![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 8 of 8. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Ronnjee on January 16, 2014, at 17:13:34
The 2-week block message from Bob was as follows:
> Scott is my favorite Babbler.............to ignore.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
Yet..... in the PB policies section, I found this:
"Be aware that there may be posters who try to start arguments and upset people ("troll"). Of course, not everyone who starts an argument or upsets someone *intends* to do so. What can be done about those who do? It may be best just not to respond. If you do, please be civil. One possible response is to encourage others not to respond, and one civil way to do that is to post something like:
Different points of view are fine, but sometimes discussions just lead to discord and it may be best just not to respond."
----------------------------------------------
It seems I was well within the guidelines, even to the point of encouraging others to ignore posts/posters they don't like, which the policy states as a good thing.Being blocked is no biggie, personally, but I think Bob owes me an apology.
Posted by Ronnjee on January 16, 2014, at 17:21:56
In reply to My Block In November --) Bob, posted by Ronnjee on January 16, 2014, at 17:13:34
The context of my block-provoking comment was in a thread (http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20131022/msgs/1053548.html)
that was initiated by SLS in response to Partly Cloudy's comment, "Your agitating stance is really tiring of an ordinary person.".Looking back, I honestly think my comment/advice was right on target, and not in the least uncivil.
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 16, 2014, at 17:52:58
In reply to Re: My Block In November --) Bob, posted by Ronnjee on January 16, 2014, at 17:21:56
> The context of my block-provoking comment was in a thread (http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20131022/msgs/1053548.html)
> that was initiated by SLS in response to Partly Cloudy's comment, "Your agitating stance is really tiring of an ordinary person.".
>
> Looking back, I honestly think my comment/advice was right on target, and not in the least uncivil.Ronnjee,
How about this:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20120302/msgs/1012990.html
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 16, 2014, at 18:04:15
In reply to Lou's response-ptupstan? » Ronnjee, posted by Lou Pilder on January 16, 2014, at 17:52:58
Ronnjee,
And this?
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1056280.html
Posted by Partlycloudy on January 16, 2014, at 20:36:44
In reply to Re: My Block In November --) Bob, posted by Ronnjee on January 16, 2014, at 17:21:56
I must agree. And risk further agitation. But I realize there is Babble Speak. There are babble Speakers. and there are Babble Adororers. I speak like none of them, but I am sorry for those who suffer because of the non compliance to it.
Tant pis.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 17, 2014, at 1:56:11
In reply to My Block In November --) Bob, posted by Ronnjee on January 16, 2014, at 17:13:34
> > Scott is my favorite Babbler.............to ignore.
>
> It seems I was well within the guidelines, even to the point of encouraging others to ignore posts/posters they don't like, which the policy states as a good thing.
>
> Being blocked is no biggie, personally, but I think Bob owes me an apology.I'm sorry you got blocked. I did it because I thought your post could've led Scott to feel accused or put down. OTOH, something like:
> > Ignore posts/posters you don't like.
Would've been fine, and conveyed the same advice.
Bob
Posted by Phillipa on January 17, 2014, at 8:59:47
In reply to Re: My Block In November --) Bob, posted by Ronnjee on January 16, 2014, at 17:21:56
Where is your posting name on the posted thread? I don't see it? Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 19, 2014, at 9:20:59
In reply to Re: My Block In November --) Bob, posted by Ronnjee on January 16, 2014, at 17:21:56
> The context of my block-provoking comment was in a thread (http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20131022/msgs/1053548.html)
> that was initiated by SLS in response to Partly Cloudy's comment, "Your agitating stance is really tiring of an ordinary person.".
>
> Looking back, I honestly think my comment/advice was right on target, and not in the least uncivil.Ronnjee,
You wrote about your post that was sanctioned because you stated that you ignore a particular person. The aspect of that your post specified a particular person is different from posting a general statement to ignore unspecified posters that for some reason it could be in some way better to do that. But it is much more than that. It involves the person specified and the action against you by Mr Hsiung. And then the question could become as to why the action was taken against you.
At first, a subset of readers could think that there is the concept of {putting down} involved in your post. For telling others to ignore a specific person could stigmatize the target person. But were you telling others to ignore a specified individual or were you just letting people know that you ignore that person? And does it make any difference?
Well, there is not a difference. For that you posted that you ignore someone, that could advance to a subset of readers that there is some reason to do the ignoring and others then could think that they join in with you to ignore the specified person. So your statement could become a solicitation to others to be in concert with you. And it is IMHO a terrible thing to do. But wait a minute. Does the owner here that participates in discussions here and adds his own comments and advises others to post in a manner that is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole? And are there specific examples given that exemplify that?
You see. there are things that I think are terrible things to do that Mr Hsiung may think otherwise. But then again, in this situation, it could be thought by a subset of readers that it is supportive to tell people to ignore one particular person and not supportive to tell people to ignore another person. This is what I see here that IMHO is a terrible thing to do. For if Mr Hsiung can protect some posters from statements that could stigmatize them, but not offer that same protection equally to other members, then the practice becomes to a subset of readers a discriminatory practice which Mr Hsiung agrees is an abuse of power.
Then there becomes the aspect of if there is a collection of posters that receive the protection from Mr Hsiung and that there are a collection of posters that do not, and is there that the ones not receiving the protection are of a particular faith. That can be determined by what is in the record here. And it could also be determined by what Mr Hsiung writes here that a subset of readers could think that he is advocating to others to shun another poster, or ignore another as you wrote. The concept of shunning is in the historical record where I am prevented from posting about that due to prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. You are sanctioned for posting that you ignore a particular member's posts, but Mr Hsiung is allowed to advocate by his example that others ignore me by not responding to me.
So I can understand what your posts entails in relation to any stigmatization that you may feel from what Mr Hsiung posted to you. And I feel the same, for if it is done to you, it is done to me.
Lou
Here is a link that shows that Mr. Hsiung is soliciting members to not respond to me here. And I think that is a terrible thing to do.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1050356.html
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.