![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 50 to 74 of 158. Go back in thread:
Posted by twinleaf on June 5, 2009, at 5:24:45
In reply to Lou's request for elaboration- » twinleaf, posted by Lou Pilder on June 5, 2009, at 4:38:23
Lou, you have asked me so many complex questions, many of which have intricate connections to previous questions and exchanges which have taken place here, that I fear i will go into brain failure trying to respond to them.
I definitely support you in your attempt to obtain responses from the administration. You may not get the answers which you are hoping for, but you do deserve a response. If your questions are so complex as to be difficult to answer, you could try to simplify them- that would demonstrate your commitment to having meaningful communication.
Posted by twinleaf on June 5, 2009, at 5:39:01
In reply to Case closed., posted by SLS on June 5, 2009, at 5:22:24
All threads come to an end, But let's each of us end our individual participation in this one when it seems right to us.
Posted by SLS on June 5, 2009, at 5:52:12
In reply to Re: Case closed. » SLS, posted by twinleaf on June 5, 2009, at 5:39:01
> All threads come to an end, But let's each of us end our individual participation in this one when it seems right to us.
Ok. It was just an appeal. If you would like to keep it going, be my guest. Let's see how much upset we can cause each other.
Is there anything else that you would like to say this morning?
- Scott
Posted by twinleaf on June 5, 2009, at 6:40:27
In reply to Re: Case closed. » twinleaf, posted by SLS on June 5, 2009, at 5:52:12
No, I don't particularly want to keep it going. I would prefer that it have a natural end, when everyone has said what they wanted.
Contrary to what you are implying, I do not want to cause any hurt to anyone here. I never have, and never would say anything to you as provocative as, :"if you would like to keep it going, be my guest" or "is there anything else you would like to say this morning?"
The issue I have been discussing here concerns the importance of posters with differing views feeling validated and heard, and my posts had Alex and Greywolf principally in mind. I feel this is a topic which is not sufficiently respected and discussed on this forum, so I am personally glad that it has come up now. Where is the "upset" in supporting a principle which is such an important part of good mental health?
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 5, 2009, at 6:41:09
In reply to Re: Lou's request for elaboration- » Lou Pilder, posted by twinleaf on June 5, 2009, at 5:24:45
> Lou, you have asked me so many complex questions, many of which have intricate connections to previous questions and exchanges which have taken place here, that I fear i will go into brain failure trying to respond to them.
>
> I definitely support you in your attempt to obtain responses from the administration. You may not get the answers which you are hoping for, but you do deserve a response. If your questions are so complex as to be difficult to answer, you could try to simplify them- that would demonstrate your commitment to having meaningful communication.twinleaf,
You wrote,[...if your questions are so complex...you could..simplify them...]
I would be glad to offer any clarification that is asked for to those that think that clarification is needed to give a reply. However, in my requests for the adminstration to address notifications,or to reply to an email, I do not see anything in my requests that could be so complex as to prevent the administration from responding per the TOS here and if so, if they have such a concern, they could ask me for clariication. If you would like to see the requests from me to the administration that are still outstanding, you could email me if you like and then make a determination at that time after seeing them as to if any clarification is needed to respond according to the TOS here.
Lou
Posted by twinleaf on June 5, 2009, at 6:56:14
In reply to Lou's reply-ifcom » twinleaf, posted by Lou Pilder on June 5, 2009, at 6:41:09
No, Lou, I believe you. I'm sure the questions are on point. You are the best judge of that, in any event. I hope you do get answers.
Posted by SLS on June 5, 2009, at 7:08:49
In reply to Re: Case closed. » SLS, posted by twinleaf on June 5, 2009, at 6:40:27
> No, I don't particularly want to keep it going. I would prefer that it have a natural end, when everyone has said what they wanted.
This whole thing could have been avoided with one simple post in the beginning.
- Scott
Posted by gobbledygook on June 5, 2009, at 13:03:00
In reply to Re: Case closed. » SLS, posted by twinleaf on June 5, 2009, at 6:40:27
Pfinstegg/Twinleaf,
Having read most of your posts over the years, I have nothing but respect and admiration for you. You have been
a great contributor at babble...always generous with your knowledge and insights while sensitive and empathetic.
You have directly and indirectly helped me with your genuine and warm replies when I was suffering alone in darkness.
And I am and was grateful that someone like you is at babble.I know your only intention is to discuss issues and concerns to make babble a better place as you have experienced its
flaws first hand. It takes courage, and I admire you for bringing to light what and how you felt while going through a great
amount of pain - I know you would never want to cause upset or hurt to anyone the way you've been hurt here.Personally, it scared me to see someone like yourself getting "sentenced and banned" while only trying to help someone
in severe distress. You were someone who expressed care for Bob, babble and its people, and supported this site in many
ways. I remember thinking if someone as solid and stellar as you could get caught in such a rapid succession of what I felt
were punishments - in front of an audience, then I had better not speak-up, even with best of intentions, or I might suffer the
same fate. And I remember pulling back and withdrawing from babble the way I always have ever since I was a little girl - as
the message I got in my life were to always fear and distrust...that people can really hurt you even when you're trying to be
good...that the world can come crumbling down at a moment's notice. And I felt badly that I wasn't a strong enough person
to give you any kind of support at the time.This is a public forum. And you are entitled to express your views, and feel validated and heard like everyone else here. I
enjoy and learn from threads that have more than one post, and have differing views. Maybe things will change for the better, or
maybe nothing will change, but I want to give you the respect by saying I hope you express what you see and feel, and end your
participation in this thread when it seems right to you.Ava
Posted by SLS on June 5, 2009, at 17:12:17
In reply to Re: Case closed. » twinleaf, posted by SLS on June 5, 2009, at 5:52:12
> > All threads come to an end, But let's each of us end our individual participation in this one when it seems right to us.
>
> Ok. It was just an appeal. If you would like to keep it going, be my guest. Let's see how much upset we can cause each other.I do apologize that this last sentence was not clear as to who "each other" was. I had meant "each other" to mean anyone or everyone on Psych-Babble, not just Scott and Twinleaf. It was not meant to be directed at Twinleaf specifically. It really does sound that way, though.
- Scott
Posted by twinleaf on June 5, 2009, at 17:55:09
In reply to Re: Case closed., posted by SLS on June 5, 2009, at 17:12:17
Well, it WAS written to me, and it did feel rather provocative. Still, I appreciate your apology, which I certainly accept fully. Even if the thread does continue, this aspect of it can definitely be closed now.
Posted by twinleaf on June 5, 2009, at 19:04:59
In reply to When it seems right to you... » twinleaf, posted by gobbledygook on June 5, 2009, at 13:03:00
Thank you so, so much Ava. I have actually never received a post as caring, genuine and validating as yours in the six years that I've been here. It means a tremendous amount to me, because the blocks I received were so unexpected, and just seemed to come one after the other, getting longer and longer, And I did feel embarrassed, and really, sort of ashamed in front of everyone, just as you said. My analyst had begun reading in this forum, and found it hard to believe that Bob could act in such a harsh and punitive manner towards me while trying to present himself as being fair and even-handed towards everyone. My analyst was actually one of the therapists who saw a lot of potential benefit here for people who had become isolated by anxiety or depression, so he was especially distressed to see what happened to me. And he also had to stick with me in the long weeks it took for me to recover from the horrible sense of being rejected and punished that I felt. Because I know, now, how emotionally destructive blocks can be, I really want to let that fact be known here. This may or may not cause any changes or improvements, but I have noticed that blocks are used much more carefully now. I think we need a few more changes to make this site really safe and supportive for us all: ideally, no blocks at all, or failing that, short blocks of one week only. These should always be preceded by opportunities for posters to settle their own differences, which I have repeatedly seen them do just beautifully. And taking responsibility for doing it yourself is much more in keeping with the growth we are all working to achieve. There should not be any blocks for bizarre things like not being able to express political or social opinions for fear of making unknown people who hold different opinions feel put down. That just looks plain crazy to outside observers! But just to sum up the most important point, Bob should never misuse the power he has to hurt anyone in this population of people suffering from, and in recovery from, emotional illnesses. For him to do so is completely and totally unacceptable by any standard one can apply. Every time he does it, or threatens to do it, he is going to hear from me.
There's really no way to thank you for such a caring and understanding post, Ava, but THANK YOU!
Posted by SLS on June 5, 2009, at 20:33:38
In reply to Lou's request for elaboration- » twinleaf, posted by Lou Pilder on June 5, 2009, at 4:38:23
Hi Lou.
Please disregard my previous post to you requesting that you not involve yourself in the entire thread. That was insensitive of me to do that to you. It was an attempt on my part at controlling a situation. I was trying to put out a fire. I guess I should have just let it burn. It continued to anyway.
Sorry.
- Scott
Posted by Kath on June 5, 2009, at 22:11:18
In reply to Re: I love this place despite the rules, posted by alexandra_k on June 4, 2009, at 19:28:42
> > I think it's because it says, "I'm glad that you..." etc.
>
> And... I am glad. What is bad about being glad? I understand people feeling upset if they thought it was sarcastic - but it wasn't. Being glad makes it inappropriately directed or personal or hostile or impassioned?~ ~ ~
I think it's the 'you' in "glad that you" that was seen as making it 'personal'.Just copied my PS of June 4th:
"PS - when I read the May 14th post, I only 'heard' what you said being said with sincerity. Not in an attacking way."
luv, Kath
Posted by Kath on June 5, 2009, at 22:15:19
In reply to Re: Case closed?, posted by greywolf on June 5, 2009, at 0:04:28
> I just wish that my expression of positive feelings for PB hadn't been turned into a controversy when all I intended was a personal statement of appreciation.(((you))) I'm really sorry that happened.
xoxo Kath
Posted by SLS on June 6, 2009, at 3:55:48
In reply to Re: Case closed? » greywolf, posted by Kath on June 5, 2009, at 22:15:19
>
> > I just wish that my expression of positive feelings for PB hadn't been turned into a controversy when all I intended was a personal statement of appreciation.
>
> (((you))) I'm really sorry that happened.
>
> xoxo Kath\
You should be a diplomat at the U.N.:-)
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 6, 2009, at 4:26:58
In reply to Re: I love this place despite the rules » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on June 4, 2009, at 6:12:07
> > Let's see how much upset we can cause each other.
>
> I do apologize that this last sentence was not clear as to who "each other" was. I had meant "each other" to mean anyone or everyone on Psych-Babble, not just Scott and Twinleaf. It was not meant to be directed at Twinleaf specifically. It really does sound that way, though.Thanks for apologizing to Twinleaf. How about if see how much we can support each other instead?
> > Scott, did you intend ... for alex to feel accused? Could you rethink what you said?
>
> Upon further reflection, I would not change a single thing except for the way I chose to act on my thoughts and feelings.I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but are you saying you regret how you chose to act on your thoughts and feelings?
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 6, 2009, at 4:27:09
In reply to Re: I love this place despite the rules, posted by twinleaf on June 4, 2009, at 21:14:52
Hi, everyone,
Two new cases are open:
> You don't understand.
>
> alexandra_k> the ... vindictive way that Bob administers blocks
>
> twinleafHere's an opportunity for everyone to rethink what's been said. Sometimes clarifying intentions or apologizing may be in keeping with what this site is supposed to be: a forum for support, communication, friendship and information for persons suffering from, and recovering from, emotional illnesses.
Bob
Posted by SLS on June 6, 2009, at 5:18:52
In reply to Re: I love this place despite the rules » SLS, posted by Dr. Bob on June 6, 2009, at 4:26:58
Dear Dr. Bob
> > > Let's see how much upset we can cause each other.
> >
> > I do apologize that this last sentence was not clear as to who "each other" was. I had meant "each other" to mean anyone or everyone on Psych-Babble, not just Scott and Twinleaf. It was not meant to be directed at Twinleaf specifically. It really does sound that way, though.
>
> Thanks for apologizing to Twinleaf. How about if see how much we can support each other instead?
>
> > > Scott, did you intend ... for alex to feel accused? Could you rethink what you said?
> >
> > Upon further reflection, I would not change a single thing except for the way I chose to act on my thoughts and feelings.
>
> I don't mean to put words in your mouth,I do appreciate that.
> but are you saying you regret how you chose to act on your thoughts and feelings?
-----------------------------------------
I regret being ignorant of posting policies in this instance.I apologized to those people whom I feel I owe one.
Here's the thing:
I have been confused about this whole affair as it related to my act, including what I thought were civil and carefully chosen words. This represents an opportunity for you to explain explicitly what you want from us. A few years ago, it was your wish to have us work out our differences with what was tantamount to policing ourselves for infractions of civility without the immediate intervention of deputies. I do hope this jars your memory. I thought I was performing in that role. I do regret taking on this role if my memory fails me, and I don't know what else to say but to I apologize in shame, in which case I also owe an apology to Alexandra.
My response here may not satisfy the administration here. I don't mind getting a PBC for my actions. I would just like to be treated with the same protocol as you seem to have chosen to enforce your rules of civility with others, namely, giving one warning before acting to block me from posting.
I did sincerely thank Alexandra for her statements here. I do hope they were taken that way. If they were ambiguous, I certainly do apologize to anyone who interpreted them as sarcasm, including Alexandra. So far, no one has reacted that way and posted such sentiments.
"I thank you for describing specific instances when the moderation of this website has hurt people. It is very helpful to refine one's perspective on the posting policies here."
> Bob
- Scott
Posted by twinleaf on June 6, 2009, at 9:33:19
In reply to Re: Case closed?, posted by Dr. Bob on June 6, 2009, at 4:27:09
I will withdraw the word " vindicative", Do you intend to acknowledge that you blocked me twice, without notice, not for hurting anyone here, but for, in one case, asking for understanding because Happy mentioned that she had been hurt by "an e-mail". I assumed the e-mail was from a friend in her private life, and didn't even understand the reason for the block at all until one of your deputies explained to me a week later that the completely unknown person, presumably a part of Happy's private life and not a reader here, who wrote the e-mail might feel hurt by my mentioning it as a reason to treat Happy with understanding and flexibility. Where in any of this is a hint of an intent on my part to hurt anyone? In the other case, I mentioned, anonymously, a past verbal misuse of the civility guidelines, in which a poster was hurt without any consequences to the person who openly wrote that she had inflicted the hurt on purpose. I was given a three-month block because the poster who had found a way to cause harm while staying within the ciivility guidelines might happen to read my post AND FEEL HURT HERSELF! Once again, there was simply no wish to hurt anyone; that is why I made certain that the poster remained anonymous. I only wanted to point out that I felt that the civility guidelines had become so overly detailed that abuses of this kind were occurring. Even though neither instance involved a wish to hurt anyone, they were instantaneously considered to be exactly that, The blocks, too, were instantaneous, without any chance for clarification. Not that it would have mattered. it would have been impossible for me to apologize for something I didn't do. If you decline to give any validity to what I am saying, you might recall the dozens of posters who protested your actions, They, too, did not understand what I had done wrong, and also felt the blocks were very excessive.
There is another part of this. I felt publicly shamed and extremely embarrassed by what had happened to me here. I had been making a lot of progress in my therapy, and my depression and anxiety had almost disappeared. However, following this incident, both flared up again, severely, for a number of weeks. It was serious enough to require adding an additional therapy session each week. My analyst, who had been very interested in the possibilities this site offered to people isolated by emotional problems, was stunned and appalled by the harm which he saw occurring to me.
Keeping in mind what this site is, and what its purpose is, how can you possibly justify hurting one of your posters in this manner? I have withdrawn the word "vindictive" at your request; what word would you use to describe your treatment of me?
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 6, 2009, at 10:42:27
In reply to Re: Case closed? » Dr. Bob, posted by twinleaf on June 6, 2009, at 9:33:19
> I will withdraw the word " vindicative", Do you intend to acknowledge that you blocked me twice, without notice, not for hurting anyone here, but for, in one case, asking for understanding because Happy mentioned that she had been hurt by "an e-mail". I assumed the e-mail was from a friend in her private life, and didn't even understand the reason for the block at all until one of your deputies explained to me a week later that the completely unknown person, presumably a part of Happy's private life and not a reader here, who wrote the e-mail might feel hurt by my mentioning it as a reason to treat Happy with understanding and flexibility. Where in any of this is a hint of an intent on my part to hurt anyone? In the other case, I mentioned, anonymously, a past verbal misuse of the civility guidelines, in which a poster was hurt without any consequences to the person who openly wrote that she had inflicted the hurt on purpose. I was given a three-month block because the poster who had found a way to cause harm while staying within the ciivility guidelines might happen to read my post AND FEEL HURT HERSELF! Once again, there was simply no wish to hurt anyone; that is why I made certain that the poster remained anonymous. I only wanted to point out that I felt that the civility guidelines had become so overly detailed that abuses of this kind were occurring. Even though neither instance involved a wish to hurt anyone, they were instantaneously considered to be exactly that, The blocks, too, were instantaneous, without any chance for clarification. Not that it would have mattered. it would have been impossible for me to apologize for something I didn't do. If you decline to give any validity to what I am saying, you might recall the dozens of posters who protested your actions, They, too, did not understand what I had done wrong, and also felt the blocks were very excessive.
>
> There is another part of this. I felt publicly shamed and extremely embarrassed by what had happened to me here. I had been making a lot of progress in my therapy, and my depression and anxiety had almost disappeared. However, following this incident, both flared up again, severely, for a number of weeks. It was serious enough to require adding an additional therapy session each week. My analyst, who had been very interested in the possibilities this site offered to people isolated by emotional problems, was stunned and appalled by the harm which he saw occurring to me.
>
> Keeping in mind what this site is, and what its purpose is, how can you possibly justify hurting one of your posters in this manner? I have withdrawn the word "vindictive" at your request; what word would you use to describe your treatment of me?twinleaf,
You wrote,[...not hurting {anyone} here...]
The word {anyone}, has a generally accepted meaning to be {any person at all}. If you could direct me to the thread that the post in question can be seen, by posting a link that is other than the sanction itself that is also of a civil statement there, then I could have the opportunity to see the post with the sanction in question known to me and respond accordingly. Lou
Posted by alexandra_k on June 6, 2009, at 16:14:40
In reply to Re: I love this place despite the rules » SLS, posted by Dr. Bob on June 6, 2009, at 4:26:58
> > > Scott, did you intend ... for alex to feel accused? Could you rethink what you said?
> >
> > Upon further reflection, I would not change a single thing except for the way I chose to act on my thoughts and feelings.
>
> I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but are you saying you regret how you chose to act on your thoughts and feelings?Snort. Thats really just unbelievable.
Have a happy wank fest.
F*ck you.
Posted by gardenergirl on June 6, 2009, at 17:13:35
In reply to Re: Case closed? » Dr. Bob, posted by twinleaf on June 6, 2009, at 9:33:19
> In the other case, I mentioned, anonymously, a past verbal misuse of the civility guidelines, in which a poster was hurt without any consequences to the person who openly wrote that she had inflicted the hurt on purpose.
I don't think it is a big stretch to presume you are talking about me. If that's true, I am certain that nowhere did I ever say that I "inflicted the hurt on purpose." If I am mistaken about that, I am open to seeing evidence to the contrary.
> I was given a three-month block because the poster who had found a way to cause harm while staying within the ciivility guidelines
Again assuming you are talking about this post http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20081003/msgs/870267.html I beg to differ. That post of mine was not considered to be within the civility guidelines as evidenced by this response: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20081003/msgs/870270.html
> might happen to read my post AND FEEL HURT HERSELF!
No one here has cornered the market on feeling hurt. If you might feel hurt by someone's post, whether hurt was intended or not, why couldn't anyone else feel hurt by a post whether hurt was intended or not? Deputies can feel hurt. Former deputies can feel hurt. Community members can feel hurt. Someone reading a post can feel hurt. Folks who make posts which are considered to be civil can feel hurt. Folks who make a post which is not considered to be civil can feel hurt. No one owns the patent on hurt.
My post was sanctioned. I apologized to you in a subsequent post. I do indeed regret making any comment about cognitive distortion to you, and if I had a chance to do it over at this point, I would not comment on that element of the dynamics, as it is indeed something that could feel hurtful no matter what the context or intent. I consider that "case" to be "closed", though if there is something more you want or need from me in regards to that exchange, please do let me know.
Regards,
gg
Posted by Kath on June 6, 2009, at 20:18:22
In reply to Re: Case closed? » Kath, posted by SLS on June 6, 2009, at 3:55:48
> You should be a diplomat at the U.N.
>
> :-)
>
>
> - Scott:-) back
xoxo Kath
Posted by henrietta on June 6, 2009, at 20:26:25
In reply to Re: Case closed? » twinleaf, posted by gardenergirl on June 6, 2009, at 17:13:35
snort
Posted by Kath on June 6, 2009, at 21:09:37
In reply to Re: I love this place despite the rules » SLS, posted by Dr. Bob on June 6, 2009, at 4:26:58
Regarding Twinleaf's post above:
Re: Case closed? » Dr. Bob twinleaf 6/6/09
I hadn't known any details of Twinleaf's block. After reading her post above - of 6/6/09 - I am really concerned.
It's my sincere hope that you'll give some type of warm, kind, reply to Twinleaf. Recently, you posted & made a comment which showed that you were compassionately aware of someone's battle with alcohol. I was really happy to read that...I felt a warmth to that post.
I'd love it if you could go into the place where you were when you posted that post, & reply to Twinleaf.....even briefly.
I'm going to be vulnerable here.....(VERY) - I don't even CARE that you or anyone else might think I'm stupid or whatEVER. Here goes - my 'inner child' (who sometimes pops up hugely) would feel way more 'safe' emotionally here, if you find it in yourself to do that.
Here's hoping.
One very vulnerable Kath
:-)
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.