![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 80 to 104 of 255. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 28, 2005, at 13:18:24
In reply to Re: publicly viewable, posted by Dr. Bob on May 28, 2005, at 11:37:39
.
>
> 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"...Absolutely not! It's not the same thing Dr. Bob.
Oy, this is frustrating. I would have no desire at all to go to most places that are prejudice, or promote segregation, but that does not mean it isn't immoral.>
> How would you feel if you were told instead they were enjoying the opportunity to connect with each other?
>
> BobI cannot believe you're even trying to do that. Its insulting and infuriating, and a scary futuristic prediction from several classic books.
White Supremecy : Gives white folks a chance
to connect with one another and feel empoweredDo you feel okay about it now Dr. Bob?
Now, had I been a peer, and asked you that question in all seriousness, your (likely) reaction, is how I feel (choking, gagging, frustrated, infuriated, disbelief) when it is gently suggested to me that I "reframe" what I find repugnant. Some things are to me, and I hope to he** I never lose the ability to see that, lest I sound like this:
Wife Beating: He was "working out his issues" last night. (that's a real one, from a proffessional. Hard to tell isn't it?"
Posted by alexandra_k on May 28, 2005, at 17:20:38
In reply to Re: publicly viewable, posted by Dr. Bob on May 28, 2005, at 11:37:39
> 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"...
I'm not sure that it does...
It seems to be painful
But I'm not seeing it as resentful
And I don't see the 'desire to possess the same advantage'...Not if the 'advantage' is seen as membership of a small board anyway.
If the advantage is the desire to feel included... Well... Perhaps.
Becuase some people who don't feel included on the bigger boards might have more chance of feeling included on the smaller boards.
Hmm.
Exclude:
1 a : to prevent or restrict the entrance of b : to bar from participation, consideration, or inclusionResentment:
a feeling of indignant displeasure or persistent ill will at something regarded as a wrong, insult, or injuryHmm
Posted by alexandra_k on May 28, 2005, at 17:26:14
In reply to Re: publicly viewable » Dr. Bob, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 28, 2005, at 13:18:24
I think...
The crucial difference between racism and small boards is the idea that with racism (specism, sexism, whatever...) people discriminate on grounds that are irrelevant to whatever it is that they need to make a choice for.
So, for example, you want to hire someone for a job and you don't seriously consider a female for the job - and really being female is completely irrelevant to whether she is the best candidate for the job or not.
If small board membership were determined by someones race or gender or whatever, then there might be a good analogy there...
Though I think there is some provision allowed for supporting or advocating for minority groups. So if you had a 'womans group', for example, then most people wouldn't consider it discrimination - though it could be argued that it is given that women aren't in the minority and all...
But in the case of small boards membership is solely up to when you try and join up as that determines whether there is a place or not.
As such, I think it is really very different from discrimination...
Posted by Dinah on May 28, 2005, at 17:41:04
In reply to Re: publicly viewable, posted by alexandra_k on May 28, 2005, at 17:26:14
I think if you look at the context of the post, it's clear that the topic wasn't comparing small boards to racism. It was a comment on Dr. Bob's style of reply.
Because if you look at Dr. Bob's reply, you might be able to see why people trying to have a legitimate discussion about something would be discouraged from wanting to continue.
It reminded me forcefully of a reply in a presidential debate.
Posted by Dinah on May 28, 2005, at 17:49:52
In reply to Re: publicly viewable » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on May 28, 2005, at 17:41:04
I didn't mean to imply that people trying to have a legitimate discussion and people who enjoy what Dr. Bob was doing were a mutually exclusive group.
I meant that I and people who are currently doing what Dr. Bob was doing are a mutually exclusive group.
Or more specifically that I do not try to have a legitimate discussion with any person who during the course of that discussion chooses to employ the debating techniques that Dr. Bob is currently employing, until they choose a different form of communication.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 28, 2005, at 18:32:31
In reply to I mis-spoke, posted by Dinah on May 28, 2005, at 17:49:52
???
I'm lost.
Sorry that I seem to be missing the point...
:-(I was just trying to get clear on some of the words...
I think they have negative connotations that actually aren't part of the meaning of the terms...
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 28, 2005, at 19:28:56
In reply to Re: publicly viewable » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on May 28, 2005, at 17:41:04
I was not comparng small boards to racism.
I was using the two examples to compare reframing, and how I feel when when someone spin doctors a subject, and then asks me to look at it differently.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 29, 2005, at 13:51:20
In reply to Thank you Dinah, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 28, 2005, at 19:28:56
> I was using the two examples to compare reframing, and how I feel when when someone spin doctors a subject, and then asks me to look at it differently.
OK, at times it can be used to try to justify something immoral, but at other times reframing could be reasonable, couldn't it?
Bob
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 29, 2005, at 14:50:34
In reply to Re: reframing, posted by Dr. Bob on May 29, 2005, at 13:51:20
> > I was using the two examples to compare reframing, and how I feel when when someone spin doctors a subject, and then asks me to look at it differently.
>
> OK, at times it can be used to try to justify something immoral, but at other times reframing could be reasonable, couldn't it?
>
> BobOf course. If I didn't consistantly re evaluate my reactions to things, and why I feel how I do I wouldn't be alive.
What I find almost intolerably frustrating, is that someone like Dinah has demonstrated through every word how she considers almost all possible opinions and angles and that she is not a reactionary.
When you reply like that, it seems to me like that essential quality has been completely ignored.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 29, 2005, at 20:06:17
In reply to Re: publicly viewable, posted by Dr. Bob on May 28, 2005, at 11:37:39
> > It isn't about feelings of envy. It's about feelings of exclusion. Those are two different things entirely.
So one way to see it is to focus on those who will feel excluded if there are small boards.
But another way to see it is to focus on those who do feel excluded currently on the main boards.
Most people who are against small boards already feel included on the main Babble boards. They are worried about feeling excluded from the small Babble boards.
But what about the people who don't feel included on the main Babble boards? They may feel included on the small Babble boards.
So by creating small boards more people may get that feeling of inclusion...
So envy is: "painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage"...
Where the "same advantage" could be feelings of inclusion.
And resentment is: "a feeling of indignant displeasure or persistent ill will at something regarded as a wrong, insult, or injury"...
Which is how people seem to view small boards...
>at other times reframing could be reasonable, couldn't it?
> How would you feel if you were told instead they were enjoying the opportunity to connect with each other?
I think it is a good idea to have more places for people to feel included...
If you don't want me to post to you anymore then you'll have to join the cue...sigh.
Posted by Dinah on May 29, 2005, at 20:09:54
In reply to Re: publicly viewable, posted by alexandra_k on May 29, 2005, at 20:06:17
Posted by Dinah on May 29, 2005, at 20:36:27
In reply to Re: publicly viewable, posted by alexandra_k on May 29, 2005, at 20:06:17
Does the definition of politeness really stretch so far as to think it's ok for two posters on Social to tell a third that they are having a private conversation and that they do not wish to hear input from the third?
Well, no wonder I'm having so much trouble in this conversation. You and Dr. Bob are working from a different underlying definition of the word polite. I hadn't realized that the parameters of polite stretched that far. Perhaps it's a cultural thing of the South to think that would be impolite.
And here I thought that Dr. Bob was just trying to divert me from the main point with a silly argument that it would be polite for two posters to do that. It never occurred to me that he was serious.
And do you have any teensy suspicion that *I* would feel worry for one teensy weensy itty bitty second about being excluded from the small boards? After reading what I've said about small boards for how long now?
Well, now I'm just getting angry.
And after I promised myself I wouldn't. After I *told* you that I didn't want to get involved in this. Not with Dr. Bob, not with you. Not with anybody.
I know a lost cause when I've seen it.
And now I'm head splittingly angry over one.
And I feel insulted to boot.
And I don't want to meet Dr. Bob.
Posted by Dinah on May 29, 2005, at 21:11:11
In reply to Alexandra, posted by Dinah on May 29, 2005, at 20:36:27
Clearly I shouldn't post when my head is about to explode.
I tried three times to compose a reply. That was the calmest of the lot.
I can't afford to get this upset right now. I'm this close to cancelling, despite the nonrefundable deposits, out of sheer anxiety. I can't add anger into the mix.
I really just can't.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 29, 2005, at 21:18:25
In reply to Alexandra, posted by Dinah on May 29, 2005, at 20:36:27
> Does the definition of politeness really stretch so far as to think it's ok for two posters on Social to tell a third that they are having a private conversation and that they do not wish to hear input from the third?
Hmm.
Lets seeMain Entry: po·lite
1 a : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of advanced culture b : marked by refined cultural interests and pursuits especially in arts and belles lettres
2 a : showing or characterized by correct social usage b : marked by an appearance of consideration, tact, deference, or courtesy c : marked by a lack of roughness or crudities <polite literature>I don't think that would be polite.
But I didn't think we were talking about politeness so much as feelings of inclusion / exclusion...
So is it that there are two reasons why you don't like the idea of small boards:
1. They are impolite
2. They will result in feelings of exclusion???
I think Dr Bob (and myself) were looking at 2.
Which is a seperate issue from 1.
1. could be prevented by making small boards only viewable to members (IMO)...> And do you have any teensy suspicion that *I* would feel worry for one teensy weensy itty bitty second about being excluded from the small boards? After reading what I've said about small boards for how long now?
I thought you were worried about other people who might be...
> Well, now I'm just getting angry.(((Dinah)))
This thread has become diverted from the intended topic.
I didn't intend to start up the small board stuff again.
I intended to help you persuade Dr Bob that it would be better if small boards were only viewable to members, remember???
I didn't divert the thread back onto the costs / benefits of small boards but it seemed that other people wanted to talk about this again...
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.