48:47
I think that's a good idea. I know sometimes problems are worked out via babblemail after things cool down, but the poster can always specify that it's okay for the reciever of the D.N.P to contact them.
Posted by Dinah on January 20, 2006, at 16:56:06
In reply to Re: Portion of the FAQ... » Dinah, posted by gardenergirl on January 20, 2006, at 11:48:47
I think it should too. Unless specifically stated otherwise.
However, the last word I heard Dr. Bob say on the subject was "Did she ask that she not be babblemailed as well?" or something like that. I'm paraphrasing. Which actually led me to believe that Dr. Bob thought the Please Also Do Not Babblemail me was required.
Posted by thuso on January 20, 2006, at 19:18:51
In reply to Do not posts » one woman cine, posted by Dinah on January 20, 2006, at 9:04:04
> I *think* that Dr. Bob has just said that it was ok for someone to post an apology that refers to the poster in third person. He can check it out when he comes to the board, because it's apparently a very complex rule to enforce.
>I don't see a problem with the first post because it was obviously to everyone. It is the second post where I think one woman cine was referred to. Look at how Susan47 replies to what she quotes from one woman cine....
> > . Since I can only explain what has happened to me, (& for obvious reasons, not in great detail) I would appreciate it if any legal observations be left as just that, interpretative; and not the authority.
> Exactly. Everything I say here is interpretative and I haven't claimed to be the authority on anything.
>By saying "exactly" and going on to agree with the statement, she is talking to one woman cine. Her statement is not to everyone. No where in her reply does she refer to anyone or everyone. If someone quoted me and then wrote something similar to what Susan47 did, then I would definitely interpret that post as directed at me.
We'll see what Dr. B says.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 20, 2006, at 19:25:44
In reply to Re: Do not posts » Dinah, posted by thuso on January 20, 2006, at 19:18:51
i feel sad :-(
susan is hurting... and she vents a lot. and i have sympathy for that. for venting. for expressing yourself. for talking about your thoughts and feelings.
and sometimes there is conflict between one persons issues and another persons issues.
and so there is some conflict here. and it can be really very hard to read peoples posts when they are triggering and bringing back a lot of stuff for the other person.
and i think... there was caring...
but things didn't turn out so well :-(
and i think it is a shame when things turn out badly
and there are hurts all around :-(and then it turns into a discussion on the technicalities...
(((((susan)))))
(((((one woman cine)))))why does it have to hurt so f*cking much just to be alive?
thats what i want to know.
and how can two perfectly well intentioned people
two kind hearted people
who mean well
who do care about each others hurtshow can they just end up hurting even more...
and i don't know.
except to say that i really do think that people (in general) humanity (in general) is... well its not much fun. and i am rapidly getting sick of it.
Posted by gardenergirl on January 20, 2006, at 21:17:29
In reply to Re: Do not posts, posted by alexandra_k on January 20, 2006, at 19:25:44
Does someone have to vent publicly? Or can they babblemail or email a buddy or friend to let them know how they feel about a DNP or other event that they find upsetting?
Just a thought...
gg
Posted by alexandra_k on January 20, 2006, at 22:21:07
In reply to Re: Do not posts » alexandra_k, posted by gardenergirl on January 20, 2006, at 21:17:29
> Does someone have to vent publicly?
i guess not.
i wasn't talking about venting after a dnp...
i was talking about venting about the issue that led to the conflict that led to the dnp...
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 20, 2006, at 22:47:52
In reply to To Everyone, posted by Susan47 on January 20, 2006, at 3:15:43
> I am sorry, and I have babbled her telling her so. She did not say I couldn't babble her.
Sorry, we discussed this before:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20051205/msgs/597831.html
But I should've been more definitive. If someone doesn't want to be posted to, please assume that they don't want to be babblemailed, either. They can always specify otherwise. Thanks,
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on January 20, 2006, at 23:12:18
In reply to Re: Do not posts » gardenergirl, posted by alexandra_k on January 20, 2006, at 22:21:07
Posted by Dinah on January 20, 2006, at 23:27:04
In reply to Re: DNP = DNB, posted by Dr. Bob on January 20, 2006, at 22:47:52
Sorry, Dr. Bob. I remembered that incorrectly. But I've got it straight now. :)
This is the end of the 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.