![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 120 to 144 of 193. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by larry hoover on August 6, 2013, at 8:32:36
In reply to Re: Trying to practice what I've been preaching, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2013, at 5:20:01
Nice cherry-picking from my coherent thesis, Bob. Kind of changes the meaning when you take my thoughts out of context.
> Incivility isn't unrestrained.
Yes, it is, and by applying your own definitions. You appear to have cut a side-deal with one poster, allowing over-exaggeration and over-generalization to continue, despite being a couple of the few examples in your FAQ.
> Voices aren't being ignored. Opinions are being disagreed with.
As I further remarked, what you are calling disagreement (from you) comes across as condescencion and trivialization (from over here).
> A leader is a servant? When a community can't self-manage?Don't even go there. I said that in a HEALTHY community, the leader serves the people. You have created a community that cannot self manage. Stop twisting my words, please.
> If you tolerate behavior a community disagrees with, you give someone the experience of acceptance. And you give yourself peace.This is more than behaviour that is disagreed with, Bob. It is against community standards. Try that argument with pedophilia, and see how far you get.
> Yes, I'm satisfied so far. For one thing, old posters are starting to post again. :-)
>
> BobNot for long.
Lar
Posted by larry hoover on August 6, 2013, at 9:07:39
In reply to Re: Trying to practice what I've been preaching, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2013, at 5:20:01
Another P.S., Bob.
In other contexts, people in a position of authority bear more exacting standards of conduct towards those they have authority over than are normally applied, as I'm sure you're aware, as a physician. And, that includes an obligation to put the other party's needs before your own.
You have created a community. That's fantastic. But you've also created an obligation. There are hundreds of real people out here, Bob. I had dinner with you, and others. Real flesh and blood people, whose needs should be in the forefront.
I really don't want to hear about how much trouble it is for you to manage this civility issue. I don't really have any sympathy for this particular rock/hard place situation you find yourself in, as I know that quick action, in accordance with site quidelines, would have precluded all this BS.
I don't know what an overall solution is, Bob, because in the end you do need to have a sustainable model. I'm certainly sympathetic to that. But that's a separate issue, and you have conflated the two.
Why don't you create a poll about what your community wants? Why don't you find out if e.g. over-exaggeration is acceptable to the community, or not? There are many polling websites out there.
I have work to do, so I'm gone again. Back a few years ago, I was disabled by mental illness. Now, I take no psych meds, and I'm a President/CEO/CFO/Director of a number of corps. I'd like to contribute here, but this whole can of worms would consume what little I have to give (as you can see already). I'd rather help people than fight with you, but maybe that's the best way that I can help.
Lar
Posted by SLS on August 6, 2013, at 10:18:05
In reply to Re: Trying to practice what I've been preaching » Dr. Bob, posted by larry hoover on August 6, 2013, at 9:07:39
> Now, I take no psych meds
Mazel tov! This is welcome news.
> and I'm a President/CEO/CFO/Director of a number of corps.
You are such an underachiever.
:-)
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 6, 2013, at 15:24:32
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.
>
> LarLarry,
I have red your recent posts that contain statements about me or statements that have the potential for someme to think that I am the subject person that you are referring to.
So I am making this offer to you now to settle this once and for all. I will meet you here on this board in a new thread here titled,"The Hoover-Pilder debate", at noon tomorrow, CST. I would like a closed debate with just me and you, alone,but with a team of moderators that can post in your behalf. And I am asking that you pick your moderators for the debate. I would like for you to have in your team the big-guns here, like Scott and Dinah and Willfull and Sarcano and Toph and others. I will ask to have on my team Schleprock and poser and ZZDucke and gardenergirl and any others that will b-mail me to want to be a moderator for me on my team.
And if you believe that this debate will not be good for this community as a whole, then reject this opportunity now. But if you do believe that this debate will be good for the community as a whole, then go to the new thread at the bottom of this page and register and accept this opportunity now. Also, those invited to be moderators, also please register with your acceptance.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 6, 2013, at 15:32:43
In reply to Lou's offer-hyknewn » larry hoover, posted by Lou Pilder on August 6, 2013, at 15:24:32
> > 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
>
> Larry,
> I have red your recent posts that contain statements about me or statements that have the potential for someme to think that I am the subject person that you are referring to.
> So I am making this offer to you now to settle this once and for all. I will meet you here on this board in a new thread here titled,"The Hoover-Pilder debate", at noon tomorrow, CST. I would like a closed debate with just me and you, alone,but with a team of moderators that can post in your behalf. And I am asking that you pick your moderators for the debate. I would like for you to have in your team the big-guns here, like Scott and Dinah and Willfull and Sarcano and Toph and others. I will ask to have on my team Schleprock and poser and ZZDucke and gardenergirl and any others that will b-mail me to want to be a moderator for me on my team.
> And if you believe that this debate will not be good for this community as a whole, then reject this opportunity now. But if you do believe that this debate will be good for the community as a whole, then go to the new thread at the bottom of this page and register and accept this opportunity now. Also, those invited to be moderators, also please register with your acceptance.
> LouI am also inviting Lamdage22 and Alexandra-K to be on my tean.
Lou
Posted by SLS on August 6, 2013, at 18:15:31
In reply to Lou's offer-hyknewn » larry hoover, posted by Lou Pilder on August 6, 2013, at 15:24:32
Interesting.
- Scott
Posted by Deneb on August 6, 2013, at 22:31:02
In reply to Re: Trying to practice what I've been preaching » Dr. Bob, posted by larry hoover on August 6, 2013, at 9:07:39
Hi Lar!
Off topic, but are there any job openings at your place? LOL
Nice to see you!
Work is crazy right now.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2013, at 23:11:55
In reply to Re: Trying to practice what I've been preaching » Dr. Bob, posted by larry hoover on August 6, 2013, at 9:07:39
> > Incivility isn't unrestrained.
>
> Yes, it isOK, reasonable people can disagree.
> > Voices aren't being ignored. Opinions are being disagreed with.
>
> As I further remarked, what you are calling disagreement (from you) comes across as condescencion and trivialization (from over here).OK, I respect how you feel.
And Lou may also feel condescended to and trivialized. Maybe you and he could support each other?
> I really don't want to hear about how much trouble it is for you to manage this civility issue. I don't really have any sympathy for this particular rock/hard place situation you find yourself in, as I know that quick action, in accordance with site quidelines, would have precluded all this BS.
I keep hearing how much trouble it is for posters to deal with Lou. I have sympathy for the rock/hard place situation they find themselves in. Quick action on their part could, however, preclude many problems.
> Why don't you create a poll about what your community wants? Why don't you find out if e.g. over-exaggeration is acceptable to the community, or not?
Because I'm your leader, not your servant.
> > Yes, I'm satisfied so far. For one thing, old posters are starting to post again. :-)
>
> Not for long.> I have work to do, so I'm gone again. Back a few years ago, I was disabled by mental illness. Now, I take no psych meds, and I'm a President/CEO/CFO/Director of a number of corps. I'd like to contribute here, but this whole can of worms would consume what little I have to give (as you can see already). I'd rather help people than fight with you, but maybe that's the best way that I can help.
You have a lot to offer. It's too bad Babble is going to miss out on that. But maybe Babble would miss out even if you stayed, because you'd fight with me rather than help people. Remember:
> > You have the power to pick your battles.
> >
> > Battling Dr. Bob on PB Admin? Generally results in frustration and effects on policy ranging from
> > - none
> > - the exact opposite of what you intended to accomplish
> > - some other seemingly random policy change that isn't what you wanted.
> >
> > Choose wisely!http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090302/msgs/893534.html
Bob
Posted by 10derheart on August 7, 2013, at 0:11:55
In reply to Re: Trying to practice what I've been preaching, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2013, at 23:11:55
See...that's just the thing. This tone and attitude you take. It's coming across mocking and offensive.
Quotes, sayings, clever word pretzels....it's not honest communication IMO. That's why I can't engage. Has plainspokenness gone out of style?
What are you hiding....hiding from? None of my business but it always crosses my mind...
Posted by Twinleaf on August 7, 2013, at 6:19:38
In reply to Re: Trying to practice what I've been preaching, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2013, at 23:11:55
I don't think it is accurate to describe these exchanges with you as "battling". You are being asked to follow your own guidelines for the running of the site, albeit in a more moderate, flexible manner, or, failing that, to let us know what your thoughts are about how you would like to run it now. Despite repeated civil requests to do this, from many people, I have not seen one instance of respectful discussion of this topic. Instead, you often change the meaning of our posts, trivialize our concerns and treat everyone with a slight tinge of contempt. Repeatedly warning us that our good-faith attempts at communicating with you are actually battles which are going to result in us getting the opposite of what we hope for is a startling example of this barely-concealed contemptuous attitude. The problems raised can all be resolved, or at least made better, if you treat them with the thoughtfulness and respect with which they are offered. It is your own attitude, which repeatedly appears contentious and passive-aggressive, which is preventing that from happening.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 8, 2013, at 11:35:09
In reply to Re: Trying to practice what I've been preaching » Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on August 7, 2013, at 6:19:38
> Quotes, sayings, clever word pretzels....it's not honest communication IMO.
>
> What are you hiding....hiding from?
>
> 10derheart> I have not seen one instance of respectful discussion of this topic.
>
> TwinleafPlease don't exaggerate or post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express yourself, including a link to a nice post by Dinah on I-statements, are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Twinleaf on August 8, 2013, at 13:50:32
In reply to Re: Trying to practice what I've been preaching » Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on August 7, 2013, at 6:19:38
I was expressing regret that I did not feel that we had had a mutually respectful exchange on the topic of what the administrative guidelines actually are at present. I should have written, " I have not personally seen any respectful exchanges..." There certainly could have been one or more that I missed. I would be grateful for a link to any existing ones.
Posted by 10derheart on August 8, 2013, at 16:11:19
In reply to Re: please be civil » 10derheart » Twinleaf, posted by Dr. Bob on August 8, 2013, at 11:35:09
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 8, 2013, at 18:45:32
In reply to Re: It is gone far beyond theorectical now, Dr. Bob » alexandra_k, posted by SLS on July 1, 2013, at 6:36:31
> It is hard not to develop an alvzffection for the delusional Don Quixote. However, Don Quixote did not wield his sword indiscriminately against innocent and vulnerable human beings.
>
> Don Quixote did not need pardons for capital crimes because he did not commit any. Lesser offenses were often overlooked, though, and people from his village would save him from himself and take him home. If Don Quixote had repeatedly killed innocent people, would he have been pardoned? At some point, a judge must weigh the health of the populace against his affection for the murderer as well as the pressure being placed upon him by others to grant another pardon.
>
>
> - ScottFriends,
It is written here,[...for the murderer...].
This statement in context with the thread's context and in the post, could identify me as the subject person. I have not commited murder by any analogy or other literary concept used here.
Friends, be advised that I am here to try to save lives and to prevent life-riuining conditions/addictions. I know of a way for those that want a way out from addiction and depression that I am prevented from posting here due to prohibitions posted to me by Mr Hsiung. And I am abiding by those prohibitions here. The way out is hard. It is like being in a furnace, but this furnace refines one so that they come out with joy and be led forth with peace: the mountains and hills break forth before you in singing, and all the trees of the field clap their hands.
Friends, for those that are in the darkness of depression/addiction, there is a Light that dispells the darkness, and I have come here to reveal that Light to you, so you can rejoice in singing and see the green fields that you used to know. And there will be given to you The Bread of Life to nourish you while you journey to The Promised Land. And I have been to The Promised Land and have come back to tell you a way to have freedom from captivity, and joy for morning, and a peace that goes beyond understanding.
My friends, if you are swayed to think of me as a murderer, then reject all that I say here now. But if you do believe that there is a Promised Land, and that there is a way to go there, then accept this opportunity to know the way to a new life, and life more abundantly and you could rejoice and be exceedingly glad .
This Promised Land is a realm that one enters and I am here to tell you how to enter that realm. You see, I have been writing about a Rider on a white horse. The Rider is a spirit. He is The Word of God. And you can receive the word from Him by hearing that word. When one hears that word there is revealing. Revelation can come by hearing the Word of God. And as many that hear Him, to them He gives power to overcome, overcome all things, even addiction, depression and even death. And for those that accept this opportunity, read what the Rider has spoken here. Do a search in the archives like, [Lou, Rider said to me] and when you hear what He said, that could open up your heart to Faith. For it has been revealed to me that Faith comes by hearing the Word of God.
Lou
Posted by SLS on August 8, 2013, at 18:59:02
In reply to Re: It is gone far beyond theorectical now, Dr. Bob » alexandra_k, posted by SLS on July 1, 2013, at 6:36:31
Perhaps I exaggerated?
> It is hard not to develop an affection for the delusional Don Quixote. However, Don Quixote did not wield his sword indiscriminately against innocent and vulnerable human beings.
>
> Don Quixote did not need pardons for capital crimes because he did not commit any. Lesser offenses were often overlooked, though, and people from his village would save him from himself and take him home. If Don Quixote had repeatedly killed innocent people, would he have been pardoned? At some point, a judge must weigh the health of the populace against his affection for the murderer as well as the pressure being placed upon him by others to grant another pardon.
>
>
> - Scott
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.