![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 26 to 50 of 275. Go back in thread:
Posted by curtm on May 23, 2006, at 14:26:13
In reply to Re: This thread - argh. » ClearSkies, posted by Declan on May 23, 2006, at 13:41:23
On second thought, if we didn't have religion or politics, we wouldn't have ANYONE to point the finger at!
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2006, at 23:24:10
In reply to Re: administrative inconsistency, posted by Dr. Bob on May 23, 2006, at 0:39:10
Aw heck. I was hoping to get you to do the work. :)
I've got a deadline I have to manage first, and by the time I have time to parse each post, it'll be way too late I'm sure. But I'll give it a shot as soon as I can anyway.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 24, 2006, at 7:21:26
In reply to Re: administrative inconsistency » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2006, at 23:24:10
Posted by AuntieMel on May 24, 2006, at 15:01:02
In reply to Re: thanks (nm) » Dinah, posted by Dr. Bob on May 24, 2006, at 7:21:26
It seems that she was making it perfectly clear that it was her own opinions she was stating.
It sure didn't seem that she was disrespectful of others.
Posted by sleepygirl on May 24, 2006, at 18:48:34
In reply to Re: blocked for 4 weeks, posted by teejay on May 21, 2006, at 18:34:13
that was clearly an opinion, phrased in quite respectful terms
....and as someone else who believes that the world might be a better place without religion-particularly certain aspects of it, this concerns me.
Many people here espouse their religious views as that which might make the world a better place, do we have no room for disagreement?Yeah...that's right! It's my catholic school transference in high gear...and it's all good!
Free Estella!!!!
Posted by teejay on May 24, 2006, at 21:11:24
In reply to Re: thanks (nm) » Dinah, posted by Dr. Bob on May 24, 2006, at 7:21:26
It appears everyone thinks you made an error of judgement blocking estelle over this issue.
How about bowing to democracy? ;-)
TJ
Posted by Damos on May 24, 2006, at 21:35:31
In reply to Re: I don't get it » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on May 24, 2006, at 15:01:02
> It seems that she was making it perfectly clear that it was her own opinions she was stating.
>
> It sure didn't seem that she was disrespectful of others.Couldn't agree more. And that a 4 week block regardless of how it is calculated is considered just and reasonable simply beggars belief.
Posted by Jakeman on May 26, 2006, at 22:21:29
In reply to Re: I don't get it - me either :-( » AuntieMel, posted by Damos on May 24, 2006, at 21:35:31
Dr. Bob:
I realize you have a very difficult job here moderating these boards. Frankly I don't know how you do it along with being a professor. Never mind about that though. In a since, we've had an on-line trial of the accused and most have found her innocent. Do you ever reverse your decesion? For better or worse you are the the final judge in this cyber-community.
warm regards, Jake
Posted by zazenduck on May 27, 2006, at 9:55:18
In reply to Just wondering Dr. Bob, do you have a response?, posted by Jakeman on May 26, 2006, at 22:21:29
"clearly didn't understand PBC and made effort to reply: no"
Drbob I believe you have made an error in this part of your special circumstances. Estella made a very long post trying to reply to your PBC. She tried to make things right with the person who said she was offended. She tried to rephrase and went to some lengths to explain her rephrase.
I think if she had understood your PBC she would have rephrased it to your satisfaction or withdrawn her statement don't you? I predicted your PBC based on past precedent but I don't understand why you object to the rephrase. I don't think anyone else does either. Wouldn't it be fairer to explain clearly what you want before you block someone for 4 weeks?
I hope you take steps to correct this.
Posted by muffled on May 27, 2006, at 18:43:28
In reply to I think you made an error Dr Bob, posted by zazenduck on May 27, 2006, at 9:55:18
Posted by teejay on May 27, 2006, at 20:35:48
In reply to Just wondering Dr. Bob, do you have a response?, posted by Jakeman on May 26, 2006, at 22:21:29
Hiya Jakeman,
I'm left wondering, if Dr Bob was being ignored in this manner by another company or organisation how he would feel? Dr Bob speaks of people 'feeling put down' by things we say but neglects to appreciate that saying nothing can be as much as a put down as saying something unwelcome.
TJ
Posted by Jakeman on May 27, 2006, at 22:37:55
In reply to Re: Just wondering Dr. Bob, do you have a response, posted by teejay on May 27, 2006, at 20:35:48
Hi TJ,
Yes you make a good point. There are many ways to hurt people and be uncivil. Being ignored is one of those.
warm regards, Jake
> Hiya Jakeman,
>
>
Posted by Deneb on May 27, 2006, at 23:48:17
In reply to Re: Just wondering Dr. Bob, do you have a response, posted by Jakeman on May 27, 2006, at 22:37:55
Maybe Dr. Bob needs to ignore us sometimes because he will go insane otherwise.
Maybe Dr. Bob doesn't care as much as we do about certain things.
Maybe Dr. Bob ignores us until we shut-up and forget about the problem.
Maybe Dr. Bob doesn't have the time or desire to consider reversing his decisions.
Maybe Dr. Bob needs to be right the first time every time.
Maybe Dr. Bob tries the best that he can do, but it is still never enough.
I think Dr. Bob cares, but he ignores us sometimes. Maybe he has his reasons. I suspect it's so he doesn't go insane, but that's just me.
Deneb*
Posted by greywolf on May 28, 2006, at 18:43:32
In reply to Re: Just wondering Dr. Bob, do you have a response, posted by Deneb on May 27, 2006, at 23:48:17
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 29, 2006, at 11:48:17
In reply to Maybe he's busy (nm) » Deneb, posted by greywolf on May 28, 2006, at 18:43:32
That is so very tolerant of you.
It would be nice, to simply know what aspects of the post warranted a block.
It seems like a simple question.
It seems like something that ought to have a salient answer. The decision was made. The why part ought to be salient.
Meanwhile, while this delay goes on, non-trivial effects are occurring. She is still blocked. Her sentence was not suspended, pending re-examination.
The decision to not reply to these questions is indeed a decision. It is not the absence of a decision, at all.
Bob has chosen to silently persist in this.
I do not wish to absolve him.
Lar
Posted by greywolf on May 29, 2006, at 22:31:55
In reply to Re: Maybe he's busy » greywolf, posted by Larry Hoover on May 29, 2006, at 11:48:17
> That is so very tolerant of you.
>
> It would be nice, to simply know what aspects of the post warranted a block.
>
> Lar
My post wasn't a defense or a challenge. It was simply an observation.
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 29, 2006, at 22:42:56
In reply to Re: Maybe he's busy, posted by greywolf on May 29, 2006, at 22:31:55
> > That is so very tolerant of you.
> >
> > It would be nice, to simply know what aspects of the post warranted a block.
> >
> > Lar
>
>
> My post wasn't a defense or a challenge. It was simply an observation.I know. I'm sorry if that comment seemed in any way to be critical. I have trouble being as you are, or seem to be. There is hurt in the silence, to me. It saddens me. It is not a positive thing, in any respect. To have no comment whatsoever, I mean, in all this time....when he has clearly been on the board in the meantime.
You give a sense of detachment that I cannot achieve. I just can't. I felt I was demeaning my own state, rather than being critical of yours. I guess that isn't what it looked like, though. I'm sorry.
Lar
Posted by greywolf on May 30, 2006, at 7:08:42
In reply to Re: Maybe he's busy » greywolf, posted by Larry Hoover on May 29, 2006, at 22:42:56
No problem, Lar. I understand.
It's not that this site isn't important to me. It is a great place with great people.
I just see it a little differently, I guess. I don't feel any ownership of PsychoBabble. It's Dr. Bob's site, his rules, his decisions. I have too many problems in my life to take blocks very seriously.
But I don't mean to suggest that others should not take them seriously. It's all in what we value individually, and I do see an occasional disconnect between the policy and its application.
Posted by Gabbi~G on May 30, 2006, at 18:50:13
In reply to Re: Maybe he's busy » Larry Hoover, posted by greywolf on May 30, 2006, at 7:08:42
pulling the wings off of flies?
I don't think since Zen was blocked for 24 (or more) weeks for saying sh*t have I ever been so revolted by a decision.
Estella had recently stated how hurt she'd been by her previous blocks.. and was obviously trying to follow the rules. I still can't see how they were flouted. It was a gentle and polite statement of her beliefs.
This makes me sick
Dr. Bob, you should know better.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 31, 2006, at 2:26:28
In reply to I think you made an error Dr Bob, posted by zazenduck on May 27, 2006, at 9:55:18
> > clearly didn't understand PBC and made effort to reply: no
>
> I believe you have made an error in this partFair enough, I shouldn't have said "no". Still, this is an issue that's come up before.
> Wouldn't it be fairer to explain clearly what you want before you block someone for 4 weeks?
I know it's not always easy to use I-statements, but in this case, one possibility might have been something like:
> > i prefer to be free from religious influences...
I'm sorry she's blocked again, too,
Bob
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 31, 2006, at 8:04:56
In reply to Re: I-statements, posted by Dr. Bob on May 31, 2006, at 2:26:28
> > > clearly didn't understand PBC and made effort to reply: no
> >
> > I believe you have made an error in this part
>
> Fair enough, I shouldn't have said "no". Still, this is an issue that's come up before.
>
> > Wouldn't it be fairer to explain clearly what you want before you block someone for 4 weeks?
>
> I know it's not always easy to use I-statements, but in this case, one possibility might have been something like:
>
> > > i prefer to be free from religious influences...
>
> I'm sorry she's blocked again, too,
>
> BobThe I statement she used had broader scope than that. You have changed the meaning.
She thought all of us might be better off without it, as then we too would know a freedom of thought. That is not a bad thing to wish for people, to wish them a chance to know something they cannot now know. To wish them a chance to be naive.
I pray that if I have crossed one of your lines, Bob, you give *me* a chance to rephrase myself.
Lar
Posted by curtm on May 31, 2006, at 9:54:59
In reply to Re: I-statements » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on May 31, 2006, at 8:04:56
Posted by teejay on May 31, 2006, at 10:18:56
In reply to ***Resistence is Futile!*** (nm), posted by curtm on May 31, 2006, at 9:54:59
The borg are more forgiving too ;-))))))))
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 31, 2006, at 11:08:55
In reply to Re: I-statements » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on May 31, 2006, at 8:04:56
> The I statement she used had broader scope than that. You have changed the meaning.
Right, that's the idea, to state something about oneself rather than about others.
> She thought all of us might be better off without it, as then we too would know a freedom of thought. That is not a bad thing to wish for people, to wish them a chance to know something they cannot now know. To wish them a chance to be naive.
But is that something they wish for themselves?
Bob
Posted by curtm on May 31, 2006, at 11:31:54
In reply to Re: I-statements, posted by Dr. Bob on May 31, 2006, at 11:08:55
>> She thought all of us might be better off without it, as then we too would know a freedom of thought. That is not a bad thing to wish for people, to wish them a chance to know something they cannot now know. To wish them a chance to be naive.
Exactly. If I said "I think you would be better off wishing for a bicycle when you blow the candles out on your birthday cake," does that really mean that you really would be or is it just my opinion. I am just trying to help you consider alternatives that you might not, from my perspective, have contemplated.
>But is that something they wish for themselves?
That doesn't change that.
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.