![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 218 to 242 of 348. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on November 7, 2010, at 20:16:10
In reply to Re: another block )) Dr Bob, posted by ron1953 on November 7, 2010, at 12:20:17
> 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.
>
>Here is my way of showing support for Ron:
It is baffling to me, too, that the above is thought to be uncivil. Babble is exclusive in the sense that those who are blocked are excluded. I think that Bob has said before that exclusion isn't necessarily a bad thing. He doesn't seem to have trouble with excluding people from here for a time, anyways.
I respect your decision to move along from here because of how baffling the PBC / blocking thing is. I wish you well. Take care.
Posted by Maxime on November 7, 2010, at 21:30:37
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » Maxime, posted by ed_uk2010 on November 7, 2010, at 3:18:57
> > 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.
>
>
>
>I agree Ed. There needs to be a non-psych med discussion board, but the psychology board should remain as is.
Posted by Maxime on November 8, 2010, at 0:16:55
In reply to Re: Food for thought » ron1953, posted by SLS on November 6, 2010, at 9:26:10
I have no trouble following your thinking Scott. I hope you will keep on posting.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 8, 2010, at 4:21:11
In reply to So Bob, posted by muffled on November 7, 2010, at 11:47:58
> I really don't like it when you say things like the above. It sounds to me like you are putting the sole responsibility for blocks on those who are in danger of being blocked and the community rather than facing up to the substantial role that you play
>
> alexandra_k> I still maintain that PsychoBabble is therapeutic, in a funny, laid-back kind of way, and it is this that distinguishes it from other sites, and what brings blocked posters back after even very long blocks.
>
> vwoolf> The members of the group grew stronger and closer by going THROUGH stuff, not by avoiding it. ... Most of all, there was love - unconditional love.
>
> I'm talking about REAL safety where members would (and did) bend over backwards to help another member.
>
> ron1953> This is not 'OUR' site as posters, but FULLY and completely BOB's site.
> I feel UTTERLY POWERLESS on this site.
> All he seems to care about is *numbers*, not us as individuals. ... He did not care that MANY very capeable long term posters left. He just didn't care.
>
> muffled> I don't think I've ever been in a group of people where so many people who have chosen not to remain part of the group, still remain a part of the group for purposes of telling people how they no longer wish to be part of the group.
>
> I have, in the past, proposed that Dr. Bob reserve participation on the Administrative board to those who are actively posting, on topic, on other boards. But he has rejected that idea, and prefers to allow things as they are. He apparently feels that criticisms of Babble, even if unaccompanied by other posting, are supportive to the community.
>
> Dinah> I often feel ... drained by the undercurrent of what seems to me to be self-destructive negativity on the site.
>
> vwoolf> So, I have scars on my leg to show the punishment I took for being 'bad'. Cuz I must have been bad to get banished like that.
> I liken that block to me as a kid playfully saying f*rt to a parent and them backslapping me into a wall and then telling me I could not speak to my main support friends for a week. NO DISCUSSION.
> WAY OVERKILL.
> its just not safe here. Its just not.> Are you willing to admit you were wrong bout some what you did?
>
> muffledI feel criticisms aren't necessarily "supportive", but can sometimes help us understand what's going on and be valuable in that way. Pondering the above clues, I imagine a hypothetical poster X:
X sees themselves as a powerless victim and me as an uncaring persecutor. Of course I do have power. I do play a "substantial role" in blocks. But I'm not the only one with power. X has the power to bend over backward to help other posters. X also has the power to get themselves blocked. X uses the latter power, repeatedly, which seems self-destructive.
What brings X back after even a very long block? Maybe my unconditional love (blocked posters are always welcome back). But it's not completely unconditional. That would be safe for them, but would require me to give up my power to choose whom to love.
Does that scenario resonate with any of you? It reminds me again of shame and guilt:
> Shame ... comes to you as a feeling so deep and so incapable of your getting a grasp on it that it seems there is nothing you can do.
>
> guilt is one of the great inventions of nature. For mature guilt lets you know what is unacceptable, and offers you opportunity to do something about it. ... worth can be defined by realistic possibilities, not by the un-focused and "hidden" demands of shame-making expectations.http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100714/msgs/958778.html
I've been wrong (for example, about the original Facebook/Twitter buttons) and used my power to do something about it (make them opt-out). Some blocks may be overkill, but I've never left a scar on anyone's leg. X isn't safe anywhere as long as they carry shame around inside them.
Unconditional love from me: unrealistic. 9 realistic possibilities:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/968845.html
I hope X -- with the help of others -- chooses wisely.
Bob
Posted by SLS on November 8, 2010, at 6:45:49
In reply to Re: Food for thought » SLS, posted by Maxime on November 8, 2010, at 0:16:55
> I have no trouble following your thinking Scott. I hope you will keep on posting.
Thanks, Maxime.
:-)
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on November 8, 2010, at 9:47:13
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Dr. Bob on November 8, 2010, at 4:21:11
> What brings X back after even a very long block? Maybe my unconditional love (blocked posters are always welcome back). But it's not completely unconditional. That would be safe for them, but would require me to give up my power to choose whom to love.
Do you really choose whom to love on Babble? I recognize that you don't mean love in the sense in which it is commonly used. But still, in saying that you choose whom to love seems a bit more expansive than I see your actions as being.
First of all, I suppose I don't see you loving anyone, but that may be a difference in definition of love.
But second, I don't see you as choosing to love some posters and choosing not to love others. I see you as choosing to approve of some behaviors and disapprove of others. Wouldn't you say that you would just as easily choose to love the same posters you chose to unlove, if they made different choices? And vice versa? That's been my experience of you. If so is it the posters you are choosing to love, or the behaviors?
I think a lot of people do see your blocks as rejection of them, and not limits about behaviors. I suppose I'd feel that way myself.
In that case, might I suggest that you not use phrases like "choose whom to love", no matter how that is meant in a therapeutic sense? And instead say that you wish to maintain your power to choose what behaviors to tolerate?
To put it bluntly, do you really choose to love some posters and choose not to love others? Or do you not love or not love the posters so much as you approve or disapprove of behaviors?
No one wants to be unloved. And I think perhaps it's not wise for anyone to seek your love. Your approval perhaps, but not your love.
Posted by Dinah on November 8, 2010, at 9:56:22
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Dr. Bob on November 8, 2010, at 4:21:11
Whoops. Sorry for focusing on the negative, Dr. Bob.
I suppose I found the mention of "love" a bit distressing, even in an abstract sense. There are a lot of implications, from the purely practical to the theological, in my understanding of love and the choice to love.
That doesn't mean I don't appreciate the rest of your post. I do.
Posted by PartlyCloudy on November 8, 2010, at 10:54:00
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on November 8, 2010, at 9:56:22
> Whoops. Sorry for focusing on the negative, Dr. Bob.
>
> I suppose I found the mention of "love" a bit distressing, even in an abstract sense. There are a lot of implications, from the purely practical to the theological, in my understanding of love and the choice to love.
>
> That doesn't mean I don't appreciate the rest of your post. I do.It certainly stopped me in my tracks, I must say. An unexpected PDA from the BA.
pc
Posted by Dinah on November 8, 2010, at 10:57:12
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Dinah, posted by PartlyCloudy on November 8, 2010, at 10:54:00
I'm still dreadful at acronyms. :)
Posted by 10derheart on November 8, 2010, at 11:00:52
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » PartlyCloudy, posted by Dinah on November 8, 2010, at 10:57:12
perhaps public display of affection and board administrator??
Posted by Dinah on November 8, 2010, at 11:04:50
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Dinah, posted by 10derheart on November 8, 2010, at 11:00:52
Oooh.
Thank you. :)
I was thinking personal digital assistant, and it just didn't fit in context.
I'm such an idiot sometimes.
Posted by Dinah on November 8, 2010, at 11:07:54
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Dinah, posted by PartlyCloudy on November 8, 2010, at 10:54:00
Yes, it was unexpected to me as well. :) He really put a lot of thought into his post didn't he? I appreciated that.
Posted by PartlyCloudy on November 8, 2010, at 12:10:22
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Dinah, posted by 10derheart on November 8, 2010, at 11:00:52
> perhaps public display of affection and board administrator??
Yes
Posted by PartlyCloudy on November 8, 2010, at 12:11:53
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » PartlyCloudy, posted by Dinah on November 8, 2010, at 11:07:54
> Yes, it was unexpected to me as well. :) He really put a lot of thought into his post didn't he? I appreciated that.
Me too.
Posted by Solstice on November 8, 2010, at 12:35:51
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on November 8, 2010, at 9:47:13
> > What brings X back after even a very long block? Maybe my unconditional love (blocked posters are always welcome back). But it's not completely unconditional. That would be safe for them, but would require me to give up my power to choose whom to love.
>I thought he might be referring to how Babblers might interpret the conditional or unconditional factor. You rightly pointed out that Dr. Bob's rejection of certain behaviors are often felt as personal rejections. But.. you can't block the behavior without actually rejecting the person for a period of time - even though they are welcomed back. He has the power to choose whom to 'love' regardless, but each Babbler has the choice of whether to "need" his 'love' in the first place (whether or not such a love exists).
When I read that post, though, the "would require me to give up my power to choose whom to love" - I wondered why he would choose that potent of a way to put it, when things were seeming to steady? I thought "well, that's likely to provoke some turmoil.."
Solstice
Posted by Dinah on November 8, 2010, at 12:49:54
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Dinah, posted by Solstice on November 8, 2010, at 12:35:51
It was a loaded phrase. And I suppose I've been trying to lower the turmoil level. :) It wasn't the concept I minded, just the phrasing.
As a mom, I can say without any shadow of doubt that it's possible to block a behavior without rejecting a person. But as a person, I'd say it was very very hard to experience the blocking of a behavior and not feel rejected as a person. Heck, I feel rejected if my therapist gets a chance to say "It's time to stop today." No matter how he says it.
I guess I'm just saying that it helps me to realize that my perception of the message is not necessarily the message sent by the other person. I feel rejected, but my therapist is not actually rejecting me.
Posted by 10derheart on November 8, 2010, at 13:57:44
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Dinah, posted by Solstice on November 8, 2010, at 12:35:51
When I read it, it did seem odd for a second, but they I assumed he did it simply because ron used "love" and the phrase "unconditional love" in his post describing an IRL group he was in....and Dr. Bob adopted the phrasing to make his point.
He's done this before more than once. For me, when Dr. Bob sort of "borrows" a poster's example, analogy, or way of expressing something, the actual words used, even a potentially loaded one like love (which does often make me a little crazy) it ceases to be much about him at that moment. I get a level of detachment from the word because Dr. Bob didn't originate it.
So even though I was surprised at how he chose to continue on with that, I didn't get as much serious meaning out of loving/not loving posters out of it as others did, I don't think. It was drained of it's emotional content re: Dr. Bob and Babblers **because** it was actually ron's choice of words being build upon.
If that makes any sense at all!
Posted by Solstice on November 8, 2010, at 14:12:34
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Solstice, posted by Dinah on November 8, 2010, at 12:49:54
> It was a loaded phrase.
You're not kidding! I thought I saw some good dialogue goin' on... and was really encouraged when I saw his post with descriptions of 'realistic possibilities' that I thought included more expansive flexibility on his part. But that phrase - soon as a saw it I was like "Pop!" (and ok, I confess... I went so far as to wonder "WHAT was he thinking?!" Nothing at all wrong with the phrasing and its use of 'love' to represent something else... but I'm not sure I understand the wisdom of it here, in the context of a topic (blocking) that carries deep wounds for many members of this 'family.' Kinda like going to visit a family member recovering from 3rd degree burns in the burn unit, and believing your mild pat on their burned shoulder is going to be interpreted like you meant it. (Dramatic, I know, but I'm trying to make a point :) And I DON'T see a point in triggering deeply felt sensitivities unnecessarily, especially in a message that includes promising ideas.
> And I suppose I've been trying to lower the turmoil level. :)
I know....
> It wasn't the concept I minded, just the phrasing.I don't 'get' the choice of phrasing...
> As a mom, I can say without any shadow of doubt that it's possible to block a behavior without rejecting a person.
I think it's easier to do that in real life than forum life. You can do things to block your son's behavior that don't include cutting him out of your life and isolating him from family support for grossly extended periods of time. Here though, Dr. Bob can genuinely *not* dislike a person - but in extended blocks for every level of infraction in the context of this forum - there's just no way to get around it feeling like a rejection of the person - regardless of how it's characterized. I don't know how someone who is off their game enough to step off the straight and narrow in the first place and get blocked, can get banished from their (sometimes only) source of support and then have the internal resources to tell themselves "well, it's just my behavior that's being rejected - not me." I proposed an idea about setting up a Mediator system where members threatened with a block can voluntarily opt for Mediator assistance to get themselves back on track (or, they could opt to face the current Block system). I hope there's something in what I proposed (it's earlier in the thread under "Thoughts from a Newcomer") that might be helpful.
> Heck, I feel rejected if my therapist gets a chance to say "It's time to stop today." No matter how he says it.
:) Precisely. No need go around here patting on burned shoulders. Will frequently be interpreted as a threat - and justifiably so.
In my own therapy, I was 'desensitized' first by a total absence of exposure, then an incredibly attuned therapist who noticed each and every single time something happened that triggered me. Didn't matter how unreasonable (or irrational) my reaction was to the trigger. It was always met with care. Something about the compassionate response to my irrational reaction is what gave me space to heal, and gradually built my ability to incorporate more rational interpretations. Punishing or rejecting my irrational interpretations would not have led to my current state of balance.
So I would like to see more intentional administrative sensitivity to administrative input that tends to trigger forum disruption.
Solstice
Posted by Solstice on November 8, 2010, at 14:21:35
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Solstice, posted by 10derheart on November 8, 2010, at 13:57:44
> When I read it, it did seem odd for a second, but they I assumed he did it simply because ron used "love" and the phrase "unconditional love" in his post describing an IRL group he was in....and Dr. Bob adopted the phrasing to make his point.
Oh Goodness! I didn't pick up on that. I wish I'd read what you noticed before I hit 'send' on my post :-) Oh well... that's what I get for letting myself speculate about Dr. Bob's intentions. But, I think the substance of my thoughts about it being unreasonable to expect folks with acute wounds to react to things that trigger them as if they are not triggered - that still has value.Solstice
Posted by 10derheart on November 8, 2010, at 14:37:52
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » 10derheart, posted by Solstice on November 8, 2010, at 14:21:35
Of course they still have value! Everything you guys said is insightful and valuable. And Dr. Bob could have still chosen to use some other words, knowing **he** was now using the mega-triggery word 'love', not a poster, and so it would carry a different...flavor? At least I guess he knows this....
I was just saying I recall Dr. Bob doing this quite a few times before and so I am sorta desensitized to a lot of my own placing of meaning on his choice of words. I come from a different place reading Dr. Bob's posts the minute I see him using verbatim quotes.
In fact, sometimes when Bob 'parrots' back phrasing and turns it into his own questions for us, statements...whatever, sometimes I feel pretty irritated. I doubt he realizes this or has this intention but it *sounds** a bit mocking at times. Interpretation, for sure as I do not believe Dr. Bob mocks anyone here. I think maybe just hearing words back (this well may be me projecting as I HATE anyone - and never allow a T to do this - reading back my own words to me....it's mortifying)in and of itself sets me off.
I, too, appreciate Dr. Bob's efforts. All this is really complicated stuff, IMO.
Posted by muffled on November 8, 2010, at 14:41:08
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Dinah, posted by Solstice on November 8, 2010, at 12:35:51
> > > What brings X back after even a very long block? Maybe my unconditional love (blocked posters are always welcome back). But it's not completely unconditional. That would be safe for them, but would require me to give up my power to choose whom to love.
> >
>
> I thought he might be referring to how Babblers might interpret the conditional or unconditional factor. You rightly pointed out that Dr. Bob's rejection of certain behaviors are often felt as personal rejections. But.. you can't block the behavior without actually rejecting the person for a period of time - even though they are welcomed back. He has the power to choose whom to 'love' regardless, but each Babbler has the choice of whether to "need" his 'love' in the first place (whether or not such a love exists).
>
> When I read that post, though, the "would require me to give up my power to choose whom to love" - I wondered why he would choose that potent of a way to put it, when things were seeming to steady? I thought "well, that's likely to provoke some turmoil.."
>
> Solstice
Thats classic Bob.
Whether he is trying to stir stuff up, I don't know. I hope not.
I prefer, for my own peace of mind, to consider that he just doesn't have a clue...
Or that he is perhaps more likely just dashing off stuff in a hurry without *really* spending any time considering the implications.
He can say the most extrordinally...well....to be kind...odd things sometimes....things that seem rather odd, and yes, could cause provocation.
But they are so off the wall, most people don't really take them seriously in their content.
More we get just objectively fascinated on how a guy w/a PHD can be so...well kinda dumb ?!:)
Posted by muffled on November 8, 2010, at 14:52:02
In reply to Re: A thought from a newcomer..., posted by Solstice on November 5, 2010, at 13:57:13
> > We also kept it respectful, or at least I tried to.
> >
> > Should other dialogues take place respectfully, there would be no impediment from Dr. Bob.
> >
> > It's not against site guidelines to disagree. It's not against site guidelines to be angry. Incivility may be more likely to take place under those conditions, but it isn't a requirement.
>
>
> I wonder what it would be like if there were a process where Dr. Bob's rules remained, but there were members who have demonstrated balance and the knack (and interest) in stepping in to mediate the issue. Instead of Deputies to enforce, there would be Mediators to intervene. I'm envisioning something like this:
>
> 1. An infraction occurs.
>
> 2. A PBC "warning" is given each time (no immediate harsh discipline for a subsequent, but different offense... my reasoning is that many people with mental health issues also struggle with an internal sense of time and place... as well as some whose brains simply do not allow them to make the connection between punishment yesterday for an infraction, and the behavior choice they make today.)
>
> 3. If infractor does the rephrasing, apology, whatever that's required.. then all is well and no block will happen.
>
> 4. If the bock-preventing behavior is not forthcoming, a Mediator steps in to work toward resolution. PBC's seem to usually involve someone who was not civil by site guidelines toward another specific member or members. Mediator can assist both parties in resolving it, all the while modeling the civil thinking and behavior expected.
>
> 5. If the infractor is cooperative with that process - then all is well. No block happens, and the infractor doesn't feel rejected or shocked - and may receive tremendous benefit from the caring that takes place with a Mediator 'virtually' taking them by the hand to lead them back to Psycho-babble's 'straight & narrow' road.
>
> 5. If the infractor is not cooperative with the Mediator-assisted process - if they don't agree with it, or just don't like it, etc... then they are opting for the currently practiced PBC/blocking process, which would be done by Bob That gives the infractor who got PBC'd the power of where it ends up. They can cooperate with Mediator assistance, or they can throw themself at the mercy of the current PBC/blocking process. Their choice.
>
> This might involve some tweaks to the current structure such as:
>
> a) When a PBC/block warning is issued, the infractor's status is in suspension for a specific period of time. Say, one week, or ten days, whatever seems a reasonable amount of time for the infractor to sleep on it, wake up realizing they'd like to rephrase/apologize, or for a Mediator to step in and assist through to resolution. The suspension doesn't change anything about the infractor's ability to post, it just means there won't be any immediate blocking going on. Seems like it kind of works like that now - in that Dr. Bob generally gives a person time to repair... I just think a specific and consistent amount of days would be good.
>
> b) Medsiators should gave the ability to turn a poster's posting ability off. That way, if a poster-in-suspension is so angry that they are escalating and really losing control, a Mediator can stop the damage while offering assistance. If the infractor refuses, then they are opting for standard Dr. Bob-blocking. If they are responsive to assistance, then Mediator turns them back on and the mediation process starts or resumes.
>
>
> I think there might be several advantages to this that will address the values Dr. Bob has that Dinah mentioned, as well as the legitimate issues that many in the community have consistently brought up:
>
> i) People who join this site are often in pain, are in stressful situaitons and have impairments in their ability to function optimally, etc. It seems unfair to expect people dealing with those things to first, maintain optimal civility at all times, and second, to extract themselves from a hole the dug while they were affecteds by a condition they don't even want to have (i.e., depression, anxiety, paranoia, etc.) The expectation that they can figure out how to extract themselves places a great amount of pressure on what may be a profoundly weak area. The Mediation process would be a bridge over that weak area. A way to comply with site guidelines... simultaneously respecting the legitimate responsibility Dr. Bob has to protect the community from harm, and also respecting the special fragilities of functioning found in a community of those affected by mental health issues
>
> ii) The members - the infractors themselves would be making the decision - they would have the power to determine the outcome. They can opt to cooperate with Mediator guidance, or they can opt for Dr. Bob blocking mechanisms. That way, the power is where it belongs. The infractor is in control of where they land.
>
> iii) Mediator-assistance will likely lead to LESS blocks, particularly the ones the community seems to especially despise - the ones for relatively minor infractions.
>
>
> I think Sr. Bob gains in this scenario because:
>
> 1. His rules, policies about civility, etc. remain intact.
>
> 2. He's still in control.
>
> 3. It will eliminate what has got to be uncomfortable for him - blocking for minor infractions just because the infractor hasn't rephrased/apologized (in Mesdiation-assistance, the Mediator would help the infractor understand where they got off track. If infractor rejects assistance... they are opting for Dr. Bob-blocks). So bottom line is - if a he blocks someone, it's because THEY OPTED to be blocked.
>
> 4. He seems to like the community assisting the community idea. This is just another version of it.
>
> 5. I think he'd like that infractors opting to cooperate with Mediator assistance will be learning through Mediator modeling the kind of self-restraint he wants to see - and everyone grows from that.
>
>
> Sorry this is so long - and I know there may be problems with it that I haven't thought about - - but it's an idea. I think it might work. I think it might honor the values Dr. Bob has, as well as the values of the community (self-autonomy and more merciful implementation of site guidelines).
>
>
> Solstice
>Some good stuff here...
Posted by Dinah on November 8, 2010, at 15:17:19
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Solstice, posted by 10derheart on November 8, 2010, at 13:57:44
Well, goodness. I can't believe I didn't notice that. Dr. Bob does it all the time! It certainly leads to my understanding his phrasings a lot more.
Dr. Bob talking about loving posters unconditionally made me feel ummm... well.... I suppose it would be rude to say incredulous. No offense intended, Dr. Bob.
I still think it not the best word choice under the circumstances.
Posted by muffled on November 8, 2010, at 15:30:11
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Dr. Bob on November 8, 2010, at 4:21:11
> > I really don't like it when you say things like the above. It sounds to me like you are putting the sole responsibility for blocks on those who are in danger of being blocked and the community rather than facing up to the substantial role that you play
> >
> > alexandra_k
>
> > I still maintain that PsychoBabble is therapeutic, in a funny, laid-back kind of way, and it is this that distinguishes it from other sites, and what brings blocked posters back after even very long blocks.
> >
> > vwoolf
>
> > The members of the group grew stronger and closer by going THROUGH stuff, not by avoiding it. ... Most of all, there was love - unconditional love.
> >
> > I'm talking about REAL safety where members would (and did) bend over backwards to help another member.
> >
> > ron1953
>
> > This is not 'OUR' site as posters, but FULLY and completely BOB's site.
> > I feel UTTERLY POWERLESS on this site.
> > All he seems to care about is *numbers*, not us as individuals. ... He did not care that MANY very capeable long term posters left. He just didn't care.
> >
> > muffled
>
> > I don't think I've ever been in a group of people where so many people who have chosen not to remain part of the group, still remain a part of the group for purposes of telling people how they no longer wish to be part of the group.
> >
> > I have, in the past, proposed that Dr. Bob reserve participation on the Administrative board to those who are actively posting, on topic, on other boards. But he has rejected that idea, and prefers to allow things as they are. He apparently feels that criticisms of Babble, even if unaccompanied by other posting, are supportive to the community.
> >
> > Dinah
>
> > I often feel ... drained by the undercurrent of what seems to me to be self-destructive negativity on the site.
> >
> > vwoolf
>
> > So, I have scars on my leg to show the punishment I took for being 'bad'. Cuz I must have been bad to get banished like that.
> > I liken that block to me as a kid playfully saying f*rt to a parent and them backslapping me into a wall and then telling me I could not speak to my main support friends for a week. NO DISCUSSION.
> > WAY OVERKILL.
> > its just not safe here. Its just not.
>
> > Are you willing to admit you were wrong bout some what you did?
> >
> > muffled
>
> I feel criticisms aren't necessarily "supportive", but can sometimes help us understand what's going on and be valuable in that way. Pondering the above clues, I imagine a hypothetical poster X:*I think we need to LOOK at things in order to effect change, and when the other person seems to not be able/willing to 'hear' what is being said, well than ya, that is frustrating and SAD.
> X sees themselves as a powerless victim and me as an uncaring persecutor. Of course I do have power. I do play a "substantial role" in blocks. But I'm not the only one with power. X has the power to bend over backward to help other posters. X also has the power to get themselves blocked. X uses the latter power, repeatedly, which seems self-destructive.*Well, if I were X, I'd see it differently. Yes, I feel powerless to change this place, absolutely. I don't neccessarily consider Bob the uncaring persecutor, I kinda morwe think of him as the very misguided one. Yes, Bob, you play MOST of the role in blocks. Often we here don't even *understand* what the fr*g your reasoning is....and sometimes there's warnings, and sometimes not....
I can get myself blocked, but oftimes people don't even understand WHY they are being blocked, and they can't prevent what they don't understand.
And esp on Admin, people are trying to stand up for change, for what they strongly beleive to be a way to make this a better place for ALL. And I am assuming that tey are intelligent people. And if they have recieved a warning, then they know they have somehow run afoul of the 'system', and I don't want to interfere with what they are trying to prove. They KNOW what to do, but they CHOOSE not to, often because ultimately they feel what they have done SHOULDN'T be wrong in a more acceptable system. Maybe they are trying in their frustration to show just how silly it is.
Yes, it is self destructive, but they are doing it in their desperation to TRY and effect change and to warn others of how this place REALLY is.(UNPREDICTABLE). They are choosing to sacrifice in order to help others. And I respect that.
We were a community that cared foir each other, which is also another reason blocks were so awful, cuz it hard to see your homeys hurt :( and to be so helpless to help them when it happens. Blocking is a BIG DEAL to many.
> What brings X back after even a very long block? Maybe my unconditional love (blocked posters are always welcome back). But it's not completely unconditional. That would be safe for them, but would require me to give up my power to choose whom to love.* I think there can be a variety of reasons they come back. Eternal hope that things will change. Anger at Bob for being so cruel. A wish to warn others. And mostly, a strong desire to back with their support people.
"your power to choose who to love".....love word aside, I myself choose to care for all as much as I am able. I DON'T CHOOSE this, its just the way I am built. I don't 'choose' who to care for, I just care, for all. I am assuming that the majority of us, even the most prickly, just want caring, to be accepted. And thats what used to be found here for the most part. Except for Bob and his blocks. Sometimes comming out of the blue :( It seems babblers are often willing to accept others faux pas, but not Bob. Nope, screw up and be blocked. Not accepted, not nutured, but banished. And if you have struggles, then you get banished for long periods of time. I cannot see this as supportive in ANY way, only as harmful. To the banned one, and to their friends.
Bob, I don't want your love, I would just want to feel accepted by you. But I don't, its very conditional. You accept 'some' of me, but not all of me. Thats not theraputic...
> Does that scenario resonate with any of you? It reminds me again of shame and guilt:
>
> > Shame ... comes to you as a feeling so deep and so incapable of your getting a grasp on it that it seems there is nothing you can do.
> >
> > guilt is one of the great inventions of nature. For mature guilt lets you know what is unacceptable, and offers you opportunity to do something about it. ... worth can be defined by realistic possibilities, not by the un-focused and "hidden" demands of shame-making expectations.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100714/msgs/958778.html
>
> I've been wrong (for example, about the original Facebook/Twitter buttons) and used my power to do something about it (make them opt-out). Some blocks may be overkill, but I've never left a scar on anyone's leg. X isn't safe anywhere as long as they carry shame around inside them.*I am glad you made a concession there, but many people got hurt along the way. If you'd just listened/HEARD, from the start....:(
So, YOU DO feel some blocks are overkill???? Then why do you continue despite the fact that so many tell you that they are HARMFUL????????????????
Bob, you left a scar on my leg as surely as if you wielded the knife yourself. Maybe the SI is an innapropriate thing, but this is a mental health site and many people with MH issues have poor ways of coping. Thats why we go to T, to learn better ones. It was DIRECTLY due to my response to your overkill and very surprizing actions. You need to take responsibility for your actions cuz they DO HURT people. If your action had been less odd, then I likely would have not had such a strong reaction. It was just SO unexpected, just when I had been comming to start to trust you some.(I no longer trust you). You have power and that is a huge responsibility and should be handled with the help of the many wise people you have here. Not on your own.
> Unconditional love from me: unrealistic. 9 realistic possibilities:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/968845.html
>
> I hope X -- with the help of others -- chooses wisely.
>
> Bob* I choose to keep working with my T to achieve better coherence and coping skills. At this point, I choose NOT to participate on Babble, other than here because I do not feel this is a safe site to post on. I don't even moderately trust Bob to havr my best interests at heart, only his vision of babble.
I choose to continue to think the best of people unless proven otherwise.
Mostly, I am just sad.
Posted by Deneb on November 8, 2010, at 16:51:14
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Dr. Bob on November 8, 2010, at 4:21:11
I think Dr. Bob loves us! (Well not in a romantic sense LOL).
I think Dr. Bob "loves" everyone on Babble, especially when they are civil. :-)
Dr. Bob spends so much time here, there can only be one reason for it: Dr. Bob cares about Babblers very much!
Just look at how much time he spends reading and responding to people here! He REALLY cares a LOT!
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.