![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 75 to 99 of 158. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by SLS on June 7, 2009, at 11:50:15
In reply to Lou's request-ru?, posted by Lou Pilder on June 7, 2009, at 8:40:30
> > > > 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
>
> Mr. 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 PilderDear Lou,
For reasons I don't fully understand, you easily have a majority of people who endear themselves to you, even me, despite our conflicts. I must say, though, with sadness, that I have an extremely difficult time processing your posts because your writing style is so foreign to me, and for some reason, is inconsistent with the way my poor little brain works. I might be the only person in the world with this problem, but I will work on it.
Perhaps the doctor was requesting a clarification of my statements as he might not have understood precisely what I had meant to say. I hope my responses achieved his goal.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 7, 2009, at 14:38:06
In reply to Re: Lou's request-ru?, posted by SLS on June 7, 2009, at 11:50:15
> > > > > 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
> >
> > Mr. 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
>
> Dear Lou,
>
> For reasons I don't fully understand, you easily have a majority of people who endear themselves to you, even me, despite our conflicts. I must say, though, with sadness, that I have an extremely difficult time processing your posts because your writing style is so foreign to me, and for some reason, is inconsistent with the way my poor little brain works. I might be the only person in the world with this problem, but I will work on it.
>
> Perhaps the doctor was requesting a clarification of my statements as he might not have understood precisely what I had meant to say. I hope my responses achieved his goal.
>
>
> - ScottScott,
You wrote,[...for reasons I don't understand...a difficult time...].
Here is a link to a post that I would like for you to read and the other posts in that thread. I think that the difficulty could be made less if we examine some threads concerning unresolved issues involving outstanding requests that if those were responded to in relation to the TOS here IMO I could have the opportunity to perhaps make the difficulty less.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/774900.html
Posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2009, at 16:43:56
In reply to Re: Lou's request-ru?, posted by SLS on June 7, 2009, at 11:50:15
> > > > > 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
Seems to me that the issue is that you said my post 'seemed attacking' which is, well, a rather accusatory / judgemental thing to say. Dr Bob gave you the opportunity to rephrase in order to avoid a blocking. You didn't rephrase, you declined to do so. In the above statement Bob is going out of his way to interpret what you did say (in declining to rephrase) as if not an apology, your saying that you regreted your actions.You really don't have any idea, do you.
The admin axe is a-swinging.
Kinda ironic given this thread and all.
Don't worry SLS you won't get blocked. Would be a little too ironic if you were.
I used to feel like greywolf. Until I saw muffled get one week for 'f*rt' without an asterisk and so on and so forth. Hard to know what is up with one being super-stoked with the blocking thing here. Either one doesn't get around one hell of a lot (the archives are put off on one side these days tis true) or... Well... Hard to say. I used to work really hard to justify Bob's decisions such that they seeemed understandable. Worked for a time. Maybe things have changed here... Maybe they haven't.
All I know is that my time here was too long ago. People know me as a troll now and don't know or care why. You turned me into a troll Bob. Well done. But really... What are you going to do with SLS? Is it that he is uncapable of understanding why and how he hurt me or is it that he gets a by. why? oh well, because it is me. not so terribly supportive these days, huh.
gee i wonder why.
Posted by SLS on June 7, 2009, at 18:48:35
In reply to Re: Lou's request-ru?, posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2009, at 16:43:56
Too ironic, really.
YOU don't get it.
Why don't you just apologize to Greywolf and be done with it.
Geez.
- Scott
> > > > > > 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
>
>
> Seems to me that the issue is that you said my post 'seemed attacking' which is, well, a rather accusatory / judgemental thing to say. Dr Bob gave you the opportunity to rephrase in order to avoid a blocking. You didn't rephrase, you declined to do so. In the above statement Bob is going out of his way to interpret what you did say (in declining to rephrase) as if not an apology, your saying that you regreted your actions.
>
> You really don't have any idea, do you.
>
> The admin axe is a-swinging.
>
> Kinda ironic given this thread and all.
>
> Don't worry SLS you won't get blocked. Would be a little too ironic if you were.
>
> I used to feel like greywolf. Until I saw muffled get one week for 'f*rt' without an asterisk and so on and so forth. Hard to know what is up with one being super-stoked with the blocking thing here. Either one doesn't get around one hell of a lot (the archives are put off on one side these days tis true) or... Well... Hard to say. I used to work really hard to justify Bob's decisions such that they seeemed understandable. Worked for a time. Maybe things have changed here... Maybe they haven't.
>
> All I know is that my time here was too long ago. People know me as a troll now and don't know or care why. You turned me into a troll Bob. Well done. But really... What are you going to do with SLS? Is it that he is uncapable of understanding why and how he hurt me or is it that he gets a by. why? oh well, because it is me. not so terribly supportive these days, huh.
>
> gee i wonder why.
>
>
>
Posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2009, at 19:42:29
In reply to Re: Lou's request-ru? » alexandra_k, posted by SLS on June 7, 2009, at 18:48:35
> Why don't you just apologize to Greywolf and be done with it.Apologize for what? Apologize that you thought my post 'resembled an attack' even though I certainly didn't intend for it to be (or resemble) an attack and even though I clarified my intention to Greywolf (that in particular I didn't mean it to be sarcastic or anything like that).
Greywolf posted their experience
I posted mine
Then you jumped right on in with an accusation.Instead of taking me at my word (that I didn't intend for what I said to be sarcastic or undermining of anothers experience) you say the lesson you learned was to use the 'report this post' feature.
I said to you quite clearly that I felt hurt that jumped to conclusions about my post (that it 'resembled an attack' and you really don't seem to give a sh*t about how I feel at all even when I went to pains to check that Greywolf was okay about what I had posted (instead of however it was that you thought Greywolf should or should not be feeling about it).
Dr Bob provided a post where everyone involved in the 'controversy' attempted to clarify their intention and minimize potential hurts of others. Except for you. He was explicit in giving you the opportunity to do so. I notice you have done that with everybody except me. Dr Bob tries (exceeding the principle of charity) to 'reinterpret' (or put words in your mouth) that has you participating in this process of helping to put things right. But you decline to do so.
My past experience here is you get the opportunity to be part of that process (sometimes) and then if you decline you get blocked.
I find it ironic (in the Alanis sense which apparently isn't really ironic at all) that given past practice... Given consistency with past practice... Dr Bob really doesn't seem to have any other option but to block you. It is ironic given the topic of this thread and all.
But perhaps he won't. I'm actually thinking he probably won't.
Its okay. You obviously need (and get more out of) this place than me.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2009, at 19:50:25
In reply to Re: Lou's request-ru?, posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2009, at 19:42:29
See the thing is that my third post wasn't an attack. To say that it 'resembles' an attack isn't any better (or never has been on Babble) than saying that someone posted something that was attacking.
It never has been civil to say that a post is attacking.
Whether posts are attacking or not is for Bob and the deputies to decide - not for you to decide.
If you decide that something is I suppose you can use the 'report this post feature' but you aren't supposed to say that it is attacking.
How come? WHy, because that would be jumping to conclusions.
What is particularly hurtful to me about this is that I didn't intend for my post to be attacking - I intended it to be a report of my experience here similarly to how Greywolf's initial post here was a report of theirs. When I say to the best of my ability that I really didn't intend for it to be attacking you disregard what I say thinking that what? You know my intention better than I do myself?
What am I supposed to be apologizing for Scott? The fact that you interpret my post to be an attack even though I certainly didn't intend for that and others seem capable of reading it charitably such that it isn't an attack?
How is your saying that my post is an attack not an attack in itself?
I worried about my post with respect to Greywolf. Not to you. Trust me, the world doesn't need more heroes looking out for the welfare of others (making things worse in the process).
Once upon a time (when I trusted Bob's judgement) I'd have been happy enough with people deciding to use the 'report this post' feature. Now I'm much happier if things can be sorted out on board. What more can I do but clarify my intention? I do feel some responsibility to clarify my intention with Greywolf - but really... How is that any of your business? You are responsible for you. Or... Not. We shall see...
Posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2009, at 20:10:44
In reply to Re: I love this place despite the rules » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on June 6, 2009, at 5:18:52
> I have been confused about this whole affair as it related to my act, including what I thought were civil and carefully chosen words.Saying that what someone says 'resembles' an attack has for a long time here been viewed by admin to be no different from saying that what someone says 'was' an attack. Neither have been considered acceptable here for quite some time.
> 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.
Sure. I think that we are still encouraged to do so. Thing is that we are supposed to do this *without* accusing or jumping to conclusions about the intentions or motivations of others. It doesn't matter whether what someone said was an attack or not it has never been considered acceptable to say that it was an attack. Saying that a post is or resembles an attack isn't supposed to be our call to make - that is for the deputies to decide.
Maybe you need to figure out what is important to you. Is Greywolf feeling upset about my post your main concern? If that is the case then why not accept what I've said already to Greywolf in my attempt for them not to feel upset in response to my post? Seems to me that the biggest upset in response to it is yours. Because you won't accept what I've said about my post. You still think that it is in fact unacceptable (thats why you would report it, I suppose) despite what I've said in attempting to clarify my intention. I still fail to see what is uncivil about me posting my experience in response to another posters posting theirs.
> "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."
Then... What problem are you having with my post again?
I've said to you that I felt very hurt in response to your saying that my post 'resembled an attack'. You don't seem to give a sh*t about my hurt. That hurts. You don't care. I don't belong here. Thats okay. Whatever. It is just oh so ironic that you can post in 'support' of the rules here when you don't even seem to have a clear understanding of what they are...
But then consistency blah. If this site still aimed to be consistent you would have been blocked with Bob's last post. For declining to rephrase when he requested that you do so.
Whatever.
Good luck you you all.
Posted by zenhussy on June 7, 2009, at 21:11:38
In reply to Re: Lou's request-ru?, posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2009, at 16:43:56
>>>What are you going to do with SLS? Is .... or is it that he gets a by. why? <<<
here are two blast from the past answers from the almighty Bob regarding similar situations:
"sorry, sometimes things slip through"
followed by
"In cases like this, I think it's usually better overall just to let it be..."
here's hoping you receive respectful and empathetic responses from the Bob and the Hsiung....
wish it weren't so ak. sure wish you never understood where we came from. so sorry you now do.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2009, at 21:25:32
In reply to five years ago this was the standard response... » alexandra_k, posted by zenhussy on June 7, 2009, at 21:11:38
tis okay. i don't like to see people blocked. especially when they don't understand and when they are generally speaking wonderful contributers and would be missed by so many.
but yeah, things are hard to take sometimes...
took me a while to come to understand, yeah. it is a hard thing. one doesn't want to understand. mostly because... one can't face things really being that way. they just can't be. they just can't.
oh... but they are.
:-(
(((zen)))
Posted by SLS on June 8, 2009, at 5:19:31
In reply to five years ago this was the standard response... » alexandra_k, posted by zenhussy on June 7, 2009, at 21:11:38
> >>>What are you going to do with SLS? Is .... or is it that he gets a by. why? <<<
>
> here are two blast from the past answers from the almighty Bob regarding similar situations:
>
> "sorry, sometimes things slip through"
>
> followed by
>
> "In cases like this, I think it's usually better overall just to let it be..."
>
> here's hoping you receive respectful and empathetic responses from the Bob and the Hsiung....
>
> wish it weren't so ak. sure wish you never understood where we came from. so sorry you now do.Do you think Dr. Bob has been lenient with me along this thread and not lenient with Alexandra?
- Scott
Posted by verne on June 8, 2009, at 8:15:14
In reply to Re: Case closed? » Dr. Bob, posted by twinleaf on June 6, 2009, at 9:33:19
Twinleaf,
I sympathize and agree with you. Especially, when you say, "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!"
This happens all the time. I've been guilty of it myself.
It doesn't help that another poster "assumes" you are talking about them and thereby ACCUSES you all over again.
Verne
Posted by verne on June 8, 2009, at 8:31:05
In reply to Re: Lou's request-ru?, posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2009, at 16:43:56
Alex, you're no troll. You make excellent points.
I haven't read the whole thread but agree that calling a post an attack is an attack in itself and calling the post that calls a post an attack, an attack, is yet another attack.
The conversation then becomes a self-propelled, infinite, accusation exchange.
You get that and tried to interrupt the cycle - to stop the runaway train.
Verne
Posted by alexandra_k on June 8, 2009, at 8:43:06
In reply to Infinite Accusations, posted by verne on June 8, 2009, at 8:31:05
> The conversation then becomes a self-propelled, infinite, accusation exchange.
yes
> You get that and tried to interrupt the cycle - to stop the runaway train.yes. and i failed. and when you see yourself failing its just much more fun to call everyone a bunch of wankers and be done with it, don't you think?
sigh.
i used to have patience.
back in the good old days when i had faith in admin.
no faith anymore.
i'm basically considered a troll anyway so why not just live up to that and let others reputations remain intact.what the f*ck would i know about civility given my track record?
why fight the inevitable?
Posted by SLS on June 8, 2009, at 13:20:33
In reply to Re: Case closed?, posted by greywolf on June 5, 2009, at 0:04:28
> > I love this place despite the rules greywolf 5/11/09
> >
> > * Me too. It seems to work. (nm) » greywolf SLS 5/12/09
> > * Re: I love this place despite the rules alexandra_k 5/14/09
> > * Re: I love this place despite the rules » alexandra_k SLS 5/14/09
> > * Re: I love this place despite the rules alexandra_k 5/14/09
> > * Re: I love this place despite the rules alexandra_k 5/14/09
> > * Some love this place despite the rules » SLS gobbledygook 5/14/09
> > * Re: I love this place despite the rules greywolf 5/14/09
> > * Thanks, Scott (nm) greywolf 5/14/09
> >
> >
> > Ok. I didn't want to have to go with this. It is truly a no-brainer, but I just wish someone else had taken note of it:
> >
> > Just what in the hell do you think Greywolf was thanking me for?
> >
> >
> > - Scott
> >
> >
>
> I thanked Scott because I did, indeed, feel attacked, albeit in a sarcastic way, by Alexandra K's post. Was I upset? No, because it was clear that Alexandra has issues with rules enforcement that I either don't have or haven't had to deal with personally.
>
> 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. I was somewhat taken aback by Alexandra's response to me, but it is a public forum and she's entitled to express her opinion. I'll leave judgment of the manner of expression to others.
>
> GreywolfSorry folks, but I have become bored with this thread and have decided to leave it to the rest of you to see where it goes.
- Scott
Posted by fayeroe on June 8, 2009, at 14:06:03
In reply to Re: Case closed?, posted by Dr. Bob on June 6, 2009, at 4:27:09
Here'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
A group learns from their leader.....In this case I would ask you if you consistently apologize to posters when they are hurt by administration's actions?
I am not referring to anyone in this thread. I'm talking about the big picture.
Posted by greywolf on June 8, 2009, at 14:46:26
In reply to Re: Case closed? » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on June 8, 2009, at 14:06:03
Scott:
Tried to send you a Babblemail but without success.
Greywolf
Posted by alexandra_k on June 8, 2009, at 16:12:16
In reply to Re: Case closed?, posted by SLS on June 8, 2009, at 13:20:33
> Sorry folks, but I have become bored with this thread and have decided to leave it to the rest of you to see where it goes.
Bored. That is an interesting way to feel after I repeatedly say to you that I felt very hurt that you said my post 'resembled an attack'. In response to that you feel... Bored. Is that a pulling the wings off flies kind of bored do you suppose?I can tell you precisely where this thread is going: Nowhere.
Or: I'll get a blocking. For calling y'all a bunch of wankers and not leaving things be.
Ironically enough the point of blockings was to prevent things escalating to this point. Perhaps there wouldn't need to be a blocking if Bob was actually direct about whatever the f*ck he was trying to say.
Bored...
Well done indeed.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 8, 2009, at 16:13:44
In reply to Re: Case closed?, posted by alexandra_k on June 8, 2009, at 16:12:16
Sorry my hurt bores you Scott.
Please don't post to me again.
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.