![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 105 to 129 of 193. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on July 7, 2013, at 18:13:03
In reply to Re: posters who could use support, posted by Twinleaf on July 7, 2013, at 17:39:44
Well, it's true that I would be reluctant to post anything personal at the moment on Babble. But I often overcame that reluctance at times of even greater insecurity. Part of my problem is that my therapy is in a pretty good place, I've learned the golden lesson of communicating with my therapist, and, well....
In bringing my issues with my therapist to Babble more openly than my positives with my therapist, I found myself in the position of people disapproving of him - which wasn't particularly fair to him.
I can try, but I think it's easier for me to respond than to post.
And so many people are gone....
Posted by Twinleaf on July 7, 2013, at 21:03:20
In reply to Re: posters who could use support » Twinleaf, posted by Dinah on July 7, 2013, at 18:13:03
Yeah, a lot of great people are gone...I've been around long enough to know that your therapist is great, and a wonderful match for you (even when you go through tough times with him). You seem a lot stronger than when we first came here. I do know that he did get criticized from time to time, though...
Posted by Phillipa on July 7, 2013, at 21:06:44
In reply to Re: posters who could use support, posted by Dr. Bob on July 7, 2013, at 17:03:14
Dr Bob I remember if a person posted "think" instead of "feel" it was cause for a warning or a block. Did or does that mean a person isn't allowed to think only feel? Cause the answer to your question to me is I think it's unfair as I did nothing but try. How do I feel? I used to feel hurt but no longer cause I can't change what some decided to think & feel. If I go by what's written about me I'd say it's true of the old group. The new group seems to me to be more understanding and doesn't need a scapegoat. Phillipa
Posted by Dinah on July 7, 2013, at 23:00:15
In reply to Re: posters who could use support » Dinah, posted by Twinleaf on July 7, 2013, at 21:03:20
Thank you for that. :)
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 8, 2013, at 7:33:43
In reply to Re: posters who could use support » Dr. Bob, posted by zazenducke on July 5, 2013, at 16:05:05
>
>
> Lou's obviously being used as a scapegoat. But I am sure you know that, don't you?
>
> Friends,
It is written above that ZZDucke sees that it is plainly visible that I am being used as a scapegoat. But it is much more than what you see here. This situation could mark the difference between you killing yourself and/or others arising out of what scapegoating can do to you if you are involved in it. I come here to warn you of what could cause you to go into a vortex of depression and suicidal thinking. This is because in this community, people take mind-altering drugs that can INCREASE suicidal thinking. And they take multiple mind-altering drugs that can increase suicidal thinking exponentially.
When one is involved in scapegoating, there are many psychological dynamics that are set into motion that could draw the scapegoater down into depression and suicide. I have come here to save lives and it has been revealed to me the dynamics that are promoted here that ZZDucke can see also. But what are these things that can be seen that ZZDucke writes as being obvious?
I am prohibited here from posting what IMHHHO could erase any hatred that you may harbor so that you could be free from the captivity of depression and addiction due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. You may already know that I have posted what hate could cause and Mr Hsiung wrote that he does not disagree with what I wrote about that. But Mr Hsiung also wrote that it may be good for the community to see my posts not responded to. If it *may* be good, then it also may be bad. You see, psychologists agree with me concerning scapegoating. Here is a video that explains what scapegoating can do to you if you are in concert with those using me, or anyone else, as a scapegoat.
Lou. To see this video, go to Google and type in:
[ youtube, _RhGcK2M16g ]
there is an underscore in front of the "R"
>
>
>
>
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 9, 2013, at 2:03:07
In reply to Re: posters who could use support » Dr. Bob, posted by Phillipa on July 7, 2013, at 21:06:44
> I am personally very appreciative that you have begun moderating a bit once again. I realize that it is impossible to get it right in everyone's eyes all the time, but I do appreciate the effort. Occasional might be the way to go, because I do think people remember when they have been given a PBC.
>
> On another thread, you asked if we could commit to posting more on Psychology and Social if you commit to more moderating. I think that's very fair. It is a bit hard to post personal or therapy-related messages on Psychology if they just end up unaknowledged and sitting there all by themselves, but I will do my best. My therapy is now much less intensive than it once was, but I am willing to try if, say, Dinah would do it a bit also!
>
> TwinleafThanks! I know it can be hard to post and not get any replies. One thing posters can do if they don't feel up to starting a thread is to make sure posts by others aren't unacknowledged.
--
> And do you take responsibility when people do leave? When the pain here is too great, or the rewards not high enough to put up with the costs? Do you see that as a loss? Do you *feel* that loss?
>
> I've always said that Babble couldn't be all things to all people. That you were *always* making choices about which type of people Babble would be for. I appreciated that in the wild west of the internet, Babble was a place for those who did value civility, who did look for someplace relatively safe.
>
> Perhaps part of what I feel now is anger and hurt that you've made the choice to bring Babble in a new direction and appeal to a different group of posters. As if the ones who wish for civility and safety aren't the ones you're choosing now. Babble used to be welcoming, and is no longer.
>
> DinahI agree, Babble can't be all things to all people. I could focus on the people it helps and feel good, or on the people it doesn't and feel bad. I'd rather feel good. Or, it's inevitable that people aren't helped, so if that happens, I may allow myself not to feel bad, but it's not inevitable that people are helped, so when that happens, I may allow myself to feel good.
If a model is unsustainable, is change a choice? Also, maybe what was needed in the Wild West isn't what's needed in the suburbs.
I don't want to leave old posters behind. I want them to join me in moving forward.
--
> the answer to your question to me is I think it's unfair as I did nothing but try. How do I feel? I used to feel hurt but no longer cause I can't change what some decided to think & feel. If I go by what's written about me ...
>
> PhillipaWhat I was thinking was, if you feel hurt reading what others write, could you stop reading? You can't change what they think or feel or write, but you can change what you read (and maybe think and feel).
Bob
Posted by Dinah on July 9, 2013, at 7:32:03
In reply to Re: posters who could use support, posted by Dr. Bob on July 9, 2013, at 2:03:07
You are reminding me of the teachers at my middle school. They could have done something. But instead they told me that I shouldn't let it bother me. That I shouldn't let them see it hurt. It was my responsibility to change my reaction to the bullying.
I guess that was a sustainable stance for them.
Well, to paraphrase the best of my pdocs, choosing to moderate has consequences and choosing not to moderate has consequences. You've chosen which consequences you prefer.
Again, Dr. Bob, thanks for the years you did moderate.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 9, 2013, at 9:30:19
In reply to Re: posters who could use support » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 9, 2013, at 7:32:03
> You are reminding me of the teachers at my middle school. They could have done something. But instead they told me that I shouldn't let it bother me. That I shouldn't let them see it hurt. It was my responsibility to change my reaction to the bullying.
Is that how you see what happened with laurah? She didn't let it bother her, or didn't show that it bothered her?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on July 9, 2013, at 11:35:45
In reply to Re: posters who could use support, posted by Dr. Bob on July 9, 2013, at 2:03:07
> What I was thinking was, if you feel hurt reading what others write, could you stop reading? You can't change what they think or feel or write, but you can change what you read (and maybe think and feel).
>
> Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 9, 2013, at 15:16:46
In reply to Re: posters who could use support » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 9, 2013, at 7:32:03
> You are reminding me of the teachers at my middle school. They could have done something. But instead they told me that I shouldn't let it bother me. That I shouldn't let them see it hurt. It was my responsibility to change my reaction to the bullying.
Sometimes authority figures can't be depended upon. Could anybody else have helped?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on July 9, 2013, at 18:45:13
In reply to Re: posters who could use support, posted by Dr. Bob on July 9, 2013, at 15:16:46
> Sometimes authority figures can't be depended upon. Could anybody else have helped?
>
> BobI had figured that out myself...
In this situation, the power of others is limited.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2013, at 8:10:15
In reply to Re: posters who could use support » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 9, 2013, at 18:45:13
> > Could anybody else have helped?
>
> In this situation, the power of others is limited.True. But still they can sometimes help.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 15, 2013, at 8:42:48
In reply to Re: posters who could use support » Twinleaf, posted by Dinah on July 7, 2013, at 18:13:03
> On another thread, you asked if we could commit to posting more on Psychology and Social if you commit to more moderating. I think that's very fair. It is a bit hard to post personal or therapy-related messages on Psychology if they just end up unaknowledged and sitting there all by themselves, but I will do my best. My therapy is now much less intensive than it once was, but I am willing to try if, say, Dinah would do it a bit also!
>
> Twinleaf> Well, it's true that I would be reluctant to post anything personal at the moment on Babble. But I often overcame that reluctance at times of even greater insecurity. Part of my problem is that my therapy is in a pretty good place, I've learned the golden lesson of communicating with my therapist, and, well....
>
> I can try, but I think it's easier for me to respond than to post.
>
> DinahJust wanted to acknowledge, and thank you, for following through. How does it feel to be posting more again?
Bob
Posted by Twinleaf on July 15, 2013, at 9:12:36
In reply to Re: posters who could use support » Twinleaf » Dinah, posted by Dr. Bob on July 15, 2013, at 8:42:48
It's always nice to express one's thoughts and feelings in a post, but I am very aware that there is no longer a group sharing common experiences in therapy, as there once was. So, it's a bit lonely and disappointing
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 16, 2013, at 12:58:02
In reply to Re: posters who could use support » Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on July 15, 2013, at 9:12:36
> It's always nice to express one's thoughts and feelings in a post, but I am very aware that there is no longer a group sharing common experiences in therapy, as there once was. So, it's a bit lonely and disappointing
I understand. It's a first step. People will be more likely to share if they think they'll be responded to.
Bob
Posted by larry hoover on August 4, 2013, at 10:39:46
In reply to Re: Trying to practice what I've been preaching, posted by Dr. Bob on July 2, 2013, at 23:32:50
> Lou has serious and grave misgivings about psychiatric drugs, and some posters have serious and grave misgivings about Lou.
So this is what you reduced the debate to, Bob? This is the best example of the logical fallacy reductio ad adsurdum that I have seen in a very long time. The issue is unrestrained incivility in posting draining the resources of the community. It's not about Lou's rights, it's about community standards of civility. Do you think that all these fine posters' energy is being spent on this because we're happy? I'll return to the issue of community in a moment, as it is a key concept in attempting to resolve this once and for all.
> Posters have to deal with Lou's misgivings, and I have to deal with the misgivings of posters.
And this, Bob, is a non sequitur. It does not follow, unless you also hold to the unstated premise that doing nothing is the solution.
For a community to be successful, it depends on a collective will to abide by certain standards of organization and control.
First, there must be clear leadership. Ignoring how often you simply disappear, I do not sense leadership from you, at this time. Frankly, I am struggling to obtain a clear concept of your policy, and how you wish to apply it. Admonishing us all by asking us to try harder to tolerate each other more is not leadership. It is condescension, and trivializes the clearly expressed discontent I read in great volume on this board. Many eleoquent and passionate voices expressing that discontent are being ignored.
Second, a community needs clear guidelines of acceptable conduct. Of all the places I've ever been, this place has gone through some of the weirdest experiments of just what that is. Incivility wasn't always something that you could describe, Bob, but somehow, you knew it when you saw it. I can see a clear concensus on what standards of civility are being requested of you, Bob. Just read your own FAQ. But just as a reminder, over-generalization and over-exaggeration are listed examples of incivility.
Third, you need enforcement. Consistent enforcement. Equal enforcement. I am not asking for a return to the days when you tossed out bans like they were candy, but you have let the pendulum swing too far in the other direction. That is on your shoulders, Bob, as you did not create an alternative enforcement policy. You abdicated your resonsibility to us, as the only leader we had. And it is not the community members' responsibility to fix it. It may be humiliating to you to have to fix your problem, but asking us to grow into tolerance is offensive. If I tolerate behaviour that I consider to violate community standards, I am worse than the perpetrator, because I'm letting my community down. Listen, Bob, to the voices of community members asking you to restore THEIR community's standards of civility. A healthy community's leader is a servant to the people within it.
Fourth, there must be consequences. I don't want to see anything like those mathematically formulated bans that bounced people like alex for a year at a time. That was abusive. But that does not mean that you must abandon disciplinary acts altogether. Some people just don't abide by community standards without a little disciplinary response.
Bob, what I think you're asking for, in your quoted statements at the opening of this response, is for something that we're telling you that we don't want to do. The community is powerless to self-manage, under points 2, 3, and 4, as I've laid them out. And the reason for that is point 1.
The buck stops at the top, Bob. I moderate other boards. Sometimes you have to do things that are emotionally hard to do. Time to man up, Bob. Doing the right thing now, even when it clearly should have been done some time in the past, is still doing the right thing.
I can't even believe I posted this. I had a very sleepless night, so I thought that I might as well talk about why that was. I was at Babblefest 2006. I met members of this community. With others, my close relationships were all online. And seeing where this place has gone had me in tears last night. Notwithstanding the excessive discipline that once characterized this place, I prefer that to what is currently revealed to me.
Bob has created a straw-man argument, invoking a false dichotomy between two alternatives, when the truth is that other choices exist. If only he would listen to the community.
Lar
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2013, at 11:34:35
In reply to Re: Trying to practice what I've been preaching » Dr. Bob, posted by larry hoover on August 4, 2013, at 10:39:46
> > Lou has serious and grave misgivings about psychiatric drugs, and some posters have serious and grave misgivings about Lou.
>
> So this is what you reduced the debate to, Bob? This is the best example of the logical fallacy reductio ad adsurdum that I have seen in a very long time. The issue is unrestrained incivility in posting draining the resources of the community. It's not about Lou's rights, it's about community standards of civility. Do you think that all these fine posters' energy is being spent on this because we're happy? I'll return to the issue of community in a moment, as it is a key concept in attempting to resolve this once and for all.
>
> > Posters have to deal with Lou's misgivings, and I have to deal with the misgivings of posters.
>
> And this, Bob, is a non sequitur. It does not follow, unless you also hold to the unstated premise that doing nothing is the solution.
>
> For a community to be successful, it depends on a collective will to abide by certain standards of organization and control.
>
> First, there must be clear leadership. Ignoring how often you simply disappear, I do not sense leadership from you, at this time. Frankly, I am struggling to obtain a clear concept of your policy, and how you wish to apply it. Admonishing us all by asking us to try harder to tolerate each other more is not leadership. It is condescension, and trivializes the clearly expressed discontent I read in great volume on this board. Many eleoquent and passionate voices expressing that discontent are being ignored.
>
> Second, a community needs clear guidelines of acceptable conduct. Of all the places I've ever been, this place has gone through some of the weirdest experiments of just what that is. Incivility wasn't always something that you could describe, Bob, but somehow, you knew it when you saw it. I can see a clear concensus on what standards of civility are being requested of you, Bob. Just read your own FAQ. But just as a reminder, over-generalization and over-exaggeration are listed examples of incivility.
>
> Third, you need enforcement. Consistent enforcement. Equal enforcement. I am not asking for a return to the days when you tossed out bans like they were candy, but you have let the pendulum swing too far in the other direction. That is on your shoulders, Bob, as you did not create an alternative enforcement policy. You abdicated your resonsibility to us, as the only leader we had. And it is not the community members' responsibility to fix it. It may be humiliating to you to have to fix your problem, but asking us to grow into tolerance is offensive. If I tolerate behaviour that I consider to violate community standards, I am worse than the perpetrator, because I'm letting my community down. Listen, Bob, to the voices of community members asking you to restore THEIR community's standards of civility. A healthy community's leader is a servant to the people within it.
>
> Fourth, there must be consequences. I don't want to see anything like those mathematically formulated bans that bounced people like alex for a year at a time. That was abusive. But that does not mean that you must abandon disciplinary acts altogether. Some people just don't abide by community standards without a little disciplinary response.
>
> Bob, what I think you're asking for, in your quoted statements at the opening of this response, is for something that we're telling you that we don't want to do. The community is powerless to self-manage, under points 2, 3, and 4, as I've laid them out. And the reason for that is point 1.
>
> The buck stops at the top, Bob. I moderate other boards. Sometimes you have to do things that are emotionally hard to do. Time to man up, Bob. Doing the right thing now, even when it clearly should have been done some time in the past, is still doing the right thing.
>
> I can't even believe I posted this. I had a very sleepless night, so I thought that I might as well talk about why that was. I was at Babblefest 2006. I met members of this community. With others, my close relationships were all online. And seeing where this place has gone had me in tears last night. Notwithstanding the excessive discipline that once characterized this place, I prefer that to what is currently revealed to me.
>
> Bob has created a straw-man argument, invoking a false dichotomy between two alternatives, when the truth is that other choices exist. If only he would listen to the community.
>
> LarFriends,
Be advised that I am a subject person that could be identified in the post above. What is written about me can be seen. Be advised that I have posted a lot here about scapegoating and how scapegoating could be deleterious to one's mental health and even cause depression and suicide and murder, as psychologists write about.
If you think that what is written here about me can decrease the respect, regard or confidence in which I am held, or induce disparaging, hostile or disagreeable opinions or feelings against me, then I ask you to understand where the following comes from. I am prevented from posting here concerning that due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr Hsiung. Here is the statement:[...For a community to be successful, it depends on a collective will to abide by certain standards of organization and control...].
Lou
.
Posted by larry hoover on August 4, 2013, at 12:03:20
In reply to Re: Trying to practice what I've been preaching, posted by Dr. Bob on July 2, 2013, at 23:32:50
> Trying to practice what I've been preaching, I've reminded myself that misgivings about Lou aren't going to go away. They need continually to be battled. It might exhaust me and I might resent it, but success depends on my learning ways to cope and finding the energy to persevere.
> How much energy it takes me to battle posters' insistence gives me an idea of how much energy it takes them to battle Lou's insistence. I get weary and impatient and annoyed, too. I didn't sign up to go through the same old debates, iteration after iteration.
> Bob
So, how't that working out for you, Bob? It's a routine part of therapy to ask yourself if your behaviour is achieving the desired results.
Do you think engaging in battle (your own descriptor) is a useful and effective strategy?
Just a rhetorical question, for consideration. If you had banned Lou, whould you still be engaged in battle? Would we?
You're trying to think your way into a new way of acting. Of course, that is doomed to failure. You have to act your way into a new way of thinking. Do things differently, and then you'll naturally reassess them. If you do consider your new strategy of inaction to be a change in behaviour, are you satisfied with the results so far? Your language clearly suggests that the answer is no.
You did mention that you may need to change your expectations. I, however, would not use the word may.
Lar
Posted by larry hoover on August 4, 2013, at 12:16:22
In reply to Lou's response-koelhectyve whill, posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2013, at 11:34:35
Come on Lou, you can do better than that. You didn't once call me anti-Semitic.
You claim to have knowledge that will save others from the consequences that you suggest might befall you, if you are scapegoated. Physician, heal thyself.
BTW, scapegoating implies unmerited negative treatment of an individual or group. My remarks are about merited negative treatment, i.e. consequences arising from one's actual behaviour.
Lar
Posted by SLS on August 4, 2013, at 13:54:41
In reply to Lou's response-koelhectyve whill, posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2013, at 11:34:35
> What is written about me can be seen.
What is written by you can be seen as well.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2013, at 14:11:17
In reply to Re: Lou's response-koelhectyve whill » Lou Pilder, posted by larry hoover on August 4, 2013, at 12:16:22
> Come on Lou, you can do better than that. You didn't once call me anti-Semitic.
>
> You claim to have knowledge that will save others from the consequences that you suggest might befall you, if you are scapegoated. Physician, heal thyself.
>
> BTW, scapegoating implies unmerited negative treatment of an individual or group. My remarks are about merited negative treatment, i.e. consequences arising from one's actual behaviour.
>
> LarFriends,
Let us look at this that is written about me here:
As I see it, the post brings up that I claim to have knowledge that will save others from the consequences that I suggest might befall me, if I am scapegoated and brings up consequences arising from what I post here that the poster claims are merited.
I may not have the full understanding of what is posted here, but be it as it may be, let us look at what I think the post says.
The poster states that I did not call him what he posted and that I could do better. I do not understand what is behind what is posted about me here by the poster. And if I am subjected to being a scapegoat here, what could befall others using me for such is that they could bring on themselves the consequences that might befall me if I am scapegoated.
If I understand that correctly, this could refer to what I posted here from the psychologist about scapegoating. I offered a video from the psychologist that showed what scapegoating could do to the scapegoater as well as the scapegoated.
The knowledge that I claim to have could IMHO have one delivered out of the captivity of depression and addiction. If one becomes party to scapegoating, the psychologist in the video told what could happen to them and I claim to have knowledge that could free those involved in scapegoating from depression and suicide thoughts and thoughts of violent behavior that could arise from using someone as a scapegoat. The one scapegoated could also be driven into suicide thinking and depression and addiction.
This knowledge I am prevented from posting here, for is prohibited by Mr. Hsiung in his prohibitions posted to me here.
This is how I understand the post that I am responding to, and I may not have it all as the poster means. If so, any clarification would be welcomed and I could post again and do better.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2013, at 14:21:46
In reply to Lou's response-dubedder, posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2013, at 14:11:17
> > Come on Lou, you can do better than that. You didn't once call me anti-Semitic.
> >
> > You claim to have knowledge that will save others from the consequences that you suggest might befall you, if you are scapegoated. Physician, heal thyself.
> >
> > BTW, scapegoating implies unmerited negative treatment of an individual or group. My remarks are about merited negative treatment, i.e. consequences arising from one's actual behaviour.
> >
> > Lar
>
> Friends,
> Let us look at this that is written about me here:
> As I see it, the post brings up that I claim to have knowledge that will save others from the consequences that I suggest might befall me, if I am scapegoated and brings up consequences arising from what I post here that the poster claims are merited.
> I may not have the full understanding of what is posted here, but be it as it may be, let us look at what I think the post says.
> The poster states that I did not call him what he posted and that I could do better. I do not understand what is behind what is posted about me here by the poster. And if I am subjected to being a scapegoat here, what could befall others using me for such is that they could bring on themselves the consequences that might befall me if I am scapegoated.
> If I understand that correctly, this could refer to what I posted here from the psychologist about scapegoating. I offered a video from the psychologist that showed what scapegoating could do to the scapegoater as well as the scapegoated.
> The knowledge that I claim to have could IMHO have one delivered out of the captivity of depression and addiction. If one becomes party to scapegoating, the psychologist in the video told what could happen to them and I claim to have knowledge that could free those involved in scapegoating from depression and suicide thoughts and thoughts of violent behavior that could arise from using someone as a scapegoat. The one scapegoated could also be driven into suicide thinking and depression and addiction.
> This knowledge I am prevented from posting here, for is prohibited by Mr. Hsiung in his prohibitions posted to me here.
> This is how I understand the post that I am responding to, and I may not have it all as the poster means. If so, any clarification would be welcomed and I could post again and do better.
> LouFriends,
Here is a post that offers a video that I think could help here in this discussion.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1046759.html
Posted by Twinleaf on August 4, 2013, at 14:34:02
In reply to Re: Trying to practice what I've been preaching » Dr. Bob, posted by larry hoover on August 4, 2013, at 10:39:46
Thank you for posting that. I think it expresses exactly the administrative difficulties our community is facing.
Posted by SLS on August 4, 2013, at 14:35:58
In reply to Re: Lou's response-koelhectyve whill » Lou Pilder, posted by larry hoover on August 4, 2013, at 12:16:22
> BTW, scapegoating implies unmerited negative treatment of an individual or group. My remarks are about merited negative treatment, i.e. consequences arising from one's actual behaviour.
It appears that some people don't understand the whole scapegoating thing. Either that, or I don't understand it.
It has been suggested that I was scapegoating for writing the following:
"It also pains me to ponder the possibility that posting activity has dropped off significantly as Lou Pilder has been allowed to post exaggerations, over-generalizations, and accusations to a greater degree and frequency."
I continue to ponder this possibility. I don't yet know this to be a fact, though. Is this inquiry into cause and effect and the assignment of responsibility an attempt at scapegoating? I am not attempting any such thing. I have not knowingly assigned blame to someone who I know is not a causative agent.
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2013, at 5:20:01
In reply to Re: Trying to practice what I've been preaching » Dr. Bob, posted by larry hoover on August 4, 2013, at 12:03:20
> The issue is unrestrained incivility in posting draining the resources of the community.
>
> Admonishing us all by asking us to try harder to tolerate each other more is not leadership. Many eleoquent and passionate voices expressing that discontent are being ignored.
>
> asking us to grow into tolerance is offensive. If I tolerate behaviour that I consider to violate community standards, I am worse than the perpetrator, because I'm letting my community down. Listen, Bob, to the voices of community members asking you to restore THEIR community's standards of civility. A healthy community's leader is a servant to the people within it.
>
> The community is powerless to self-manage> If you do consider your new strategy of inaction to be a change in behaviour, are you satisfied with the results so far?
Incivility isn't unrestrained.
Voices aren't being ignored. Opinions are being disagreed with.
A leader is a servant? When a community can't self-manage?
If you tolerate behavior a community disagrees with, you give someone the experience of acceptance. And you give yourself peace.
Yes, I'm satisfied so far. For one thing, old posters are starting to post again. :-)
Bob
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.