![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 57 to 81 of 158. Go back in thread:
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
:-)
Posted by Kath on June 6, 2009, at 21:27:31
In reply to Re: Case closed? » Dr. Bob, posted by twinleaf on June 6, 2009, at 9:33:19
I'd like to add this to my post above:
In this case, I'm talking about a response to Twinleaf's post.
I think it would be so wonderful if there'd be a kind response to ANYone who was open about feeling hurt as a result of being blocked, etc.
I guess, to me, it would help people to feel cared about & valued.
Thx, Kath
Posted by Kath on June 6, 2009, at 21:39:40
In reply to Re: Case closed? » gardenergirl, posted by henrietta on June 6, 2009, at 20:26:25
I had been remembering commenting before about something....I had wanted to bring it up again as a result of how things have gone in this thread. I searched & found it. Here it is:
In reply to Re: what power we have, posted by Dr. Bob on April 29, 2009, at 9:13:57
">... to encourage them to apologize, and to suggest they not address those they can't get along with. You have the power to help them avoid being blocked.
~ ~ ~ I wonder about this. I can't imagine how to encourage someone to apologize, etc, except in a Babblemail...because if we have a problem with a post, we're supposed to do the "notify administration" aren't we? But I guess a kind, polite, caring Babblemail would do the trick.
Kath"
~ ~ ~ I think that it is really hard to do this type of thing. There's the HUGE potential that in saying something to a fellow-poster, we'll inadvertently upset, insult, hurt them!!! It's not always easy to say clearly what we mean, I think.
For me, I think it will feel MUCH safer to use the "Notify Admin" option, rather than take a chance of saying the 'wrong' thing & taking the lid off a veritable beehive, ending up with a lot of VERY **ssed-off & upset bees!!! & possibly getting stung myself!
Kath
Posted by gardenergirl on June 6, 2009, at 22:16:18
In reply to Re: Case closed? » gardenergirl, posted by henrietta on June 6, 2009, at 20:26:25
Posted by SLS on June 6, 2009, at 23:02:13
In reply to It can be tricky............, posted by Kath on June 6, 2009, at 21:39:40
I am doing my best to avoid replying to a recent post that I find arousing. What good would it do at this juncture to point any one finger at the author? Besides, I get the feeling that any commentary on someone else's behavior cannot be judged as anything but uncivil... unless, of course, the comments are flattering. That will have to be okay with me if I am to continue to post here. I have no choice in the matter.
It it still very tempting to add commentary right at this very moment. For example...
No! Bad Scott! Bad!
- Scott
Posted by greywolf on June 7, 2009, at 0:17:32
In reply to It can be tricky...., posted by SLS on June 6, 2009, at 23:02:13
I guess I am somewhat confused. Why is posting without offending other people so tricky? I've posted here for years and probably have hundreds of posts out there, and I don't think I've even received a PBC.
I'm not lauding myself for some accomplishment, I'm just honestly scratching my head at why posting appropriately is apparently so difficult. Admittedly, I tend to post on the Medications page, and I would guess that that page probably generates fewer conversations that could become problematic. But when I do see a discussion thread start to turn into an argument or I receive a post with comments that are impolite, my partipation usually ends because the chances of something positive developing are clearly diminishing.
That's part of the reason for my first post in this thread. I don't think the civility rules are that hard to comply with. I may not agree with them or with particular enforcement actions, but it's not my site, so it's not my place to interfere. And before anyone accuses me of not having experienced a Babbler I like being banned, believe me, it's happened. And I think the deputies can confirm that occasionally I have tried to offer constructive solutions to certain situations.
So, I return to my original remark: I love this place despite the rules. And I love the people in it, including everyone--everyone--in this thread regardless of anything that has been said in it.
Greywolf
Posted by SLS on June 7, 2009, at 3:33:24
In reply to Re: It can be tricky...., posted by greywolf on June 7, 2009, at 0:17:32
> I guess I am somewhat confused. Why is posting without offending other people so tricky? I've posted here for years and probably have hundreds of posts out there, and I don't think I've even received a PBC.
>
> I'm not lauding myself for some accomplishment, I'm just honestly scratching my head at why posting appropriately is apparently so difficult. Admittedly, I tend to post on the Medications page, and I would guess that that page probably generates fewer conversations that could become problematic. But when I do see a discussion thread start to turn into an argument or I receive a post with comments that are impolite, my partipation usually ends because the chances of something positive developing are clearly diminishing.
>
> That's part of the reason for my first post in this thread. I don't think the civility rules are that hard to comply with. I may not agree with them or with particular enforcement actions, but it's not my site, so it's not my place to interfere. And before anyone accuses me of not having experienced a Babbler I like being banned, believe me, it's happened. And I think the deputies can confirm that occasionally I have tried to offer constructive solutions to certain situations.
>
> So, I return to my original remark: I love this place despite the rules. And I love the people in it, including everyone--everyone--in this thread regardless of anything that has been said in it.
>
> Greywolf
Good words. Sincere and positive and constructive.I am currently having a very difficult time not sharing my thoughts and feelings with people here along this thread because I know they would be judged uncivil. It is almost worth a posting block to be able to do so. I guess you could say that most of this impulse represents a personal problem. However, much of it also represents administration issues. It would include what the rules of civility on this site define as accusations: postulation of cause and effect, theory of mind, evaluations of wants and desires, gauging justice, judging intentions and motivations,and a whole bunch of other stuff. It would be so cool to debate and argue without any limitations, right?
I would love to play in this sandbox. We could have pretend rodeos or ultimate fighting. Alas, it was taken away from me long ago. The guidelines of civility have grown on me, however. My weakness in evaluating the system here lies in not fully understanding the desirability of the punitive protocol as it currently exists.
I can hear it now...
Scott has no empathy. He displays no sensitivity to how PB has ruined people's lives.
If you play in the sandbox, you will get dirty. If you can tolerate the dirt, then there is no injury.
If you keep playing in the sandbox, understanding that you will get dirty while being intolerant and abhorring of dirt, then there is injury.
Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results."
Do you know what screws up this entire allegory? Vulnerability. The vulnerability to injury of the psyche that comes with mental illness. I believe it is this vulnerability that Dr. Robert Hysiung may have taken this into consideration when he developed his policies and protocols of communicating using his concept and design of civility. If it so happened that he had not figured this vulnerability into his civility rules, then we are the beneficiaries of serendipity.
Crap. Where's the drama in that? I'm sure some will follow. Perish the thought.
I admire very greatly Greywolf and his honest and effortless civil communication. For me, to say what I would like to say, I sometimes have to choreograph a clever dance around civility. Civil is civil, regardless of intentions. Uncivil is uncivil, regardless of intentions. It is not the motivation that is to be judged, but, rather, the action. "I was angry. I kicked the dog with my sharpest boots, but I didn't intend to hurt him." That's all. No formal apology to the owner or the traumatized dog. How does the dog know that it was kicked? It hurt. Yet, here, no one can alert the angry party to their actions without it being considered uncivil, no matter how well-worded and benign the commentary may be. So, now, I guess I must learn to direct my commentary to the administration using the notification option.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 7, 2009, at 8:40:30
In reply to Re: I love this place despite the rules » SLS, posted by Dr. Bob on June 6, 2009, at 4:26:58
> > > 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?
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...are you saying...] to Scott.
You have posted that a member was to please be civil because the member posted "are you saying" to another member. You posted that the use of that phrase was uncivil because you posted that the phrase implies that the other member means what is the subject of what the other member asks as to if they are saying that. This is posted here on March 25, 2007.
Now I am unsure then why you have posted,[...are you saying...] here to Scott. Using your reasoning, then could it not be interpreted that you are implying that Scott means such as to what follows from the use of the phrase,[...are you saying...]?
Then reading the statement to Scott, one could think, according to your posting on March 27, 2007 about the use of [...are you saying...], that there is the potential IMO that there in an implication that Scott means what you posted.
Even if Scott did mean such, I am unsure as to why you posted such to him here. If you could elaborate with clarification concerning why you posted such to him here, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou Pilder
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.