Posted by AuntieMel on May 15, 2006, at 13:29:09
In reply to Re: verne's block - taking responsibility » madeline, posted by Estella on May 13, 2006, at 14:22:46
> though that isn't quite right...
> it is that (to adapt what you said a bit)
> 'People learn how to express their hurts without the POSSIBILITY of others feeling hurt, offended, or belittled, or they are excluded...'
>
> Because people don't just get blocked when someone IS offended... People get blocked because Bob judges that people *possibly could* feel offended. Of course people *could* take offence at anything and everything. So Bob uses his judgement... Hmm. And it is that that I am questioning.
>
> How many ACTUAL people get harmed because Bob is worried about POSSIBLE people (who might not even exist). He rates them highly (probably because they justify his decision). But how about the harm to the ACTUAL people?
>
What would you say if it turned out that there *were* people who took offense that you didn't know about.And that those people didn't say anything because they didn't want to hurt you or get you blocked.
Would that be different?
Because if you think about it, it is impossible to really know if anyone was upset.
I told you that nothing you said upset me, and that was true. But I'm not the only one who reads here.
Or maybe it should only count if the person you are directly speaking to is hurt?
I'm just trying to understand.
It's hard for Dr. Bob, or me or anyone else to be all things to all people.
poster:AuntieMel
thread:636780
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060412/msgs/644296.html