![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 94 to 118 of 125. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on April 19, 2006, at 19:46:44
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Damos on April 19, 2006, at 19:15:08
Damos, speaking only for myself, I try not to act deputorially in a thread I'm heavily involved in, so you can't use the fact that I posted without posting as deputy as any sort of guide. I think there is a conflict of interest in those hopefully few situations and I try to avoid conflicts of interests wherever possible.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 19, 2006, at 20:56:09
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Damos on April 19, 2006, at 19:15:08
> what was being said was that; "I who am one won't be offended, and I who know more of them than any of you ever will don't know one that would be either."
That by itself would've been fine.
> to suggest that there may be some New Zealander out 'there' somewhere who may be offended is really a bit much
> You are basically telling this person that *you* know better. And that is simply not true.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I knew better the probability that New Zealanders would feel offended. But I didn't think it was zero. And why take the risk?
Bob
Posted by Racer on April 19, 2006, at 21:05:55
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Damos on April 19, 2006, at 19:15:08
Just for the record, I was offended by some of what Special K posted. And my feelings were hurt, too, by the exchange I had with her.
In the larger scheme of things, that probably doesn't matter much -- but it kinda matters to me. Do I think that someone should be blocked for hurting *my* feelings? No. I only bring that up to show that it wasn't a hypothetical Someone whose feelings could Potentially have been hurt. It was an individual, whose feelings were hurt directly, and who felt quite put down by some of the statements made -- especially by the implication that I was being "over"-sensitive about it.
Again, I'm not saying that the block was justified simply because it was my feelings that were hurt. I'm only saying that someone's feelings were hurt, that someone felt put down. It's quite possible that someone else here also feels hurt or put down, but hasn't said so.
Peace.
Posted by verne on April 19, 2006, at 21:28:23
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Damos, posted by Racer on April 19, 2006, at 21:05:55
As an American, not especially patriotic or sensitive about it, I often feel hurt, annoyed, frustrated, and dismayed by the anti-american tone by some posters.
And not just on the politics board. Someone asks themselves "Why do I feel unsafe" on the social board and one response is a link posted to a book about what *Americans* are unreasonably afraid of. http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20060413/msgs/634039.html
It wears me down for one.
Verne
Posted by Racer on April 19, 2006, at 21:33:20
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Damos, posted by Racer on April 19, 2006, at 21:05:55
>It was an individual, whose feelings were hurt directly, and who felt quite put down by some of the statements made -- especially by the implication that I was being "over"-sensitive about it.
>I realized, as soon as I hit "Submit," that I wasn't all that clear about that. My feelings were individually hurt, by some of what SK wrote to me, but some of it was about the lumping together of Americans, as well. Just as you might feel a twinge if someone said, maybe, that all Aussies love sheep, smell like lanolin, or speak Strine. Kinda diminishes that identity thing, you know?
Anyway, I'll get over it, and I was just wanting to make it clear that it wasn't only the remarks that were directed at me that I was reacting to.
Posted by Damos on April 19, 2006, at 22:17:23
In reply to Whoops! Clarification of part of that, posted by Racer on April 19, 2006, at 21:33:20
Hi Racer,
I apologise if you felt I was discounting your feeling in my post, I in no way meant to do that. That there was hurt on both sides of the exchange was obvious and saddens me greatly.
Re your previous post. In the larger scheme of things, any scheme of things it does matter - much.
For the record, my identity wouldn't be the least little bit diminished if you made those types of remarks, just as it isn't when people spell and pronounce my name incorrectly - but that's me.
Again, I'm sorry that you were hurt and really do appreciate your replying as you have.
Posted by Damos on April 19, 2006, at 22:42:09
In reply to Clarification » Damos, posted by Dinah on April 19, 2006, at 19:46:44
Dinah, I respect and admire the way you manage the potential poster/deputy conflict and had always assumed that that was in fact the case. It is an unenviable position for all deputies to be in.
If you or any other deputy felt I was doing anything more than simply stating how things 'appeared' to me then I apologise. I have an unfortunately tendency to be inarticulate(amongst other things).
Damos
Posted by gardenergirl on April 19, 2006, at 23:35:58
In reply to Re: Clarification » Dinah, posted by Damos on April 19, 2006, at 22:42:09
> If you or any other deputy felt I was doing anything more than simply stating how things 'appeared' to me then I apologise.
I think it was a legitimite question. At one point I almost posted a caveat to clarify that I too felt a conflict of interest by my participation in that thread. I wanted to explain why I had not taken any action as a deputy, and I didn't want anyone to assume that meant I thought every post was okay.
It is a tough spot sometimes. Not all that often, but sometimes.
And thanks for speaking up for special_K by letting us look through your lenses for a moment.
Take care,
gg
Posted by damos on April 20, 2006, at 0:10:47
In reply to What Racer Said., posted by verne on April 19, 2006, at 21:28:23
Hey Verne,
Don't think we've ever posted, but just wanted to say that I read and appreciate your posts.
I'm sorry you feel that way, and even sorrier that it wears you down. Your journey seems plenty tough enough.
Don't know what to say, and even less what to do about any of this and it frustrates me so much.
Thanks,
Damos
Posted by Dinah on April 20, 2006, at 6:57:34
In reply to Re: Clarification » Dinah, posted by Damos on April 19, 2006, at 22:42:09
No, I find you're quite articulate.
I just feared that my lack of action on the thread, and waiting till Dr. Bob arrived, might have given the wrong impression on several fronts. As gg said, it occurred to me to disclose my conflict of interest during the thread, but I thought that in itself might be a conflict of interest as I posted as a poster, if that makes sense.
Fortunately these circumstances are rare.
Posted by zeugma on April 20, 2006, at 10:02:05
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Damos on April 19, 2006, at 19:15:08
< to suggest that there may be some New Zealander out 'there' somewhere who may be offended is really a bit much when what was being said was that; "I who am one won't be offended, and I who know more of them than any of you ever will don't know one that would be either." You are basically telling this person that *you* know better. And that is simply not true. How far do your idiosyncratic civility rules and the 'boundaries' of babble extend? As an Australian who knows plenty too, I can't think of one who would be either.>>
hello Damos.
at the risk of generalizing (which I had sworn I would not do in numerous earlier versions of this post) you may well be right about Australians/ New Zealanders, and I would be the last to say you were *wrong.* But America is so polarized at the moment, that people who may question American policies themselves might display heightened sensitivity to critiques emanating from others about America. I started a much earlier draft of this listening to the words of an American political figure that in their vacuousness offend me more than the diatribes of a thousand critics of American policy. But so polarized is this nation that no doubt many listening found them sensible and civilized utterances. In a country where opinion is so bitterly divided, feelings are on edge constantly. That is why it hard to say things civilly on the Politics board. If I quoted those words that I find vacuous- no doubt others would object that I had no right to think that it was civil to quote them and then describe them as vacuous, since someone, somewhere might find them informative and sensible.
This is the polarized reality of political discourse here. I hope these words are explanatory, at least.
((special k))
-z
Posted by Bobby on April 20, 2006, at 21:23:35
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » special_k, posted by Dr. Bob on April 18, 2006, at 22:24:20
I know being blocked hurts you. Here---take one of my don't give a s*** pills. Hope you're better soon.
Posted by Damos on April 20, 2006, at 21:33:06
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Damos, posted by zeugma on April 20, 2006, at 10:02:05
Hello ~Z,
Being *wrong* is not a problem for me, as a matter of fact it's one of the few things I'm really good at ;-)
More than just explanatory. Thoughtful, intelligent and greatly appreciated - as always.
Thanks and warm regards,
DamosP.S: Sorry for being such an appalling slack correspondent, and largely absent friend.
Posted by alesta on April 21, 2006, at 14:04:43
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » zeugma, posted by Damos on April 20, 2006, at 21:33:06
damos you're just *so sweet*. i just wanna hug you sometimes!! nothin but love for you, man.aim :)
Posted by muffled on April 22, 2006, at 10:29:43
In reply to you guys heard? damos is a sweetiepie! :-) » Damos, posted by alesta on April 21, 2006, at 14:04:43
Posted by Damos on April 23, 2006, at 23:57:33
In reply to you guys heard? damos is a sweetiepie! :-) » Damos, posted by alesta on April 21, 2006, at 14:04:43
I think I'm more mudpie than sweetiepie but thanks okay.
You guys are really sweet and incredibly special and precious to me too.
Love and big hugs to you both.
((((((((((Alesta))))))))))
((((((((((Muffled))))))))))
Posted by Declan on April 30, 2006, at 14:40:40
In reply to Re: I *didn't* interpreted it that way » gardenergirl, posted by AuntieMel on April 17, 2006, at 10:40:23
It was nice of Alex to say I was talking about the policies and not the people, but actually I don't think that people/policy dichotomy is helpful. Elections seem to be decided on personell and soundbites (there you go again, where's the beef?) more than policy.
What I was trying to open up for discussion was: what is it about the spirit of the times today that makes it particularly hard for the centre/left to construct a viable narrative and win with it.
A lot of discussion about politics is multilayered. If I was to say the Democrats support base was fractured (or incoherant!), surely noone would think I was referring to individual people. Clearly I am referring to the support demographic.
The cluelessness that I asserted related to the inability of the centre/left to deal with the feel of today. This might be more obvious in Australia, the ALP being as it is.
Declan
Posted by alesta on May 1, 2006, at 15:14:06
In reply to Thankyou » AuntieMel, posted by Declan on April 30, 2006, at 14:40:40
Posted by AuntieMel on May 1, 2006, at 17:38:33
In reply to Thankyou » AuntieMel, posted by Declan on April 30, 2006, at 14:40:40
Well, I am *very* pleased to see you.
Posted by Declan on May 1, 2006, at 17:57:02
In reply to hi declan...welcome back bruthah! :) (nm) » Declan, posted by alesta on May 1, 2006, at 15:14:06
Hey Alesta, you're a sweetie. I've never spoken to you, or hardly. Hello. Thankyou.
Declan
Posted by capricorn on May 1, 2006, at 21:48:46
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 14, 2006, at 7:18:53
> I was told there would be no math...
>
> Just kidding, Dr. Bob. I actually like it when you share your thinking processes.Dr Bob thinks ?! Are you sure?
Posted by Damos on May 4, 2006, at 17:58:36
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » special_k, posted by Dr. Bob on April 18, 2006, at 22:24:20
Hi Bob,
Shouldn't special's block have been up on the 2nd or 3rd? Babblemail still says 'Blocked'. Surely the 2 weeks is enough without adding bonus days to it :-(
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 4, 2006, at 18:58:44
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Damos on May 4, 2006, at 17:58:36
> Hi Bob,
>
> Shouldn't special's block have been up on the 2nd or 3rd? Babblemail still says 'Blocked'. Surely the 2 weeks is enough without adding bonus days to it :-(
It's an undocumented glitch in old Bob's programming, but Babblemail won't go back on until she posts. It's just the way it is. You're supposed to be psychic, as well as understand the other idiosyncracies, a priori.Lar
Posted by Damos on May 4, 2006, at 19:18:08
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks, posted by Larry Hoover on May 4, 2006, at 18:58:44
Nice to see you back BTW.
Honestly mate, I think I just give up. Don't know how to be me or be here anymore.
Posted by Declan on May 4, 2006, at 19:53:54
In reply to Thanks Lar » Larry Hoover, posted by Damos on May 4, 2006, at 19:18:08
I thought I got a couple of extra days too, counting from the date of the block.
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.