![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 26 to 50 of 52. Go back in thread:
Posted by mair on July 5, 2002, at 16:50:59
In reply to Re: Thanks and goodbye too... » IsoM, posted by ShelliR on July 5, 2002, at 11:23:28
IsoM
I've been too unsure of myself to post lately, but I do want to add that if you leave, I will miss your most responsible and moderating voice and I think the site will be much diminished by your absence. I hope you will reconsider.
Mair
Posted by janejj on July 5, 2002, at 17:14:06
In reply to Hell No Please Don't Go - IsoM, posted by mair on July 5, 2002, at 16:50:59
Isom,
Please don't leave the board, I always look forward to your responses and posts !!! Please, we'll be losing a very valuable member !! If you go, then I think I'll go too, it'll be a weird message board withour you !
Wow, i didn't know something like this could provoke such strong emotions in me! I feel very sad that I'll never know how you're doing etc.
If you really must go, then good luck and thankyou for all the sound advice you've given me and others over the last year !
Take Care
Janejj
Posted by Zo on July 5, 2002, at 17:43:57
In reply to it must be a serious issue, posted by krazy kat on July 3, 2002, at 15:56:31
> > > it's like a parent jumping in to "fix" any small dispute that their children may have that their kids would've straightened out by themselves without the parents getting all excited. - IsoM
Yes, and that's just a nuisance factor, to me. Gets in the way. The community tries to develop--if that's even the goal, here, I begin to think not--and it is constantly broken. . but primarily, egregiously, by Blocks.
>
>Or is it just that he's not checking the board at that time, and if he were, pbc's would be flying? I'd hate to think that's the case...But it IS the case, exactly. People don't know this? I guess I've asked alot of questions, on and offlist.
This is nearly the whole point: that all of this IS random. Bob must scan the posts, because he hasn't time to read them all, and chooses not to share or delegate that task.
Thus, the people he "catches" are caught. . .and another post as bad or worse gets overlooked.
These are the terms on which we are asked to participate with no complaint, or if we complain to "trust."
We are asked to just trust him, to treat us in ways we don't like---does this make any sense?
The site *is* crazy-making. With all this cognitive dissonance, disparities Bob *supports*. That's not his job.
Bob, trust is something one earns. . and when one does, it flows effortlessly. The site is crazy-making because your expectations are unrealistic and have all the hallmarks of abuse. Crazy-making is abusive, for that matter.
I say, Bob has no *business* doing that. I support Bob to be a more sensitive person.
I unconditionally support Bob to Do No Harm, and to make whatever changes are needed to make this happen.
Zo
Posted by mair on July 5, 2002, at 17:48:28
In reply to Re: Sure wish you wouldn't leave., posted by Zo on July 5, 2002, at 6:43:44
Zo
I think in zeroing in on Shar's family analogy, you missed what I took to be the larger point of her post - namely that you need to take a broader view of the benefits of the site and not allow yourself to be overwelmed by the ocassional injustice.
I think Bob made a mistake and is now compounding it by refusing to own up to it. But I don't think that means that the site is all about sexual male control politics or that the Board is no longer worth joining. I sometimes think our personal expectations for Bob are too high, and doomed to be unmet. I'm sure, Bob has a much more "macro" view of the Board than we do - individual posters and their sensitivities are just not going to be important to him other than in the most general way, because there are just too many of us and individual posters, even the best of them, inevitably come and go and are forever joined and replaced by others. I think his goal is to make the site as valuable as possible to the largest number of people and to accomplish this, his decisions and responses are going to be/seem impersonal, and we are going to feel depersonalized by them to some degree. If you're looking to be on equal footing with the moderator and to be able to engage in a free flowing exchange of ideas, this is not the place to be. I think Lini is right in observing that it is maybe unfortunate that there even is an Admin Board because it gives the misimpression that the moderator is willing to engage with us on a level that is probably pretty unrealistic.
I don't want to speak for Shar who speaks for herself very ably, but I'm guessing she might be both insulted and flattered to be thought of as too young to understand that having a male control figure is a bad thing - insulted because I don't think she was advocating for that, and flattered because I'm pretty sure she passed 40 well before this Board ever got off the ground. She's been here for as long as almost anyone has; she is, from my observation, no shrinking violet; I don't think she's been reticient to express her disatisfaction to Bob when she thought it appropriate, and she has, in my view, perhaps made the determination that the irritants remain only just irritants if you can find a way not to obsess about them, and that they are, over the long haul, outweighed by the benefits.
Mair
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 5, 2002, at 21:45:20
In reply to totally disagree with you... » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on July 3, 2002, at 15:38:14
Group,
The anger that I see on this thread toward Dr. Bob for his admonishment to SandraDee compels me to speak to the issue.
First, you must understand that this is not a one-person issue and that the nature of the offeding post demands that a determination by the administraion be made. The offending post can not be swept under the rug for to ignore it would be to allow a major concept to go unadressed and could allow others to post similar posts.
I will, next, tell what could be decerned by the post and its importance to address.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 5, 2002, at 22:03:39
In reply to Poster in the hands of an angry group. Part I » IsoM, posted by Lou Pilder on July 5, 2002, at 21:45:20
Group,
The overidng concern on this board is three things. First, its purpose is for education and then support and third, to provide a safe environment for those that come to this board for education and support. And there are a diverse and pluristic group of people here . And a diverse and pluristic group has many explosive propertys emeshed in it. It is like an inner city public school that is ovecrowded and without air conditioning, and it is hot. And there are many conflicts between the divere groups. I have taught in a school that the diverse student body was polarised with anger towards each other. It is these conflicts that give rise to well-reserched priciples of conduct that enable the pluristic groups to be, in a sense, in harmony. I will ,next, tell of the groups principles relavant to this discussion.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 5, 2002, at 22:15:03
In reply to Re: Poster in the hands of an angry group. Part 2, posted by Lou Pilder on July 5, 2002, at 22:03:39
Group,
In a pluristic and diverse group, there will be, first, a challnge for power and controll. Groups will form to intimidate and harrrass the other groups. These goups usually are , pitifully, formed by socio-economic status and more pitifully, racial and religious.
I will go on, next,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 5, 2002, at 22:33:34
In reply to Re: Poster in the hands of an angry group. Part 3, posted by Lou Pilder on July 5, 2002, at 22:15:03
Group,
The groups use standard sadistic methods to controll the other groups in their vieing for power. Belittleing, ostrcism, bullying, grafiitti demening other other groups,racial and/or religious epithets, vandleism, assault, and ganging up on one person of the other group.
I have seen this in both ends of the continuim. I have seen a school that has fights daily, bomb-threats, vandleism, assaults, and all the rest. That school had a very poor administation that were appointed for doing favors to the powers to be. There was minimal learning and fear was stunting the students that wanted an education and a lot of them transferred to the perochial schools which were administered differently.
And I was a teacher in a well-administered school and there were no fights, no harrassment, and no fear and the students were able to learn.
Part 5, next,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 5, 2002, at 22:44:33
In reply to Re: Poster in the hands of an angry group. Part 4, posted by Lou Pilder on July 5, 2002, at 22:33:34
Group,
Now one of the first things that the adminastration in the well-administerd school did was to , on the first day, have the students into the auditorium and address the students with what was expected in their behavior and they were given a pamphlet that also covered the expectations. There was no discussion for the expectations were, just that, expectations. The expectation tht students were to show respect to others, for instnce, was not negotiable or open to discussion.
Part 6, next
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 5, 2002, at 22:47:22
In reply to Redirected: Sandra's blocking, posted by Dr. Bob on July 5, 2002, at 0:43:11
> > > Also, she may have felt pressured with the continued "push" of the "city of gates". It gets very frustrating to swim through the thick mystery Lou has written about.
> >
> > No one has to to swim though anyone else's posts here.
>
> Well, no one has to post at all here, frankly... But it's a good site and good people do. And often we'll try to get through threads because there's something of value in there for us - it just may be hard to find.People may of course *choose* to swim through posts. But then that's their decision...
> perhaps Sandra did feel ... as if he were proselytizing. But now she can't defend her stance.
She can email me. And she may have felt as if he were proselytizing, but we had already discussed (and I had already decided) that.
> If we have to check and recheck the wording so carefully, how can a conversation go on at all?
I know rechecking can inhibit a conversation. But so can incivility.
> From my experience, changing subject lines is something that is difficult to remember and, as a new poster, something Sandra may not be aware of. Would another pbc for a newcomer have helped?
Maybe. There's always that possibility. But the current policy is one. Since it doesn't take much to get something started. Like in a really dry forest...
> Again, I worry that she'll get frustrated and not come back.
>
> - kkMe, too. I hope she does come back.
----
> What you're doing is censoring SandraDee, not for what she's saying, but for not changing the subject line instead.
I'm "censoring" her for what she said because she didn't change the subject line.
> And what "two wrongs" are you referring to?
Sorry, that wasn't very clear. What I was referring to was:
> > Beardy wasn't reprimanded by Dr. Bob, so I assumed her post was considered okay. But now SandraDee just clicked on Beardy's post & never bothered changing the subject line & she was blocked.
And what I meant was, even if Beardy "got away" with posting something, that wouldn't have made it right for SandraDee to post it, too.
> Can't you see that Sandra hasn't been putting Lou down? She hasn't been unsupportive but has been trying her best to clarify just what Lou's trying to say... She was feeling frustrated with asking, she wasn't attacking Lou or putting him down. Can't you see that?
Did I say she attacked him or put him down? I had already told her that I didn't think it was supportive to tell someone she didn't want to hear what they had to say:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020527/msgs/302.html
IMO, frustration doesn't justify being unsupportive.
> I normally try to stay out of these sort of discussions because nothing productive happens but I find it really incredible that you've come down on Sandra for this... Honestly, it's like a parent jumping in to "fix" any small dispute that their children may have that their kids would've straightened out by themselves without the parents getting all excited.
I wasn't so sure this particular fire would go out by itself...
> have you ever admitted that you've made an mistake here? ... Personally, I have issues with people who can't say they're wrong from time to time & not feel ashamed or afraid to admit it. It doesn't belittle them but increases their stature in my eyes.
>
> IsoMI've decreased how long someone's been blocked, but I may never have just cancelled a block. But I dislike blocking people, so I don't unless I'm pretty convinced that I should. Now that doesn't mean that I'm necessarily "right". You may think I'm wrong. I may *be* wrong. I know I'm not perfect, etc....
I do appreciate your input, and I'm willing to discuss why I do what I do and to reconsider it, so feel free to try to point out something I'm not taking into account. Just remember that I'm already going to have given it some thought myself.
----
> I have asked Dr. B.... if including phrases such as "in my opinion" could 'allow', well, almost anything to be said and he never responded...
>
> - kkSorry if I missed that. No, phrases like that do not allow almost anything to be said. Because I don't want almost anything to be said.
----
> All she did was ask to know his feelings without 1000 word essay on his experience.
>
> NikkiDidn't we just have a long discussion here about how important it was for people to be able to express themselves the way they wanted?
----
> It is against Bob's policy to reconsider blocks,
> which is exactly why the policy doesn't work. For us. It works FOR BOB, and I guess you go along with his policies to the extent you believe that a site should work for the Admin--and the feedback of its members doesn't matter. And it is Bob's feeling that to allow the appeal blocks would be "opening a can of worms."
>
> What some of us are asking of Bob means genuine inconvenience for him.
>
> ZoSee above regarding what is or isn't my policy. I do think there are lots of cans of worms, but did I say that about appealing blocks? The site needs to work for us both. If I just wanted it to be convenient for me, I would just let everything go.
----
> Smarminess wins in the end, it seems.
>
> IsoMI hope you don't go, but if you stay, please be civil, thanks.
----
> Fuck you, Lou...
>
> krazy katSorry, but I've asked you before to be civil, so I'm going to block you for a week. But I hope you don't stay away.
Bob
Posted by Zo on July 5, 2002, at 23:46:11
In reply to Re: Sandra's blocking, posted by Dr. Bob on July 5, 2002, at 22:47:22
> I know rechecking can inhibit a conversation. But so can incivility.No one disagrees.
That is not all that is needed from any Admin.
Please be more sensiitive to the fact that group needs are, in any group, for the Admin to focus not just on civility.
Civility is essential--and it is, by nature, a quality you cancel out if you use methods ofpunishment.
You can teach it. But no one can learn if they're sent out of the room. The board does not presently have the rich and trusting atmosphere where people are *happy* to learn.
Is it possible, Bob, that you could step back a bit, show a bit more trust?
How long do you feel it's fair and reasonable for concerned board members to post to you, and concerned board members to leave, before you consider this a problem?
Zo
Posted by Zo on July 6, 2002, at 0:23:22
In reply to Re: Sandra's blocking, posted by Dr. Bob on July 5, 2002, at 22:47:22
> I've decreased how long someone's been blocked, but I may never have just cancelled a block.
You weren't willing to decrease mine.
Why not?
I asked to you at least decrease it from two weeks to one.
You said you "could not" . .because "it would be opening a can of worms."
Zo
Posted by Zo on July 6, 2002, at 0:28:49
In reply to Re: Sandra's blocking, posted by Dr. Bob on July 5, 2002, at 22:47:22
> Would another pbc for a newcomer have helped?
>
> Maybe. There's always that possibility. But the current policy is one.What would it take for you to change current policy?
Zo
Posted by Zo on July 6, 2002, at 0:54:19
In reply to Re: Sandra's blocking, posted by Dr. Bob on July 5, 2002, at 22:47:22
> And what I meant was, even if Beardy "got away" with posting something, that wouldn't have made it right for SandraDee to post it, too.You're just going to cling to this dead horse, aren't you, beating that carcass. I am so depressed.
> IMO, frustration doesn't justify being unsupportive.Bob, I just cringe. You are so frustrating for people that they are willing to leave.
>Honestly, it's like a parent jumping in to "fix" any small dispute that their children may have that their kids would've straightened out by themselves without the parents getting all excited.
>
> I wasn't so sure this particular fire would go out by itself...But you didn't wait and see.
You were willing to hurt someone in your concern about civility.
Rules first. .. people second.
Bob, please be more sensitive to the fact that your methods are fear-based. They use fear to motivate.
Please be sensitive to the fact that this is called Abuse.
Zo
Posted by mist on July 6, 2002, at 1:41:27
In reply to Thanks and goodbye too..., posted by IsoM on July 4, 2002, at 22:51:21
I hope you'll return at some point (when/if you're ready!).
> Shelli, Angel, Zo, KK, Nikki, sweet dreamy Dr. Eamer, SandraDee (if she's still reading the boards), Beire-Dei, Emma, kiddo, Alii, Rach, Bookgurl, Judy, mouse, mist, Tina, Shar, Fi, Angel Girl, Jane, kid_A, Phil, Colin, Seamus, Ritch, Jon, Scott, & many others, thank you for the wonderful information, support, humour, & encouragement I've enjoyed here. And thank you to those who've defended the wrong blocking of SandraDee. My leaving isn't a big thing & will have no lasting repurcussions. I've been given help & information & hope I've given some back. Take care, folks. Smarminess wins in the end, it seems.
Posted by Angel Girl on July 6, 2002, at 1:54:48
In reply to Thanks and goodbye too..., posted by IsoM on July 4, 2002, at 22:51:21
IsoM
I would ask that you would please reconsider your decision to leave the boards. You were one of the first people to reach out to me when I came here a few months ago. I would miss your posts greatly.
Please stay and offer support to those of us who need it and let us support you when you need it.
Angel Girl
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 6, 2002, at 8:09:46
In reply to Re: Poster in the hands of an angry group. Part 5, posted by Lou Pilder on July 5, 2002, at 22:44:33
Group,
Now the next thing that the Principal said to the student body was that he believed that "All Men Are Created Equal" . And he said to the student body ,"If you do not know what that means, bring your parents in and we will talk about it." No students ever came in with their parents to talk about it.
Part 7 , next
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 6, 2002, at 13:27:31
In reply to Re: Poster in the hands of an angry group. Part 6, posted by Lou Pilder on July 6, 2002, at 8:09:46
Group,
The Principal, who was a minority, began to address the student body and the Faculty. This is what I remember him saying.
"Fellow Americans, teachers and students, pardon me, for why am I speaking here today? Are the great principles of freedom and American justice extended to us?
If I could give you an affirmative answer, my task would be light and my burden would be easy. The chains of slavery have been torn from the limbs of our fathers and their fathers. But in a school, we have to overcome the pressures of our being crowded together and compelled to endure 180 days this year , 6 hours a day, and give up our own desires because we are in a great multitude of people set forth to achieve a task that has no reward, no benifits, untill you get to the end of the road. While we are on the road to feedom from ignorance, we must endure the sacrifice of our own liberty to insure the success of us all. We can not do whatever we want, we must abide by a charter of expectations that overrule our own compulsions. We must overcome ourselves and allow all people here to have the opportunity to learn."
Next, I will continue with his speech.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on July 6, 2002, at 13:43:03
In reply to Thanks and goodbye too..., posted by IsoM on July 4, 2002, at 22:51:21
Hi IsoM,
Well, I guess I was completely wrong. This place isn't quieter without me. (That's a joke everyone.) :)
I do hope you reconsider leaving. This board may be run by Dr. Bob, but this board is not Dr. Bob. This board is the people you listed. They are the board who will miss you and they are the board you will miss.
Protest is of course a noble course of action. May I suggest though, that instead of leaving for good, that you do something like a solidarity block for what you consider unfair blocks? You know, like not posting until Sandra Dee is allowed to post as a form of protest? It's just an idea I'm throwing out as a way of showing disagreement without leaving. Forgive me if I haven't thought it through very well.
I haven't been lurking until yesterday and have no real idea of what happened, but being blocked for not changing a subject line does seem extreme.
Anyway, I just wanted to ask you to reconsider as I know your presence would be sorely missed by many.
Dinah
Posted by fi on July 6, 2002, at 18:15:15
In reply to Thanks and goodbye too..., posted by IsoM on July 4, 2002, at 22:51:21
Its been great having you around on the Board- thank you for your posts.
I'm very sorry about the circumstances you are leaving for, but understand that they also make it a logical move to leave and have some peace and quiet.
I have to confess my current tactic is not to read most posts/threads these days, tho I realise this may mean I miss posts I would appreciate. I dont expect to have any impact on how other posters (including Dr Bob) act, so have decided its not worth getting into the various disputes.
Its also partly due to lack of time, too- there would be such a lot of reading to do to keep up with PBA and PSB these days!
Do take care of yourself, and of course *if* you change your mind and come back sometime, you'll be very welcome.
Fi
Posted by Reneb on July 6, 2002, at 22:08:51
In reply to Re: blocked for week - SD?, posted by NikkiT2 on July 4, 2002, at 9:17:00
Dr. Bob, I agree totally with the others. This blocking was really unfair. I went back and read what she wrote. I think she was asking very logical questions.
Renee
Posted by Lini on July 7, 2002, at 0:20:57
In reply to Re: Thanks and goodbye too... » IsoM, posted by Dinah on July 6, 2002, at 13:43:03
Protest is of course a noble course of action. May I suggest though, that instead of leaving for good, that you do something like a solidarity block for what you consider unfair blocks? You know, like not posting until Sandra Dee is allowed to post as a form of protest? It's just an idea I'm throwing out as a way of showing disagreement without leaving. Forgive me if I haven't thought it through very well.
Hey you rebel rouser! :) Nice to see your name about, hope all is well.-L
Posted by Zo on July 7, 2002, at 0:39:50
In reply to Re: Thanks and goodbye too... » IsoM, posted by Dinah on July 6, 2002, at 13:43:03
Posted by shar on July 7, 2002, at 3:39:34
In reply to Re: Sure wish you wouldn't leave., posted by Zo on July 5, 2002, at 6:43:44
>
> I want to support those who feel comfortable with the ways things are presently run on the board---and I want to support those of us who do not.
>
...........me, too! I think everybody should get to feel the way they feel.> Perhaps you have to be forty, fifty, older. .
.............thatsa me
> and to have come into your own, to understand
>
......it is extremely clear to me that you do not wnat a 'dad' nor the politics of 'control.' I was posting in a more general sense about the group dynamics I see here. My guess is you knew that, though.> If it makes you feel secure to have an "authority figure" in charge, fine.
>
........woo hoo! This is provocative to me!
> Please respect that women my age neither want nor appreciate one. it's offensive, it's stifling, and they tend to be dead wrong nearly *all* the time.
>
...........I don't know how old you are. I am 50. It is not a matter of wanting or not wanting an authority figure here, it is a *fact* that we have one (namely, Dr. Bob).> Bob is just a person. My pdoc to who I owe my life is just a person. I am just a person. You are just a person. If things can't proceed on that basis. . .something's wrong.
>
..........Bob is just a person who is in charge of this board, and has decision making power over how to handle posts he feels need his attention. We are all 'just people' with different roles here. The administrator role is different from the poster role (by role I don't mean as in play acting).
> Forgive me if I've been naive.. . .but I thought everybody knew this stuff. I honestly did.
>
..........I don't know about naive, but 'this stuff' that you wrote about is not in accordance with my own beliefs, opinions, feelings, so I suppose you could say I didn't 'know' it. It is always iffy to suggest that there is one truth for all women.Shar
> Zo
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 8, 2002, at 8:34:45
In reply to Re: blocked for week - SD? » Dr. Bob, posted by krazy kat on July 3, 2002, at 11:04:23
[Posted by oona on July 7, 2002, at 22:42:29
In reply to http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020527/msgs/342.html]
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/5947.html
>
> Hey All,
> Just wanted to get the last word since this was a post that I started and I don't start many?
>
> In fact I am kinda new around here and not to sure about all the rules and regs.
>
> Just have to say that it really does annoy me to see so many people upset and frustrated because one person who will remain nameless has free reign here on this board while others are blocked, banned or whatever they call it when they try to protest.
>
> I am sorry if this pushes them away cuz I really enjoy reading their posts/
>
> Is this an "experiment", keeping "you know who", or the imaginary "you know who" just to push people buttons to see how they react?
>
> How much do we actually know about this board? How much of this is for real and how much is make believe? Is someone "out there" playing with your minds and emotions? I don't think any of you can be sure of this? This is not paranoia talking, just common sense. There are a lot or wierdos just looking for a space to do their thing.
>
> So, Just be careful, don't get snagged into someones' game.
>
> oona
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.