![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 111 to 135 of 272. Go back in thread:
Posted by wildcard11 on January 19, 2006, at 12:02:21
In reply to Another PWD Nite » JenStar, posted by verne on January 19, 2006, at 11:52:42
Posted by wildcard11 on January 19, 2006, at 12:07:36
In reply to It Has Never Been About Civility, posted by verne on January 19, 2006, at 0:07:29
>>>I don't think he's cryptic or coy, just dumb.
I love you to death but disagree w/ this. I do not agree w/ the blocks all the time but Dr.Bob (and no I'm not trying to kiss your *ss) is obviously a very intelligent person to have accomplished what he has. Just my opinion.
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 19, 2006, at 18:23:15
In reply to Re: Support » JenStar, posted by Toph on January 19, 2006, at 11:47:45
> > I disagree that people do not have the capability of controlling their responses, especially over the internet, where there is the ability to step back, rephrase, retype. Whether people WANT to control themselves or put the necessary effort into it is another issue, though.
> >How could anyone know that? Do you mean that if someone is in a manic state or having a delusion, for example, that if they just stopped a minute, and put effort into it, they would percieve things differently?
I don't.
I don't necessarily agree that the board is equipped to handle the most extreme cases, because we are mentally ill, and many have had abuse in their past, we have our own issues.
And for people who don't want a moderated board, there are many where on is able to say anything you want. I would appreciate a little lenience though and flexibility because of the fact that we struggle.
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 19, 2006, at 20:09:04
In reply to ROFLOL! (nm) » verne, posted by crazy teresa on January 19, 2006, at 6:59:49
wow
If we want dr Bob to cut us some slack, maybe we could extend it to each other too?
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 19, 2006, at 20:24:04
In reply to Re: ROFLOL! verne » crazy teresa, posted by Gabbix2 on January 19, 2006, at 20:09:04
as I am far from perfect and don't know the details I shouldn't have said anything. I apologize for butting in like the bossy girl in elementary school (you know.. *HER*)
I always react to those sideways comments, and I shouldn't.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 20, 2006, at 0:43:41
In reply to Another PWD Nite » JenStar, posted by verne on January 19, 2006, at 11:52:42
> once you're blocked, you're blocked and there's nothing you can say or do to change that. ... It's not very civil.
>
> Susan47> I guess I was just saying that it bothers me when it is harmful like others have suggested and all who have been here long enough witness from time to time. It is just plain ironic that a place purporting to be supportive is punitive to people who have emotional problems. Maybe it is unavoidable, but let's not deny that people are harmed here emotionally. I struggle with the justification that it is for their own good. I fear that Psyco-Babble is not a place where a healthy mix of people with emotional/psychiatic problems can congregate, but rather one that systematically excludes those who cannot adapt to rigid civility rules in favor of a more "stable/conforming/less pathologic" cohort. Maybe its just the social worker in me who has had to put up with a lot of abuse from clients in my work. I couldn't help them all, but having thick skin has allowed me to help some who took a while to trust someone who claimed to be there for them. Most of the time they had been let down by someone making such a claim in the past.
>
> TophIt bothers me when someone's blocked, too. Of course that can hurt. But the idea isn't that it's for their own good, but for the good of this community as a whole. Civility in this sense has to do with "civic harmony", not individual welfare.
IMO, different types of groups can accommodate different mixes of people. A large open online group has limitations. Groups that meet in person have limitations, too. There's a difference between a therapist putting up with abuse and other group members doing so.
Any system with rules excludes those who can't or won't adapt to them. Or who are "nonconformist", if you want to put it that way.
Why might someone who's been let down in the past "abuse" others?
--
> I'd rather see someone blocked for a week 52 times than someone blocked for a year at a time. And removal of posts is another option.
>
> VerneI'd rather see 1 uncivil post on a board than 52. Removal of posts without blocking of posters?
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 20, 2006, at 0:44:50
In reply to It Has Never Been About Civility, posted by verne on January 19, 2006, at 0:07:29
> I don't think he's cryptic or coy, just dumb.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. I'm going to block you from posting for 3 weeks again.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Susan47 on January 20, 2006, at 3:02:01
In reply to Cyber-love is real, isn't it? (nm) » Susan47, posted by Toph on January 19, 2006, at 11:34:37
Posted by Toph on January 20, 2006, at 9:35:34
In reply to Re: people are harmed here emotionally, posted by Dr. Bob on January 20, 2006, at 0:43:41
>
> It bothers me when someone's blocked, too. Of course that can hurt. But the idea isn't that it's for their own good, but for the good of this community as a whole. Civility in this sense has to do with "civic harmony", not individual welfare.
>
> IMO, different types of groups can accommodate different mixes of people. A large open online group has limitations. Groups that meet in person have limitations, too. There's a difference between a therapist putting up with abuse and other group members doing so.
>
> Any system with rules excludes those who can't or won't adapt to them. Or who are "nonconformist", if you want to put it that way.
>I try to use analogies for effect but you can always pick apart an analogy. There are naturally limitations in individual therapy as when I wanted to have my serum lithium at .5 and my shrink said he wouldn't treat me unless I was around .7. The same applies in social work, when someone threatens me I stop attempting to help them no matter how sypathetic I may be of their situation. Years ago in a Day Hospital my experience with a group theraeutic milieu showed me that the group tolerated well an member acting in an uncivil manner unless it involved a personal attack on an individual member who was injured (psychicly) in some way. Not that there weren't limitations on concuct in the group, i.e. sex between group memners could lead to expulsion. I guess what I'm suggesting is that you may be overestimating the group's need for protection, Bob, especially in some of the more trivial/benign civility infractions that you administer. But I confess, that's why I'm not a teacher, I couldn't manage a group as effectively as I can individual encounters. I don't envy your position here.
Toph
Posted by Dinah on January 20, 2006, at 9:49:22
In reply to Re: people are harmed here emotionally » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on January 20, 2006, at 9:35:34
No. He's not overestimating it.
He may be providing an environment that self selects for those who wish to be in an environment with more protection.
But I post here *because* of the protection. Others may choose not to post here because of the protection, it's true. But isn't that's why there are different environments?
Posted by wildcard11 on January 20, 2006, at 9:53:58
In reply to Re: people are harmed here emotionally » Toph, posted by Dinah on January 20, 2006, at 9:49:22
Posted by crazy teresa on January 20, 2006, at 11:08:44
In reply to Re: ROFLOL! verne » crazy teresa, posted by Gabbix2 on January 19, 2006, at 20:09:04
You've lost me.
Posted by Deneb on January 20, 2006, at 13:39:24
In reply to Re: people are harmed here emotionally, posted by Dr. Bob on January 20, 2006, at 0:43:41
> It bothers me when someone's blocked, too. Of course that can hurt. But the idea isn't that it's for their own good, but for the good of this community as a whole. Civility in this sense has to do with "civic harmony", not individual welfare.
I guess that means you think the end justifies the means. This sounds very disturbing to me.
(What is this philosophy called again Alexandra? If you're reading?)
So it *is* acceptable to sacrifice a person to prevent the crowd from upset? Is it worth it? Does the crowd just blindly accept this? I don't suppose you believe in the death penalty?
Choice: Torture a criminal or else 10 000, no, lets make it 1 million people get called a bad name...
I'm guessing you think it's worth it?
Maybe there is something I don't understand. Please enlighten me.
Perhaps I'm just being selfish?
Deneb
Posted by Deneb on January 20, 2006, at 13:56:09
In reply to Re: people are harmed here emotionally, posted by Dr. Bob on January 20, 2006, at 0:43:41
> But the idea isn't that it's for their own good, but for the good of this community as a whole. Civility in this sense has to do with "civic harmony", not individual welfare.
Dr. Bob, can't you at least *pretend* to care about individuals? Why can't you care about *both* individual AND community welfare??
You can make something up...Like, it's better to block a person when they've been uncivil, even if they were already in great distress, because the block will give them some perspective, and take them away from the potentially harmful effects resulting from their actions.
Please, for the sake of the community AND individuals, can you at least PRETEND??
Deneb
Posted by Toph on January 20, 2006, at 14:20:03
In reply to Re: people are harmed here emotionally » Toph, posted by Dinah on January 20, 2006, at 9:49:22
> No. He's not overestimating it.
>
How can you be so certain, Dinah? At any rate, I am sure that that Bob underestimates this mental health community's ability to handle words like *ss or criticism of political leaders, among other benign expressions deemed uncivil here. Besides being patronizing, the consequent punishment is often harmful and not commensurate with the offense. I'm not discussing why you and others who are fond of excessive protection remain here, I'm speaking of how unfortunate it is when interesting and helpful contributors feel uncomfortable remaining in a community where their expression is needlessly criticized and punished. I miss hearing from many of thse people.
Posted by Deneb on January 20, 2006, at 14:42:55
In reply to Re: people are harmed here emotionally » Dr. Bob, posted by Deneb on January 20, 2006, at 13:56:09
OK Dr. Bob, another question for you.
Let's say you had a choice...
If you lose your little finger, Babble will forever be civil.
If you choose to keep your little finger, Babble will forever be uncivil.
Which would you choose?
Does the individual matter now?
Deneb
Posted by Deneb on January 20, 2006, at 15:03:17
In reply to Re: people are harmed here emotionally, posted by Deneb on January 20, 2006, at 14:42:55
Dr. Bob,
You belong to some ethics thing right?
Maybe you should give us all an ethics lesson.
The only ethics course I've ever taken was bioethics, aka medical ethics.
Seriously, if you explain your reasoning better, maybe people won't be so hard on you.
Deneb
Posted by Dinah on January 20, 2006, at 16:50:42
In reply to Re: people are harmed here emotionally, posted by Toph on January 20, 2006, at 14:20:03
While I have no particular problem with language, since I curse like a sailor, I admit to being a strong supporter of the politics rules, and may have even helped convince Dr. Bob that they were needed.
I, as a conservative, was hearing things said about conservatives that made it very difficult for me to feel like part of this community.
And yes, I'm certain about the protection. I'm speaking of my own experience here, so please don't tell me I'm mistaking myself.
Posted by Dinah on January 20, 2006, at 16:51:47
In reply to Re: people are harmed here emotionally » Dr. Bob, posted by Deneb on January 20, 2006, at 13:56:09
Maybe it would help if you thought of "community" as a number of individuals.
Posted by Dinah on January 20, 2006, at 16:53:18
In reply to Re: people are harmed here emotionally » Deneb, posted by Dinah on January 20, 2006, at 16:51:47
What I mean is, it might help you judge Dr. Bob less harshly, if you think of community as a large number of individuals.
Posted by Deneb on January 20, 2006, at 18:05:44
In reply to Re: people are harmed here emotionally, posted by Dinah on January 20, 2006, at 16:53:18
> What I mean is, it might help you judge Dr. Bob less harshly, if you think of community as a large number of individuals.
I'm not angry at Dr. Bob anymore. My anger goes away quickly.
Here's my current explanation of things...
Dr. Bob *cannot* care for individuals because 1. there are simply too many of us, and 2. caring about individuals runs a risk of friendship developing. Dr. Bob cannot be friends with any of us here because he cannot form relationships with us.
Deneb
Posted by Deneb on January 20, 2006, at 18:09:24
In reply to Re: people are harmed here emotionally » Dinah, posted by Deneb on January 20, 2006, at 18:05:44
Can someone explain to me why Dr. Bob can't form relationships with us again?
I just want to make sure I'm on the right track.
Deneb
Posted by alexandra_k on January 20, 2006, at 18:17:17
In reply to Re: people are harmed here emotionally, posted by Deneb on January 20, 2006, at 18:09:24
> Can someone explain to me why Dr. Bob can't form relationships with us again?
because his role as moderator means that he needs to act in the interestes of the group as a whole.
if he was diverted from the group to a few individuals within the group then the group (as a whole) would suffer.
lets say (just for arguments sake) that he has around one hour per day that he has decided to use to help people.
he could talk to maybe one or two or three...
or he could moderate the boards where how many of us find benefit to helping and receiving help from one another?
but for it to stay that way... he needs to act in the interests of the group.
and it is not in the interests of the group for him to be diverted by individuals. and if the group disintegrates... then even those individuals who he may have temporarily helped... ultimately they will be harmed as the group falls apart.
Posted by Dinah on January 20, 2006, at 18:18:09
In reply to Re: people are harmed here emotionally » Dinah, posted by Deneb on January 20, 2006, at 18:05:44
Can't Dr. Bob care about all of us as individuals but when you put all the individuals together, we're a community?
Posted by Declan on January 20, 2006, at 19:50:05
In reply to Re: people are harmed here emotionally » Toph, posted by Dinah on January 20, 2006, at 16:50:42
I think there's a community on Social, for example, but I can't for the life of me see how there is or can be a community on Politics, except a very partial quiet one, which may or may not be better than a bigger more unhappy fractious one. There are people who back each other up there, I guess.
Declan
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.