![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 18 to 42 of 42. Go back in thread:
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 3, 2003, at 7:35:43
In reply to Re: policies and hurt, posted by Dr. Bob on October 28, 2003, at 22:57:02
> > > 1. Usually, someone who's blocked tries to post, finds out they're (still) blocked, re-registers under a new name to get around the block, and posts. But that's not what happened in this case.
> >
> > You know that, because?
>
> Because I have access to logs and stuff.
>
> > It's only because someone with a little more knowledge of what really went on brought it to the light of day that we can even discuss it.
>
> If you mean Galkeepinon, yes, she came forward with this.No, I'm referring to Dinah's post...
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030808/msgs/266495.html
....and all that follows.
> > > And remember, you can report an adverse event at:
> > >
> > > https://dr-bob.securesites.com/cgi-bin/pb/advent.pl
> >
> > That looks like a drug report form.
>
> That was the model...You think I should report emotional reactions to posters?
> > Thank you for your support. You know I will do what *I* think is best.
>
> You're welcome, and best wishes,
>
> BobConsidering that I had posted *substantially* more ideas than those to which you have chosen to reply, I suppose I have been answered by you. Fine. We must now engage in Phase 2 and Phase 3 of this exercise.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 3, 2003, at 7:57:11
In reply to Re: policies and hurt, posted by Dr. Bob on October 28, 2003, at 22:57:02
Although it has been mentioned many times in recent days, you have yet to tell us of the new criteria for amnesty, or parole, with respect to blocks. You see, I don't even know which term to apply. In amnesty, a sentence is stricken or formally reduced, whereas with parole, it is conditionally reduced, with the original sentence still on the books. What happens if a poster with amnesty or parole reoffends? Which "prior sentence" is used to determine the new block?
In the interest of fairness, it is important that we understand what happened a few months ago, when you reduced Krissy's block. As you say, a precedent was set, but we need to know about the circumstances. I'm not asking for anything confidential, but what exactly transpired?
Moreover, we need to know just how one goes about applying for a similar sentence reduction. What criteria will be applied? You have yet to post the details, or to amend the FAQ appropriately.
Moreover moreover, I am astounded that one full month after you have reduced a block, you entertained a full debate about graduated block penalties without revealing that you had *already* created another form of that.
See:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030508/msgs/247518.htmlAt the end of the discussion, we had developed concensus for both double and triple blocks....
(you were arguing for double and quadruple....
> Perhaps it *would* be a good idea to have the punishment fit the crime? I.E. change the FAQ so that some offenses are listed as major and some as minor. Minor offenses would result in a block lasting the same period of time as the most recent block placed on the poster, while major offenses would keep to the current policies. What do you all think?
>
> Ame Sans VieI think it works more or less OK now, but that doesn't mean there's no room for improvement...
What about using Emme's system to differentiate, as Ame Sans Vie suggests, between two levels of incivility? Except with "minor" blocks following the current system and "major" ones double that?
Bob )
....but you didn't tell us you'd already created a 1.5 block multiplier (the net effect of your block reduction precedent).
I have no illusions this is a democracy, Bob. It is clearly a (benevolent?) autocracy. But it's time to put your cards on the table.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 3, 2003, at 8:21:14
In reply to Re: policies and hurt, posted by Dr. Bob on October 28, 2003, at 22:57:02
I know I am formally replying to Bob, but this part may well be nothing more than an exercise for fellow Babblers.
I fear that new precedent, that blocks are now conditional, has opened Pandora's Box. Although one may argue that Bob's determinations of incivility were imperfect, the system seemed to be one of black and white. A post was civil, or not. But here we go into shades of gray. Perhaps not, but it seems so to me.
It now seems that posting a couple of days before your block ends is acceptable. Or maybe not.
It now seems that posting under different names is acceptable. Or maybe not.
It now seems that lengthy blocks (considering that lengthy blocks imply numerous incivilities) may remain lengthy. Or maybe not.
Humans have a drive to develop fairness in their interactions. I think it's a universal trait. However, given our own unique manner in determining just what fairness is, we're left with drafting imperfect compromises, such as rules of conduct. You can't please everybody. Maybe you can't please anybody. But we still make rules.
It matters not what the rules are, exactly, there will always be those who will argue from either side, with respect to just exactly where the line between the two sides is placed. Clear and simple rules are far easier to apply than those with exceptions. You get into arguing about multiple lines at the same time; rules within rules.
I was striving to apply the KISS rule; Keep It Simple, Stupid. <that's not uncivil, I hope>
Rules mean more to certain psychological states than to others. They mean a lot to me. My childhood was not fair. And, I could never figure out the rules. I didn't know it was because there weren't any.
In adulthood, rules mean a lot to me. I don't play the game without first reading the rule book. I know that rules are arbitrary, often contradictory, perhaps even irrational. Doesn't matter to me. I want to know about every one.
We need to take the ambiguity out of our present situation, or this cannot be a safe place for me. I hope I'm not asking for too much.
Lar
Posted by Dinah on November 3, 2003, at 8:45:10
In reply to Re: policies and hurt » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on November 3, 2003, at 7:35:43
Just to be clear, I *never* have any knowledge that isn't on the board. I was basing my remarks on a post by Kristen on Social.
I just wanted to make absolutely clear that being a deputy brings *absolutely* no additional information, and Dr. Bob's interactions with me are as elusive as they are with everyone else. :)
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 3, 2003, at 9:25:54
In reply to Re: policies and hurt » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on November 3, 2003, at 8:45:10
> Just to be clear, I *never* have any knowledge that isn't on the board. I was basing my remarks on a post by Kristen on Social.
>
> I just wanted to make absolutely clear that being a deputy brings *absolutely* no additional information, and Dr. Bob's interactions with me are as elusive as they are with everyone else. :)I didn't know how you knew.....you didn't say. Thanks for clearing that up. It was your post that informed me that something was up, and Bob's later in the thread, that expressed exactly what transpired. That's how I found out.
Lar
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 4, 2003, at 17:11:25
In reply to Re: policies and hurt » Dinah, posted by Larry Hoover on November 3, 2003, at 9:25:54
> You think I should report emotional reactions to posters?
I think emotional reactions could count as adverse events...
> Although it has been mentioned many times in recent days, you have yet to tell us of the new criteria for amnesty, or parole, with respect to blocks.
There aren't any new criteria. Not yet, anyway...
> You see, I don't even know which term to apply. In amnesty, a sentence is stricken or formally reduced, whereas with parole, it is conditionally reduced, with the original sentence still on the books. What happens if a poster with amnesty or parole reoffends? Which "prior sentence" is used to determine the new block?
I guess I was thinking the unreduced one, so it would be more like parole?
> In the interest of fairness, it is important that we understand what happened a few months ago, when you reduced Krissy's block. As you say, a precedent was set, but we need to know about the circumstances. I'm not asking for anything confidential, but what exactly transpired?
I think that's already been discussed. Do you have any specific questions?
> Moreover, we need to know just how one goes about applying for a similar sentence reduction.
There's no formal application process.
> you didn't tell us you'd already created a 1.5 block multiplier (the net effect of your block reduction precedent).
Doing something to change the net effect is different than using a new multiplier in the first place...
> I fear that new precedent, that blocks are now conditional, has opened Pandora's Box... here we go into shades of gray.
>
> Clear and simple rules are far easier to apply than those with exceptions.
>
> Rules mean more to certain psychological states than to others. They mean a lot to me. My childhood was not fair. And, I could never figure out the rules. I didn't know it was because there weren't any.
>
> In adulthood, rules mean a lot to me. I don't play the game without first reading the rule book. I know that rules are arbitrary, often contradictory, perhaps even irrational. Doesn't matter to me. I want to know about every one.
>
> We need to take the ambiguity out of our present situation, or this cannot be a safe place for me. I hope I'm not asking for too much.I like things clear and simple, that's why the system was the way it was before. But sometimes ambiguity has advantages that outweigh its disadvantages.
I try to be as fair (and as predictable) as possible, but I can't always anticipate what's going to happen, so I need to be able to be flexible, too. Again, I'm sorry this time I flexed without letting everyone know.
I hope this can be a safe place for you. But I know it does have its limitations and can't be for everyone. Best wishes,
Bob
Posted by sienna on November 4, 2003, at 19:03:54
In reply to Re: ambiguity, posted by Dr. Bob on November 4, 2003, at 17:11:25
i defnitely agree its been discussed but we are still after all this time failing to see what happened to bring about a reduced sentence.
Here are some specific questions and it would be nice if all were answered.
1. What did KrissyP do that led you to reduce her block?
2. What can other people do to reduce their blocks?Sienna
*****************************************> In the interest of fairness, it is important that we understand what happened a few months ago, when you reduced Krissy's block. As you say, a precedent was set, but we need to know about the circumstances. I'm not asking for anything confidential, but what exactly transpired?
I think that's already been discussed. Do you have any specific questions?
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 4, 2003, at 20:46:23
In reply to Re: ambiguity » Dr. Bob, posted by sienna on November 4, 2003, at 19:03:54
> 2. What can other people do to reduce their blocks?
I'd rather not give out step-by-step instructions. I hope you understand...
Bob
Posted by Dinah on November 4, 2003, at 21:16:53
In reply to Re: What can other people do, posted by Dr. Bob on November 4, 2003, at 20:46:23
I have one specific question.
Have you discovered that making this sort of arrangements in secret doesn't help anyone? And are you committed to being more open about your actions in the future?
I'm not saying that you need to announce what you are considering, and I can see the competing values of allowing people to give feedback as opposed to having a big blowup about something that hasn't even happened.
But once you reach a decision, are you committed to being open about it?
Posted by Sabina on November 4, 2003, at 22:18:40
In reply to Re: What can other people do, posted by Dr. Bob on November 4, 2003, at 20:46:23
Kristen was allowed to make arrangements with you behind the scenes that enabled her to come back early.
In this post http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031008/msgs/274149.html you said:
I agree, it would've been better if I had announced the general block-reduction policy (and the specific block reduction). That was a mistake, sorry. Better discussion late than never?
So, no, I *don't* understand how you can move from "better discussion late than never" about reducing the blocks of people I care about to what *I feel* comes across as a secretive and evasive tone today: "I'd rather not give out step-by-step instructions. I hope you understand."
Posted by sienna on November 4, 2003, at 22:29:15
In reply to Re: What can other people do, posted by Dr. Bob on November 4, 2003, at 20:46:23
I dont understand why you wouldnt just say "Im not going to tell you" in the first place.
In fact you say, "I'd rather not give out step-by-step instructions. I hope you understand...
Bob "SPECIFIC QUESTION #1. Does this mean that you *will* not give us instructions or just that you would *rather* not.?
I suppose I would feel more clear if you were more clear instead of being evasive and vague.
You have a very "beating around the bush" way of doing thigns that appears to me to really prolong discussions in an unhealthy way.
In fact, my doctor feels that this site is completely unethical.I feel that you are obviously showing favoritism. Since it is virtually impossible to figure out your system of rules, it is also virtually impossible to abide by them.
And people are being banned unfairly in my opinion. Id say people would be better off finding a less technically advanced website with less arbitrary rules. Your html skills are well developed, and the site is really nice, but my god is it hard to carry on a conversation here without editing and censoring yourself until arent even saying what you wanted to say in the first place. ive never seen anything like this kind of heavy handedness on a web board. I imagine it must take hours every day to take care of this board adn "police" it. I feel that this is a strange hobby gone totally obsessive compulsive.
Anyway, Ive never been banned before, and im almost sure i will be now, but it would be a nice gesture if you at least answered my one question up there by the ALL CAPS.
Sienna
Posted by Kacy on November 5, 2003, at 10:58:16
In reply to Re: What can other people do » Dr. Bob, posted by sienna on November 4, 2003, at 22:29:15
Maybe this is why Dr. Bob doesn't want to give step-by-step instructions. (Just hypothesizing.)
Giving other people specifics for how to go about expressing remorse or understanding (or other things along that line) is the same as telling them "Say this, then say this, then say… and then you can post again sooner." Even making a list like "show contrition, show understanding, show awareness, and so on" just tells people what to mimic or type up.
Sometimes people can cover a lot of area with a simple statement while other people need to write and write (or talk and talk) before they get their points out. The difference in those can be the difference in some of us. Some think and then find a way to express it. That might be short or long. Some talk and talk and find meaning (and even figure themselves out) while they are talking. Those people may end with a real point, even though nothing they said all along the way seemed to add up to that point.
In addition to the above, all of us use the tools we have to figure things out. You measure people by what you understand or by what you have come to believe is a fair measure. I understand different things than you, but may well come to the same conclusion you do. I may not. I absolutely, though, am not going to give anyone my hot buttons so they can hit them. We all guard those. We have to.
This forum is a gift. It looks like it's run by someone who could have a better life without all the work of watching over this site. Has anyone else seen another forum on any topic that disappeared because it wasn't worth the hassle to the webmasters? I have, and it's strange how when one disappears into thin air, I feel its absence.
We take a lot for granted on the web. We've been provided a lot for a long time for free. This particular place even has no advertising at all. (Geez–I called it a place. Sites do seem to become places, though.) I don't think websites can be run perfectly to suit everyone. If you feel a lot of conflict about it, maybe you could try seeing it as a half-empty glass that's worth having.
Posted by lil' jimi on November 5, 2003, at 11:00:22
In reply to Re: What can other people do, posted by Dr. Bob on November 4, 2003, at 20:46:23
hi Dr. B,
> > 2. What can other people do to reduce their blocks?
>
> I'd rather not give out step-by-step instructions. I hope you understand...
>
> Bob... listen, Big Guy, i _really_ do Not understand, okay?
so, like when you're telling me (us) here that you hope we understand ... are you like saying,
"If You Don't understand, well too bad because I'm not going to explain it to you" ... ? ... ... is it a secret?
OR
"i hope you understand because it's too hard to explain and i'm too tried to explain it to you." ... ?
OR
"i hope you understand because i have NO clue and i Can't explain it to you." ... ?
see, i'm real afraid, like, that i AM going to really need the step-by-step instructions here ... ...
OR
is it somehow "better" for me to just guess my way through this without some precise guidelines ... maybe "preciser", like, maybe even real hints?
What IS the Benefit to NOT being clear and specific?
Whose Benefit?What purpose would (will) such imprecision serve?
<<ANY REPLIES FROM ANYONE WILL BE GREATLY APPRECIATED! ... THANKS!>>
take care!
~ jim
Posted by judy1 on November 5, 2003, at 19:12:44
In reply to Re: What can other people do, posted by Kacy on November 5, 2003, at 10:58:16
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 5, 2003, at 19:51:57
In reply to Re: What can other people do » Dr. Bob, posted by lil' jimi on November 5, 2003, at 11:00:22
> Have you discovered that making this sort of arrangements in secret doesn't help anyone? And are you committed to being more open about your actions in the future?
>
> DinahYes! As Sabina quoted above... And I have in general always tried to be open...
----
> SPECIFIC QUESTION #1. Does this mean that you *will* not give us instructions or just that you would *rather* not.?
I will not. Unless I'm convinced it would be better to...
> In fact, my doctor feels that this site is completely unethical.
In what way?
> Id say people would be better off finding a less technically advanced website with less arbitrary rules.
>
> SiennaThat may be true, at least for some people...
----
> > I'd rather not give out step-by-step instructions. I hope you understand...
>
> ... listen, Big Guy, i _really_ do Not understand, okay?
>
> lil' jimiKacy explained it above.
Bob
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 6, 2003, at 12:59:45
In reply to Re: ambiguity, posted by Dr. Bob on November 4, 2003, at 17:11:25
> I try to be as fair (and as predictable) as possible, but I can't always anticipate what's going to happen, so I need to be able to be flexible, too. Again, I'm sorry this time I flexed without letting everyone know.
>
> I hope this can be a safe place for you. But I know it does have its limitations and can't be for everyone. Best wishes,
>
> BobOK. But I'm going to have to issue a Please Be Overt. Remember, you'll be on probation. If there is a 'next time', I may have to block myself.
Lar
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 7, 2003, at 2:41:56
In reply to Re: ambiguity » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on November 6, 2003, at 12:59:45
Posted by lil' jimi on November 7, 2003, at 14:28:23
In reply to Re: Specific questions, posted by Dr. Bob on November 5, 2003, at 19:51:57
okay .... <breath!>
okay ... i am going to try this again .... ... ( ..3, 4, 5, ...) <exhale>
...this has gotten me extremely aggravated ... ... ex-treme-ly!
... and my pb “civil”-ity fails me ... not only that, but words fail me ... ... ... <breath ...> ... i’m okay now ... ...this is like the billionth attempt to post to this thread and all the others HAD to be deleted ... really!
i’ll make it ... i’m okay now . .. .... ...
1) Lar is SO right that it is not *EVEN* funny ... ... it is infuriating!! (see? Two Exclamation Points! ha!)
2) the reason so many good folks get so upset by this is because ... ...(besides the challenges of our uniquely defined “civil”-ity here and the challenge of just word usage we all are faced with here ..... )
... it challenges RATIONALITY .... .... ( ! ! ! )
you see, the revealed unreasonableness of your (Dr.Bob’s) (continuing to develop) registration and posting policies seem determined to defy being comprehended in rational terms .... .... .... and being able to do any analysis and critique of these developments puts these challenges to test my grip on MY rationality .... ...
... ... ... this is not the best thing for me to be doing .... ... it’s a kind of a “hold on lightly, but don’t let go ...” - thing ... i get myself in trouble if i try to squeeze it too hard ... ... <breath! breath!>
i support every one of the posts Lar has made here and i am indebted to Lar for putting into words the insights i feel deep inside of me and are screaming to get out .... they are still screaming ... but not so loud now . .. thanks, Lar ... thanks a lot , man ....
.... for me,
i do not care about vocabulary .... or anything about kristen, her posts, emails .... this is not about her...this is about
How can i know i am meeting a stranger or not?
put another way ....
How can i or anyone be confident that a unfamiliar poster is, in fact, someone i have not met before?
How can posters be safe from those who would (will!) have us at this disadvantage?... ... ...to me the challenge is
how to protect folks’ privacy and anonymity (which are essential for lots of folks’ safety) here at pb,
WHILE
NOT
allowing folks’ privacy and anonymity to be used
to ENABLE the trolls ... or any other folks who would (will) use their masquerade to, under false pretenses, and with bad will, malice, et cetera ... commit fraud.... ... thinking about my next comments here .. for a while now ... thinking thinking thinking ... ... ...
... ... ... mmm mmm mmm!i may try this again later ... ... it seems to me now that i can not EVEN specify the crimes/assaults/trespasses i want to have us protected from ...... ..(Breath! Breath! BREATH!!!)
... due to the restraints of pb's “civil”-ityOOOOkay, i need some help here ... ... ... none of my ammo can fire ...
... ANYONE have the cool and the means to refer to what i am referring to here ... is anyone following any of this ... help?
i do VERY much appreciate this discussion ... ... ... and i want to thank all of our contributors here ...
again my thanks to Lar for this ... ... and (all pb knows what i mean) SO much more, man! ... really, you are great!especially in getting uncle Bob’s attention ... way to GO!
okay now ... anyone want help our ol’ lil’ jimi here ... please?
~ jimp.s. emailing me ain’t no big thing .... ... yahoo calls me “yellowdogjim” then there’s that little “at” symbol thingie, then there’s the ‘yahoo’ then a ‘dot’, et cetera ... ... ... we should always mumble them out this way so’s the ‘bots don’t eat your adx and spam us to death ... heh heh .. know what i mean? .... and mention pb in the subject line, or i might mistake your message for spam ...
~ j
Posted by Dinah on November 7, 2003, at 15:05:28
In reply to Re: Specific questions » Dr. Bob, posted by lil' jimi on November 7, 2003, at 14:28:23
Hi Jim.
I'm sorry you're feeling so disturbed by this. :( I wish I could say something to make you feel better. But the truth is that that possibility is something that we all have to deal with on the internet. That people might not be who they say, or they may be deceiving us, or playing with us. That's just an unpleasant fact.
I've been grappling with this ever since I got to this board, and it's something my therapist keeps in mind even more than I do. He's always warning me to remember that people might not be who they say, as well as the reminders about the limitations of this form of interaction.
I've seen some improvements on this site since I came here. Dr. Bob began discouraging people first from posting as two people at once, and now he's also discouraging name changes without notification. I think he realizes that his actions were unwise, and won't make the same mistake twice. He's apologized. And I suspect that that is all he *can* do, even if he wants to do more.
I wish this place were completely safe. I'm guessing Dr. Bob wishes this place were completely safe. But it's not. Other posters might misrepresent themselves. People from our real lives might read our posts. It's always appropriate to be careful with our thoughts and how far we extend ourselves on this sort of forum.
I wish I could say it was different.
I miss your voice on the boards. I hope you can find it in yourself to accept the possibility that you will be deceived, knowing that if you are, it's nothing for *you* to be ashamed of.
Posted by lil' jimi on November 20, 2003, at 16:21:47
In reply to Re: Specific questions » lil' jimi, posted by Dinah on November 7, 2003, at 15:05:28
hi Dinah,
>> Hi Jim.
>> I'm sorry you're feeling so disturbed by this.
... did you know that sometimes you sound _Just_ like ol’ dr. b? ....
>> :(
... except that then you give us a little emoticon there ... thanks!
>> I wish I could say something to make you feel better.
.... i know you do, sweetheart ...
>> But the truth is that that possibility is something that we all have to deal with on the internet. That people might not be who they say, or they may be deceiving us, or playing with us. That's just an unpleasant fact.
... alas
... and don’t i just Know it!
... hey like, yikes? ... you know?
... ... i was like _Friends_ with Krissy P
... ... .. and THEN i was _friends_ with galk (what did i know?)
... ... ... name two other posters more ... how did you put it
... “Disturbed” ... yeah, that’s right ... ... ... i was disturbed
.... know anyone else as “disturbed” as i am/was/got?
... what do i win? ... ...>> I've been grappling with this ever since I got to this board, and it's something my therapist keeps in mind even more than I do. He's always warning me to remember that people might not be who they say, as well as the reminders about the limitations of this form of interaction.
... ... see now, i believe deeply in the underlying fraudulence of the universe ....
... all things are transitory
... all things are illusory
... all things are lacking in a substantial permanent self-nature... its the nature of the existence ...
... so i’m Not demanding any perfect authenticity, here or anywhere ... ... ...
.... ... ... but that _Does Not_ mean that fraud is impossible ... ... nor the suffering it causes ...
>> I've seen some improvements on this site since I came here. Dr. Bob began discouraging people first from posting as two people at once, and now he's also discouraging name changes without notification. I think he realizes that his actions were unwise, and won't make the same mistake twice. He's apologized. And I suspect that that is all he *can* do, even if he wants to do more.
... ... i kind of remember some of this
... ... ... but i can’t seem to find it now
... tell me, you say dr. b apologized, right?
.... Was it an “I-Statement” ?.... .... .... ( ha!)
>> I wish this place were completely safe. I'm guessing Dr. Bob wishes this place were completely safe. But it's not. Other posters might misrepresent themselves. People from our real lives might read our posts. It's always appropriate to be careful with our thoughts and how far we extend ourselves on this sort of forum.
..... ..... in all the universe, there are no “safe” places
... and this place Is part of our “real” lives too ...
... but sometimes, for some of us
... this place is safer than just being inside our own heads ....
... ... scary, huh?>> I wish I could say it was different.
.... you’re an honest girl ..... we wouldn’t want you to be lying to me (us) now ... ...
... took me long time to post this back to you because i was so angry when i read it the first time ...
... but i can sense your internal conflict(s), other conflicts(?)
.... .... i sense how tough it must be to wear the deputy’s hat and badge there ...i could tell that my anger was not with you ... (of course it was with ME) ...
but your above post made me feel like i was a deluded child being patted on the head and asked to keep quiet ... ... which was hurty and made me grrrrrrr! like ... you know?
>> I miss your voice on the boards.
... ... t h a n k ... ... y o u ! .... ... (((dinah))) !
>> I hope you can find it in yourself to accept the possibility that you will be deceived, knowing that if you are, it's nothing for *you* to be ashamed of.
... well, yeah .... like i said ... for me it is an article of my religious faith that we are all being deceived continuously ... well, except for the enlightened ones .... .... so that’s not really the nature of the problem here for me ...
... but i do feel shamed when it is posed as if i was not skeptical enough and therefore i was complicit in the fraudulence that was perpetrated ... ... i would like to feel i can be reasonably wary While not having to be totally distrustful ... ... but what it sounds like (TO ME) is i’m being told that this place (and all the web) is inherently deceptive, duplicit and deceitful ... but please feel free to come by anytime! ... ...
... i've been played before ... ... i'll be fooled again ... ... i’m a big guy ... i can accept that it may well be deceptive ... no problemo!
... ... what is still sticking in my craw is that management managed to facilitate fraud being perpetrated on me
.... .... there were other people who Knew i was being sold down the river ....
... (ever been made to feel like there were bystanders on the sidelines snickering at you for being suckered ... because they know about it but you don't?)
.... and should have been able to know i would have to had (have) Issues with these prepetrators ... ... (!)... how civil was That?
... (can i Get Any help on These points?).... .... (OH! the "garbage cane lid" analogy WAS beautiful!!! ... thank you! thank you !!)
... ... now we can get troll warnings?
... IF they’re “I-Statements”?
... ... ?
.... .... right?where was my warning?
peace!
~ jim
Posted by lil' jimi on November 20, 2003, at 16:49:18
In reply to nature of existence » Dinah, posted by lil' jimi on November 20, 2003, at 16:21:47
[ ... ]
... of course ...
... i Meant, "Garbage CAN Lid" analogy ...but you knew that ...
~ jim[ ... ]
Posted by Dinah on November 20, 2003, at 17:48:46
In reply to nature of existence » Dinah, posted by lil' jimi on November 20, 2003, at 16:21:47
I'm sorry my attempt to help just made things worse. It wasn't my intent. But my attempts to help often make things worse. My therapist says I need to stop trying.
But really, to say I sound like Dr. Bob? I believe I may be mortally offended.
I've always liked the garbage can lid analogy, and find reason to use it often (unfortunately). I tip my hat to Bill Cosby and/or his writers.
Posted by lil' jimi on November 20, 2003, at 20:37:41
In reply to Re: nature of existence » lil' jimi, posted by Dinah on November 20, 2003, at 17:48:46
hi Dinah,
you wrote:
> I'm sorry my attempt to help just made things worse. It wasn't my intent. But my attempts to help often make things worse. My therapist says I need to stop trying.
>well, now, _of course_ it wasn't your intent! ... that was never in any real doubt at all ... ... which was why i wanted to wait to let myself cool off ... ... i knew you were concerned for my feelings ... as well as i knew that it was an issue of the condition of my feelings about these events Than anything to do with you .... .... i dare say i was so primed by the precursors that it may well have been impossible to not appear to have "made things worse" .... and my explanation was intended to emphasize that it was me, not you ...
> But really, to say I sound like Dr. Bob? I believe I may be mortally offended.
>... "mortally"!
.... like, "Yikes!!"... for just that one phrase, for just that moment you sounded _like_ dr. b ... but in immediate relief of you sounding like you ... it was just a passing shadow which you quickly outshined ... ... ... you don't sound like dr. b ... honest!
... ... ... i'd be offended too ... ... another thing i should have left unsaid ... ... sorry> I've always liked the garbage can lid analogy, and find reason to use it often (unfortunately). I tip my hat to Bill Cosby and/or his writers.
.... .... and i can thank you for your resourcefulness ... thank you ...
.... .... you see, i feel as if i've been fed some of the garbage can lid along with some garbage, when we dressed the wolf on sheep's clothing and let her loose among the flock, like .... you know?
... ... ... that's where i get mortally offended ....... .... but none of that was your intention ... ...
... what's an "I-Statement"?
... i went to college ... i never heard of an "I-Statement" ... ... what's it supposed to prove?_was_ dr b's apology an i-statement, anyway?
take care and please don't be Mortally offended,
~ jim
Posted by Dinah on November 20, 2003, at 20:50:18
In reply to re: nature of existence » Dinah, posted by lil' jimi on November 20, 2003, at 20:37:41
>
> > But really, to say I sound like Dr. Bob? I believe I may be mortally offended.
> >
>
> ... "mortally"!
> .... like, "Yikes!!"
>I'm sorry. I left out my customary emoticon. :) But thanks for clarifying that I don't really sound like him.
Everything's ok with me, Jim. No worries.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 21, 2003, at 17:29:25
In reply to re: nature of existence » Dinah, posted by lil' jimi on November 20, 2003, at 20:37:41
> we dressed the wolf on sheep's clothing and let her loose among the flock
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused. The last time you were blocked it was for 1 week, so this time I'm making it for 2.
Bob
This is the end of the 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.