![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 35 to 59 of 255. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 21:00:25
In reply to Re: I'm sure they are multitudinous » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 20:57:09
Posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 21:01:57
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd?, posted by Minnie-Haha on May 22, 2005, at 18:04:12
> Regardless of whether or not we as a group agree on if the behavior is uncivil, I am so glad some agree that it's not uncivil to bring it up. If it's not uncivil to ask if what others post is uncivil, I don't see how it's uncivil to ask if questioning the civility of what others post is uncivil. That's all. (Boy if someone came into the middle of this with no background on the debate, I think that sentence might make their head explode!)
Actually, that is a very good sentence :-)
(Have you ever thought of doing philosophy???)I agree - it isn't uncivil to ask.
I'd just be a bit careful about saying *why* one thinks the behaviour *is* uncivil, though.
I thought that...
I thought that...You were blocked by saying that the behaviour was due either to
A the poster not caring that people were upset.
B the poster not knowing that people were upset (and thereby not stopping the behaviour).Those are claims about the *person* not the behaviour - and I thought that was why you were blocked.
I was just trying to help you understand why you were blocked.
For the sole purpose of your hopefully not being blocked again in the future.
Thats all.
Didn't want to lose you again :-)
Posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 21:02:37
In reply to They can still be upset for many reasons? (nm) » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 21:00:25
But if someone is very very very upset...
Why might that be???
Posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 21:04:25
In reply to Re: They can still be upset for many reasons? » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 21:02:37
Wouldn't it be dull if we all got upset for the same reasons?
Posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 21:07:35
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 20:36:10
I've run out of words. That happens sometimes.
I used my best ones in the post you responded to here.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050417/msgs/489467.html
Now I just have to curl up and cry that they weren't good enough. And know what will happen when Dr. Bob gets those boards through the pipeline. And before you argue that I'm not clairvoyant, I mean what will happen to me and how I feel.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 21:18:25
In reply to I'm afraid I really really can't » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 21:07:35
> I've run out of words. That happens sometimes.
(((Dinah)))
> Now I just have to curl up and cry that they weren't good enough. And know what will happen when Dr. Bob gets those boards through the pipeline. And before you argue that I'm not clairvoyant, I mean what will happen to me and how I feel.>But it is sad that we can't talk to them. I do feel sad that they don't want to talk to me or get to know me. I was thinking that the other day. And I do feel funny about reading over there. I was reading the thread about whether the 2000 board should go. And I wanted to post to it - to say 'No! Don't feel bad peoples'. But then I realised that I couldn't post to it. I could probably post a reply to it on another board. But the people from 2000 probably wouldn't read my reply even if they knew there was one. And they didn't care what I had to say about it anyway because, well, because that is partly why they post over there I suppose. Because they don't want responses from people they don't know. I don't know. But thats what I was thinking. And I do feel sad about that.
But that is it, isn't it???
I thought...
I thought that the issue had evolved from whether there should be small boards or not to whether the small boards should be publicly viewable or not.I think I could be persuaded that it would be better if only the people who posted to them could view them...
I thought you were okay with them so long as they weren't publicly viewable????
Posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 21:19:24
In reply to Well, doesn't that depend on the person? » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 21:04:25
> Wouldn't it be dull if we all got upset for the same reasons?
Well...
Depends how much you have to abstract from the differences in order to find something in common...
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 22, 2005, at 21:20:03
In reply to Re: Gabbi, posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 20:30:31
> (((Gabbi)))
>
> I think you do understand...Thank you
> I know you have issues with CBT theory.
> I have issues with CBT theory too...
> I don't like their idea that thoughts CAUSE feelings.
> IMO that is far too simplistic.
> And sometimes we can't control our thoughts anymore than we can control our emotionsExactly. Though I suppose there are some Zen equivilents who can.. in the ideal like those who can transcend pain, but I don't think it's realistic, or for me, even desirable.
> The way you said it was fine.
> I'm sorry,
> I wasn't trying to get you to talk or write that way - I was just trying to make it clear the difference between
>
> Accusing / Attacking behaviour -> feeling hurt / accused etcI've been well schooled in that, and I do know the semantic difference, but as I said, most people I speak to, except those who've been in therapy, don't interpret the two any differently,long as there is and "I feel" or "I find" in front of it it's assumed it's personal, and not a generalization.
> Where the causal chain is fairly much inevitable in the sense that MOST people would feel hurt if someone posted something where they were overtly accused or attacked.
>
> And
>
> Behaviour -> some people respond by feeling accused / attacked / hurt
>
> BUT:
>
> other people do not.
>
> Here different people seem to respond differently...
>
> My thought is 'what do all the people who respond by feeling hurt have in common?'
> And 'what do all the people who respond by not feeling hurt have in common?'
>
> A lot of the difference seems to consist in the first bunch of people thinking that their response is an inevitable response to the behaviour.
>
> But it isn't inevitable - because other people do not respond in that way.Nothing is inevitable though, much of what people find *offensive* in general, and in the civility rules is societally influenced and people would be just as *offended* if society deemed the opposite to be offensive. That I find to be contradictory to "owning emotions" and that is what bothered me. The statement that somehow if you owned your emotions then this particular thing wouldn't bother you.
>
> The second bunch of people seem to have worked out some sort of story whereby Lou is attempting to better understand the civility rules.I don't think story is a good word. Some people believe that from the heart. I do. However, there have been other posters who have annoyed me, and no matter what I tried to convince myself I could not believe that they were not being rude. So I don't think it's something everyone can do. You need to believe it, otherwise it's insincere and that's no good to anyone. I think it would be more honorable to just ignore the person.
I personally simply believe in living consciously,
and that means constantly evaluating and questioning what I come in contact with.
I'll just as likely *not* be offended by the "offensive" as finding something most find acceptable to be unpalatable.Thanks for the hug
(((Alex)))
Posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 21:33:53
In reply to Re: I'm afraid I really really can't » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 21:18:25
> I thought...
> I thought that the issue had evolved from whether there should be small boards or not to whether the small boards should be publicly viewable or not.
>
> I think I could be persuaded that it would be better if only the people who posted to them could view them...
> I thought you were okay with them so long as they weren't publicly viewable???
>
> ?I won't object if they aren't publicly viewable. I won't join them or anything, most likely. But that's what my post to you, that I pointed out, was about. About them being publicly viewable.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 21:53:51
In reply to Re: Alex » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 22, 2005, at 21:20:03
> Exactly. Though I suppose there are some Zen equivilents who can.. in the ideal like those who can transcend pain, but I don't think it's realistic, or for me, even desirable.
Hmm... I don't know that they can... I think that you can *choose* to focus on other things - but that is not the ability to stop having the thought / emotion in the first place. It is just to focus ones awareness on something else that is going on... But to do that ALL the time would probably just have it occur to you more often. I don't know... But I am trying to make sense of this...
> I've been well schooled in that, and I do know the semantic difference, but as I said, most people I speak to, except those who've been in therapy, don't interpret the two any differently,long as there is and "I feel" or "I find" in front of it it's assumed it's personal, and not a generalization.
Yeah. The distinction only becomes important when one is very upset, I guess. Or (I would like to maintain in my thesis) when one is delusional...
> Nothing is inevitable though, much of what people find *offensive* in general, and in the civility rules is societally influenced and people would be just as *offended* if society deemed the opposite to be offensive.Well... I think it is fairly clear when someone is being accused or attacked... Maybe human beings (in general - of all cultures) are similar enough (on some level of abstraction) to be able to talk about 'inevitable human responses'. At least... It would help the notion of 'objective' (read 'inter-subjective') ethics if that was indeed the case...
>That I find to be contradictory to "owning emotions" and that is what bothered me. The statement that somehow if you owned your emotions then this particular thing wouldn't bother you.
Wouldn't bother you AS MUCH. That was the key there. It wouldn't bother you AS MUCH. It still might bother you enough so that you are better off avoiding the poster... But not enough to get really upset about it and risk lashing out at the poster.
> I don't think story is a good word.Ah. I think working out 'intentions' and 'reasons' is a process of narrative construction (aka 'story'). There are different options... Different ways we can construe the 'story'. If you ask 'but what REALLY happened??? What is the TRUE story???' then there isn't really an answer. There isn't really a fact of the matter (the process of interpretation is irreducibly underdetermined - and there is a fundamental indeterminacy). What that means is that (IMO) we are best off to employ the 'principle of charity' to construct the most 'helpful' story. In the sense that you can't change the facts - but there is a lot of leeway in the interpretation of the facts. If consider different interpretations then we find that some of those interpretations lead to us feeling bad - and others lead to us feeling much better about ourselves and others. IMO one is better off picking the interpretation that has the good consequences. It just makes life a whole heap nicer.
I guess that I really do believe that there is a fundamental indeterminacy. And I really do believe one should employ the principle of charity.
Do I really believe the narrative constructs???
Well... Only insofar as they are the 'best explanation' with respect to the facts (reality constraints) and principle of charity...
> However, there have been other posters who have annoyed me, and no matter what I tried to convince myself I could not believe that they were not being rude. So I don't think it's something everyone can do. You need to believe it, otherwise it's insincere and that's no good to anyone. I think it would be more honorable to just ignore the person.
Yes.
Maybe it would be helpful to post to a 'buddy' who might be able to help you out there with respect to 'charity'??? But I do hear what you are saying... I have come across a couple of posters who I struggle to 'think nice thoughts' about... They just seem to push my buttons... Though, of course, it isn't that they push my buttons... Rather that I can't seem to figure out a way to think kindly of them... I do think the best thing to do there is to ignore them...
> Thanks for the hugYou are welcome, have another
(((Gabbi)))
Posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 21:56:47
In reply to Re: I'm afraid I really really can't, posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 21:33:53
> I won't object if they aren't publicly viewable. I won't join them or anything, most likely. But that's what my post to you, that I pointed out, was about. About them being publicly viewable.
Right.
And the bit of my post that I just posted back to you was me trying to get that it might be a whole heap nicer to people who weren't members if they weren't publicly viewable...I think I do get that.
I do think it is worth trying to argue for that.
Really.
Dr Bob said he was willing to be convinced - but that it might be hard work...I think you should take him up on that challenge :-)
If you succeed...
Then you might be able to feel a lot better about them if they do eventuate (as it seems that they are going to)
Posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 22:00:59
In reply to Re: I'm afraid I really really can't » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 21:56:47
And all it will do is make me feel angry with Dr. Bob for thinking there's hope where there really is none.
I do better knowing there's no hope.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 22:15:23
In reply to But I won't succeed, you see. » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 22:00:59
I wouldn't be so sure about that...
I will help you...
There are lots of other Babblers here too.
Some of them are likely to jump on board and help you too...> And all it will do is make me feel angry with Dr. Bob for thinking there's hope where there really is none.
> I do better knowing there's no hope.But...
You don't know that there is no hope.
I do understand that false hope is no fun at all.
It is true that you might not be able to convince him.
That is the risk...
But if there isn't a risk...
Then it also tends to be the case
That there is nothing much to be gained either.
Posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 22:26:04
In reply to Re: But I won't succeed, you see. » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 22:15:23
I'm good at reading people, Alexandra. And I trust my instincts. I've even made something of a study of Dr. Bob.
There is no hope.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 22:32:35
In reply to Re: But I won't succeed, you see. » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 22:26:04
> I'm good at reading people, Alexandra. And I trust my instincts. I've even made something of a study of Dr. Bob.
> There is no hope.Hmm.
Well then
There isn't a lot I can say...
Unless you feel like publishing your findings and then I can have a go at critiquing them ;-)I still think...
The risk might be great
But you stand to gain a lot
Given how you predict you are going to feel...But.
It is your decision...
Posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 22:37:20
In reply to Re: But I won't succeed, you see. » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 22:26:04
Lets just see how this turns out, shall we???
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 22, 2005, at 23:47:35
In reply to Re: Gabbi, posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 21:53:51
> > I've been well schooled in that, and I do know the semantic difference, but as I said, most people I speak to, except those who've been in therapy, don't interpret the two any differently,long as there is and "I feel" or "I find" in front of it it's assumed it's personal, and not a generalization.
>
> Yeah. The distinction only becomes important when one is very upset, I guess. Or (I would like to maintain in my thesis) when one is delusional...
>
> > Nothing is inevitable though, much of what people find *offensive* in general, and in the civility rules is societally influenced and people would be just as *offended* if society deemed the opposite to be offensive.
>
> Well... I think it is fairly clear when someone is being accused or attacked... Maybe human beings (in general - of all cultures) are similar enough (on some level of abstraction) to be able to talk about 'inevitable human responses'. At least... It would help the notion of 'objective' (read 'inter-subjective') ethics if that was indeed the case...
>
> >That I find to be contradictory to "owning emotions" and that is what bothered me. The statement that somehow if you owned your emotions then this particular thing wouldn't bother you.
>
> Wouldn't bother you AS MUCH. That was the key there. It wouldn't bother you AS MUCH. It still might bother you enough so that you are better off avoiding the poster... But not enough to get really upset about it and risk lashing out at the poster.Oh was there an "as much" in there? Shame on me, it didn't register, and it does make a huge difference.
>
> > I don't think story is a good word.
>
> Ah. I think working out 'intentions' and 'reasons' is a process of narrative construction (aka 'story'). There are different options... Different ways we can construe the 'story'. If you ask 'but what REALLY happened??? What is the TRUE story???' then there isn't really an answer. There isn't really a fact of the matter (the process of interpretation is irreducibly underdetermined - and there is a fundamental indeterminacy). What that means is that (IMO) we are best off to employ the 'principle of charity' to construct the most 'helpful' story. In the sense that you can't change the facts - but there is a lot of leeway in the interpretation of the facts. If consider different interpretations then we find that some of those interpretations lead to us feeling bad - and others lead to us feeling much better about ourselves and others. IMO one is better off picking the interpretation that has the good consequences. It just makes life a whole heap nicer.Definitely, erring on the side of compassion, (if there is an "err")
And yes, I took story to be "telling yourself a story" as in kidding yourself. That makes a big difference too.
>
> > However, there have been other posters who have annoyed me, and no matter what I tried to convince myself I could not believe that they were not being rude. So I don't think it's something everyone can do. You need to believe it, otherwise it's insincere and that's no good to anyone. I think it would be more honorable to just ignore the person.
>
> Yes.
> Maybe it would be helpful to post to a 'buddy' who might be able to help you out there with respect to 'charity'???Oh of course, or to let off steam. Someone may offend me, but honestly usually I don't think what I feel in that regard is that important.
So someone offends me.. I'll deal with it. I don't necessarily try to make myself think positively about it, unless I truly believe they have good intentions. Of course it's not up to me to judge that, but it's been dangerous to me to always override my feelings. That's another reason I dislike C.B.T.When I worked in a group home with violent clients I was forever suppressing the natural urge to get angry. Eventually I accepted abuse in my personal life as well, and became unable to know what I was feeling.
I still haven't recovered from that, and I value my emotional reactions. When I intellectualize them to the point that they are not emotions, It may at times minimize the negative but I automatically negate the good as well, and that in itself is negative.>
> You are welcome, have anotherI do think I will.
(((Alex)))
: )
>
>
>
>
Posted by Minnie-Haha on May 23, 2005, at 11:34:21
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » Minnie-Haha, posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 21:01:57
First, I’d like to apologize to those who are upset by this topic or who are just plain tired of it. Some of you have been here many years and have seen this issue rise and fall over and over. I guess that’s a downside of being an old-timer here, but I do appreciate your feedback. Minnie
;-)
~> > Regardless of whether or not we as a group agree on if the behavior is uncivil, I am so glad some agree that it's not uncivil to bring it up. If it's not uncivil to ask if what others post is uncivil, I don't see how it's uncivil to ask if questioning the civility of what others post is uncivil. That's all. (Boy if someone came into the middle of this with no background on the debate, I think that sentence might make their head explode!)
>
> Actually, that is a very good sentence :-)
> (Have you ever thought of doing philosophy???)Thank you, but no. But I do TRY to be careful about what I write... especially if I know it's a touchy subject.
> You were blocked by saying that the behaviour was due either to
> A the poster not caring that people were upset.
> B the poster not knowing that people were upset (and thereby not stopping the behaviour).
>
> Those are claims about the *person* not the behaviour - and I thought that was why you were blocked.An assumption is made here that I was talking about a particular poster. The paragraph that I got blocked on has 10 sentences. If one focuses on the third and fourth paragraphs (both start with “If”), they might conclude I was talking about a particular poster. However, if you look at the whole paragraph, and consider everything I’d written (or not written) in that thread, I think it’s clear that I am not talking about a particular person, but about two (not all) “intentions” that might be behind the behavior we were discussing. We were in a behavior vs. intention loop, so I was trying to approach the issue from a different angle. It would have been better if I’d written “a poster” (indefinite article) in the 3rd and 4th sentences, but I’m a sucker for continuity and I stuck with “the,” a definite article that can also be used generally.
As I said before, I started the second thread with a disclaimer, I never mentioned anyone in particular, and I never responded to a post where anyone was. I kept my remarks hypothetical, even if others got personal. That’s why I was surprised and hurt for being blocked after being so careful (my intentions were good). Some assumed that I was still making a personal attack, as in my emotional first thread. But if others can be forgiven and move on with discussing a topic, I don't see why I have to keep getting punished for a crime that I served my time for.
FWIW: If I could have been rightly (IMO) blocked anywhere in my second thread, it would have been for what I wrote in the third “option” at the end of the post I got blocked on. I used the words “a certain individual’s behavior.” Although I did not identify anyone, it was a slip-up on my part. I was tired of what felt like jousting windmills and didn’t properly edit my post before I posted it.
> I was just trying to help you understand why you were blocked.
> For the sole purpose of your hopefully not being blocked again in the future.
> Thats all.
> Didn't want to lose you again :-)I appreciate that. But the arguments given for why I was blocked don't fit. If others' intentions are considered when deciding whether or not to block, then my intentions ought to be considered too. To put it another way, if I’m being uncivil by bringing up this subject, and being blocked for it, even though my intentions are good, then it seems like I’m being punished for the very kind of behavior I’m talking about. And if that’s true, should the rule be applied only to me, or others like me, who bring up this topic as civilly as they can? Is this subject off limits? Can we discuss religion, politics, abortion, etc. (carefully), but not discuss this topic without being punished?
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 23, 2005, at 14:24:41
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » alexandra_k, posted by Minnie-Haha on May 23, 2005, at 11:34:21
Often there is another reason.. sorry I forgot to tell you
*OOPS*
Dr. Bob's reasons for blocking people are often unable to be deciphered by any method known to babblers..
This has also has been a source of many heated threads in the past. Actually the post that got me my 9 week block was phrased in a way that someone else wasn't even P.B.C'd for.
I used to say it must be a board game he played with his friends after a few drinks.. "Block the depressives"
"Oh, caught one on a technicality, YES! move ahead 3 spaces" "Oh man, you could have gotten her again.. too late, lose a turn"Sorry Dr. Bob, really I am. I realize now that sometimes I was wrong, and sometimes you just make mistakes..
Posted by Minnie-Haha on May 23, 2005, at 16:22:30
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » Minnie-Haha, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 23, 2005, at 14:24:41
Thanks for the explanation. It makes a bitter pill a little easier to swallow. Not only that, it brought a little humor into an otherwise dead-serious volley. Maybe I can unpucker my anus now.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on May 23, 2005, at 16:23:28
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd?, posted by Minnie-Haha on May 23, 2005, at 16:22:30
Posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 17:58:19
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » Minnie-Haha, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 23, 2005, at 14:24:41
> Dr. Bob's reasons for blocking people are often unable to be deciphered by any method known to babblers..
Thats giving up on an explanation / interpretation...
IMO that should be a last resort strategy...
I'm grateful that I have never had to resort to that.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 18:05:59
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » alexandra_k, posted by Minnie-Haha on May 23, 2005, at 11:34:21
>You were blocked by saying that the behaviour was due either to
> > A the poster not caring that people were upset.
> > B the poster not knowing that people were upset (and thereby not stopping the behaviour).
> > Those are claims about the *person* not the behaviour - and I thought that was why you were blocked.
>
> An assumption is made here that I was talking about a particular poster.Yeah. It was pretty clear that you were from the 'lets try that again' comment on the start of the thread...
>The paragraph that I got blocked on has 10 sentences. If one focuses on the third and fourth paragraphs (both start with “If”), they might conclude I was talking about a particular poster. However, if you look at the whole paragraph, and consider everything I’d written (or not written) in that thread, I think it’s clear that I am not talking about a particular person, but about two (not all) “intentions” that might be behind the behavior we were discussing.
Whos behaviour???
The problem was that both 'intention' hypotheses were uncharitable...
> FWIW: If I could have been rightly (IMO) blocked anywhere in my second thread, it would have been for what I wrote in the third “option” at the end of the post I got blocked on. I used the words “a certain individual’s behavior.” Although I did not identify anyone, it was a slip-up on my part.
And that... By your own admission... Was the problem there. That you DID have the behaviour of a particular individual in mind. And that you were judging the poster to not care about others feelings that you felt he was responsible for.
It isn't so much about 'being careful with what you say' as being careful with what you think in your interpretations. If you are careful with your interpreatations then you should be able to express them without 'being careful'.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 23, 2005, at 18:12:47
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » Gabbi-x-2, posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 17:58:19
> > Dr. Bob's reasons for blocking people are often unable to be deciphered by any method known to babblers..
>
> Thats giving up on an explanation / interpretation...
>What? Humor?
I kind of like it.. I've never thought of it as a last resort.
And you know.. you may call it giving up, I call it acceptance. When I really feel I don't think I can figure someone out, and it really doesn't matter to me all that much I spend my time on something else. You many choose otherwise.. I don't need to hear why what you choose is wiser.
And please, may I post something without being informed how I feel.. or should feel or what my reasoning is, by you? I'd appreciate it. Though *civil* the message in your posts comes through loud and clear.
Posted by gardenergirl on May 23, 2005, at 18:26:06
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » alexandra_k, posted by Minnie-Haha on May 23, 2005, at 11:34:21
Minnie,
I accept that your intentions when posting were not to point out a specific poster, and that you were rather asking about a behavior.I think perhaps that since there really is only one poster who exhibits said behavior (to my knowledge), it appeared fairly obvious, at least to me, who's behavior you were hypothetically referring to. I really don't know any way around that other than perhaps to email Dr. Bob privately or to directly ask the poster to stop.
And even if many or even most posters exhibited the same behavior, the statement you made speculating about intentions behind the behavior (either/or) suggested to me that those were the only two options. I suspect that Dr. Bob viewed the option that a person might not care whether the behavior hurts others as being likely to lead to anyone who exhibits that behavior possibly feeling put down as "uncaring".
Just my interpretation of the situation...
gg
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.