![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 7 to 31 of 56. Go back in thread:
Posted by newwife on October 9, 2004, at 21:40:29
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on October 9, 2004, at 21:38:57
i have been waiting all night to hear that. i feel so much better that you agree with me. thanks for making me feel better cause i was feeling pretty bad. you are very nice for taking up for me. thanks
Posted by verne on October 9, 2004, at 21:41:58
In reply to question for administration, posted by newwife on October 9, 2004, at 18:18:24
I think you made some excellent points. I suspect there's a silent majority that would agree but doesn't want to get involved out of self-preservation. (which I understand completely)
Expressing oneself on this topic (I can't be more specific for fear I will offend someone) can be exhausting - like tiptoeing through a mine field.
verne
Posted by newwife on October 9, 2004, at 21:44:54
In reply to Re: question for administration » newwife, posted by verne on October 9, 2004, at 21:41:58
i appriciate your opinion. thank you very much, :)
Posted by gardenergirl on October 9, 2004, at 22:21:52
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on October 9, 2004, at 21:38:57
Yes, I also perceived a flavor of sarcasm in Dr. Bob's reply. I felt sad when I read it.
gg
Posted by fayeroe on October 9, 2004, at 22:36:54
In reply to Re: please be civil » fayeroe, posted by gardenergirl on October 9, 2004, at 22:21:52
It disturbed me greatly. I feel a PBC could be directed to Bob....as in "please don't say anything that will cause another to feel put down or made fun of".......
Posted by fayeroe on October 9, 2004, at 22:41:43
In reply to Re: please be civil-thanks pat, posted by newwife on October 9, 2004, at 21:40:29
you're very welcome. as someone else said, it's like walking through a mine field here now. and i wanted you to know that others understood what you are about. i suspect that you are a very good management person in the hotel where you work. and i think the hotel is d***** lucky to have you!!!!!!
Posted by Dinah on October 9, 2004, at 22:41:54
In reply to Re: please be civil » fayeroe, posted by gardenergirl on October 9, 2004, at 22:21:52
I looked it up in the dictionary to make sure.
"Main Entry: sar·casm
Pronunciation: 'sär-"ka-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwar&s- to cut
1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain <tired of continual sarcasms>
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm <this is no time to indulge in sarcasm>"Overall, sarcasm doesn't seem to be part of Dr. Bob's regular repertoire. In fact, he always strikes me as so very very literal that sarcasm never enters my mind as an interpretation. However, the brevity of his remarks often leads to differences in interpretation. Perhaps he could clarify.
To me it seemed like the sort of gentle question my therapist often asks. I think there's a term for it, not sarcasm, something else. But my college philosophy is too far behind me to remember it.
Posted by fayeroe on October 9, 2004, at 22:51:01
In reply to I didn't read any. » gardenergirl, posted by Dinah on October 9, 2004, at 22:41:54
Sometimes the emperor doesn't wear any clothes. I feel that this is one of those times.
Posted by Toph on October 9, 2004, at 22:52:50
In reply to I didn't read any. » gardenergirl, posted by Dinah on October 9, 2004, at 22:41:54
>
> To me it seemed like the sort of gentle question my therapist often asks. I think there's a term for it, not sarcasm, something else. But my college philosophy is too far behind me to remember it.
>Perhaps the word you are looking for Dinah is *inappropriate.*
Posted by newwife on October 9, 2004, at 22:56:04
In reply to Re: please be civil-thanks pat » newwife, posted by fayeroe on October 9, 2004, at 22:41:43
you are so nice, i do love my job and i hope they are glad to have me. thanks for such support, it means alot to me.
Posted by newwife on October 9, 2004, at 22:57:47
In reply to Re: I didn't read any. » Dinah, posted by fayeroe on October 9, 2004, at 22:51:01
sometimes dr bob is not in the right and this is one of those situations, i refuse to believe anything else. he put words in my mouth and took my writing out of context. read it once more, maybe u will change your mind. if not, once again everyone is entitled to there own opinion.
Posted by Dinah on October 9, 2004, at 23:00:27
In reply to Re: I didn't read any., posted by Toph on October 9, 2004, at 22:52:50
I wasn't being particularly defensive of Dr. Bob. I don't think thinking someone's style is literal rather than sarcastic is a case of enormous positive transference.
I just read it differently, that's all.
And no, that's not the word I was thinking of. It's some technical thing.
Anyone who wishes to is free to disagree with me. I just put forth a different possibility.
And I suggested that Dr. Bob clarify.
I'm not going to argue the point.
Posted by newwife on October 9, 2004, at 23:01:18
In reply to Re: I didn't read any., posted by Toph on October 9, 2004, at 22:52:50
that word works for me along with wrong, hurtful and judgemental. did i mention that he said i said something that i never wrote? hmmmm, not sarcasm...wrong, yes. he was totally wrong. i did nothing disrespectful or uncivil. i have never been called uncivil and i wont allow it. i am not wrong for making a comment on what i thought was the forum that you were allowed to do so.
Posted by newwife on October 9, 2004, at 23:02:33
In reply to Re: I didn't read any., posted by Dinah on October 9, 2004, at 23:00:27
that fair, i understand your point now. thanks.
Posted by newwife on October 9, 2004, at 23:09:46
In reply to Re: I didn't read any.--dinah, posted by newwife on October 9, 2004, at 23:02:33
i hope i did not offend you, i just wanted to understand your view. i hope there no hard feelings. theres none on my end. have a good one. this is my last night of posting anyway, so this ordeal doesnt need to be dragged on. thanks danah
Posted by Toph on October 9, 2004, at 23:31:38
In reply to Re: I didn't read any., posted by Dinah on October 9, 2004, at 23:00:27
I'm not sure what transference has to do with anything since there is no therapeutic alliance here, and I too don't want to argue, Dinah. But I see Bob's guestion about kicking the hotel patron out as a non-sequitur and therefore clearly sarcastic and inappropriate. One thing is clear, newwife felt accused and put down.
Posted by newwife on October 9, 2004, at 23:36:01
In reply to Re: I didn't read any., posted by Toph on October 9, 2004, at 23:31:38
i agree once again. i am so glad you agree and i am not over reacting. if i am oh well.
Posted by gardenergirl on October 9, 2004, at 23:54:01
In reply to Re: I didn't read any., posted by Dinah on October 9, 2004, at 23:00:27
Hi Dinah,
Thanks for giving your reaction. I know you've read many many more of Dr. Bob's posts than I have, and your radar has to have been finely honed by all that experience.I may be off base, but I was thinking about the "technical thing" you mentioned. I can't think of what it's called, either...darn it...perhaps exaggeration for effect? I am thinking it fits in with other paradoxical interventions. Anyway, if we are thinking of the same thing, and I don't know for sure that we are, so have the salt ready :)...then I think of it as playing "stupid" in order to challenge a statement. I do this very occasionally, and you have to be very deadpan and seriously curious in your approach otherwise it comes across as disingenuous. If we are thinking of the same thing, then I am guessing this technique would not work in this media, as the nonverbal that goes along with it is just as important to the effect of the intervention. It's similar in some ways to Linehan's irreverence. You need the same kind of sort of genuine curiousity while simulaneously knowing that you are exaggerating.
So, if I am way off base, forgive me for taking up so much time...:) I hate it though, when I use a technique and I don't know what it's called. :( Makes it much harder to 'splain to supervisor about how my gut said to do it. :)
Take care,
gg
Posted by newwife on October 9, 2004, at 23:57:36
In reply to Re: I didn't read any. » Dinah, posted by gardenergirl on October 9, 2004, at 23:54:01
i am very interested in your post. i dont understand it, do you mind explaining it b/c i am so interested i can hardly stand it. do you mind doing that. it would be really nice of you. thanks, jess
Posted by Dinah on October 10, 2004, at 0:19:09
In reply to Re: I didn't read any. » Dinah, posted by gardenergirl on October 9, 2004, at 23:54:01
I think I would describe it differently... But we may be thinking of the same thing anyway. The genuine curiosity part I pick up on when my therapist does it. I don't see it as playing stupid or even exaggerating. Perhaps my therapist leaves that part out. He does it so very gently and with such obvious positive intent. His voice even lowers. I think the intent is to subtly shift the focus of thought in such a way as to encourage a deeper understanding of what one has said. It doesn't seem to have any negative intentions.
I have a tendency to do it myself in Sunday School. And I remember it distinctly from philosophy class. Not enough to explain it correctly, or to know the name of it.
Of course, I have no earthly idea what Dr. Bob intended. Only he could say that. That's how I read it. Perhaps he was genuinely interested in the nuances of hotel management, or how hotel management could be applied to Babble.
For myself, I can see a difference between asking someone or forcing someone to leave a place of business and asking someone or forcing someone to leave a community. Especially a community designed for support. Naturally, Dr. Bob *does* effectively do it, through blocks. But blocks are imposed for actions that violate specific rules. I realize that we sometimes don't understand enforcement, but I'll bet that's mainly because we can't see inside Dr. Bob's brain. I'm sure there's an internal logic.
Thank heavens I can't quite imagine Dr. Bob asking someone to leave for any other reason. Even when he says "Babble isn't right for everyone" or "You have to do what is best for you, of course" I wince. That sounds *enough* like "Don't let the door hit you on your way out". To do even that seems like a slap across the face. To say anything more direct, especially in the absence of civility guideline violations, would seem like a rejection of the person as a whole. I honor Dr. Bob for not doing that, especially when it has a cost for him in terms of monitoring time.
Posted by Dinah on October 10, 2004, at 0:33:16
In reply to Re: I didn't read any., posted by Toph on October 9, 2004, at 23:31:38
I have no desire to argue, either.
I think I define transference more broadly and I tend to think we experience it with many people, Dr. Bob more than most because he's such a blank slate, and tends to be cryptic in his posts. So Dr. Bob says something, and we tend to interpret in a way, and ascribe motivations to him, based more on our habitual ways of viewing the world, authority figures, etc. than on his actual meaning. Because his actual meaning is usually obscure. Trying to get him to express himself in such a way that an average selection of reasonable people would interpret it the same way is such a challenge that I only undertake if the issue is very important to me. And that's probably a byproduct of the brevity of his remarks. So it leaves a lot of room for interpretation and transference.
Which is a rather academic discussion, and I really am not sure how much sense I'm making these days, so take it with a grain of salt.
Regarding non-sequitur, I thought his final comment was related to the first line in the PBC post and thus *did* have continuity. But you might not see the connection, and that's cool.
Posted by newwife on October 10, 2004, at 0:39:38
In reply to Re: I didn't read any. » Toph, posted by Dinah on October 10, 2004, at 0:33:16
maybe i am totally wrong but this is about me and i dont know why your posts are to everyone but me. also, i tried to apologize and i never got a response. it that purposly done. i still do not agree with you and i dont think you are willing to look at the other side. all i can say is i have noticed that you have had past disagreements and you should know how it feels to have your feelings hurt. i would appriciate u not refering to me in any future posts unless you post to me. thanks
Posted by Dinah on October 10, 2004, at 0:43:35
In reply to Re: I didn't read any.--dinah, posted by newwife on October 9, 2004, at 23:09:46
My posts were mainly academic rather than impassioned.
It isn't easy, but it is possible to establish a dialogue with Dr. Bob in which he could explain his meaning more clearly. If this is important to you, I think it would be worth it.
It can be difficult to learn how to apply the civilty standards and understand Dr. Bob's expectations. I realize it must have been frustrating to you to work so long and hard on a post and have Dr. Bob flag it.
I'm trying to learn not to be such a b*ttinsky and not to proffer civility interpretations, particularly unasked. It's not easy for me, as I'm a b*ttinsky by nature. :)
I'm sorry you feel hurt. And I hope that Dr. Bob can clarify at least some things to ease some of the hurt.
Posted by Dinah on October 10, 2004, at 0:51:10
In reply to Re: I didn't read any.--dinah, posted by newwife on October 10, 2004, at 0:39:38
I'm sorry. No offense was intended. It just that I am taking care of bedtime rituals in between posting. And concentration isn't my strong suit right now.
I wasn't aware that I *had* referred to you when not addressing you. I thought I had just responded to post content. But if I'm mistaken, I apologize. It was not my intent.
I didn't interpret your post as a "Do Not Post to Me" since you included "unless you post to me". If I misinterpreted, I apologize. I will try not to refer to you in future posts unless I'm posting to you, but it's a difficult thing to promise as I wasn't aware I had done so this time. I was under the impression that I was discussing ideas, not personalities.
Best wishes.
Dinah
Posted by newwife on October 10, 2004, at 0:52:13
In reply to No hard feelings » newwife, posted by Dinah on October 10, 2004, at 0:43:35
thank you for that. i can sleep easy. maybe i overeacted. i study law and i tend to speak my mind. this has never happned since i have been posting. when i beielve strongly about my thoughts and feelings and i know in my heart i meant no harm, it hurts to have it flagged like that instead of him taking to time to read through it and write me back. i gave my time and got negative feedback and nothing else. i am a strong taures that has never not spoken my mind. it toook me a long time to be able to sit count to ten and express my thought calmly. i used to not know how to do that. it goes much deeper then dr. bobs post, i actually felt like i would get positive feedback and it backfired. it was a test to me to sit down and handle a situation like my husband tells me to. i really read the home page and it said the admin site welcomes comments and concerns. it took alot for me to be a first time poster on this site. everyone else seems really close. to me i was proud of myself and my writing. i took minutes to write a sentence in fear of it being un civil. my opinions are not uncivil. dr. bob needs to understand that some people take there posts seriously and un civil describes cussing or racist comments to me. i am trying so hard to explain this. un civil can be a hurtful way of describing something that someone may take pride in. maybe there should be another way of handling these situations in the future. i am sure i am not the only one that has felt low and rejected and kinda humiliated in a tiny way. let me know what you think.--jess
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.