![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 119 to 143 of 275. Go back in thread:
Posted by NikkiT2 on June 2, 2006, at 13:25:58
In reply to Re: How about changing the » NikkiT2, posted by zazenduck on June 2, 2006, at 10:05:41
Oh, and..
>And it's not fair just to protest when it's affecting someone you care about.
I don't do that do I? I thought myself pretty onjective..
Nikki
Posted by curtm on June 2, 2006, at 14:14:25
In reply to Re: How about changing the » zazenduck, posted by NikkiT2 on June 2, 2006, at 13:25:58
IDGAF anymore.
I shall post no more to this thread.
(crowd cheers, throws confetti)
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 2, 2006, at 14:58:06
In reply to Re: I-statements » Larry Hoover, posted by Tabitha on June 2, 2006, at 12:16:44
> > I'm weeping as I type this, but Tabs, for some people, Babble is the first family they *ever* had. The stakes are not as you define them.
> >
>
> Lar, I'm sorry.Thank you.
> Dr Bob's admin style is not good parenting.
Precisely why I am so upset by his behaviour. If he's going to try and emulate concepts like the Golden Rule, then I expect him to match those concepts. Not his version of them, biased and distorted, and worst of all, intermittent.
Those are civil descriptors, by the way, but I will rephrase or retract if directed to do so.
> The best you can get here is peer support.
That's the family part. If he would only leave me alone to do it. Guidance, instead of blocking. Then, he would be parenting.
I would never mind being blocked, if I expected it. If I knew I had done something wrong. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I do not believe I have deserved a single block I have ever received, except one. And that one, he reversed. I didn't want him to reverse it. He did that on his own (breaking another precedent).
According to the precedent of how the site works, I guess I received what was my due. The fact that people can become expert at it (Bobjectivity) is irrelevent, though. If only the FAQ had given me fair warning, I'd never have been blocked. The rules should protect the novice as well as the expert. If they don't, there's something wrong with the rules, and/or how they are applied. Civility 101.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 2, 2006, at 14:59:33
In reply to D.N.P/D.NB Lar. » Larry Hoover, posted by Gabbi~G on June 2, 2006, at 13:07:24
I need a memory transplant.
Somebody else does not need a compassion transplant, however.
Lar
Posted by henrietta on June 2, 2006, at 15:16:53
In reply to Re: How about changing the..dr bob » henrietta, posted by NikkiT2 on June 2, 2006, at 13:00:08
Yes, I realize you were using examples of uncivil statements, I'd just have been more comfortable if you'd left out the personal one.
However, to me your example statements were fundamentally different from the statement under discussion. Saying "I believe the world would be better off without (insert concept or institution)" is very different from saying "I believe the world would be better off without (insert people, groups of people)".
Posted by zazenduck on June 2, 2006, at 16:45:01
In reply to Re: How about changing the » zazenduck, posted by NikkiT2 on June 2, 2006, at 13:25:58
No I didn't mean to direct that at anyone . I was just stating my general opinion. Sorry if it was confusing. Thanks for answering my post.
> Oh, and..
>
> >And it's not fair just to protest when it's affecting someone you care about.
>
> I don't do that do I? I thought myself pretty onjective..
>
> Nikki
Posted by AuntieMel on June 2, 2006, at 17:08:04
In reply to Re: I-statements » gardenergirl, posted by Larry Hoover on June 1, 2006, at 11:38:09
My first reaction to the block was - huh?
And I still think she was trying very, very hard not to offend anyone.
But - when I first saw it I was using my own filters, and what my head *heard* was
"The world would be a better place if not for the evil done in the name of religion"
Maybe that is what she meant, maybe not, but it's what my own particular filters interpreted it to be. And I - maybe wrongly - don't see how anyone could disagree with *that* statement.
But - I've gotten email from people who said basically what Nikki did - what if something was put in the place of 'religion' in the sentance.
I can see how that could offend some people.
BUT - she really didn't mean to offend, so I don't agree with the block.
BUT - rules is rules. And even if they aren't applied evenly, I have to applaud the effort to apply them evenly. And I really do believe that those there have the intention of fairnes.
BUT .....
Well, the last BUT is
BUT I really love Estella, and I really feel for her. She's had some rough times and what I *really* want to do is take her in and provide for her and spoil her and teach her the world can be kind and so can the people in it, and sometimes there really isn't an agenda and it's ok to relax.
and so - the head spins.
Posted by henrietta on June 2, 2006, at 18:53:18
In reply to My head is spinning...., posted by AuntieMel on June 2, 2006, at 17:08:04
A lovely post. Me, too.
Posted by henrietta on June 2, 2006, at 18:58:16
In reply to My head is spinning...., posted by AuntieMel on June 2, 2006, at 17:08:04
without:
poverty
injustice
child abuse
AIDS
violence
pollution
hunger
prejudice
imbalances of power
hurricanes
and that's just off the top of my head
Posted by Deneb on June 2, 2006, at 19:24:02
In reply to I think the world would be better off, posted by henrietta on June 2, 2006, at 18:58:16
When you blocked her, I think you should have included that bit about getting help in person if in crisis because I think blocks can precipitate a crisis, I really do.
Blocks hurt her. I don't think we should all assume that she's okay. Sure, we would all like to think that she's okay, but that's just to comfort ourselves. If I were her and I were devastated by my block, I would feel better knowing that people know that I'm hurting and hope that I feel better.
She can't communicate her hurt right now. I think she would feel less alone if people write to her and wish her well.
Deneb*
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 2, 2006, at 20:55:17
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, I'm worried about Estella, posted by Deneb on June 2, 2006, at 19:24:02
> She can't communicate her hurt right now. I think she would feel less alone if people write to her and wish her well.
>
> Deneb*Since you've brought it up, can anyone tell me the rationale for blocking babblemail, along with public posting, during a block?
Lar
Posted by Deneb on June 2, 2006, at 21:41:37
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, I'm worried about Estella » Deneb, posted by Larry Hoover on June 2, 2006, at 20:55:17
> Since you've brought it up, can anyone tell me the rationale for blocking babblemail, along with public posting, during a block?
>
> LarYeah, Dr. Bob, what is the rationale for blocking Babblemail? Is it to punish the person more? To isolate them?
What's the harm in Babblemailing someone who is blocked? I think Babblemail should only be blocked if the person abused Babblemail.
Do you block Babblemail because you cannot separate blocking Babblemail from blocking posting?
Deneb*
Posted by Jakeman on June 2, 2006, at 21:43:09
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, I'm worried about Estella » Deneb, posted by Larry Hoover on June 2, 2006, at 20:55:17
I do not see any rationale. Maybe the cyber version of solitary confinement?
warm regards, Jake
>
> Since you've brought it up, can anyone tell me the rationale for blocking babblemail, along with public posting, during a block?
>
> Lar
>
>
Posted by Tabitha on June 3, 2006, at 2:51:10
In reply to Re: I-statements » Tabitha, posted by Gabbi~G on June 2, 2006, at 12:51:40
>
> I don't think we all have the same choices, or can decide whether or not it's simple for someone to leave a support group or not, especially when mental illness is involved.I didn't mean to imply that it's simple. Far from it.
Posted by 10derHeart on June 3, 2006, at 9:36:08
In reply to Re: guiding principles » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on June 2, 2006, at 9:53:55
> I really don't want to argue the point anymore, not least because I don't wish to hurt Estella.
Exactly why I can hardly bring myself to post on this. It must be a million times past any frustration I can imagine to read things, all about you, and not be able to answer/explain... I was the only poster who remarked on the thread that I felt a little put down. She was ready to elaborate (and did), and we could have chosen to discuss it on/off boards, but then came the attempted rephrase and block.....:-(
>
> But I will say that Estella has many people here who care about her, and would be more than willing to review posts she's concerned about.Me, me, me.
>Myself included. I may not always understand how Dr. Bob will read something, but I understood that one, and could have helped prevent a block.<<
Me, too. I regret very much that events unfolded in the order they did. Just to clarify, I'm not blaming myself for her block - that wouldn't make sense at all - the PR came before I ever said anything anyway.....but in this case, I knew how it sounded *to me* as a religious person....the *ouch* fator, if you will, upon first reading it, and I think I could have helped. Or at least I would have tried my best...
Posted by 10derHeart on June 3, 2006, at 9:41:37
In reply to Re: I-statements » Larry Hoover, posted by Tabitha on June 2, 2006, at 12:16:44
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 3, 2006, at 9:52:37
In reply to Re: guiding principles » Dinah, posted by 10derHeart on June 3, 2006, at 9:36:08
> Me, too. I regret very much that events unfolded in the order they did. Just to clarify, I'm not blaming myself for her block - that wouldn't make sense at all - the PR came before I ever said anything anyway.....but in this case, I knew how it sounded *to me* as a religious person....the *ouch* fator, if you will, upon first reading it, and I think I could have helped.
Here's the deal, as I see it. You were triggered.
There are civil comments, posted to these boards, that trigger me severely. PTSD is a hyper-sensitization disorder. That's my whole life. I live inside its boundaries.
Just as I do not seek any repercussions on someone who has triggered me, I do not feel that Estella is responsible for your perhaps natural emotional response.
Other events in your life promoted your triggered sense. Not her. She spoke only of a hypothetical philosophical construct, the entity or domain of religion.
Other people and other arguments have come in your life, and you were remembering those.
Her words were civil.
Lar
Posted by 10derHeart on June 3, 2006, at 9:56:02
In reply to Re: guiding principles » 10derHeart, posted by Larry Hoover on June 3, 2006, at 9:52:37
Lar,
I know what you're saying, yet I disagree with you in this case.
But I can't elaborate any more. Not here, not now.
Sorry.
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 3, 2006, at 10:18:29
In reply to Re: guiding principles » Larry Hoover, posted by 10derHeart on June 3, 2006, at 9:56:02
> Lar,
>
> I know what you're saying, yet I disagree with you in this case.
>
> But I can't elaborate any more. Not here, not now.
>
> Sorry.Of course. I raise only ideas. It is hard, to discuss this. I really do know that, intimately.
What I think I see, is evidence of a religious trigger theme.
Which fairly captures what she was saying, ironically enough.
I'm struggling to throw words around an experience that transcends language.
I do not wish to define another person's experience. I'm trying to tease out the essence of an issue that touches us all.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 3, 2006, at 11:57:55
In reply to Re: guiding principles » 10derHeart, posted by Larry Hoover on June 3, 2006, at 10:18:29
I cannot speak of it, here.
Some religious teachings have it that there is no world without.....
Uhhh
It is not her fault that there are these teachings where to consider the thought she considered is forbidden.
Yet, those same teachings hold that one has until one's death, to find......
You see, I can't.
The rule thought to be violated here is not universal.
In that she had the thought, and stated her preference.
Others may hold other preferences, absent any further consideration of implied anything.
Nothing was implied by what she said.
Unless it is a sin to merely imagine what she said.
But the sense of sin is taught by...
You see?
<sigh>
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 3, 2006, at 13:58:56
In reply to Re: guiding principles, posted by Larry Hoover on June 3, 2006, at 11:57:55
Was Estella blocked, for being an atheist in a Judeo-Christian?? Babble?
No, is an insufficient answer.
Posted by Gabbi~G on June 3, 2006, at 15:23:14
In reply to Re: guiding principles, posted by Larry Hoover on June 3, 2006, at 13:58:56
Are sophistry and overwrought prose uncivil?
Can they be?
Posted by Gabbi~G on June 3, 2006, at 15:50:06
In reply to Re: guiding principles, posted by Gabbi~G on June 3, 2006, at 15:23:14
inexcusably rude. sorry.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 3, 2006, at 22:43:31
In reply to How about changing the, posted by NikkiT2 on June 2, 2006, at 2:51:12
> "I think the world would be a better place without Estella"
hmm.
well i prefer to be free from nikki, or nikki free.
note that that is a statement about me.> Yes, I realise that my post was "un-civil". I decided that I wished to say what I did, and will accept any punishment that comes my way.
hmm.
you decided it was worth a blocking to hurt me.hope you proved your point.
given that performance i think the boards would be better off without nikki. you know, hypothetically and all.
woo hoo 12 weeks bring it on!!!!!!!
Posted by Dinah on June 3, 2006, at 22:51:46
In reply to Re: How about changing the » NikkiT2, posted by alexandra_k on June 3, 2006, at 22:43:31
> hmm.
> well i prefer to be free from nikki, or nikki free.Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. Please be sensitive to their feelings even if yours are hurt.
You've been asked to be civil before, so I'm afraid I'm going to have to block you from posting.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Dinah, acting as deputy for Dr. Bob
Dr. Bob is always free to override deputy decisions. His email is on the bottom of each page. Please feel free to email him if you believe this decision was made in error.
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.