![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 90 to 114 of 134. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on July 28, 2005, at 3:59:59
In reply to Re:Another idea » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on July 28, 2005, at 0:32:55
> Agree to disagree?
> I'm rather fond of it.Yes. I know :-)
> Because people hardly ever change their minds, and trying to get them to change their minds just causes bad feelings.Yup. So... Maybe it shouldn't be about trying to get someone to change their mind. Maybe it should be more about coming to a clearer understanding of all the points that are relevant to the issue.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 28, 2005, at 8:22:04
In reply to Re:Another idea, posted by alexandra_k on July 27, 2005, at 17:58:59
I'm not talking about not giving second/third chances. I think people *should* get second/third chances.
I'm talking about people registering under different names to get past a block. Or waiting a while and coming back under a different name hoping the PBC/block cycle will start over.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 28, 2005, at 8:24:12
In reply to I don't want to register with a perm. email » AuntieMel, posted by pinkeye on July 27, 2005, at 21:02:28
What if the hotmail/yahoo account could be used for babblemail and communication and the perm. was used *only* for registration?
Or if an exception could be made if you could email Dr. Bob the perm. address?
Posted by Dinah on July 28, 2005, at 8:35:51
In reply to Re: I don't want to register with a perm. email » pinkeye, posted by AuntieMel on July 28, 2005, at 8:24:12
In the past, Dr. Bob has suggested pay-for-Babble. More for this reason than for the money involved, I think. Giving credit card info is pretty identifying.
But it met with a *lot* of opposition.
Posted by pinkeye on July 28, 2005, at 13:44:06
In reply to Re: I don't want to register with a perm. email » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on July 28, 2005, at 8:35:51
Yep - paying would be very difficult for people like me.. it is not so much the money, but that I can't give credit card registration because I don't want my husband to go through the bills and discover it.
SAme reason why I don't want to register with a permanent email addresss.. too difficult to protect anonymity
Posted by JenStar on July 28, 2005, at 14:16:06
In reply to Re: these posts didn't upset you at all? » JenStar, posted by gabbii on July 28, 2005, at 1:35:16
gabbii,
it wasn't my intent to start a battle with you, to upset you, or to put you on the defensive. I'm sorry if my post made you feel that you were under attack. I didn't mean to do that.What I DID want to do was vent, share my feelings, and voice my frustration and confusion about the way things happen here on the boards sometimes. I'm not saying you (or anyone else) HAS to justify why they like another poster. In the case of so, I genuinely found it very hard to understand, that's all. I still do, but I listened to your explanation and understand that you do see the world and people differently than I do. And I hope to stop arguing about this, so I won't put any most posts here about my frustration and confusion. I'm done! :)
I'd like to get back to being friends. :)
How about we agree to disagree on some topics(even though I know that phrase is overused!) and move on from here?
JenStar
Posted by gabbii on July 28, 2005, at 14:30:26
In reply to olive branch? » gabbii, posted by JenStar on July 28, 2005, at 14:16:06
> gabbii,
> it wasn't my intent to start a battle with you, to upset you, or to put you on the defensive. I'm sorry if my post made you feel that you were under attack. I didn't mean to do that.
>
Absolutely! Actually (this is the second time this has happened) I came here specifically to say "Jen why would you want to stop yourself from saying something you'd regret, that's what makes Babble such an adventure? " : )I wasn't angry about your feelings in the least, I truly was not, and had I felt the reactions weren't understandable (if not ideal) I would have said what I'd posted to you without having been asked.
I was miffed about it being hinted that I or others had ulterior motives because that I've been accused of before, when it's quite apparent from my posts overall that I never side with someone simply because they are on the "outside" and I certainly never feel any pressure inside or out to be 'sweet'' to anyone, so if I am, it's just me doing what I feel like doing..Anyway, of course we can agree to disagree.
Though it's not really a disagreement, just different people get our hackles up, that's all.
who can explain why?Thanks Jen
Posted by JenStar on July 28, 2005, at 15:08:28
In reply to Re: olive branch? » JenStar, posted by gabbii on July 28, 2005, at 14:30:26
hi gabbii,
thanks! I think I offered those possible motives in my post because they are things *I* might do, or have done in real life -- they're motives I can ascribe to myself (whether I'm proud of it or not) in various situations in my past.Now that I've calmed down, I can see there are obviously many other motives -- kindness, desire to understand, giving a second chance, trying to connect, etc. Sometimes when I'm in a p***y mood I focus on the negative and forget about the positive stuff. But in general I really WANT and LIKE to be positive...so I'll try to stay this way! :)
Anyway, you're right, it's hard to understand why we do things...I guess that's the fun of analysis and self-analysis, right?
thanks for understanding! :)
JenStar
Posted by NikkiT2 on July 28, 2005, at 17:29:09
In reply to Re: I don't want to register with a perm. email » pinkeye, posted by AuntieMel on July 28, 2005, at 8:24:12
Not everyone even has a "permanent" email address..
Not *all* ISP's offer one, and as I have no need, or desire for one, I opted out of that with my ISP.. I own my own domain, but have th eemails forwarded to an internet email account (GMail)..
*shrugs*
And seeing as most ISP's here in the UK tat offer email addresses offer multiple ones, I dont' see how this will really be much help..
Nikki x
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 29, 2005, at 1:06:38
In reply to Re:Another idea, posted by alexandra_k on July 27, 2005, at 17:58:59
> notification on the Admin board of posting under a new name... I sort of think ought to be formal notification in the subject line, not just mentioned in a post somewhere.
That's a good idea, thanks.
> How about in times like this, in the future, if you address the board, or respond to distressed posters, reassuring them that you are ok, the board is in no danger, and that you would prefer to handle things yourself. Or something validating how frustrating it is to feel (xxx - insert appropriate feeling), but telling them something reassuring or warning or whatever.
>
> Or maybe to remind people that certain feelings can be contained in different ways. For example, if someone feels like the mouse tied to the end of those sticks they sell in toy stores, one way to regain control is to refuse to play and walk away. Or if someone is feeling protective, one way to respond is to support the person they feel protective of, without actually mentioning anyone else or the behavior of anyone else.> Chuckle.
>
> I'll bet you think I'm asking you to expand your role here at Babble, by calling you a leader as well as an administrator or moderator.
>
> Dinah> I agree that it is hard when people post things like that about the boards. This has happened before though... Posters managed to reassure each other that things were okay. I think we should have faith that things are okay. Especially those of us who have been here for a while.
>
> alexandra_kSometimes I think the less I do, the better. I like the idea of posters reassuring, validating, and reminding each other...
--
> I don't mind co-existing with people who have different outlooks and beliefs than I do
>
> But I DO mind co-existing with people who seem unwilling to debate in a logical fashion, or who seem to enjoy stirring up trouble simply for the sake of the trouble, or with people who are just jerks.I agree, the latter can be more of a challenge...
> Imagine a kid on the playground who is tossing stones at another kid... I could easily walk away, unharmed. But something about the situation impels me to do something and stop the stone-throwing.
>
> JenStarYes, it's a fraught situation. First, I think it's OK to walk away. "Diffusion of responsibility" can be an advantage of groups. Are there other options, too? Given that (1) only deputies and I can really stop them and (2) two wrongs don't make a right?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on July 29, 2005, at 4:45:31
In reply to Re:Another idea, posted by Dr. Bob on July 29, 2005, at 1:06:38
Well, it's your call of course. But reassurances from other posters can seem more like comaraderie than actual reassurance, you know. Sometimes the mere reminder there is a strong hand on the tiller (whatever on earth that means) from the leader is more reassurance than any those hunkered down together can give.
Also...
I'm sure you don't mean it to be, but both your "Best wishes" see post to Ron above, and your "Two wrongs don't make a right" can sound a bit dismissive to those whose emotions may be running a bit high. And I think there are those here, myself included, who will never be persuaded that walking away and leaving others to take care of the wounded is ok because the responsibility is diffused and they don't have to.
How about people look to gather examples of situations where support is given without escalation of the drama triangle, or without making a second wrong. I'll bet lots of people can remember their own favorite example of being impressed by someone managing to do that.
Then you can look at them all and come up with a list of suggestions or even just a list of links, that you can offer to people for guidance when they don't wish to ignore someone feeling hurt, but do wish to intervene in a "legal" way if possible.
I understand your desire to do as little as possible, and I think your wish to remain as little a part of what goes on here other than as an administrator is both... Well, ok. I was going to validate a bit here, but honestly I think it's sort of a loss to us Babblers and maybe to you as well. But I do understand it as well.
But even so, a little validation goes a long way, Dr. Bob, if other posters are anything like me.
By the way. Regarding Best wishes. I wonder if I am alone in thinking that Best wishes sounds like "Don't let the door hit you on the rear as you exit."
Posted by alexandra_k on July 29, 2005, at 19:04:01
In reply to Re:Another idea, posted by Dr. Bob on July 29, 2005, at 1:06:38
> Sometimes I think the less I do, the better.
Why?
Do you mean in some kinds of situations?
Posted by JenStar on July 29, 2005, at 20:03:25
In reply to Re:Another idea, posted by Dr. Bob on July 29, 2005, at 1:06:38
Dr. Bob & all...hmmmm....other options....
I think one other option is to stay calm and collected at all times, refuse to get rattled, and firmly but civily keep telling the 'suspected troublemaker' that I feel XXX when I read YYY. But in the case of certain posters, such responses seem to have extremely little effect. It's like putting a band-aid on cancer! --- in the short term, anyway. Long term I think that approach can work, because the troubled person sees a certain stability and sees that there is only one way to communicate with you/me/etc, and that is in a civil way.
However, I still do believe that some posters get a kick out of using words to the brink of civility, and know the buttons to push to rile people up, and do it on purpose. I can't prove that, but I think I know it when I see it. In that case...ignoring is probably the best option, because that person doesn't want to reason, and wants to irritate others. But my buttons can be pretty pushable...
I think that as a group we fall prey to the 'prisoner's dilemma' when confronted with an angry trouble-making poster. To achieve the best possible outcome for the group, we should ALL ignore the poster. ALL of us, all the time. In that case, a strong silent message would be sent, and the poster would quickly change (or go away) of his/her own accord. But each of us does not believe or that others will do this, and desires to respond personally (because this is the second best option and gives immense immediate satisfaction, although it may bring long term trouble).
And then there are dozens of conflicting messages and the troubled poster does not receive a consistent message that their posts should change.
Of course, that above scenario is ldealized to assumed that everyone DOES actually want to the poster to change! I find that is really quite rare IBL ("In Babble Life.") I've found that there are people who are quite compassionate, or know something about the person that makes them more sympathetic, or are curious, or are genuinely interested -- and are not interested in making someone change or go away. So there is no formal "group think" that compels the person to act a certain way, at least not in the short term.
I think YOUR gentle method of nudging people to civility works like a tugboat pulling a barge. At first it seems to be doing nothing, but over time the efforts pay off and the huge barge moves in the right direction. I guess I just like to be 1,000 speed power boats instead of a barge! (Even if that doesn't always work!) But in general I agree with your method. I just wish it worked faster.
Hmmmmm.
I also recognize that my example of throwing stones was an imperfect analogy, because stones IRL is more damaging and potentially harmful than posts HERE. But the spirit still moves me the same way!
JenStar
Posted by JenStar on July 29, 2005, at 20:09:58
In reply to Re:Another idea » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 29, 2005, at 4:45:31
I can go miles and miles on a tiny bit of validation from any of you on the boards here! Sometimes a compliment from a fellow Babbler makes me happy all day. I hope nobody thinks that is weird. I get that way about compliments IRL, too.
:)
JenStar
Posted by alexandra_k on July 29, 2005, at 21:22:18
In reply to Re:Another idea » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 29, 2005, at 4:45:31
I guess it is because Dr Bob provides the boards for us to give and receive support from one another. I don't think any one person could provide all that much support to all the posters here. People vary with respect to how much time they have. How much energy they have. How they are feeling. It isn't part of Dr Bob's role here to provide support to the posters. His role is more to moderate the boards in such a way as to facilitate our supporting each other. If he were to step in to provide support then that could lead to a couple of undesirable things:
- people might come to turn to Dr Bob for support rather than the other posters.
- there wouldn't be enough time in the day for Dr Bob to be able to offer support to every poster who wants it from him.
- i don't think anyone would have the energy to be able to do this consistently to all the posters here.
- that would mean that he would have to be selective...
- and that would mean that more people would perceive favouritism and end up disgruntled.
- that more people would be disgruntled if they didn't receive support from him when they had come to expect it.
- if he encourages people to expect support from him then if he doesn't provide it he might well be more responsible for their bad feelings...> I think there are those here, myself included, who will never be persuaded that walking away and leaving others to take care of the wounded is ok because the responsibility is diffused and they don't have to.
I don't feel a sense of obligation to post anymore. I am trying to accept that sometimes I can't figure out what to say that might help. In those cases... I figure its best for me to not say anything. Maybe someone else will do better than I was able. And most often... When I manage to accept that I'm not obliged to do anything then something useful occurs to me. Life can be funny like that sometimes.
> How about people look to gather examples of situations where support is given without escalation of the drama triangle, or without making a second wrong. I'll bet lots of people can remember their own favorite example of being impressed by someone managing to do that.
> Then you can look at them all and come up with a list of suggestions or even just a list of links, that you can offer to people for guidance when they don't wish to ignore someone feeling hurt, but do wish to intervene in a "legal" way if possible.Or maybe we can suggest posters look at that...
> I understand your desire to do as little as possible, and I think your wish to remain as little a part of what goes on here other than as an administrator is both... Well, ok. I was going to validate a bit here, but honestly I think it's sort of a loss to us Babblers and maybe to you as well. But I do understand it as well.I think...
That the more he says
The more involved he gets
The harder it would be to remain a rock or anchor or whatever.
If we gained Dr Bob as a poster
Then we would lose him as a relatively solid / objective moderator who does his best to act in the interests of the boards as a whole.
I do wonder...
Whether he is ever tempted to join up as a poster and have a vent about some of the crummier aspects of his life...
But anyway...
I think that if he were to get more involved then there would be even more people getting upset by perceiving favouritism etc.
Posted by Dinah on July 29, 2005, at 22:16:07
In reply to Re:Another idea » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on July 29, 2005, at 21:22:18
Dunno. Countries are pretty big, but we still look to our "administrators" for leadership.
Don't think it's impossible.
Posted by gabbii on July 30, 2005, at 10:25:31
In reply to Re:Another idea » Dr. Bob, posted by JenStar on July 29, 2005, at 20:03:25
Maybe it's because the more he intervenes, or influences are reactions, the less objective his research is. I think studying how we handle conflict is probably fairly useful research material, and when the board gets heated does seem to be when he dissappears, which is why people think he's upset.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 30, 2005, at 13:35:58
In reply to Re:Another idea, posted by gabbii on July 30, 2005, at 10:25:31
> when the board gets heated does seem to be when he dissappears
I thought it was the other way around! :-)
Bob
Posted by gabbii on July 30, 2005, at 13:57:28
In reply to Re: when the board gets heated, posted by Dr. Bob on July 30, 2005, at 13:35:58
> > when the board gets heated does seem to be when he dissappears
>
> I thought it was the other way around! :-)
>
> BobGood point Dr. Bob! :)
I guess I didn't quite think that one through..
Posted by crushedout on August 2, 2005, at 13:09:56
In reply to Re: Lou's request for so's reinstatement-14th amndmnt » Lou Pilder, posted by Nikkit2 on July 22, 2005, at 10:14:43
well, just to be precise, the u.s. consitution *does* cover the internet. it just doesn't apply to nongovernmental actors, like dr. bob. if the u.s. government blocked "so," then maybe he could try his 14th amendment claim (with lou as his lawyer) but i'd venture to guess that he would lose.
Posted by crushedout on August 2, 2005, at 13:10:59
In reply to Re: Lou's request for so's reinstatement-ftrhosten, posted by partlycloudy on July 22, 2005, at 9:54:44
pc,is it true that so was blocked for a year? can you show me where this happened? i thought it was around 18 weeks or something (although I could be misremembering that figure).
co
Posted by crushedout on August 2, 2005, at 13:16:58
In reply to length of so's block » partlycloudy, posted by crushedout on August 2, 2005, at 13:10:59
I just read more of the thread and saw that you might have dreamt it. :)
Posted by crushedout on August 2, 2005, at 13:29:56
In reply to the constitution » Nikkit2, posted by crushedout on August 2, 2005, at 13:09:56
i obviously entered this conversation late in the game. if you need a lawyer, dr. bob, to represent you in the lawsuit, let me know. ;)
Posted by Nikkit2 on August 3, 2005, at 3:00:43
In reply to the constitution » Nikkit2, posted by crushedout on August 2, 2005, at 13:09:56
*in shock*
You mean, the Internet is entirely the US's domain?!
So, all of us from other countries are now covered by US law?! *L*
Somehow, it wouldn't suprise me if someone tried that!
remember, we're not all in the US, or US citizens here. *I* am not covered by US law whilst here for example.
Nikki
Posted by crushedout on August 3, 2005, at 9:55:43
In reply to Re: the constitution » crushedout, posted by Nikkit2 on August 3, 2005, at 3:00:43
nope, i didn't even *suggest* that the internet was entirely the u.s.'s domain, nikki. it was in the context of a conversation about the 14th amendment to the *u.s.* constitution, and i was just pointing out that the u.s. consitution *does* apply to the internet. i assume other countries laws also apply, but that wasn't the topic of conversation.
i'm perfectly aware that we're not all from the u.s.
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.