![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 123 to 147 of 225. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2013, at 15:40:56
In reply to Re: a refuge(e) board » Toph, posted by SLS on July 6, 2013, at 8:57:45
> > > Thanks for going through the trouble to research and opine on some of the issues we are discussing here. Your post makes me sad and subdued.
> > >
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> >
> > Jeez, I think you have a lot to be proud of over the years for your supportive contributions to this site Scott.
>
> Just in case there is any misunderstanding, I was sincere in my sentiments, Toph. I am always interested to know your perspecitives and respect your intellect and insights, even when we disagree.
>
> When I first started posting here in 1999, there was no active moderation - no warnings or posting blocks. Many people look back at this time with a nostalgic fondness as Psycho-Babble's golden age. There were occasional uncivil comments and vitriolic arguments. Peer pressure usually helped to moderate this, though. I remember feeling constrained and stifled by the Psycho-Babble guidelines of civil communication when they first appeared. I was very much against their institution. However, it wasn't very long before I saw the advantages of moderation such that everyone had the opportunity to feel safe and protected from overbearing personalities like mine. I then came to see the emergence of a moderation protocol that managed to crush any feelings of nurturing that Psycho-Babble had provided for. The moderation style created a situation wherein the Administration board became the main attraction of the website and a source of perpetual drama. Interestingly, when active moderation ceased, there was an inertia of sorts that facilitated a continued awareness of civility that helped the community to maintain civil communication. There was some degree of self-moderation of the website forums that persisted for a few years. Unfortunately, in this environment, it only takes one person to post material with impunity that challenges the health of the website. Such a situation can be rectified quite easily though. Since laisez-faire allows for, and effectively promotes, incivility in such people, it seems to me that active moderation is desirable, albeit to a lesser degree than was exercised previously.
>
>
> - Scott
>
> Scott,
you wrote,[...Unfortunately, in this environment, it only takes on person to post material with impunity that challenges the health of the website...].
What you have posted about me here, and I could be thought to be the subject person here, could not only put me in a false light, but since that posts that you claim by me that {challenge the health of the website}, if there are any, I do not have the opportunity to post from my perspective to show the context of any post that you use to substantiate such a claim here.
This could IMHO damage me and Jews throughout the world. For since the URLs used by you to make the claims here about me are not specified, they could, at least, be the ones from me concerning those from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me, or the one's from me asking over and over for posts that have statements that could arouse hatred toward the Jews to (redacted by respondent) . You see, your use of the ancient false charge against the Jews of harming the health of other people in a community, called {poisoning the well}, that Jew-haters used in the 1300s to persecute Jews and kill Jews saying that they brought the Black Plague to Europe that killed 50% of mankind there in a few years, saying the Jews poisoned the wells. That was impossible, for the Black Death was from a flea that dwelled in a rat that bit the people.
It is also impossible for me to damage the health of this community, for I am following the prohibitions to me here by Mr Hsiung as other human beings could do. That does not challenge the health of this community, as for if it did, then all members posting here could have the potential to damage the health of the community. The damage to the health of the community is not a result of me posting as a member here under the same terms and conditions of others. What could damage the health of the community IMHO is the creation of two standards here, which is known as discrimination, that is agreed by Mr Hsiung to be an abuse of power by the leader of a community in the same camp as slavery, infanticide, genocide and segregation. All those things sponsored by a community can IMHHHHO lead to the challenge of the health of a community as history records. You write these things about me here that could induce hostile, disagreeable feeling or opinions toward me and decrease the respect, regard or confidence in which I am held. This could challenge my health and I would like readers to read the following post in the link concerning this situation that I find myself in so that you could have a better understanding of what is being tried here by members that could induce scapegoating and now, that I am challenging the health of the community. I say to you that are in concert with those here to (redacted by respondent) me, that you will (redacted by respondent), for even if you are swayed by those here to think of me as challenging the health of this community, remember the rat flea. This post will not go unchallenged to the world, for it stands as it is, it is what it is, it says what it says, it can be seen and is plainly visible.
Lou
> Here is the link to the post that I would like for you to read:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1049210.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2013, at 16:43:43
In reply to Re: a refuge(e) board, posted by baseball55 on July 7, 2013, at 20:50:36
> The last thing this forum needs is yet another board to split up posts and posters. Also, on reading this, it's pretty clear that the main (perhaps the only) problem on people's mind is Lou. I deal with Lou by never opening his posts and never opening any replies to his posts. I've done that since I first came here a few years ago. I realize new posters may get scared away, but anyone with experience on the internet knows there's always going to be someone with an ax to grind.
bb55,
You wrote,
[...the main... problem on people's mind is Lou...new posters may be scared away...there's always going to be someone with an ax to grind...].
What you have posted here about me could put me in a false light and decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile or disagreeable feelings and opinions against me. Since you have not specified any post that you use to write your claim here against me, I do not have the opportunity to post a response to show the context of whatever it is that you use to make the claim.
I post here from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me that I believe could save lives, prevent life-ruining conditions and addictions. I am prevented from posting what I need to show others how they could be freed from the shackles of depression and addiction. What I am prevented from posting here could eliminate one from being scared of the drugs that they take as to them being killed by the drugs or getting a life-ruining condition from them due to the prohibitions to me by Mr. Hsiung. They could also be led out of the captivity of addiction if they were allowed to hear me. This is supportive in any community unless the community wants (redacted by respondent).
I say to you that I do not have an ax to grind. I have a desire to see people freed from the shackles of depression and addiction. I recognize that there are those that will go on the road of human achievement to find a way out of depression and addiction. And many will go that way. But I have come here to seek the lost sheep that want to live in a new realm that does not have depression or addiction. This realm is not by human achievement, but by divine accomplishment. And these lost sheep could be called to sing a new song. Called to the peace that goes beyond understanding. Called to an everlasting love. Called to come out from hate. Called to come out from death. Called by The Prince of Peace. Called by The Comforter. Called by The Rider on the white horse.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2013, at 17:12:34
In reply to Re: the big picture » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on July 9, 2013, at 16:34:05
> People are asking you for action, and you're giving them a process group. Imagine if a sports referee did that in response to questions about rules or complaints about a participant's actions. How could play continue?
>
> I don't recall anyone asking you to help them process their feelings about the behavior in question. You seem to be trying to get folks to change the way they react. As Dinah pointed out, you haven't answered the main question. You're saying this is exhausting, but good lord, you're making it so much bigger than is asked of you.
>
> My unsolicited suggestion is to keep it simple. Address the specific issue one way or another, or say directly that you are declining to. Boom, question answered.
>
> Then, if folks ASK you to help them process it, feel free. But frankly, assuming that's what is really being asked or perhaps that's what you feel is needed feels patronizing and a little insulting, at least to me.gg,
You wrote,[...their feelings about {the behavior in question}...].
Without knowing what posts you are referring to, I could be put in a false light so that readers could have hostile or disagreeable feelings induced against me and decrease the respect in which I am held. The behavior can be deduced to be what I as the subject person could be thought to be my posts here. My posts come from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me and I am following the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr Hsiung. You say that there are feelings about that behavior that people have. I would like for you to post some URLs to explain what you mean by that so that I could post my response to you.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2013, at 17:28:18
In reply to Re: the big picture » sleepygirl2, posted by sleepygirl2 on July 10, 2013, at 21:16:33
> As far as the processing thing....
> Sometimes, it really goes nowhere, so I don't engage in it.
>
> If I can't solve a problem, I just accept it, and make a decision in my best interest.... Hopefully
> Like for instance,
> Not reading Lou's posts
> Not because I care all that much, I do, a little, but there's not a damn thing I can do about it.
> There doesn't seem to be anything anyone can do about it, except Lou, of course.
>
> sg,
You wrote the above.
Now I don't claim to be an A student, but the statement that you use, {there's not a damn thing I can do about it}, could induce hostile and disagreeable feelings toward me and decrease the respect that I am held. This is all because readers have a wide variety of thinking processes that some IMHO could think that there is something about me that needs to be done and that there is not a damn thing one can do. This could stigmatize me and unless you post some URLs to exemplify your statement about me, I do not have the opportunity to present my side of what you have posted to protect myself from any violence that could be induced against me as a result of people reading what you wrote about me and being led to think of me in hostile terms. You see, I do not think that posting from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me has to have something done about it, which by what you wrote about me, IMO, some people could think.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2013, at 17:54:31
In reply to Re: a refuge, posted by Dr. Bob on July 20, 2013, at 3:17:51
> > It is extremely painful and distressing to read these exchanges. In my view, you are doing two things which are enraging and infuriating everyone. The first is that you do not acknowledge everyone's concerns over Lou's breaking of the civility rules. The second is that you do not appear to respect and understand what posters are trying to communicate to you.
>
> What I hear some posters saying is that:
>
> 1a. Lou isn't being civil.
>
> 1b. Which is driving posters away from Babble, and from treatment, both of which might help them.
>
> 2. So I should enforce the civility rules.
>
> I value civility and agree that both Babble and treatment can help people.
>
> How was that?
>
> Bobtl,
Now you say,[...everyone's concerns of Lou breaking the civility rules...].
Be advised that what you have said about me here could decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile feelings toward me. Since there are no URLs here to support your claim about me, I do not have the opportunity to show that I am abiding by the prohibitions to me by Mr. Hsiung and the rules as other members also abide by in the human condition. If *everyone* is concerned about what I post here, could they also be concerned about what others post here? And I post from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me. And how are they to know what rules you say are being broken if posts by me are not able to be known so that I could show the context that the posts are in? Do you think that I could be made into a scapegoat for people's real or imagined things here that could lead to hatred toward me being promulgated toward me here? And do you think that I could be stigmatized by what you have posted here about me? Could not violence be perpetrated against me by what you have said about me here?
I am asking readers to read the post in the following link.
Lou
http:/www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1049210.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2013, at 17:59:43
In reply to Lou's response- » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2013, at 17:54:31
> > > It is extremely painful and distressing to read these exchanges. In my view, you are doing two things which are enraging and infuriating everyone. The first is that you do not acknowledge everyone's concerns over Lou's breaking of the civility rules. The second is that you do not appear to respect and understand what posters are trying to communicate to you.
> >
> > What I hear some posters saying is that:
> >
> > 1a. Lou isn't being civil.
> >
> > 1b. Which is driving posters away from Babble, and from treatment, both of which might help them.
> >
> > 2. So I should enforce the civility rules.
> >
> > I value civility and agree that both Babble and treatment can help people.
> >
> > How was that?
> >
> > Bob
>
> tl,
> Now you say,[...everyone's concerns of Lou breaking the civility rules...].
> Be advised that what you have said about me here could decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile feelings toward me. Since there are no URLs here to support your claim about me, I do not have the opportunity to show that I am abiding by the prohibitions to me by Mr. Hsiung and the rules as other members also abide by in the human condition. If *everyone* is concerned about what I post here, could they also be concerned about what others post here? And I post from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me. And how are they to know what rules you say are being broken if posts by me are not able to be known so that I could show the context that the posts are in? Do you think that I could be made into a scapegoat for people's real or imagined things here that could lead to hatred toward me being promulgated toward me here? And do you think that I could be stigmatized by what you have posted here about me? Could not violence be perpetrated against me by what you have said about me here?
> I am asking readers to read the post in the following link.
> Lou
> http:/www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1049210.html
>Friends, the correction is that the above post was intended to be a response to what twinleaf posted about me here. And the URL is:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1049210.html
Posted by Phillipa on August 17, 2013, at 20:10:25
In reply to correction: Lou's response-, posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2013, at 17:59:43
The rule of three but l0?
Posted by 10derheart on August 18, 2013, at 0:21:26
In reply to Lou's response-promo » 10derheart, posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2013, at 14:46:59
Piss off.
Posted by 10derheart on August 18, 2013, at 0:24:40
In reply to Re: correction: Lou's response- » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on August 17, 2013, at 20:10:25
Replies to each individual poster do not count toward the rule.
Oh yes, Mr. Pilder knows the rules and how to follow the ones he *wants* to follow.
Posted by Phillipa on August 18, 2013, at 20:33:06
In reply to Re: correction: Lou's response- » Phillipa, posted by 10derheart on August 18, 2013, at 0:24:40
I see does it count as a form of manipulation of the rules? Phillipa ps I didn't know this about each separate person posted to or if I did been so long since it applied to me. Forgot
Posted by 10derheart on August 18, 2013, at 22:15:49
In reply to Re: correction: Lou's response- » 10derheart, posted by Phillipa on August 18, 2013, at 20:33:06
> I see does it count as a form of manipulation of the rules?
No, I think Lou is correctly following one of the listed exceptions to the general rule. I see no manipulation.
==============================================
FAQ:Can I post as much as I want?
Please share this site with others by not starting more than 3 consecutive threads on the same board or posting more than 3 consecutive follow-ups in the same thread. More than that may discourage less confident posters from joining in. Giving them more of a chance makes it easier for them also to help -- and to feel good about doing so.
There are exceptions to every rule, and those to this one may include:
****Responding to earlier posts one at a time****.
Playing around with others at Psycho-Babble Social.
During meltdowns, clarifying posts many times.
Keeping a diary.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 20, 2013, at 9:53:33
In reply to Re: Lou's response-promo » Lou Pilder, posted by 10derheart on August 18, 2013, at 0:21:26
> Piss off.
Could you rephrase that, or apologize?
Bob
Posted by 10derheart on August 20, 2013, at 13:26:47
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » 10derheart, posted by Dr. Bob on August 20, 2013, at 9:53:33
No way.
Posted by Willful on August 20, 2013, at 16:30:05
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on August 20, 2013, at 13:26:47
This may seem irrelevant here-- but: --while I wouldn't want to ban someone, undeservedly, even for a week (or whatever Lou's ban for the moment would be), I would have to reflect a bit on what could occasion this sort of bitterness in someone who had been a trusted aide, or deputy. Of course, even trusted aides and deputies have irrational responses, and vulnerabilities that can't be charged to the account of the person who provokes the response. But then how do you account for all the community's ongoing distress at what Lou's repeatedly said and done?
It's easy to dismiss our wish to get rid of Lou as scapegoating, or as our collective attempt to banish our own anxiety or discouragement, fear of drugs, or of emotion of this or that-- and to weigh on the scale our seemingly emotional pleas, against some notion of neutral or distanced fairness to Lou who has irrationally become the locus of all dreads. It's easy to be blind Justice with a scale, and to believe that if you weigh fairness on one side, and our objections on the other, that the scales swing back and forth and that our feelings are not sufficiently heavy to weigh the scale down beyond reasonable doubt to the level of action.
And this seems to be the belief under which you defer any sanction-- and the image you have of yourself, as fair to a fairtheewell-- as just beyond all expectation of justice. Is there pressure? then refusing to bow to pressure seems the wise course. Except if the pressure is not just pressure-- but a message to you-- a sign of some truth that there you don't perceive.
Yes-- ironically, without Lou, psychobabble would for a while be a very dormant and possibly fatally wounded place. Because at least there is a flurry of passion and focus whenever a new poster appears whom Lou and "we" see as a target of opportunity. Lou, for his propaganda--or holy mission-- us for a new voice, a compatriot, who is the sign of future life.
I don't believe that Lou is to blame for the failure of this community to sustain itelf-- or that Bob's combined actions and absences in the last phase of activity here, way back when (although this is closer to the mark)-- or his long-term blocking algorithm, however ill-advised-- or the antiqueness of the board set-up-- or the recent dominance of social media-- or any these factors alone is the cause of our current dilemma.
But all that is really irrelevant. There is a false equivalence between the community and fairness to Lou-- that is easy to fall into-- and perhaps fits your temperament Bob--. If I were you, though, I would wonder about 10der's rage, and the disappointment and confusion that lies under the silence here.
Is it all irrational-- all about our own private struggles--- or is there some actual social wrong that needs to be righted? Well, we know what you'll say. Because you said it again and again. But I'd like to ask, is it really worth just blocking 10der, or is there something you don't perceive. Something that's strangled this place slowly but surely?
People don't become so pained for no reason-- and maybe you ought to ask, is there something that you need to do differently?
Willful
Posted by Twinleaf on August 20, 2013, at 20:24:43
In reply to Re: Not again, posted by Willful on August 20, 2013, at 16:30:05
Very thoughtful and insightful post, as yours so often are.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 21, 2013, at 7:54:55
In reply to Re: Not again, posted by Willful on August 20, 2013, at 16:30:05
> This may seem irrelevant here-- but: --while I wouldn't want to ban someone, undeservedly, even for a week (or whatever Lou's ban for the moment would be), I would have to reflect a bit on what could occasion this sort of bitterness in someone who had been a trusted aide, or deputy. Of course, even trusted aides and deputies have irrational responses, and vulnerabilities that can't be charged to the account of the person who provokes the response. But then how do you account for all the community's ongoing distress at what Lou's repeatedly said and done?
>
> It's easy to dismiss our wish to get rid of Lou as scapegoating, or as our collective attempt to banish our own anxiety or discouragement, fear of drugs, or of emotion of this or that-- and to weigh on the scale our seemingly emotional pleas, against some notion of neutral or distanced fairness to Lou who has irrationally become the locus of all dreads. It's easy to be blind Justice with a scale, and to believe that if you weigh fairness on one side, and our objections on the other, that the scales swing back and forth and that our feelings are not sufficiently heavy to weigh the scale down beyond reasonable doubt to the level of action.
>
> And this seems to be the belief under which you defer any sanction-- and the image you have of yourself, as fair to a fairtheewell-- as just beyond all expectation of justice. Is there pressure? then refusing to bow to pressure seems the wise course. Except if the pressure is not just pressure-- but a message to you-- a sign of some truth that there you don't perceive.
>
> Yes-- ironically, without Lou, psychobabble would for a while be a very dormant and possibly fatally wounded place. Because at least there is a flurry of passion and focus whenever a new poster appears whom Lou and "we" see as a target of opportunity. Lou, for his propaganda--or holy mission-- us for a new voice, a compatriot, who is the sign of future life.
>
> I don't believe that Lou is to blame for the failure of this community to sustain itelf-- or that Bob's combined actions and absences in the last phase of activity here, way back when (although this is closer to the mark)-- or his long-term blocking algorithm, however ill-advised-- or the antiqueness of the board set-up-- or the recent dominance of social media-- or any these factors alone is the cause of our current dilemma.
>
> But all that is really irrelevant. There is a false equivalence between the community and fairness to Lou-- that is easy to fall into-- and perhaps fits your temperament Bob--. If I were you, though, I would wonder about 10der's rage, and the disappointment and confusion that lies under the silence here.
>
> Is it all irrational-- all about our own private struggles--- or is there some actual social wrong that needs to be righted? Well, we know what you'll say. Because you said it again and again. But I'd like to ask, is it really worth just blocking 10der, or is there something you don't perceive. Something that's strangled this place slowly but surely?
>
> People don't become so pained for no reason-- and maybe you ought to ask, is there something that you need to do differently?
>
> Willful
>
> W,
You wrote,[...the person who provokes the response...the communities ongoing distress at what Lou's repeatedly said and done...Lou for his propaganda...people don't become so painful for no reason...].
What you have written about me here could induce disparaging, hostile or disagreeable feelings against me and decrease the regard, respect and confidence in which I am held. By you posting these things about me here without citations of posts by me to substantiate your claims about me, I do not have the opportunity to post my responses to your claims about me in their context. And further, since the claims are not specified from what I have posted here, then readers could not be sure what it is that you are using to post such claims about me. This then could mean that any of what I post here could be the subject of your claims about me.
> In,[...the communities ongoing distress at what Lou's repeatedly said and done...], along with [...what provokes the response...] could be my postings concerning the foundation of Judaism as revealed to me. This then as to what yu have posted about me could IMO arouse anti-Semitic feelings toward me as me being the cause of the [...all the community's ongoing distress...]
> Now I don't claim to be able to see the future, but what I see is IMHHHO the potential for anti-Semitism to be fostered here UNLESS THE POSTS BY ME THAT YOU USE TO WRITE SUCH CLAIMS ABOUT ME ARE CITED HERE SO THAT I HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT OUT ANY FIRE OF HATE THAT COULD BE SPREASD FROM HERE BY PEOPLE READING WHAT YOU HAVE POSTED ABOUT ME.
Now I have posted about the false charge aginst the Jews of {poisoning he well} charged against the Jews in the 1300s that they brought the bubonic plague to Europe that killed 50% of the people in a short time. The Jews were accused falsely of poisoning the wells. But that charge was impossible to happen because unbeknownst to those charging the Jews, the plague was caused by a flea in a rat that spread the disease of the plague. Now I want all readers to know here that the historical hatred against the Jews in any of its forms could cause people who entertain such, to harbor a false hatred that could turn inward to cause the one harboring this false hatred to kill themselves and or others as psychologists have written about. And Mr Hsiung does not disagree with me in a discussion we had here concerning that.
The fire of hate, when still burning could spread very fast and consume even those that start the fire, for the fire could reverse its course and reduce the starters of the fire to ashes. Remember the rat flea.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 21, 2013, at 9:32:18
In reply to Re: Not again » Willful, posted by Twinleaf on August 20, 2013, at 20:24:43
> Very thoughtful and insightful post, as yours so often are.
tl,
You wrote that Willful's post that has statements about me is thoughtful and insightful. But I do not have the opportunity to respond to whatever it is that you say is thoughtful and insightful, for the citations of posts by me and the citation of what is contained in the post by Willful that you are referring to, are not seen here in your post for me to post my response to you. Because of that, then as it is seen in your post, it could induce hostile and disagreeable feelings against me and decrease the respect and confidence in which I am held because since there is not revealed what it is that you are claiming to be thoughtful and insightful, then anything about me, since I am the subject person, could be thought by readers here.
But I ask readers, do you know where this comes from? I would like for you to take the time to look at the post from here in the following link. Now there are prohibitions to me here from Mr Hsiung that I am following in relation to posting links here. This could cause some readers to not take the time to find what I am asking them to read here. But if you do want to take the time to see this, here is how you could do so.
First go to the bottom this page to the search box. Then type in:
[babble,1046247] but be advised that when you do so, many posts will come up. To see the one in question, look for the 1046247 in the colored strip which is the URL, not in the subject line. Then there is another post that I want you to see inside that post where you have to do the same process to see a video. I would like for you to view the video and then I am going to post a follow up to that video with another video.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2013, at 0:51:07
In reply to Re: Lou's response-promo » Lou Pilder, posted by 10derheart on August 18, 2013, at 0:21:26
> Piss off.
Please be sensitive to the feelings of others.
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 post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on August 22, 2013, at 0:58:34
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on August 20, 2013, at 13:26:47
I'm sorry you got blocked. Even if it is what you wanted... I'm sorry that you wanted / needed for that to happen...
I hope you come back and Babble with me. I have been trying not to take it personally that you have been ignoring me.
Sniff.
((((((10))))))
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2013, at 1:19:40
In reply to Re: Not again, posted by Willful on August 20, 2013, at 16:30:05
> I would have to reflect a bit on what could occasion this sort of bitterness in someone who had been a trusted aide, or deputy.
>
> It's easy ... to weigh on the scale our seemingly emotional pleas, against some notion of neutral or distanced fairness to Lou who has irrationally become the locus of all dreads. It's easy to be blind Justice with a scale, and to believe that if you weigh fairness on one side, and our objections on the other, that the scales swing back and forth and that our feelings are not sufficiently heavy to weigh the scale down beyond reasonable doubt to the level of action.
>
> maybe you ought to ask, is there something that you need to do differently?I'm doing things differently now. I think some posters may actually prefer how I did things before.
Posters could also ask if there's something they could do differently. If they didn't feel powerless.
I did wonder what occasioned 10der's post. What she said was:
> > the fact you won't block me tells me what I wondered about and wanted to know, so thanks for that.
I thought what occasioned it was wondering if I was still enforcing the rules, which I'd been saying I still was. What do you think occasioned her post?
That's an interesting image: a scale with fairness to Lou on one side and other posters' feelings on the other. That would seem to imply:
1. If I didn't block Lou it would be because those posters didn't feel strongly enough, or I wasn't taking their feelings seriously enough.
2. If they did feel strongly enough, or I took their feelings seriously enough, I'd be unfair to Lou.
I also wonder about Lou's posts. What do you think occasions them?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on August 22, 2013, at 4:12:03
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on August 20, 2013, at 13:26:47
Posted by Dinah on August 22, 2013, at 4:15:59
In reply to Re: Not again, posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2013, at 1:19:40
> I also wonder about Lou's posts. What do you think occasions them?
>
> BobIf I were Lou, I think I'd prefer that you lay down rules and follow them rather than encourage discussions about him. On the one hand, I'm a big fan of understanding others. But on the other hand, that sort of discussion can often lead to hurt feelings.
There's been a lot of discussion about incivility from Lou. But under the new way of doing things, there has also been far more incivility towards Lou than would previously have been accepted.
I feel uncomfortable about such an atmosphere, on both sides.
Posted by Partlycloudy on August 22, 2013, at 7:29:43
In reply to ((( 10der ))) (nm), posted by Dinah on August 22, 2013, at 4:12:03
Posted by homelycygnet on August 22, 2013, at 8:15:03
In reply to Re: Not again, posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2013, at 1:19:40
Posted by Phillipa on August 22, 2013, at 20:37:47
In reply to Re: Not again, posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2013, at 1:19:40
Since I have occasionally also emailed with him he sounds rational in his emails but irrational almost psychotic here. Sometimes I wonder if he's some sort of lawyer? Or an experiment? I don't know all guesses
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.