![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 183 to 207 of 275. Go back in thread:
Posted by Tamar on June 5, 2006, at 18:51:09
In reply to Re: BOB said that????????????? » zazenduck, posted by Dinah on June 5, 2006, at 11:36:49
> I don't recall Dr. Bob saying that. If anyone has links?
>
> Please remember that the civility guidelines apply to Dr. Bob as well, although he is admittedly more lenient in applying them that way.I think agent858 is right. I think there's a link somewhere to a paper or something that Dr Bob has written. I will try to find the link.
Posted by Tamar on June 5, 2006, at 19:23:35
In reply to Re: BOB said that?????????????, posted by Tamar on June 5, 2006, at 18:51:09
Darn; can't find it and haven't got time to look further. I think I read it a few months ago when Deneb posted a link to it. It might have been the "Reaching Out Across Cyberspace" paper, but I can't access it right now to check...
Sorry.
Posted by henrietta on June 5, 2006, at 19:29:34
In reply to Speaking only for myself » henrietta, posted by Dinah on June 5, 2006, at 17:09:43
i am too angry to reply
i give up
Posted by Deneb on June 5, 2006, at 19:47:16
In reply to Re: BOB said that?????????????, posted by Tamar on June 5, 2006, at 19:23:35
"Reading Out Across Cyberspace" is a presentation of Bob's.
There's this paper Dr. Bob wrote, called "The best of both Worlds", but I don't recall there being anything about borderline or narcissistic personality disorders.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/research.html
Dr. Bob, I hope you didn't single out a group of people to say they don't fit in.
Deneb*
Posted by Dinah on June 5, 2006, at 19:52:10
In reply to Re: Speaking only for myself, posted by henrietta on June 5, 2006, at 19:29:34
You asked politely for an explanation of my actions so I answered. I'm sorry my answer made you angry. However, it is the truth, so I must stand by it.
If Dr. Bob disagrees with my assessment, he can do what he thinks is appropriate. Deputy decisions are never final. And risking the ire of all who find it irksome when Dr. Bob says it, I am doing my best, and that's all I can do.
Posted by zazenduck on June 5, 2006, at 19:54:23
In reply to Re: BOB said that????????????? » zazenduck, posted by Dinah on June 5, 2006, at 11:36:49
Good to know.
Apparently his speculations about people being unsuitable for his board because of personality disorders have caused others to feel put down.
Deputy Dinah if you consider that uncivil I urge you to have the moral courage to PBC him. If you consider my list of narcissistic traits uncivil please withdraw my post.
I offered it for purposes of hypothetical alternative explanation only not as an accusation against Bob. I don't know why he does the things he does. I like Bob but I don't like seeing his actions hurt people I care about.
>
> Please remember that the civility guidelines apply to Dr. Bob as well,
Posted by Dinah on June 5, 2006, at 20:05:54
In reply to Civility guidelines apply to DR BOB » Dinah, posted by zazenduck on June 5, 2006, at 19:54:23
But I can't *find* that. Nor do I recall it.
I don't ever recall myself lacking in moral courage enough not to say what I think to Dr. Bob. If I remember correctly, one of my first interactions with Dr. Bob involved threatening to have my mother give him a good talking to. And him replying that that was fine, just to have her please register under her own posting name.
I like Dr. Bob as well. I think I liked him since he made that very polite response to my impassioned post.
And I'm also sad when people feel hurt. I've always suspected that Dr. Bob is as well.
Posted by zazenduck on June 5, 2006, at 20:15:50
In reply to BOB said that?????????????, posted by zazenduck on June 5, 2006, at 9:42:49
> I am surprised that Bob would say such a thing. I still find the civility rules confusing.
>
> But in general I believe certain narcissistic traits would hamper the effective moderation of a mental health site..
>
> a lack of empathy,
>
> the inability to see others as separate individuals
>
> the need for absolute control/domination of the relationship
>
> the need for constant admiration
>
> inability to admit mistakes or flaws
>
> a sense of entitlement...the expectation that others should do what he wants because he wants it
I wonder if conflict with administrative needs might be at the root of the unsuitability rather than some personality disorder within the poster.......
hmmmmmm......
well just musing.
>
>
>
>> >
>
Posted by zazenduck on June 6, 2006, at 8:58:27
In reply to Re: Civility guidelines apply to DR BOB » zazenduck, posted by Dinah on June 5, 2006, at 20:05:54
I did not mean to imply in any way that you were lacking in moral courage. I withdraw my comment. I am acquiring civility scrupulosity on this board.
>
> I don't ever recall myself lacking in moral courage enough not to say what I think to Dr. Bob. If I remember correctly, one of my first interactions with Dr. Bob involved threatening to have my mother give him a good talking to.Were you serious?
> And him replying that that was fine, just to have her please register under her own posting name.
>
> I like Dr. Bob as well. I think I liked him since he made that very polite response to my impassioned post.It's interesting that you interpreted it that way :) I think I would have felt like he missed the point if he failed to respond to what I was impassioned about and responded literally to the threat to have my mom talk to him. I think Estella was right that Bob's style does encourage transference. I scrupulously note that I do not mean anything remotely negative by that observation
I think I saw him originally as an idealist trying to form a community which let people meet on common ground and discuss things which had been the domain of doctors. That was back in the days before registration. The only rule was please be civil. And when someone was blocked-SURPRISE-it wasn't me :) there wasn't even a number a days the person just emailed Bob when he was ready to return. I thought Bob was a true humanitarian and a champion of people who hadn't had a voice-people labelled mentally ill. And of course that was transference too I suppose. I always felt very protective of him because he seemed a little naive to me in those days. *rolling my eyes at myself*
And so my criticism of him is in part because I feel like he strayed so far from his own ideals which of course were not his but my own which I guess I projected onto him........or maybe not.
But then by the time you realize that you misinterpeted this place it's too late to leave because so many wonderful things can happen here
like finding Henrietta and Ludvig Wittgenstein
>
> And I'm also sad when people feel hurt. I've always suspected that Dr. Bob is as well.I try not to have suspicions about Dr Bob I really really try :) Where did he go and why did he leave that very strange picture before he went.
Posted by Dinah on June 6, 2006, at 9:45:38
In reply to Re: Civility clarifications » Dinah, posted by zazenduck on June 6, 2006, at 8:58:27
> I did not mean to imply in any way that you were lacking in moral courage. I withdraw my comment. I am acquiring civility scrupulosity on this board.
Why, I thank you for that. It must be my obsessiveness, but I was a wee bit hurt. I had rather thought my moral courage was self evident. I pray you will allow me my small vanities.
> > I don't ever recall myself lacking in moral courage enough not to say what I think to Dr. Bob. If I remember correctly, one of my first interactions with Dr. Bob involved threatening to have my mother give him a good talking to.
>
> Were you serious?I was completely serious. I don't recall what the point was now, but it was before I knew him well. Or rather as well as I do now, which still isn't particularly well. My mother's crusades were usually either about doing what you thought was right (and I can't imagine I'd fuss at that with Dr. Bob who appears to always do what he thinks is right) or about embracing differences in others and being tolerant and inclusive (so I by process of elimination, it probably had something to do with that). I really enjoy Dr. Bob's sense of humor when he employs it, and it seemed clear to me that he was employing humor.
> > And him replying that that was fine, just to have her please register under her own posting name.
> >
> > I like Dr. Bob as well. I think I liked him since he made that very polite response to my impassioned post.
>
> It's interesting that you interpreted it that way :) I think I would have felt like he missed the point if he failed to respond to what I was impassioned about and responded literally to the threat to have my mom talk to him. I think Estella was right that Bob's style does encourage transference. I scrupulously note that I do not mean anything remotely negative by that observationWell, I have felt like that at other times, I must confess. But if I have the patience to be persistent and he has the time, he can usually accurately reflect back to me what I'm saying after a fair few rounds of clarification. And even if he doesn't agree with me, and I might wish that he appreciated my wisdom more, I'm generally content with feeling heard.
> I think I saw him originally as an idealist trying to form a community which let people meet on common ground and discuss things which had been the domain of doctors. That was back in the days before registration. The only rule was please be civil. And when someone was blocked-SURPRISE-it wasn't me :) there wasn't even a number a days the person just emailed Bob when he was ready to return. I thought Bob was a true humanitarian and a champion of people who hadn't had a voice-people labelled mentally ill. And of course that was transference too I suppose. I always felt very protective of him because he seemed a little naive to me in those days. *rolling my eyes at myself*:) I think the challenges facing him changed as the board grew bigger, and he changed as he thought best to deal with the new challenges. I was mightily impressed by Dr. Bob's ability to be polite yet firm in person and to be aware what was happening all around him and found him more than capable of taking care of himself, and changed my opinion of him by meeting him. But FWIW, there were elements in your assessment of him that I still wouldn't disagree with. And perhaps if you trusted your original judgement of him, but added the tremendous challenge of keeping a board this size running, there might be very charitable explanations for what he does.
I'm jealous, you know. I'd have loved to be around then. I've read the archives of course. But it was a different time on Babble, and while there were many gains in the way it changed, there were also clearly losses.
> And so my criticism of him is in part because I feel like he strayed so far from his own ideals which of course were not his but my own which I guess I projected onto him........or maybe not.
Or maybe not. :)
> But then by the time you realize that you misinterpeted this place it's too late to leave because so many wonderful things can happen here
>
> like finding Henrietta and Ludvig WittgensteinSo many wonderful things happen here, and I meet so many wonderful people. And I lose so many people I care about too, since few people stick around forever. It took a while for me to be able to accept that, if I've gotten there yet. Actually, I don't think I've gotten there at all.
> > And I'm also sad when people feel hurt. I've always suspected that Dr. Bob is as well.
>
> I try not to have suspicions about Dr Bob I really really try :) Where did he go and why did he leave that very strange picture before he went.
>
>I don't know. :( If I were to wave a magic wand, I'd have Dr. Bob at least tell the deputies when he'd be gone and for how long. And check for deputy emails first. I think he's been on the meds board. I hope nobody gets upset by that. He usually starts there. Perhaps he feels nostalgia too.
I hope my answer wasn't too ponderous. I tend to be a bit ponderous.
Posted by Tamar on June 6, 2006, at 15:51:20
In reply to Re: BOB said that????????????? » Tamar, posted by Deneb on June 5, 2006, at 19:47:16
> "Reading Out Across Cyberspace" is a presentation of Bob's.
>
> There's this paper Dr. Bob wrote, called "The best of both Worlds", but I don't recall there being anything about borderline or narcissistic personality disorders.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/research.htmlYeah... I found those. And I spent hours looking back through the archives and saw that you'd linked to the presentation in a post a few months ago.
If I recall, I couldn't open the presentation at the time (and I can't now) but I found the text elsewhere online. However, no sign of it now. Or at least, I can't find it. But when I looked at the presentation slides just now I'd say they went with the paper I remember reading.
> Dr. Bob, I hope you didn't single out a group of people to say they don't fit in.
I don't think it was quite like that. If I remember (and was a while ago), he said that people with some kinds of difficulties have an especially hard time dealing with this kind of forum. He mentioned borderline and narcisstic personalities as being particularly difficult for people who want to participate in a site like Babble. However, I can't provide a reference, so I won't try to dredge up much more from my memory. I mainly wanted to back Alex up. She didn't get it out of nowhere; I read the same source she read.
Tamar
Posted by Jakeman on June 8, 2006, at 22:17:14
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob? 3rd request. Re: blocked for 4 weeks » Jakeman, posted by teejay on June 4, 2006, at 17:57:59
I'm afraid you are right. I have been completely ignored by our moderator.
regretfully, Jake
> I'm afraid you appear to be wasting your breath
Posted by Dinah on June 9, 2006, at 10:01:10
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob? 3rd request. Re: blocked for 4 weeks » teejay, posted by Jakeman on June 8, 2006, at 22:17:14
It's his practice to leave the longest threads for last, and he was up late moderating.
Maybe he left this one for last, and decided to sleep on it.
Posted by teejay on June 9, 2006, at 21:41:48
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob? 3rd request. Re: blocked for 4 weeks » teejay, posted by Jakeman on June 8, 2006, at 22:17:14
> I'm afraid you are right. I have been completely ignored by our moderator.
>
> regretfully, Jake
>
>
> > I'm afraid you appear to be wasting your breathYup, this is Dr Bobs worst hour IMO. He really has let himself down here. The thread is truly massive and the opinion overwhelming yet he remains silent.
I've made up my mind now, and I'm pretty sure others have too. PB isnt the place I thought it was.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 10, 2006, at 1:20:55
In reply to Re: BOB said that????????????? » zazenduck, posted by Dinah on June 5, 2006, at 11:36:49
> With respect, you seem rather biased in the way you police your 'sensitivity to feelings' rule. Let me give you an example; I spoke resently on a thread about iraq and saddam where I said his sons were purported to be blood thirsty monsters ... This went unchallenged but you can be sure if I suggested donald rumsfeld was a blood thirsty war monger (for example) that I'd have fallen foul of potentially upsetting people.
>
> TJI'm not sure it's necessarily the best rationale, but I try to minimize how much I police and sometimes I think there's more potential for upset than other times.
--
> I don't get you Bob, you come acrosss nice sometimes but I feel you really seem to have issues of omnipotence and I feel its hurting people.
> I wish I could duct tape your mouth shut for 2wks. and see how you like it :-(
> It hurts.
> It really f*cking HURTS- DO YOU HEAR ME ?????????????
>
> MuffledI hear you. If I'm omnipotent, then that means you're impotent. I'm sorry you're hurting.
--
> The thing is, that the Christian notion of God as some universal thing that affects ME, whether I believe in him or not-- THIS is so intrusive on my own personal beliefs. By simply saying that I have no God, no God watches over me etc etc I will offend any true believer in the Judeo-Christian concept of God. We simultaneously offend one another, simply by saying something about our own personal beliefs. Whether or not we phrase it in "I" language or not. It's a lose-lose situation.
This kind of thing has been coming up, so I'd like to distinguish between disagreeing, being sensitive and respectful, and language that could offend others.
If one person likes the Cubs and another person says they prefer the White Sox, I'd consider that a disagreement. If the first person is a real fan, they may be offended (caused to feel vexation or resentment by violation of what they consider proper or fitting). But I wouldn't consider the second person to have been insensitive or disrespectful. Saying the first person's team stinks I wouldn't consider sensitive, however, and saying the first person shouldn't be a fan I wouldn't consider respectful.
Here, "language that could offend others" usually has a very specific meaning: words and phrases considered often or usually disparaging, obscene, offensive, or vulgar by Merriam-Webster OnLine:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
> Bob, I'm concerned that certain religions may be given preference in terms of what is deemed "civil" on the faith board.
>
> llrrrppThey may, and we've discussed that. Different points of view are fine, and in fact encouraged, but freedom of speech is limited here.
--
> Just wondering. Are you willing to reconsider this block or not. Yes or no. Otherwise this debate could go on forever.
>
> JakeYes, but my mind hasn't been changed yet. Maybe it's a debate that *should* in some form go on forever?
--
> As far as I know, based on past practice, it is possible in the face of a Please Rephrase to apologize for any offense and withdraw the statement.
>
> If that's what one wishes to do, it seems like a safe option.
>
> Is this true, Dr. Bob?
>
> DinahThat's been my past practice, but rephrasing may be a useful exercise, so I've considered being more insistent. What do you think?
--
> can anyone tell me the rationale for blocking babblemail, along with public posting, during a block?
>
> LarThe idea is to increase the incentive to be civil.
--
> I don't recall Dr. Bob saying that. If anyone has links?
>
> DinahI don't recall doing so, either. Maybe it was someone else? I'd also be interested in links...
Bob
Posted by Deneb on June 10, 2006, at 2:32:07
In reply to Re: truly massive thread, posted by Dr. Bob on June 10, 2006, at 1:20:55
> > It really f*cking HURTS- DO YOU HEAR ME ?????????????
> >
> > Muffled
>
> I hear you. If I'm omnipotent, then that means you're impotent. I'm sorry you're hurting.((((((((((((((((((Dr. Bob))))))))))))))))))))
You care Dr. Bob, don't you? You really do care. :-) I'm so happy you care. :-)
I love you Dr. Bob. I just love how you care about us. You care enough to read hundreds of posts a week. You care enough to stay with us for 8 years. You care enough to do all this for free and even use your own money to support the site.
I love how you don't mind that I love you. I love how you don't hold my past behaviours against me. I'm glad you don't freak out easily. I'm glad you're back. You wouldn't abandon us, would you? You always come back.
Deneb*
Posted by Dinah on June 10, 2006, at 8:24:46
In reply to Re: truly massive thread, posted by Dr. Bob on June 10, 2006, at 1:20:55
> > As far as I know, based on past practice, it is possible in the face of a Please Rephrase to apologize for any offense and withdraw the statement.
> >
> > If that's what one wishes to do, it seems like a safe option.
> >
> > Is this true, Dr. Bob?
> >
> > Dinah
>
> That's been my past practice, but rephrasing may be a useful exercise, so I've considered being more insistent. What do you think?I think that past practice has been sound, to tell you the truth. Sometimes there may not be a good way to rephrase (although I suppose you must have thought of one before you asked) while remaining true to yourself and your beliefs. But sometimes in that situation, a request to rephrase can also serve as a reminder that it may not be necessary to always state *all* of your beliefs, and to regret having stated these particular ones here for any distress they may have caused others. In which case a statement to that effect would be perfectly truthful.
Granted it, like an apology, could be more a mere matter of form than of true regret. But you can't conclude that it necessarily would be.
I think, FWIW, you ought to leave the option in place to allow a graceful withdrawal and save insistence for any cases where "Please rephrase" and withdrawals have been used so extensively that you believe insistence on a rephrase to be more appropriate.
Dinah
Posted by AuntieMel on June 10, 2006, at 10:32:17
In reply to Re: truly massive thread, posted by Dr. Bob on June 10, 2006, at 1:20:55
> If one person likes the Cubs and another person says they prefer the White Sox, I'd consider that a disagreement. If the first person is a real fan, they may be offended (caused to feel vexation or resentment by violation of what they consider proper or fitting). But I wouldn't consider the second person to have been insensitive or disrespectful. Saying the first person's team stinks I wouldn't consider sensitive, however, and saying the first person shouldn't be a fan I wouldn't consider respectful.
>But Alex was blocked for saying "I think the world would be better without religion"
That statement is similar, at least in wording if not in subject matter. It is a disagreement, and a person who is religious might feel offended, but the statement itself isn't offensive. And I didn't think it was disrespectful, either.
Now, as it turns out, there were a couple of people who *were* offended by the statement. But I'm sure that is a consequence that wasn't intended. By blocking Estella there is no chance for those involved to discuss it and 'right' the 'wrong.'
And that is what I sometimes have problems with. Blocks turn into an "I win" instead of allowing adults to come to terms with each other.
Posted by AuntieMel on June 10, 2006, at 10:38:27
In reply to I have been asked to come here and apologise, posted by NikkiT2 on June 5, 2006, at 0:56:50
You got babblemail asking you to apologize.
I made one flippant (not meant to be mean) remark, and several come down hard on me and I even got my first DNP.
One person (Thank you Gabbi) came to my defense here. And one person (Thank you Verne) emailed me support.
Yes, you do find out who your friends are.
Posted by Gabbi~G on June 10, 2006, at 19:18:38
In reply to Re: You find out who your friends are, don't you » NikkiT2, posted by AuntieMel on June 10, 2006, at 10:38:27
You're very welcome Auntie Mel.
That Verne.. he's a mensch isn't he?
Posted by zazenduck on June 11, 2006, at 16:31:57
In reply to please be kind to each other, posted by agent858 on June 4, 2006, at 23:11:32
I think you need to address the problem of excessive block lengths. It's not really about continuing this argument case by case indefinitely until the person blocked comes back or chooses not to come back after the block is up. I think it would be useful to allow all blockees back to discuss this. Even if you limit them to posting on admin until the questionof reforming the guidelines is settled.
(I know how much my opinion counts with you :)
>
> He is idiosyncratic. Some of his decisions are unfair. Some people not even being warned while another person is blocked for one year FOR EXACTLY THE SAME THING. That is not fair. A certain degree of unfairness is inherent because he is not perfect he is a human being.
>
> My bone of contention is that GIVEN THAT A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF UNFAIRNESS IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE PRESENT MEASURES NEED TO BE TAKEN TO REDUCE THE DETRIMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THAT. What does that mean? That means reduced sentences for blockings ESPECIALLY when there are infractions OF THE SAME KIND that have gone unremarked. If we see something we want to make sure he sees, then we can email him a link or post something to admin. If nobody notices when x says ‘sh*t’ while y gets blocked for saying ‘sh*t’ then IMO the appropriate response is ‘sorry that there was an unfairness here’ and the block should max at one or two weeks. It is still an unfairness. It is still an injustice. But it is about minimising the negative impact of the injustice.
>
Posted by zazenduck on June 11, 2006, at 16:47:46
In reply to Posting while blocked » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on June 5, 2006, at 11:29:42
But the problem as I suspect you are aware is that Bob can't really tell when the poster is blocked if he is using Earthlink or AOL or other big providers because they have thousands of ISP numbers and the users get a different one each time they go online.And a fairly large percentage of a board this big may be using the same service. So he's really just guessing ......or someone may notice similiarity in vocabulary and make accusations....but that's just accusing someone and accusations without proof are not in the service of a healthy community. And people can end up being blocked for something they didn't do. Personally I would volunteer to serve time for most of the people given long blocks but it would be nice to volunteer rather than be blocked because of someone else's unsupported suspicions. I think it's less than optimally open and honest to let it be thought that Bob actually KNOWS when someone is posting from the same computer much less is the same person. :)
I think honesty and openness promotes civility.
> I don't see the not posting while blocked rule as preventing civility. It seems perfectly common sense to me.
Posted by zazenduck on June 11, 2006, at 17:16:26
In reply to Suspected of Posting while blocked, posted by zazenduck on June 11, 2006, at 16:47:46
But I could be wrong that's just what I was told.
On wiki all aol people get each others messages by isp number
It's a little unnerving until you realize what is happening
And I wonder if it doesn't happen here. I have no faith in Bob. I don't trust him.
I feel bad for people who get erased
It reminds me of the USSR-the second death when people were erased from photos after their fall from grace/execution etc.
I think it is time for me to leave. I think it would be kind to allow voluntary blocks. This place is SO VERY UNHEALTHY for me.
Posted by Dinah on June 11, 2006, at 17:24:30
In reply to Re: Suspected of Posting while blocked » zazenduck, posted by zazenduck on June 11, 2006, at 17:16:26
I would hate to see you leave. I enjoy having you here, and I enjoy your posts. And I'm sorry you find pain here.
It's been my experience that pain is often a byproduct of human interaction. But perhaps that's due to my nature.
However, many people, myself included, have found a way to block themselves by changing their passwords to a string of unmemorable characters, and then changing their email addresses also to a string of unmemorable characters so that a password reset won't work. At that point, only Dr. Bob can help you unless you reregister with a new name. If you really wish to block yourself, that generally is an effective way to do it.
I always try to pass that on to people who express a wish for a voluntary block. It beats some of the alternatives.
Posted by zazenduck on June 11, 2006, at 17:37:18
In reply to Re: truly massive thread, posted by Dr. Bob on June 10, 2006, at 1:20:55
If civility supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "civility is an *ss- an idiot.
>
> I hear you. If I'm omnipotent, then that means you're impotent.
>
> --
>Happy trails Babblistos!!!!!!
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.