Posted by so on May 22, 2005, at 20:40:53
In reply to Re: team effort » so, posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 19:53:30
> > > I trust Dr. Bob completely.
> >
> > Yes, I recall a recent post in which you compared him to god.
>
> Sigh. You know better than that.I best know what I know. Isn't Hsiung the one who says what we write has forensic value?
> I trust him, ... I trust ... I trust him ... I trust him ... I trust him ... I trust him ... I trust him ... I trust him ... I don't trust him ... I trust him ... I trust him ... I trust him ...>
Would you trust anyone else in the same way? Would you trust another person -- a professional peer of his -- to balance traits you describe as ...
> stubborn> almost impossible to sway
>maddeningly elusive and enigmatic
>astonishingly difficult to converse with
>
<snipped more requesting that I recall context because I definately notice the context. You say you trust someone completely though you readily cite traits that seem to be less than becoming of a person in a public, diplomatic role. Wouldn't it be more of a culture if the leadership represented the collective values of people capable of balancing each other rather than of a single person who indefinately retains a superior status?
>
> I like Dr. Bob. I care about Dr. Bob. I trust Dr. Bob. I don't worship Dr. Bob or think he's perfect. This isn't a cult.Did I say it's a cult? I just said the site led me to consider elements of cult as opposed to culture. Do you find it interesting he asserts members would understand the culture he has established here better than his peers would?
> If you leave the Admin board, you'll see that Dr. Bob doesn't play the major role in interactions here. We do.
If I thought is was safe out there, I would post to other boards, which of course I read. The most words are written by members for sure, but the tone and the content is dictated and segregated by the adminstration -- what is "biological" -- what is "social" -- what is "political" -- what is "alternative" -- what is psychological -- what is and is not "faith", the list goes on. Sure, threaded message boards developed so discussion can land in the right place, but in some cases segregation can serve to define. In my experience, extreme attention to keeping everything in it's correct conceptual place -- when it goes beyond making it easy to find information to include making sure the information doesn't challenge governing doctrines -- can be a symptom of authoritarian leadership.
>
> Babble suits some people. It doesn't suit others. And why shouldn't that be ok? There is absolutely no way for Babble (or any other place, institution, etc.) to suit everyone.Have I heard that before? Generalizing doesn't deal with specifics. How badly does the experience not suit some people until they find out it's not for them? How does your analysis look in another context? What if people are put off or even harmed, some maybe to the point of death, because someone is ...
> stubborn
> almost impossible to sway
> maddeningly elusive and enigmatic
> astonishingly difficult to converse with
... but who claims to be offering help. Couldn't that make some people feel put down? Is it okay for some people to make other people feel put down, if they are wealthy enough to own a facility they can control to their own liking?
poster:so
thread:491889
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050517/msgs/501409.html