![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 193 to 217 of 348. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on November 6, 2010, at 8:46:30
In reply to Food for thought, posted by ron1953 on November 5, 2010, at 13:13:29
> "Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run, than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing." ~Helen Keller
The problem is that that quote could be used to talk about those who are afraid to post on Babble as well as those who prefer safety on Babble. I wouldn't urge those who are afraid to post on babble because the civility rules upset them, to post anyway to experience the daring adventure.
That's the problems with quotes. They can be a double edged sword.
Plus, of course, they are the belief of one person. I don't happen to think life is a daring adventure or nothing. I think it can be wise to respect fears. The fact that Helen Keller said otherwise doesn't change that. I don't think that consistency is a bad thing either. Perhaps embracing consistency to the point of ignoring anything else might be. But that would be a judgment call.
I also think that wanting a safe environment on Babble doesn't have to do *only* with fear. It can also have to do with choosing the environment one wishes to be in. I'm all in favor of people choosing what environment they wish to be in. Were Babble not to my taste, I'd post elsewhere.
Posted by Dinah on November 6, 2010, at 8:51:26
In reply to Re: Food for thought » ron1953, posted by Dinah on November 6, 2010, at 8:46:30
I should of course add that quotes can be a way of saying what one wishes to say in a way that someone else said very well.
It doesn't add weight that it is a quote, IMO. It doesn't detract it either. It's just another way of saying something.
I'm sure that a quote could be found to say just about anything. If I quoted "Greed is good." it would say a great deal about me, my beliefs, my priorities, and my attitudes. It wouldn't say nearly as much about greed and it's relative worth in an objective sense.
Posted by SLS on November 6, 2010, at 9:26:10
In reply to Re: Food for thought, posted by ron1953 on November 6, 2010, at 8:34:51
> > > Scott, it has taught me that I have no frickin' idea what you're talking about. I honestly cannot follow your thinking, and to be honest, I have no desire to try.
> >
> > Perhaps you underestimated the depth of the waters here.
> >
> > I merely was attempting to answer the question you posed to me in a previous post:
> >
> > "I wonder what these folks would say to support a person with Agoraphobia; would they tell her to stay home and be safe?"
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/968658.html\
> >
> > I find your analogy regarding agoraphobia to be inadequate to support your various theses. The therapeutic milieu of therapy for agoraphobia begins in the safety of the home and often employs imagery rather than physical exposure. Acute exposure too early in the recovery process has been found to be counterproductive and can actually further sensitize the sufferer to phobic stimuli. Desensitization is a systematic process.
> >
> > Oops. Perhaps your question was rhetorical?
> >
> >
> > - Scott> Obfuscation is what it is.
Obfuscation?
I understand the meaning of the word, but I don't see how asking your question was a purposeful obfuscation of your own arguments. That would be silly. I know how you love words. Perhaps you can enlighten me by explaining your choice of diction here.
Or not.
How are you liking this adversarial intercourse? Is this the type of interaction you so ardently advocate for the health of the Pyscho-Babble community? Personally, I find it to be ugly.
I will pause here to reflect upon my motivations to post such ugliness.
Okay. I'm all done reflecting.
Have a nice day.
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on November 6, 2010, at 9:51:52
In reply to Re: Food for thought, posted by Dinah on November 6, 2010, at 8:51:26
I shouldn't have said that. I'm trying to back out of my involvement on this thread.
Posted by ron1953 on November 6, 2010, at 12:45:14
In reply to I'm sorry, posted by Dinah on November 6, 2010, at 9:51:52
with one last quote:
"I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints
The sinners are much more fun" - Billy Joel
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 6, 2010, at 16:59:03
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by Free on October 22, 2010, at 23:42:21
> the reasons for reduced rate of posting
Free, thanks for recapping. I've tried to consolidate and categorize the reasons that have been suggested:
A. Issues about which nothing can be done
3) More alternatives on the internet
10) Can't control who posts
30) Posts can be used for research (since they're public)B. Issues only I can do something about
5) Site old fashioned
6) Facebook and Twitter issues/taciturnity/not acknowledging suggestions x 2
11) Can't delete own posts
29) Posts turn up in google searchesC. Issues only posters can do something about
8.5) Fighting/cliques/the atmosphere/not being objective x 2
11.5) Not enough joking, positives
16) Oversensitive, trigger-happy users of the "report" button
27) Spam-like postsD. Issues both I and posters can do something about
1) People left/new people aren't coming/inactivity x 3
4) Babble gets fewer hits on googleWe can both try to engage new people who are coming and to recruit new people, including by spreading the word online.
7) Blocks x 10
I could block less/more predictably/for shorter periods/more respectfully.
Posters could be more civil.9) Too many redirects
I could redirect less.
Posters could stay on-topic more.33) Don't like getting blamed for others' blocks
I could see posters as uninfluenced by each other.
Posters could help each other avoid blocks.So blocks were the issue mentioned most often. x 10 = 10 times. I haven't finished this thread yet, I just thought I'd pause here and respond to the recap.
Bob
Posted by Free on November 6, 2010, at 18:09:14
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by Dr. Bob on November 6, 2010, at 16:59:03
Bob... "It's all part of interconnectedness."
Do I see you on a path to facilitating the interconnectedness? If so, I will walk with you. :-)
BTW, math+sensitivity+street is a great formula. :)
Posted by Maxime on November 6, 2010, at 23:06:07
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by Dr. Bob on November 6, 2010, at 16:59:03
Dr. Bob, I think redirects are necessary to keep the medication board on track. What is the point of having the other boards if everything gets dicussed on the med board where it doesn't belong? If I am visiting PB for information on meds, I don't want to have to wade through all the threads that shouldn't be there to begin with.
Posted by ed_uk2010 on November 7, 2010, at 3:18:57
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » Dr. Bob, posted by Maxime on November 6, 2010, at 23:06:07
> Dr. Bob, I think redirects are necessary to keep the medication board on track. What is the point of having the other boards if everything gets dicussed on the med board where it doesn't belong? If I am visiting PB for information on meds, I don't want to have to wade through all the threads that shouldn't be there to begin with.
I think the problem here is that threads sometimes get redirected to boards which get very little traffic. Personally, I think there are too many boards. Faith, Health and Politics could all be merged with social ie. to create a general non-psych-med discussion board.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 7, 2010, at 11:32:46
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » Maxime, posted by ed_uk2010 on November 7, 2010, at 3:18:57
> Do I see you on a path to facilitating the interconnectedness? If so, I will walk with you. :-)
>
> BTW, math+sensitivity+street is a great formula. :)
>
> FreeOK, let's walk together. :-)
> I think the problem here is that threads sometimes get redirected to boards which get very little traffic. Personally, I think there are too many boards. Faith, Health and Politics could all be merged with social ie. to create a general non-psych-med discussion board.
>
> ed_uk2010I see the problem as how much traffic the other boards get. If there were more interest in those topics, then those threads wouldn't die (as soon).
I'd be open to redirecting Health to Social, what do others think?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on November 7, 2010, at 11:35:38
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by Dr. Bob on November 7, 2010, at 11:32:46
I'd be ok with combining Health and Social.
I'd rather Faith and Politics be kept separate.
Posted by muffled on November 7, 2010, at 11:47:58
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by Dr. Bob on November 7, 2010, at 11:32:46
Are you willing to admit you were wrong bout some what you did?
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 7, 2010, at 11:48:01
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb, posted by ron1953 on November 3, 2010, at 18:41:37
> It's more like a teeny weeny clique.
I'd like to ask those who care about ron -- or object to blocks in general -- to do what they can to try to prevent another block.
Protests haven't proved all that effective at preventing blocks and may even encourage behaviors that lead to them. You have the right to protest (as long as you're civil), but if your goal is to prevent more blocks, please consider a different strategy.
Bob
--
> You have the power to pick your battles.
>
> Battling Dr. Bob on PB Admin? Generally results in frustration and effects on policy ranging from
> - none
> - the exact opposite of what you intended to accomplish
> - some other seemingly random policy change that isn't what you wanted.
>
> Choose wisely!http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090302/msgs/893534.html
Posted by Dinah on November 7, 2010, at 11:57:01
In reply to Re: another block, posted by Dr. Bob on November 7, 2010, at 11:48:01
> I'd like to ask those who care about {poster} -- or object to blocks in general -- to do what they can to try to prevent another block.
Would you consider changing the standard working to "I'd like to ask those who would like to see Poster be able to continue posting (or avoid a block) -- or object to blocks in general -- to do what they can to try to prevent another block."
I think asking those who care about a poster to do this makes a lot of assumptions about what those who care about a poster think is appropriate for that poster.
Posted by Dinah on November 7, 2010, at 11:57:51
In reply to How about a small change in wording?, posted by Dinah on November 7, 2010, at 11:57:01
Speaking of a change in wording, I meant "in the best interests of" not "appropriate".
Posted by Dinah on November 7, 2010, at 12:07:24
In reply to Re: How about a small change in wording?, posted by Dinah on November 7, 2010, at 11:57:51
Of course, in keeping with what I said earlier in the thread, what I'd really like to see if I had my druthers (which clearly I do not) is something more like:
"I'd prefer Poster to choose to remain at Babble and continue to post. I'd like to ask those of you who agree with my goals to encourage Poster to make that choice by rephrasing or retracting the above statement. Perhaps one of you could also volunteer to be Poster's civility buddy, to help Poster avoid future rephrasings and retractions."
To me, that helps put responsibility where it actually lies.
Posted by ron1953 on November 7, 2010, at 12:20:17
In reply to Re: another block, posted by Dr. Bob on November 7, 2010, at 11:48:01
Bob, I'll use the Merriam-Webster dictionary, one of your cited sources inthe civility rules:
Their definition of clique is:
"A narrow, exclusive circle or group of persons; especially: one held together by common interests, views or purposes."
Also, the dictionary does not characterize the word as derogatory.
I simply stated how *I* saw things. My intent was not to flame, nor insult, nor upset. It is simply my personal point of view. I do not see that as uncivil. Apparently, uncivil can be found wherever the looker wants to see it.
As always, I remain baffled.
Posted by ron1953 on November 7, 2010, at 12:29:27
In reply to Re: another block )) Dr Bob, posted by ron1953 on November 7, 2010, at 12:20:17
I tire of these silly games played by people who wear their mental illnesses as a badge and make it the main part of their identity. May you all go enjoy your circle jerk, your sick codependent relationships with your therapists, your ceaseless resistance to change and most of all .....
GO PHUCK YOURSELVES !
Bob, you're a phucking quack of the worst kind, and contribute nothing positive to your fans' mental health - you actually help perpetuate illness.
Posted by ron1953 on November 7, 2010, at 12:31:27
In reply to And one more thing....., posted by ron1953 on November 7, 2010, at 12:29:27
block my IP address, that I may never view this shite ever again.
Posted by ron1953 on November 7, 2010, at 13:14:07
In reply to Don't just block me, posted by ron1953 on November 7, 2010, at 12:31:27
Why is there so little activity here?
Because most people easily see through the nonsense, and particularly the incivility of Bob and his few minions, and have no desire to be a prt of it.
Also, Bob's civility rules can easily be distilled down to one sentence:
If you can't blow sunshine up somebody's rectum, SHUT THE PHUCK UP (or we'll do it for you).
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 7, 2010, at 15:19:38
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb, posted by ron1953 on November 3, 2010, at 18:41:37
> It's more like a teeny weeny clique.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person, and I'm sorry if this hurts you.
I do hope that you choose to remain a member of this community and that members of this community help you, if needed, to avoid future blocks.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express yourself, including a link to a nice post by Dinah on I-statements, are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceYou might want to consider asking another poster to be your "civility buddy" and to preview your posts before you submit them.
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
PS: According to the formula:
duration of previous block: 6 weeks
period of time since previous block: 8 weeks
severity: 2 (default) + 1 (uncivil toward particular group) = 3
block length = 15.52 rounded = 15 weeks
Posted by ed_uk2010 on November 7, 2010, at 15:58:07
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by Dr. Bob on November 7, 2010, at 11:32:46
>I'd be open to redirecting Health to Social, what do others think?
I think it's a good idea.
Posted by Phillipa on November 7, 2010, at 18:02:05
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » Dr. Bob, posted by ed_uk2010 on November 7, 2010, at 15:58:07
I feel it's a good idea also!!!!Phillipa
Posted by 10derheart on November 7, 2010, at 18:10:45
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by Dinah on November 7, 2010, at 11:35:38
Posted by Willful on November 7, 2010, at 19:23:25
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by Dinah on November 7, 2010, at 11:35:38
I understand the problem of underpopulated boards, and threads that die after being redirected. But I am against moving health to social. For me, health can often be upsetting and I see social as a lighter, more friendly place, where more general matters are discussed. The mood of social is overall more relaxed-- even if people tell problems and issues of everyday or stresses of emotional things. Health can often be about very disturbing problems of another order entirely.
I can see grouping certain boards together, like maybe health, alternative and neurotransmitters, or , more narrowly, if it would be visited enough, a uniting of health and alternative, which seem closely related. However, I really would hope that health and social would be kept apart from one another.
Willful
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.