![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 123 to 147 of 154. Go back in thread:
Posted by AuntieMel on September 3, 2004, at 14:51:47
In reply to Re: emotional creatures--dr. bob » alesta, posted by Racer on September 3, 2004, at 13:57:06
Very well written, as usual, Racer. It sounds like you are feeling a lot better, too.
I know exactly what you mean. Without rules this whole board would have dissolved a long time ago, depriving all of us the need to not feel alone.
And I recognize that it is a hard call to make. Anytime it is subjective it is tough. I'm not a lawyer, but things like 'innocent until proven guilty' and 'punishment fitting the crime' keep running through my mind.
And I see where a smaller block should be given out the first time, so a newbie can learn. But I think that is where my sense of fairness takes a different turn.
I mean maybe the "punishment" after the first time could be based on a point system with the obvious getting the harsher sentence. Direct attacks (you idiot, what are you on?, your mother wears army boots) get higher points than self defense. And if it is self defense after the first negative, then it is a harsher punishment than if you had already weathered 10 attacks.
And, of course, none of it would have anything to do with how long someone has been here, or how well liked that person is. I'm sure we've all gone through feeling 'the boss likes him better' and don't want any of that here.
Just my idea of a perfect world............
Posted by alesta on September 3, 2004, at 15:10:03
In reply to Re: emotional creatures--dr. bob, racer, posted by alesta on September 3, 2004, at 14:40:27
> i would feel this way if it were anyone, not just chemist.i wanted to add to my comment above that while i would feel the same if this had happened to someone else, in other words, my opinion would be the same about the ruling, i may not have put the energy into fighting as hard if it was someone else, in fact, i know i wouldn't have. just wanted to clarify that...:)
Posted by Racer on September 3, 2004, at 17:01:22
In reply to Re: emotional creatures--dr. bob, racer, posted by alesta on September 3, 2004, at 14:40:27
I only put a word in because I like chemist and think that this block is harsh considering the sorts of things that had been directed at him. That's really what makes me stop and consider all the implications. And it's part of why I'm so ambivalent about whether the block should be reduced. If it's reduced in this case, which my gut tells me it should be, I'll be pleased and think that it's fair, but what about if a block is reduced for one of the people I think have been asking for it for a while? That's my concern about precedent.
As for discussing the rule itself, and the application of those rules, that's great and I'm glad someone's doing it. I do hope that some clarity is provided, because there are a few things that I'm curious about, myself.
Howzabout we agree that we *mostly* agree here, express mutual respect, and stay board-buddies?
Posted by alesta on September 3, 2004, at 17:44:59
In reply to Sounds fair t o me... » alesta, posted by Racer on September 3, 2004, at 17:01:22
<this case, which my gut tells me it should be, I'll be pleased and think that it's fair, but what about if a block is reduced for one of the people I think have been asking for it for a while? That's my concern about precedent.
i see. oh, i'm sure there are others that also deserve a reduced sentence...i hope they get theirs, too...maybe some others can deal with those battles...i'm emotionally exhausted..:).
> Howzabout we agree that we *mostly* agree here, express mutual respect, and stay board-buddies?sure thing, racer. :) the stress is just starting to get to me, here. :) i've decided i'm retiring from this discussion before it or i start to get nasty...it's in dr. bob's hands at this point...no hard feelings, here..
amy :)
Posted by alesta on September 3, 2004, at 23:39:47
In reply to Re: emotional creatures, posted by Dr. Bob on September 3, 2004, at 10:22:15
> I agree, those are relevant points.Dr. Bob, since you seem to agree on all my points concerning Chemist, then does this mean you'll remove the block??
Thanks,
Amy :)
Posted by AuntieMel on September 4, 2004, at 0:00:46
In reply to To Dr. Bob, posted by alesta on September 3, 2004, at 23:39:47
Alas, I think that an email request from chemist to Dr. Bob requesting a reduction is required.
But a little birdy has told me that he is considering it (requesting, that is)
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 4, 2004, at 1:18:35
In reply to Re: emotional creatures - a response?? » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on September 3, 2004, at 13:52:13
> i think you might be taking civility to extremes here...perhaps it is uncivil to even talk about what flmm did at all...
Kind of extreme, maybe, but not *that* extreme! :-)
> perhaps a compassionate, intuitive outlook is called for, one that keeps context and circumstance in mind...(actually, i think you are pretty much operating your site that way...)
>
> amy :)Thanks, I'm trying!
--
> If the poster is wanting to support the person with the 'need to attack,' what is the best way to handle it?
>
> AuntieMelGood question. Sorry to answer it with another question, but what do you all think?
Bob
Posted by alesta on September 4, 2004, at 10:27:53
In reply to Re: To Dr. Bob » alesta, posted by AuntieMel on September 4, 2004, at 0:00:46
> Alas, I think that an email request from chemist to Dr. Bob requesting a reduction is required.
>
> But a little birdy has told me that he is considering it (requesting, that is)dr. bob, if this is the answer, then please disregard my question below (under the "being compassionate" thread, i think)
amy :)
Posted by Cressida on September 4, 2004, at 22:17:51
In reply to Re: To Dr. Bob--dr. bob, posted by alesta on September 4, 2004, at 10:27:53
I didn't know there was a forum devoted to administrative issues. My visits to Dr. Bob's site are usually brief. Sometimes, however, I squander an entire night by replying to just a few posts.
(1) I think that chemist was subtle with his use of sarcasm. Perhaps it was unintentional. Nevertheless, I will refrain from suggesting any resolution because I am unfamiliar with site policy.
(2) Yes, other babblers were probably much more deserving of being blocked than the babbler in question.
(3) One month does not translate to a permanent block. Psycho-Babblers should neither distress themselves with catastrophic thoughts nor sweat the small stuff.
(4) chemist is an adult. He will be fine.
-Cressida
-------------------------------------------
Dr. Bob, I want to thank you for this web site. It is an invaluable source of support and information.
Posted by Cressida on September 4, 2004, at 22:40:39
In reply to Re: To Dr. Bob--dr. bob, posted by alesta on September 4, 2004, at 10:27:53
Psycho-Babble Administration and inflamatory debates are probably mutually exclusive. Imagine that this area is Dr. Bob's official web-office. What would happen if you began yelling, hurling insults, or making conspicuously sarcastic remarks in a doctor's office?
I don't know, just a thought...Cheers.
Posted by Jonathan on September 5, 2004, at 0:58:28
In reply to Re: One More Post..., posted by Cressida on September 4, 2004, at 22:40:39
> Psycho-Babble Administration and inflamatory debates are probably mutually exclusive. Imagine that this area is Dr. Bob's official web-office.
It sometimes feels more like Dr. Bob's war room!
> What would happen if you began yelling, hurling insults, or making conspicuously sarcastic remarks in a doctor's office?
An alternative for the top of the page might be a quote from President Muffley (Peter Sellers) in Kubrick's film "Dr Strangelove":
"You can't fight here: this is the War Room."
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 7, 2004, at 4:20:51
In reply to Re: To Dr. Bob » alesta, posted by AuntieMel on September 4, 2004, at 0:00:46
> I think that an email request from chemist to Dr. Bob requesting a reduction is required.
>
> But a little birdy has told me that he is considering it (requesting, that is)OK, I've reconsidered and reduced his block by a week. I hope this goes well,
Bob
Posted by Dinah on September 7, 2004, at 7:57:16
In reply to Re: block reduced by week » chemist, posted by Dr. Bob on September 7, 2004, at 4:20:51
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 7, 2004, at 7:58:52
In reply to Re: block reduced by week » chemist, posted by Dr. Bob on September 7, 2004, at 4:20:51
> OK, I've reconsidered and reduced his block by a week. I hope this goes well,
>
> BobBless you!
One further question....is that reduced number the new "floor" for subsequent blocks (heaven forbid)?
Lar
Posted by gardenergirl on September 7, 2004, at 15:41:52
In reply to Re: block reduced by week » chemist, posted by Dr. Bob on September 7, 2004, at 4:20:51
Posted by partlycloudy on September 7, 2004, at 16:53:37
In reply to :-) (nm) » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on September 7, 2004, at 7:57:16
Posted by AuntieMel on September 7, 2004, at 16:58:58
In reply to Re: block reduced by week » chemist, posted by Dr. Bob on September 7, 2004, at 4:20:51
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 7, 2004, at 22:25:45
In reply to Re: block reduced by week » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on September 7, 2004, at 7:58:52
> One further question....is that reduced number the new "floor" for subsequent blocks (heaven forbid)?
Sorry, but I think it should remain the unreduced number.
Bob
Posted by TomG on September 8, 2004, at 0:09:18
In reply to Re: subsequent blocks (heaven forbid), posted by Dr. Bob on September 7, 2004, at 22:25:45
In all honesty I was trying to provide some humor by my comment that got me banned in this thread. However, I guess someone that is unstable might recieve this in the wrong way.
Without stirring up more trouble would it be too much to ask what chemist did to get his previous bans?
Geodon still ROCKS!
Posted by gardenergirl on September 8, 2004, at 11:03:49
In reply to I guess my ban is over, posted by TomG on September 8, 2004, at 0:09:18
Hi TomG,
I just wanted to ask about your use of the word "unstable" in your post. Would you please explain what you meant by that? And I'm curious about how someone who might receive a post the wrong way might be "unstable"?Regards,
gg
Posted by AuntieMel on September 8, 2004, at 11:54:45
In reply to I guess my ban is over, posted by TomG on September 8, 2004, at 0:09:18
I am curious, too. I just reread it, and I can see where Dr. Bob is coming from.
To add a corrolary to GG's question - does it follow that everyone taking it wrong is unstable?
I have heard over and over that - on the net where everyone *doesn't* know everyone - the way something is intended is quite often not how it gets percieved on the other end.
Posted by TomG on September 8, 2004, at 15:55:12
In reply to Re: I guess my ban is over » TomG, posted by gardenergirl on September 8, 2004, at 11:03:49
> Hi TomG,
> I just wanted to ask about your use of the word "unstable" in your post. Would you please explain what you meant by that? And I'm curious about how someone who might receive a post the wrong way might be "unstable"?
>
> Regards,
> ggHaving a heightened sensitivity to percieved slights I would consider being unstable, because I don't think it is balanced to have that feeling. It is a feature of atypical depression. Although I have never been diagnosed with atypical depression but rather simple schizophrenia I have felt this particular symptom of atypical depression. So, do I have co-morbid atypical depression? I doubt it. So, I think its possible for anyone, atypical depression or no atypical depression, to feel this unrealistic perception of slight. Its up to chemist to say whether he did or did not feel rejected by my comment or whether he may be suffering from atypical depression. Again, I say that my commnent was meant to be a joke and not a rejection of him. My usage of "unstable" here relates to this particular symptom of atypical depression.
Geodon is THE MAN!
Posted by gardenergirl on September 8, 2004, at 16:04:10
In reply to Re: I guess my ban is over » gardenergirl, posted by TomG on September 8, 2004, at 15:55:12
hmmm, interesting...my diagnosis is atypical depression. So if I am following your explanation correctly, then if I perceive any slight, I am "unstable"? If that is what you are saying, I'm offended. And I believe it is the use of such words that perpetuate the stigma of mental illness, and thus, I object to such use.
gg
Posted by AuntieMel on September 8, 2004, at 16:11:42
In reply to Re: I guess my ban is over » gardenergirl, posted by TomG on September 8, 2004, at 15:55:12
I have typical depression, and I can assure you being sensitive to slights isn't only a "feature" of atypical. I have some pretty bad times, but I don't think that I am unstable either.
Heck. I know people with NO mental illness that are sensitive to slights.
Posted by TomG on September 8, 2004, at 17:50:20
In reply to Re: I guess my ban is over » TomG, posted by AuntieMel on September 8, 2004, at 16:11:42
> I have typical depression, and I can assure you being sensitive to slights isn't only a "feature" of atypical. I have some pretty bad times, but I don't think that I am unstable either.
>
> Heck. I know people with NO mental illness that are sensitive to slights.
"So, I think its possible for anyone, atypical depression or no atypical depression, to feel this unrealistic perception of slight."
I wrote the above (what you just said) in my post.
Geodon,OH YEAH!
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.