![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 66 to 90 of 255. Go back in thread:
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 23, 2005, at 23:15:31
In reply to Re: I'm really sorry..., posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 22:57:38
Actually my entire post was not a joke.. it was lighthearted, and I do get frustrated and often deal with it with humor. Many babblers would agree that there are times the blocking system seems to be unfair, or at least unpredictable this is probably because Dr. Bob himself is *not* a system .
So If I want to give up on figuring it out the minutia of reasoning behind every block feel free to be grateful that you don't have to stoop to that.I would prefer to keep the Do not Post request.
I am sorry, for me too, but it seems we have an ongoing theme of misunderstanding and assumptions here and I find it incredibly draining.
Posted by 10derHeart on May 24, 2005, at 0:36:22
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 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...
{somewhat timidly..) I would help you, Dinah.
I would try to help Alex help you.
I think, from my following along with mostly all the threads, I very much understand your POV on the matter.And I agree down to the bottom of my heart with all you've written on these small boards, if they are implemented.
Don't know how effective I can be with something like this.
Not my strong suite, perhaps, like some things over on Psych feel like they are for me.But I would definitely make an effort to help you.
Please don't block out the possibility there is still hope...not quite yet...?
Posted by Dinah on May 24, 2005, at 1:44:07
In reply to Re: But I won't succeed, you see: for Dinah and » alexandra_k, posted by 10derHeart on May 24, 2005, at 0:36:22
I thank you. :)
But really, hope hurts. I'm not sure Dr. Bob understands that. But I'd rather have no hope than false hope.
And when I'm ready to look on the bright side, which I'm not, I can congratulate myself on my perspicacity in knowing that it was a done deal. I may not be persuasive, but I'm perceptive.
Not quite yet though. Later.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on May 24, 2005, at 14:43:56
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » Minnie-Haha, posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 18:05:59
> > 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...If some felt offended by a particular poster's behavior, could that set off a discussion about the behavior without necessarily discussing the poster? For instance, one or more posters on this site must have been the first to curse here. If that set off a discussion about cursing, did that mean everyone was talking about those people? Or even necessarily that the offended were talking about those people? And is it possible that "let's try again" means to talk about a behavior (and not a person)?
> >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???I WAS TALKING ABOUT A BEHAVIOR, NOT A PERSON! Interrupting is a behavior. I can talk about it alone as a subject, though it would be hard if others wanted to talk about why a particular person interrupts.
> The problem was that both 'intention' hypotheses were uncharitable...
When may I proceed with this subject without others concluding that I am talking about a person? IMO, insisting that I’m out to persecute someone, even when I’ve declared that I am not, seems 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.At the very end of one of my final posts I used the words “a certain individual’s behavior.” But that doesn’t mean I had a particular poster in mind when I started the thread, or when I posed scenarios, or even when I offered a couple of possible reasons – well before I used those four words – for the kind of behavior we were discussing. The only reason I went into intention was because others thought it was important. But even if others were thinking about a particular poster from the start on that thread, I tell you I was not.
> 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'.
I thought civility on this site was exactly about being careful with what you say. It would be pretty hard to manage this site if you had to weigh also what people think – unless they say what they think – or you are psychic. (I’d wager we'd be blocked here much more often if Dr. Bob could read minds.)
Posted by Minnie-Haha on May 24, 2005, at 15:30:38
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » Minnie-Haha, posted by gardenergirl on May 23, 2005, at 18:26:06
> I accept that your intentions when posting were not to point out a specific poster, and that you were rather asking about a behavior.
Thank you from the bottom of my twisted little heart.
> 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...I think your arguments are some of the best, but (do I hear eyes rolling?)...
My statement wasn't an either/or. I won't repeat it all, for fear of getting blocked again, but I will quote its form: "That brings us to AT LEAST TWO possibilities. One is... The other is..." I never said that others' suggestions were wrong, or that these were right, or that there couldn't be a host of others. I was trying to make the point that intentions are many (and debatably provable). I shouldn't have waded into the intention debate, but we were getting nowhere with behavior vs. intention.
As for how to handle discussing a behavior that only one person is known to exhibit, I think if no-one has ever brought it up for discussion before, it would be nice to email the doctor or poster privately, but if the behavior has been brought up repeatedly by others -- well, it seems like it's out there: a problem that is going to keep arising and keep getting discussed, unless a civility rule goes up saying you can't question the behavior of someone who is the only one who exhibits that behavior.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 24, 2005, at 16:18:19
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd?, posted by Minnie-Haha on May 24, 2005, at 15:30:38
Sorry to interrupt.. but I wanted to let you know that I do understand what you are saying.
I've seen strings of suicidal posts appear on babble, posted by one individual, and suddenly there will be a request on administration , to have such posts banned, without of course naming names. Still, It's just as obvious then, to whom the person is referring, but I've not seen anyone blocked for it yet.
I do think that it's best for those type of things to be dealt with by babblemail, but I don't think that's the issue here.
(((Minnie)))
Posted by alexandra_k on May 24, 2005, at 16:49:15
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » alexandra_k, posted by Minnie-Haha on May 24, 2005, at 14:43:56
> I thought civility on this site was exactly about being careful with what you say. It would be pretty hard to manage this site if you had to weigh also what people think – unless they say what they think – or you are psychic. (I’d wager we'd be blocked here much more often if Dr. Bob could read minds.)
Yeah.
It is just that for the most part people do indeed use language to express their thoughts.
Sometimes we aren't really aware of just how much so.I hope you got my apology above.
I think I'll leave this thread now.
I just wanted to point out that there are fairly much two routes you can take (though I don't mean to suggest that there are only two)
;-)You can try and justify it.
You can try and understand what was considered unacceptable.My thought was just that going the second route might have you better placed to avoid being blocked in future.
But it is up to you...
Posted by gardenergirl on May 24, 2005, at 16:52:59
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd?, posted by Minnie-Haha on May 24, 2005, at 15:30:38
>
> My statement wasn't an either/or. I won't repeat it all, for fear of getting blocked again, but I will quote its form: "That brings us to AT LEAST TWO possibilities. One is... The other is..."You're right, this statement only suggests two of possibly others. > As for how to handle discussing a behavior that only one person is known to exhibit, I think if no-one has ever brought it up for discussion before, it would be nice to email the doctor or poster privately, but if the behavior has been brought up repeatedly by others -- well, it seems like it's out there: ...
Although since it has been brought up before, and the behavior has not been deemed to fall outside the civility guidelines, I think the answer to your question was evident before the posts (if I understood your question correctly). Of course Dr. Bob is free to change his mind. But I thought this issue had been settled previously. I could be wrong, though. I haven't checked for a post saying so, and my memory has been known to fail me.
Thanks for correcting my assumption regarding your statement about possible intentions.
gg
Posted by Minnie-Haha on May 24, 2005, at 16:58:32
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » gardenergirl, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 23, 2005, at 18:31:36
> ... Minnie was also wondering why she got a block after only one P.B.C, one which had been on a completely different topic. From what I've seen here that is unusual, usually you get at least 3 p.b.c's before you get blocked.
That was my original question here, though the discussion has kinda meandered. (I'd also wanted to know if one block usually follows another -- which is what I experienced -- or whether or not there are usually one or more PBCs between one block and the next.)
Anyway, thanks for noticing.
Minnie
Posted by Minnie-Haha on May 24, 2005, at 17:08:06
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » Minnie-Haha, posted by alexandra_k on May 24, 2005, at 16:49:15
> > I thought civility on this site was exactly about being careful with what you say. It would be pretty hard to manage this site if you had to weigh also what people think – unless they say what they think – or you are psychic. (I’d wager we'd be blocked here much more often if Dr. Bob could read minds.)
>
> Yeah.
> It is just that for the most part people do indeed use language to express their thoughts.
> Sometimes we aren't really aware of just how much so.Dang. This could turn into another one of those "made me feel" vs "chose to feel" discussions, and I'm just about spent, so I won't respond to that.
> I hope you got my apology above.
Yes, and thank you.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on May 24, 2005, at 17:19:32
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » Minnie-Haha, posted by gardenergirl on May 24, 2005, at 16:52:59
> > My statement wasn't an either/or...
>
> You're right, this statement only suggests two of possibly others.Thanks gg. Yer a peach.
> > As for how to handle discussing a behavior that only one person is known to exhibit...
>
> Although since it has been brought up before, and the behavior has not been deemed to fall outside the civility guidelines, I think the answer to your question was evident before the posts (if I understood your question correctly). Of course Dr. Bob is free to change his mind. But I thought this issue had been settled previously. I could be wrong, though. I haven't checked for a post saying so, and my memory has been known to fail me.Since hitting 40, my memory's -- What was I talking about? Oh yeah, the last thing I remember Dr. Bob saying is that he doesn't want to label the behavior we were talking about.
I figured I was defending a losing case from the start, but I also felt compelled to address a behavior that makes me and others feel offended. I wanted my view on the subject for the record. I think I made some good points, and I am pretty sure that this will come up again, even if not through me. There just seem to be some topics here that do that.
Posted by Dinah on May 24, 2005, at 17:20:33
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd?, posted by Minnie-Haha on May 24, 2005, at 16:58:32
You can't be blocked before being PBC'd. Not even in the case of gross incivility.
After you've been PBC'd you can be blocked on the next offense. Dr. Bob doesn't have to do it, but he always has the option. He often chooses to exercise his discretion to give another PBC. A lot depends on context, time elapsed, etc.
After you've been blocked you can be blocked for increasing amounts of time (2x for technical infractions, 3x for personal infractions) for each violation thereafter, no matter how long thereafter. Dr. Bob doesn't have to do it, he can choose to PBC again, or block for lesser amounts of time, but he always has the option. Dr. Bob often shows discretion, depending a lot on context, time elapsed, etc.
I don't recall the time elapsed, the difference between violations, or anything else about this particular case, but that's the general rule.
Many people find it useful to have an off board civility buddy. Sometimes for running posts past them for possible civility infractions. Sometimes for venting. I make liberal use of Babble civility buddies. And on occasion, I email Dr. Bob. He's never blocked me for an email to him, so that's always an option.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on May 24, 2005, at 17:54:03
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » Minnie-Haha, posted by Dinah on May 24, 2005, at 17:20:33
> I don't recall the time elapsed, the difference between violations, or anything else about this particular case, but that's the general rule.
I got my first and only PBC in February on a Medication board thread (the infamous grain-of-salt post). My first block was April 14, on one thread, and my second block was on April 30, on a different, though similar thread. The first one was admittedly personal, but the second was not, IMO, as we've debated here. (Don't want to start it up again. I acknowledge that others have a right to their opinions too.)
> Many people find it useful to have an off board civility buddy. Sometimes for running posts past them for possible civility infractions. Sometimes for venting. I make liberal use of Babble civility buddies. And on occasion, I email Dr. Bob. He's never blocked me for an email to him, so that's always an option.
Yes, I may use a buddy in the future. I actually have emailed the doctor on something that bothered me once before.
Thanks again.
Posted by Dinah on May 24, 2005, at 18:10:55
In reply to Re: Thank you » Dinah, posted by Minnie-Haha on May 24, 2005, at 17:54:03
Posted by alexandra_k on May 24, 2005, at 20:38:09
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » gardenergirl, posted by Minnie-Haha on May 24, 2005, at 17:19:32
> ...but I also felt compelled to address a behavior that makes me and others feel offended.
'makes me'
There it is again...It is hard NOT to express ones thoughts when one speaks...
Posted by Minnie-Haha on May 25, 2005, at 13:40:30
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » Minnie-Haha, posted by alexandra_k on May 24, 2005, at 20:38:09
> > ...but I also felt compelled to address a behavior that makes me and others feel offended.
>
> 'makes me'
> There it is again...You are responding to a post I directed to gardengirl. This seems like a matter of semantics to me. If you prefer the choose-to-feel form of expressing yourself, that’s fine, but I hope you won’t insist that I do.
If it’s OK for some to feel offended by one sort of behavior, why must I choose to feel offended by another?
> It is hard NOT to express ones thoughts when one speaks...
Yes, I’d say a big part of our speaking and writing is to express our thoughts – or feelings. My thought processes are rather messy, but I usually don’t try to speak (or write) until I’ve come to what seems *to me* a reasoned conclusion. If I speak or talk before then, I might need to correct myself or apologize later. I might yet have to do so if I express my reasoned conclusion poorly (not carefully). For instance, you yourself apologized for some hurried posts you made to Gabbi and me because you had 5 minutes to get to class. It matters not to me whether the problem was that you regretted your thoughts / conclusion, or simply regretted the way you expressed it. If you can apologize for making a careless post, can’t I? You weren’t careful with what you said (or thought or however you want to put it), and neither was I on the paragraph in question when this saying vs. thinking thing came up.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 26, 2005, at 1:07:13
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
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 26, 2005, at 1:07:17
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.
Because then others won't be envious? If you'd rather not get into this again, that's OK, too...
Bob
Posted by Dinah on May 26, 2005, at 5:10:24
In reply to Re: publicly viewable, posted by Dr. Bob on May 26, 2005, at 1:07:17
Thank you for being sensitive to the intensity of my feelings on this matter, especially right before a scary trip to Chicago where it would be incredibly inconvenient for me to be head-ready-to-explode angry with you.
To me it really is a question of right and wrong, polite and impolite. It's that simple. And I just don't understand how you can't understand because so many professionals that I know and have read *do* understand.
And the reasons my feelings are so intense is something I really can't say under the civility guidelines as I understand them. But I've emailed them to you before and will again if you understandably can't remember and if you are for any reason interested.
For reasons I've stated before and stated again on Alexandra's thread, which I think you merged into the small board thread. I don't really have any better words than these, but I'll repeat them.
It isn't about feelings of envy. It's about feelings of exclusion. Those are two different things entirely.
It's about the philosophy outlined in "You Can't Say You Can't Play", as on page 99.
["It's a private time with you and your dad," I suggest.
"Right. And sometimes you have times like that with your friends."
"No one would argue about the privacy of those occasions," I say. "But does the the classroom qualify as private or public?"
A boy answers. "If he or she is your good friend, you can always invite them to your house. So, no, this isn't a private place."]
And from a post to Alexandra...
Can all friends watch and listen? Yes. Are all friends welcome to join in? No. Only some are welcome to join in those conversations.
What other possible way can 1 & 2 be joined?
(Than that posters would be playing behind a glass wall where all their friends can watch and listen, but only some of their friends are welcome to join in.)The other alternative is that people participate in only restricted boards in which case
1) People who they do not consider friends can watch and listen.
2) People who they do not consider friends are not welcome to join in.
That is at least internally consistent to me, but not really in keeping with what the boards mean to me.The first scenario, where people considered friends are not allowed to join in conversations they are allowed to watch and see, is totally beyond my conception. [However assuming that you, Dr. Bob, consider the second scenario in keeping with your view of Babble, I can see where the *second* scenario would be not impolite.]
How would I feel if Alexandra and Damos (to name two people I enjoy who clearly enjoy each other, and for no other reason) were having a bantering conversation on Social and when I tried to banter with them, were told it was a private conversation and I wasn't welcome. How is a publicly read board where I wasn't allowed to post any different? And I don't just mean me. I wouldn't even read a board I can't post on. Because I would know I wasn't welcome there. But how would people who didn't realize they weren't welcome feel about it?
And Dr. Bob, again that's not "envy" that's feeling excluded.
These are the very best words I have, Dr. Bob. I've stood on my head trying to shake better ways of saying it out, and there's just nothing there. If you think you might be interested in my opinion, please bookmark this post, because I don't think I'll be saying more on the matter. If you don't understand or empathize with what I'm saying, you don't. And all the talking on my side in the world won't change that.
If you want to understand, but can't, you can take this post to someone you think you may be able to interpret it.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 26, 2005, at 11:28:22
In reply to Re: thanks (nm) » Gabbi-x-2, posted by Dr. Bob on May 26, 2005, at 1:07:13
Well, you know. I *can* admit when I'm ..
wrong-ish
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 28, 2005, at 11:37:39
In reply to Re: publicly viewable » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on May 26, 2005, at 5:10:24
> It isn't about feelings of envy. It's about feelings of exclusion. Those are two different things entirely.
Envy of being included? It does sound like "painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage"...
> > > If he or she is your good friend, you can always invite them to your house.
And what if someone else comes to your house uninvited?
> How would I feel if Alexandra and Damos ... were having a bantering conversation on Social and when I tried to banter with them, were told it was a private conversation and I wasn't welcome.
How would you feel if you were told instead they were enjoying the opportunity to connect with each other?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on May 28, 2005, at 11:53:40
In reply to Re: publicly viewable, posted by Dr. Bob on May 28, 2005, at 11:37:39
Posted by Dinah on May 28, 2005, at 12:12:47
In reply to Re: publicly viewable, posted by Dr. Bob on May 28, 2005, at 11:37:39
I refuse to play word games. I have too much respect for myself.
You may not be intending it that way, but that's the way I'm hearing it.
Posted by 10derHeart on May 28, 2005, at 12:16:17
In reply to Never mind, Dr. Bob. I won't do this. (nm), posted by Dinah on May 28, 2005, at 11:53:40
(((Dinah)))
I really believe I am now getting "in my gut," how you feel about this - and why. It's resonating and...well, never mind...but I...
Just wanted you to know.
(((Dinah)))
Posted by Dinah on May 28, 2005, at 12:18:26
In reply to Re: Never mind, Dr. Bob. I won't do this. » Dinah, posted by 10derHeart on May 28, 2005, at 12:16:17
It's nice to know I haven't completely lost my ability to communicate.
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.