![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 98 to 122 of 173. Go back in thread:
Posted by AuntieMel on July 10, 2005, at 12:02:58
In reply to Re: Shocked at how far this has gone... » thuso, posted by gabbii on July 10, 2005, at 11:55:56
behind the scenes. You're right there.
I apologized above, but I'd like to repeat it. I shouldn't have included you in the dnp.
Posted by gabbii on July 10, 2005, at 12:20:02
In reply to Re: exactly » gabbii, posted by AuntieMel on July 10, 2005, at 12:02:58
Don't give it another thought.
We all have extreme reactions to stress, It's just that everyone does it in a different way.
Posted by gardenergirl on July 10, 2005, at 13:40:18
In reply to Re: Sorry GG, All Done, Gabbi, posted by AuntieMel on July 10, 2005, at 10:08:09
No worries.
gg
Posted by gabbii on July 10, 2005, at 15:32:11
In reply to Re: co-existing, posted by Dr. Bob on July 9, 2005, at 16:01:09
Speaking of co-existing, that may also apply to John and me...
>
> Bob: )
Maybe you just need to ask him to come play "Spiderman" with you and the guys.
Posted by KaraS on July 10, 2005, at 18:31:05
In reply to Re: Please, everyone . . ., posted by AuntieMel on July 10, 2005, at 11:21:54
> I'm not protesting because Larry is popular. I post on different boards than he does and our paths rarely cross.
>
> I'm protesting because he seems to have been blindsided at a time when he was reaching out for help. On 6/6 he posted on social "Acting as if", clearly reaching out. And on the same day, one on the med board "Nuerontin to Topomax" with severe side affects.
>
> So, through pain and depression - he also posted to Emmy - a post that looks to me like he was trying to just kid around with an old pal, and
> the answer he got was
>
> "What part of DO NOT POST TO ME did you not understand?"
>
> I'd have felt blindsided, too. But he didn't try to defend himself then. He just said, basically, 'sorry, i won't do it again' and went on with his life, NOT posting, until a new thread was started days later about him *not* getting blocked.
>
> And I get very angry when it seems to me like ....
>
> well, I'll babblemail you the rest of the sentence.
Lots of good points there. It took me back to the whole history of this block and I think it helps to explain a lot of the anger that people have felt towards Emmy. When I read her response of"What part of DO NOT POST TO ME did you not
understand?"coming after that deeply heartfelt apology message by Larry (that wasn't even directly to her if I remember correctly), I couldn't believe what I had read. It had such an incredibly chilling effect on me. It took my breath away. I felt indescribably bad for Larry at that point.
Posted by gabbii on July 10, 2005, at 19:55:48
In reply to Re: Please, everyone . . . » AuntieMel, posted by KaraS on July 10, 2005, at 18:31:05
> > I'm protesting because he seems to have been blindsided at a time when he was reaching out for help. On 6/6 he posted on social "Acting as if", clearly reaching out. And on the same day, one on the med board "Nuerontin to Topomax" with severe side affects.
> >
> > So, through pain and depression - he also posted to Emmy - a post that looks to me like he was trying to just kid around with an old pal, and
> > the answer he got was
> >
> > "What part of DO NOT POST TO ME did you not understand?"
> >
> > I'd have felt blindsided, too. But he didn't try to defend himself then. He just said, basically, 'sorry, i won't do it again' and went on with his life, NOT posting, until a new thread was started days later about him *not* getting blocked.
Those were the mitigating behind the scenes circumstances I was referring to in my post to Thuso, the things that don't make this
"clear as day" or "cut and dried"But, I think it's important to realize that we can't know what Emmy was going through (or has been through)to make her react as she did either, or how those posts looked to her.
Posted by gabbii on July 10, 2005, at 19:56:57
In reply to Re: Please, everyone . . . » KaraS, posted by gabbii on July 10, 2005, at 19:55:48
Posted by gardenergirl on July 10, 2005, at 20:11:04
In reply to Re: Please, everyone . . . » KaraS, posted by gabbii on July 10, 2005, at 19:55:48
Thanks for posting that. I was at a loss for words.
gg
Posted by crushedout on July 10, 2005, at 22:25:51
In reply to Well bless my whiskers!, posted by gardenergirl on July 9, 2005, at 23:04:19
i was gonna ask *you* to esplain it to *me*, gg! (if someone espalins it to you, will you please? tx!)
Posted by gabbii on July 10, 2005, at 22:32:33
In reply to Very well said, Gabbi » gabbii, posted by gardenergirl on July 10, 2005, at 20:11:04
Well I have to say I'm pretty surprised at the speculation
I mean I know Lar, and I think many people know how much I care for him so it's hard for me to say this stuff. But at the same time because of that I hope people will realize I'm not talking about him here.
I think a lot of what I'm upset about here is that it's representative of so much.
How many situations have there been (not here) Where someone looks "Mean" or unsympathetic to the masses for pressing charges on "Someone who would never do such a thing!" Or someone has practically been burned at the stake for daring to speak out, and when the truth is revealed suddenly public opinion sways in the opposite direction.
Hasn't anyone ever found that someone is completely different from how they appear in public and been shocked by their actions?
When you see these D.N.Ps or what look like over reactions you never know what went on privately.
and It's way, way to easy to decide who the good guy is.If anyone makes a connection here to Lar they are plain wrong. What I'm offering is food for thought. Arguing the length of the block is one thing, but making negative speculations about someone's character based on one or two incidents seems really unfair to me.
Posted by KaraS on July 10, 2005, at 22:47:44
In reply to Re: Please, everyone . . . » KaraS, posted by gabbii on July 10, 2005, at 19:55:48
> > > I'm protesting because he seems to have been blindsided at a time when he was reaching out for help. On 6/6 he posted on social "Acting as if", clearly reaching out. And on the same day, one on the med board "Nuerontin to Topomax" with severe side affects.
> > >
> > > So, through pain and depression - he also posted to Emmy - a post that looks to me like he was trying to just kid around with an old pal, and
> > > the answer he got was
> > >
> > > "What part of DO NOT POST TO ME did you not understand?"
> > >
> > > I'd have felt blindsided, too. But he didn't try to defend himself then. He just said, basically, 'sorry, i won't do it again' and went on with his life, NOT posting, until a new thread was started days later about him *not* getting blocked.
>
>
> Those were the mitigating behind the scenes circumstances I was referring to in my post to Thuso, the things that don't make this
> "clear as day" or "cut and dried"
>
> But, I think it's important to realize that we can't know what Emmy was going through (or has been through)to make her react as she did either, or how those posts looked to her.
>
I was agreeing with Auntie Mel on that so it might as well have been directed to me. (You can't tell by reading that sentence, but it isn't meant to sound snotty - just factual. I couldn't think of how to rephrase that better so I'm explaining it instead.)Anyway, I'm sure that Emmy had her reasons for what she said. I'm just saying that as an outsider, who wasn't privy to those reasons, it was chilling to read her response and I think it helps to explain the backlash she's been experiencing.
k
Posted by gabbii on July 10, 2005, at 22:54:46
In reply to Re: Please, everyone . . . » gabbii, posted by KaraS on July 10, 2005, at 22:47:44
>
>
> I was agreeing with Auntie Mel on that so it might as well have been directed to me.Well not really, I do know you a bit, so I was fairly sure you'd see the other side as well.
And you'd made reference to it before to in a previous post.I actually mentioned what I did in my post to the people who might be angry and not have thought of it. (if there are any)
Posted by AuntieMel on July 11, 2005, at 7:53:27
In reply to Re: Please, everyone . . . » KaraS, posted by gabbii on July 10, 2005, at 22:54:46
Well, Gabbi. I *had*thought about it and *had* already considered the things you've said.
Try as I can (and you know I always prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt) and I'm still angry.
Posted by gabbii on July 11, 2005, at 8:54:38
In reply to Re: Please, everyone . . . » gabbii, posted by AuntieMel on July 11, 2005, at 7:53:27
> Well, Gabbi. I *had*thought about it and *had* already considered the things you've said.
>
> Try as I can (and you know I always prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt) and I'm still angry.
I know you do, it's a crucial part of your personality and I think it's expected to be angry when someone you care about get's hurt.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 9:06:59
In reply to Re: Shocked at how far this has gone... » thuso, posted by gabbii on July 10, 2005, at 11:55:56
> Please do not post/babblemail to me. » gabbii
>
> jayThat was in response to a post by her to So, not to you, so may I ask why it made you feel harassed -- or for some other reason want to disengage?
--
> No, I do not feel comfortable sharing. At least not publicly. Just asking me that question is asking me to say something that will come out as accusing - and I'm not going to go there.
Thanks for keeping it civil here. If you'd feel comfortable sharing by email, I'd still be interested...
> Those involved know what I mean. Or they should.
>
> AuntieMelWell, sometimes things we "should" know ourselves have to be pointed out to us... :-)
--
> when someone posts something that has all kinds of information about you and what you have done and you don't think it's fair or accurate, how do you set the record straight?
Is may not always be necessary to, um, revise the record, but if it is, that can be done without replying to someone who's asked not to be replied to.
> I think that Emmy is also a victim here. Because the block was so long, and even she felt it was out of proportion to the alleged offense, she is feeling the wrath of other babblers and so now she is leaving here. The unfairness of the length of the block put her in a very bad situation too. She needed her concerns listened to and acted upon. I think that had Larry been given adequate clarification and warning, he would have desisted. She would have felt relieved and both of them would still be with us!
>
> KaraI agree that both have been hurt, but I still don't think it's all because of the block, or because of insufficient clarification. IMO, it's also just a challenge to co-exist sometimes. Some ideas have already been posted, but I still wonder how Larry and Emmy might co-exist more successfully. And how their friends might help.
--
> What I meant by knowing all the details was what happens behind the scenes to bring this about, extenuating circumstances.
> It isn't all just what is on the board.
>
> gabbiiI think it makes it even harder to agree if some people are taking into account factors that others aren't even aware of...
Bob
Posted by gabbii on July 11, 2005, at 9:28:04
In reply to Re: how far this has gone..., posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 9:06:59
> I think it makes it even harder to agree if some people are taking into account factors that others aren't even aware of...
>
> BobDr. Bob the truth can't be ignored simply because it makes it harder for people to agree.
My point was that if you realize you aren't aware of all that's going on in situations like this, (and who is? ) maybe judgement should be suspended, at least publically. That's why I said arguing the length of a block is one thing, but making negative judgements is another.
Posted by gabbii on July 11, 2005, at 9:30:42
In reply to Re: how far this has gone..., posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 9:06:59
> > Please do not post/babblemail to me. » gabbii
> >
> > jay
>
> That was in response to a post by her to So, not to you, so may I ask why it made you feel harassed -- or for some other reason want to disengage?
>
I think that was just coincidence. Jay and I decided mutually to disengage. Part of coexisting is knowing when you cannot.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 11, 2005, at 10:03:21
In reply to Re: how far this has gone..., posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 9:06:59
============================================
> Please do not post/babblemail to me. » gabbii
>
> jayThat was in response to a post by her to So, not to you, so may I ask why it made you feel harassed -- or for some other reason want to disengage?
================================================
What???? This whole thing started out of a misunderstanding of the "rules"
Larry didn't think he was harassing anyone, but got blocked AFTER he was told by Dinah that harassment wasn't required AND quit posting. Double punishment for the same thing, in my book.
According to what came out of this, and the way it was applied, I can ask *anyone* not to post to me for absolutely no reason at all. And then that person has no right, none! to ask me why I did it.
At least that's how the "rule" was applied towards Larry. Who, if you will look back, knows babbles definition of harassment backwards and forwards.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 11, 2005, at 10:16:26
In reply to Re: how far this has gone..., posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 9:06:59
>>> No, I do not feel comfortable sharing. At least not publicly. Just asking me that question is asking me to say something that will come out as accusing - and I'm not going to go there.
>>Thanks for keeping it civil here. If you'd feel comfortable sharing by email, I'd still be interested...
Well, sometimes it feels like sending email to you is like sending it into a black hole.....
I figure if you want to ask, you know where to find me.
<grin>
Posted by jay on July 11, 2005, at 12:05:28
In reply to Re: how far this has gone..., posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 9:06:59
> > Please do not post/babblemail to me. » gabbii
> >
> > jay
>
> That was in response to a post by her to So, not to you, so may I ask why it made you feel harassed -- or for some other reason want to disengage?
>
> BobBob, the reason being is it is a trigger for me. It involves posts from the past as well as babble-mails. In honesty, I don't feel supported by the mentioned poster in past posts (I said that civilly, right?), so I'd rather discontinue my distress from further posts. I am sorry it has come down to this, but I have to protect my mental health as well. I hope that makes sense. Thanks...
Jay
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 12:19:18
In reply to Re: how far this has gone... » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on July 11, 2005, at 10:16:26
> My point was that if you realize you aren't aware of all that's going on in situations like this, (and who is? ) maybe judgement should be suspended, at least publically. That's why I said arguing the length of a block is one thing, but making negative judgements is another.
Sorry, I haven't intended to make any negative judgments. And I do realize I'm never aware of all that's going on in any situation!
> Jay and I decided mutually to disengage. Part of coexisting is knowing when you cannot.
>
> gabbiiKnowing when you can't interact? I agree, and if you accept the DNP, I guess I don't need a reason from him.
--
> According to what came out of this, and the way it was applied, I can ask *anyone* not to post to me for absolutely no reason at all. And then that person has no right, none! to ask me why I did it.
No, it was broadened, but not opened up completely. They shouldn't ask you if you've asked them not to post to you, but I still could.
> Well, sometimes it feels like sending email to you is like sending it into a black hole.....
>
> I figure if you want to ask, you know where to find me.
>
> AuntieMelSorry about that, just sent you an email...
Bob
Posted by gabbii on July 11, 2005, at 12:29:25
In reply to Re: how far this has gone..., posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 12:19:18
>> Sorry, I haven't intended to make any negative judgments. And I do realize I'm never aware of all that's going on in any situation!
>
> > Jay and I decided mutually to disengage. Part of coexisting is knowing when you cannot.
> >
> > gabbii
>
> Knowing when you can't interact? I agree, and if you accept the DNP, I guess I don't need a reason from him.
>
Yes, cannot interact, and I initiated the D.N.P privately, or suggested it, so it's perfectly acceptable to me. I'm afraid I haven't been able to be supportive because past posts and personal relationships add another layer to any babble interaction.
Posted by All Done on July 11, 2005, at 13:15:51
In reply to Re: Sorry GG, All Done, Gabbi, posted by AuntieMel on July 10, 2005, at 10:08:09
I'm so sorry you're going through such a difficult time right now.
Take care,
Laurie
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 13:19:56
In reply to Re: how far this has gone... » Dr. Bob, posted by gabbii on July 11, 2005, at 12:29:25
> I'm afraid I haven't been able to be supportive because past posts and personal relationships add another layer to any babble interaction.
There certainly can be lots of layers, which can make it really hard. Thanks for doing your best!
Bob
Posted by gabbii on July 11, 2005, at 14:17:48
In reply to Re: how far this has gone..., posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 13:19:56
> There certainly can be lots of layers, which can make it really hard. Thanks for doing your best!
>
> BobYou just about made me cry there Dr. Bob, that's a first. Thank you, I have been trying my best (though the results may not look like it) it's been really really hard.
Thank you for the acknowledgement it meant 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.