![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 31. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dinah on April 7, 2003, at 20:53:49
> > Well, I think I know most of THESE names.
>
> .... you know mine!
> What's up, dearie?
> The admin board is getting idiotic, check it out if you haven't recently. The level that it has sunk to is mind-boggling.
> I wonder why people take things to heart so much - distancing oneself from pain is so much better than grooving on it.
> Do you know what I mean?
>
> love you,
> W.
>
>Hi Wendy,
Didn't want to reply on dreamer's refuge.
I can only answer for myself. I guess it's because I really never understood John Lennon's song. Nothing to live or die for sounds dreadful to me. So this person (me) takes things so much to heart because things mean a lot to me. Principles and ideals and people. And while I do distance myself from pain a lot, I'm not usually all that happy with myself when I do it because I'm distancing myself from other things too. Although I don't care to "groove" on pain.
And I suppose idiotic is in the eye of the beholder.
Posted by wendy b. on April 8, 2003, at 0:37:20
In reply to Re: anybody home? » wendy b., posted by Dinah on April 7, 2003, at 20:53:49
...could be any number of people, or perhaps just people in general.
moreover, my message wasn't meant for here on admin, or i would have posted it here, but... what's to be done now? it's not exactly a friendly tactic, and could very well have been discussed over on the board where it was originally posted.
i do think the level of what's being talked about here has hit maybe an all-time high (or low, as the case may be). i can have that opinion without it being a personal threat 'aimed at' you, certainly?
no offense was intended, it was really meant as a comment to pax. next time i'll post off-line, which is where i most likely belong!
crying in my tea,
W.
Posted by ~Alii~ on April 8, 2003, at 0:40:01
In reply to Re: maybe you're taking this too personally » Dinah, posted by wendy b. on April 8, 2003, at 0:37:20
Posted by wendy b. on April 8, 2003, at 0:49:23
In reply to no tears in tea sweets! dear me = ( (nm) » wendy b., posted by ~Alii~ on April 8, 2003, at 0:40:01
... need your new/old email addy, doll. i think i have wrong one...
wending my way
Posted by ~Alii~ on April 8, 2003, at 1:29:02
In reply to Re: no tears in tea sweets! dear me = ( » ~Alii~, posted by wendy b. on April 8, 2003, at 0:49:23
> ... need your new/old email addy, doll. i think i have wrong one...
>
> wending my wayclocura at hotmail dot com seems to be most stable addy I have as of late....
xoxo
~A
Posted by Dinah on April 8, 2003, at 4:29:48
In reply to Re: maybe you're taking this too personally » Dinah, posted by wendy b. on April 8, 2003, at 0:37:20
Well, Wendy. First of all, I was part of this discussion. Both discussions going on on this board right now, in fact. So there is no real way I could not be a part of whatever idiocy you were referring to.
Second, 2001 isn't a board where it's free to say anything that you wouldn't want to say elsewhere. It can be read by all. And responded to by all.
Third, as I stated, I didn't want to respond to it on 2001 because I consider it a safe board for Dreamer. I never post anything about admin matters there. Except maybe to sound the all clear. In fact I never post there at all except to have a quiet chat with Dreamer. I've never been a fan of exclusive boards.
Fourth, it was only pure chance that I was able to respond on 2001. If you had posted on 2000, my reply would have had to have gone elsewhere.
My answering here instead of there, wasn't a tactic, unkind or otherwise. And I'm sorry you think it was. I didn't assume that you posted on 2001 as a tactic. I assumed you posted it there because you happened to be chatting to Pax there.
No need to cry, Wendy. You remarked on why people did what they did. I answered, for myself only. I wasn't angry or accusatory. I did point out that while it may have been idiocy to you, it wasn't to those involved. Actually, my whole post to you wasn't angry at all, but philosophical. And I hope you take it that way. My ponytail wasn't quivering at all.
Best wishes,
Dinah
Posted by wendy b. on April 8, 2003, at 10:38:02
In reply to Re: maybe you're taking this too personally » wendy b., posted by Dinah on April 8, 2003, at 4:29:48
(your previous message)
Hi Wendy,
Didn't want to reply on dreamer's refuge.
>>> I love Dreamer as much as anyone, but 2001 was not designed as her refuge, as I understand it. I don't even think SHE would tell us that. If she posts a lot on it, she has every right to, and I like reading her stuff.
I can only answer for myself. I guess it's because I really never understood John Lennon's song. Nothing to live or die for sounds dreadful to me.>>> Sorry if you don't get the jist of his meaning. I think many did/do/will: "too bad the world has any hate, greed, or inequality. Then there would be nothing to kill or die for."
So this person (me) takes things so much to heart because things mean a lot to me.>>> Things mean a lot to many of us here. And again, why personalize?
Principles and ideals and people.>>> Good, or you wouldn't be alive. I feel strongly about beating dead horses...!
And while I do distance myself from pain a lot, I'm not usually all that happy with myself when I do it because I'm distancing myself from other things too. Although I don't care to "groove" on pain.
>>> Well, it seemed to me that letting this stuff get to you, or anyone else who was experiencing pain over the conversations, is bad FOR YOU. As in not healthy, as in: not worth the emotional stress. If this sounds like I'm telling you what to do/not do, I apologize. It was not meant in a bad way.
And I suppose idiotic is in the eye of the beholder.>>> Yes, and perhaps the word was inappropriate. As I said, it's best if I don't comment much.
____________
> Well, Wendy.
Chastizing?
>First of all, I was part of this discussion. Both discussions going on on this board right now, in fact. So there is no real way I could not be a part of whatever idiocy you were referring to.If that's what you want to think, even though I have explained in the last message that not one person was being singled out, I will not be able to sway you. Obviously. And too bad we can't see eye to eye.
> Second, 2001 isn't a board where it's free to say anything that you wouldn't want to say elsewhere. It can be read by all. And responded to by all.Is that the way the Board was set up? I thought it was MAINLY so old-timers could have conversations amongst themselves. I'll share with you what I wrote to Dr Bob earlier today:
*******
'I know Dinah is a special person to you and to many others. [...] and I didn't mean it the way she took it. And I called the conversations idiotic, not any one person at all. Which is an opinion that I can have, right, and express? If you think it warrants a PBC, please let me know, I'd like to take the opportunity to talk about it, if it's appropriate.
I really object to the fact that Dinah moved it to Admin. I can and do perceive as uncivil, taking things out of a particular context... But alas, it may be that we will have to disagree. I'm sorry for any perveived wrongs I've done. And I do try to stay out of the fray, that's why I posted over on PB 2001. I know we're warned that text can be and often is moved to other boards, but in this case, if I had wanted others IN GENERAL to reply, I would have put it on Admin. I had hoped the 2001 people could have had a "private" discussion about it. Or what is the purpose of the board's existence? Not being "difficult," it's an honest question.'*****
> Third, as I stated, I didn't want to respond to it on 2001 because I consider it a safe board for Dreamer. I never post anything about admin matters there. Except maybe to sound the all clear. In fact I never post there at all except to have a quiet chat with Dreamer. I've never been a fan of exclusive boards.
So, this means... what precisely? That your perception of the board's utility is the last word? What about what I perceive the Board to be about? Does my view 'count less'? If you could clarify...
> Fourth, it was only pure chance that I was able to respond on 2001. If you had posted on 2000, my reply would have had to have gone elsewhere.What does this even mean?
> My answering here instead of there, wasn't a tactic, unkind or otherwise. And I'm sorry you think it was. I didn't assume that you posted on 2001 as a tactic. I assumed you posted it there because you happened to be chatting to Pax there.That's correct, and it should have remained where it was, not taken out of context.
> No need to cry, Wendy.Bitter irony being what it is...
>You remarked on why people did what they did. I answered, for myself only. I wasn't angry or accusatory.I did not accuse of you of that.
>I did point out that while it may have been idiocy to you, it wasn't to those involved. Actually, my whole post to you wasn't angry at all, but philosophical. And I hope you take it that way.Philosophical? in what way? I saw it as defensive and upset.
>My ponytail wasn't quivering at all.
OK, pshew!
> Best wishes,And to you,
> Dinah
Wendy
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 8, 2003, at 11:40:15
In reply to Re: maybe... » Dinah, posted by wendy b. on April 8, 2003, at 10:38:02
> > And I suppose idiotic is in the eye of the beholder.
>
> Yes, and perhaps the word was inappropriate. As I said, it's best if I don't comment much.Thanks. It's fine to comment, just do so carefully?
> > there is no real way I could not be a part of whatever idiocy you were referring to.
>
> If that's what you want to think, even though I have explained in the last message that not one person was being singled out... too bad we can't see eye to eye.Someone may not intend to single anyone out, or to put down anyone, singled out or not, but sometimes someone else's feelings will still be hurt.
> next time i'll post off-line, which is where i most likely belong!
It's fine for you to be online, but yes, I'd appreciate it if some opinions were expressed through other channels. Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dinah on April 8, 2003, at 11:46:22
In reply to Re: maybe... » Dinah, posted by wendy b. on April 8, 2003, at 10:38:02
> (your previous message)
>
> Hi Wendy,
>
> Didn't want to reply on dreamer's refuge.
>
> >>> I love Dreamer as much as anyone, but 2001 was not designed as her refuge, as I understand it. I don't even think SHE would tell us that. If she posts a lot on it, she has every right to, and I like reading her stuff.
>
Didn't say she did. Said I treat it as such.>
> I can only answer for myself. I guess it's because I really never understood John Lennon's song. Nothing to live or die for sounds dreadful to me.
>
> >>> Sorry if you don't get the jist of his meaning. I think many did/do/will: "too bad the world has any hate, greed, or inequality. Then there would be nothing to kill or die for."
>
>
> So this person (me) takes things so much to heart because things mean a lot to me.
>
> >>> Things mean a lot to many of us here. And again, why personalize?
>
>
> Principles and ideals and people.
>
> >>> Good, or you wouldn't be alive. I feel strongly about beating dead horses...!
>
> And while I do distance myself from pain a lot, I'm not usually all that happy with myself when I do it because I'm distancing myself from other things too. Although I don't care to "groove" on pain.
>
> >>> Well, it seemed to me that letting this stuff get to you, or anyone else who was experiencing pain over the conversations, is bad FOR YOU. As in not healthy, as in: not worth the emotional stress. If this sounds like I'm telling you what to do/not do, I apologize. It was not meant in a bad way.
>
>
> And I suppose idiotic is in the eye of the beholder.
>
> >>> Yes, and perhaps the word was inappropriate. As I said, it's best if I don't comment much.
>
> ____________
>
> > Well, Wendy.
>
> Chastizing?
>
No, why would you think so. It was sort of taking a deep breath before addressing many points.
>
> >First of all, I was part of this discussion. Both discussions going on on this board right now, in fact. So there is no real way I could not be a part of whatever idiocy you were referring to.
>
> If that's what you want to think, even though I have explained in the last message that not one person was being singled out, I will not be able to sway you. Obviously. And too bad we can't see eye to eye.
>
I don't quite understand why you think I think you were singling me out??? What difference would that have made? I was answering on behalf of myself only, but that doesn't mean I thought you were accusing me *alone* of posting idiocy.>
> > Second, 2001 isn't a board where it's free to say anything that you wouldn't want to say elsewhere. It can be read by all. And responded to by all.
>
> Is that the way the Board was set up? I thought it was MAINLY so old-timers could have conversations amongst themselves. I'll share with you what I wrote to Dr Bob earlier today:
>
I suppose I should have said, that isn't a board to post things that you would be afraid would be taken badly elsewhere, since anyone can read and respond to it anyway. I think people sometimes forget that. So if I wanted to say that posts were idiotic, and didn't want to say it on admin, I wouldn't see much difference in saying it on 2001 either, since it can be read by the same people.
> *******
>
> 'I know Dinah is a special person to you and to many others. [...] and I didn't mean it the way she took it. And I called the conversations idiotic, not any one person at all. Which is an opinion that I can have, right, and express? If you think it warrants a PBC, please let me know, I'd like to take the opportunity to talk about it, if it's appropriate.
> I really object to the fact that Dinah moved it to Admin. I can and do perceive as uncivil, taking things out of a particular context... But alas, it may be that we will have to disagree. I'm sorry for any perveived wrongs I've done. And I do try to stay out of the fray, that's why I posted over on PB 2001. I know we're warned that text can be and often is moved to other boards, but in this case, if I had wanted others IN GENERAL to reply, I would have put it on Admin. I had hoped the 2001 people could have had a "private" discussion about it. Or what is the purpose of the board's existence? Not being "difficult," it's an honest question.'
>
> *****
>
I'd love to know what was in the (...). :)But as this was an admin topic, I didn't consider it inappropriate to post at admin. I didn't take it to social you know. If Dr. Bob says that 2001 posts must be answered in 2001, I will do so or not answer at all.
> > Third, as I stated, I didn't want to respond to it on 2001 because I consider it a safe board for Dreamer. I never post anything about admin matters there. Except maybe to sound the all clear. In fact I never post there at all except to have a quiet chat with Dreamer. I've never been a fan of exclusive boards.
>
> So, this means... what precisely? That your perception of the board's utility is the last word? What about what I perceive the Board to be about? Does my view 'count less'? If you could clarify...
>
I meant precisely what I said.>
> > Fourth, it was only pure chance that I was able to respond on 2001. If you had posted on 2000, my reply would have had to have gone elsewhere.
>
> What does this even mean?I don't suppose it matters, but I meant that if you posted this to Pax on 2000 and I wished to respond, I would have had to do it on admin since I can't post on 2000.
>
>
> > My answering here instead of there, wasn't a tactic, unkind or otherwise. And I'm sorry you think it was. I didn't assume that you posted on 2001 as a tactic. I assumed you posted it there because you happened to be chatting to Pax there.
>
> That's correct, and it should have remained where it was, not taken out of context.
>
Well, I was pretty careful not to take it out of context. There was nothing in the previous part of the thread about the topic, and I copied your post here verbatim. So in what way was it taken out of context?
>
> > No need to cry, Wendy.
>
> Bitter irony being what it is...
>
>
> >You remarked on why people did what they did. I answered, for myself only. I wasn't angry or accusatory.
>
> I did not accuse of you of that.
>
Ok. I was not upset or defensive (see below). Although I am now.
>
> >I did point out that while it may have been idiocy to you, it wasn't to those involved. Actually, my whole post to you wasn't angry at all, but philosophical. And I hope you take it that way.
>
> Philosophical? in what way? I saw it as defensive and upset.
>
> >My ponytail wasn't quivering at all.
>
> OK, pshew!
>
>
> > Best wishes,
>
> And to you,
>
> > Dinah
>
> Wendy
>And now I really do unplug my computer because I don't need this. If you don't want someone to explain why they don't consider a bunch of posts "idiocy", I suggest that you don't call a bunch of posts idiotic.
Posted by Dinah on April 8, 2003, at 11:51:27
In reply to Re: maybe..., posted by Dr. Bob on April 8, 2003, at 11:40:15
You posted while I was writing. Otherwise I wouldn't have answered.
Posted by wendy b. on April 8, 2003, at 12:43:21
In reply to Re: maybe..., posted by Dr. Bob on April 8, 2003, at 11:40:15
> > > And I suppose idiotic is in the eye of the beholder.
> >
> > Yes, and perhaps the word was inappropriate. As I said, it's best if I don't comment much.
>
> Thanks. It's fine to comment, just do so carefully?Bob, I appreciate your remarks, and will work on it...
> > > there is no real way I could not be a part of whatever idiocy you were referring to.
> >
> > If that's what you want to think, even though I have explained in the last message that not one person was being singled out... too bad we can't see eye to eye.
>
> Someone may not intend to single anyone out, or to put down anyone, singled out or not, but sometimes someone else's feelings will still be hurt.Yes, Bob. But we can't know that until the person expresses their feelings, warranted or not, and then dialogue could ensue. I was very careful to apologize several times in my last messages.
> > next time i'll post off-line, which is where i most likely belong!
>
> It's fine for you to be online, but yes, I'd appreciate it if some opinions were expressed through other channels. Thanks,
>
> BobSure, Bob, point well taken. I'm not above reproach. But also not responsible for others' behavior... I feel there is no need for Dinah to unplug her computer, since I am not going to comment here again about the topic of the worthiness of certain threads.
I wonder if you could comment about the appropriateness, though, of bringing the message from 2001 over to Admin. I was not discussing Admin policy at all, and wished for a private discussion amongst 2001 people. Dinah thought the only appropriate place to discuss this was where SHE thought it belonged. But there could be meaningful disagreements about that... I thought that what she did was very unkind. Further, she did not get a warning to be cognizant of MY feelings about moving the message (although I expressed why I thought it should have remained there), in the way I was warned about hers.
Yours sincerely,
Wendy
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 8, 2003, at 13:53:00
In reply to Re: maybe... » Dr. Bob, posted by wendy b. on April 8, 2003, at 12:43:21
> I wonder if you could comment about the appropriateness, though, of bringing the message from 2001 over to Admin.
I think it was OK, since there was a civility issue...
> I thought that what she did was very unkind.
Could you make that into an "I-statement"? How did it make you feel?
> Further, she did not get a warning to be cognizant of MY feelings about moving the message (although I expressed why I thought it should have remained there), in the way I was warned about hers.
Your feelings are important, too. But there's no general rule about moving messages. Would you like this redirected back to 2001?
Bob
Posted by wendy b. on April 8, 2003, at 14:50:25
In reply to Re: maybe..., posted by Dr. Bob on April 8, 2003, at 13:53:00
> > I wonder if you could comment about the appropriateness, though, of bringing the message from 2001 over to Admin.
>
> I think it was OK, since there was a civility issue...
Yes, but the 2nd civility issue (my issue) was the civility of moving it in the first place... Ohhh, well. You don't see it.
> > I thought that what she did was very unkind.
>
> Could you make that into an "I-statement"? How did it make you feel?I felt it was wrong?
No. Emmmm, errr.
I felt that I was being unfairly judged, and that presumptions about my intent were being aired, and that it was out of context.
> > Further, she did not get a warning to be cognizant of MY feelings about moving the message (although I expressed why I thought it should have remained there), in the way I was warned about hers.
>
> Your feelings are important, too.Thanks...
>But there's no general rule about moving messages. Would you like this redirected back to 2001?
>
> Bob
No, it's ok, I can start another if I feel the need to, though I probably won't... The thread has already gone on too long, for me.Wendy
Posted by Dreamerz on April 8, 2003, at 16:25:15
In reply to Re: maybe... » Dinah, posted by wendy b. on April 8, 2003, at 10:38:02
I don't mind who posts--not my board --can't concentrate on these posts so...
Anyway stop arguing or I'll come and spank all of yer!
Posted by Dreamerz on April 8, 2003, at 16:28:24
In reply to Re: maybe..., posted by Dr. Bob on April 8, 2003, at 11:40:15
Bob...don't think you will get away without a good spanking...
I mean..them shades...try smaller?
: )heee~heee
Posted by Dinah on April 8, 2003, at 20:58:44
In reply to Re: 2001- free for all......., posted by Dreamerz on April 8, 2003, at 16:25:15
Silly Dreamer. You know that talking to you is the only reason I dropped my vehement opposition to the exlusive board, ate my pride, and posted there. :)
Posted by Dinah on April 8, 2003, at 21:04:03
In reply to Re: maybe... » Dr. Bob, posted by wendy b. on April 8, 2003, at 14:50:25
I have explained three times, in greater detail than I should have (as is my custom), why I did not reply on 2001. I will not explain again, as the explanations are there for you to refer to.
I assured you that I meant no unkindness by it. I know in my heart that that is true. It is, of course, your choice to believe it or not.
But I will say this.
I did not know you would be upset by my choice of boards.
I did not intend to upset you by my choice of boards.
I am sorry you were upset by my choice of boards.
Posted by Dinah on April 8, 2003, at 21:06:06
In reply to Re: maybe..., posted by Dinah on April 8, 2003, at 21:04:03
Posted by wendy b. on April 8, 2003, at 22:14:31
In reply to Re: maybe..., posted by Dinah on April 8, 2003, at 21:04:03
Posted by Ron Hill on April 8, 2003, at 22:41:19
In reply to is this horse dead or shall we beat it some more? (nm), posted by wendy b. on April 8, 2003, at 22:14:31
Posted by wendy b. on April 8, 2003, at 22:44:26
In reply to Re: This one is worn out. Next horse please. (nm) » wendy b., posted by Ron Hill on April 8, 2003, at 22:41:19
Posted by Ron Hill on April 8, 2003, at 22:48:59
In reply to is this horse dead or shall we beat it some more? (nm), posted by wendy b. on April 8, 2003, at 22:14:31
Posted by Dinah on April 8, 2003, at 23:16:36
In reply to Re: This one is worn out. Next horse please. (nm) » wendy b., posted by Ron Hill on April 8, 2003, at 22:41:19
Posted by Ron Hill on April 8, 2003, at 23:19:22
In reply to Re: forgot to check the box. above for Wendy (nm), posted by Dinah on April 8, 2003, at 21:06:06
Posted by Dinah on April 8, 2003, at 23:23:09
In reply to How do I order more horses? I'm sure we'll need em (nm) » Dinah, posted by Ron Hill on April 8, 2003, at 23:19:22
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.