Posted by 10derHeart on April 22, 2009, at 1:49:05
In reply to Re: Not ethical for Dr. Bob » 10derHeart, posted by garnet71 on April 22, 2009, at 1:00:03
Babblers going to San Francisco have their own Yahoo Group set up so they can discuss the details of the trip.
She can ask him there, and I think probably has. I would guess his time to post there is about as limited as it is to post here. But I am only guessing, speculating, as you have expressed.
I'm sure it would be great if Dr Bob answered every post, every thread that posters address to him on these boards about everything. But history has shown that to be an unrealistic expectation, IMO. He just doesn't, and I can't speak for him about his choices regarding that, obviously.
I think posters on this thread were just trying to 1) respond so she would have responses and 2) give Deneb some insight as to why a pdoc/person/man/adminstrator - whatever might not accept such an invitation. Or more even, what her own pdoc meant, as Deneb has said she didn't understand the professional ethics response she did get... That's all I was trying to do. Knowing Dr. Bob, even if he did respond, he might not be back to elaborate for a while, or at all. It's his way. {shrug} So perhaps I myself was making a preemptive strike, based on my acceptance of the reality of Dr. Bob's habits here, in hopes of helping Deneb, even a little.
>I mean, wouldn't one comment from him-one simple explanation-be able to give Deneb the understanding she persistently seeks?
I don't know. Possibly. But possibly not. Maybe Deneb can answer? Or maybe she wouldn't know till she heard Dr.Bob's answer...
Hope I don't sound defensive. Don't mean to - it's just, well, honestly, only Dr. Bob and Deneb can really respond to the questions you've posed in your post. Whether it's professional or not, how Dr. Bob interacts on Babble (or doesn't) I guess has been discussed at great length over the years on Admin, and is open to interpretation.
poster:10derHeart
thread:891916
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090302/msgs/892100.html