![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 52. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by krazy kat on July 3, 2002, at 11:04:23
Sandra posted:
"Please stop answering all posts with City of Peace"
> > I understand that you may not be interested in what he has to say, but I've already made it clear that I'd rather people not read than ask someone else not to post, so I'm going to try to block you from posting now.
>
> Bob
Dr. Bob:Wasn't Sandra just asking Lou not to answer all posts with references to the city of peace? She wasn't asking him to stop posting. If someone were in a thread I was involved in and they kept answering my questions with "I had a vision and it explained everything" without explaining it, I'd ask them to try a different approach.
IMHO, she's really trying to work with Lou and get some straightforward answers out - seems to me that could be really beneficial. I have tried to decipher his posts, and have a terrible time.
Also, she may have felt pressured with the continued "push" of the "city of gates". It gets very frustrating to swim through the thick mystery Lou has written about.
I know you say, "don't read a post(s)" but as long as we're civil, isn't the point here to interact? If we don't, then it's just one long piece by Lou? I would imagine that's not what he wants either...
I could be wrong, but I'm afraid she's going to be awfully discouraged by this block because she seemed to be very careful with her posts.
Oh well - we potentially lose a new poster, but we still have Lou. :)
Thanks for the faith board - it's really helpful!
- kk
Posted by IsoM on July 3, 2002, at 12:43:11
In reply to Re: blocked for week - SD? » Dr. Bob, posted by krazy kat on July 3, 2002, at 11:04:23
To be honest, I'm totally confused??? Dr. Bob, please clarify what's going on.
What actually happened is beardedlady posted this in the subject line on June 30:
Please stop answering all posts with City of Peace (nm) » Lou Pilder -- http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020527/msgs/277.htmlAnd then on July 2, SandraDee responded to Beardy's post:
Re: Please stop answering all posts with City of Peace » beardedlady -- http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020527/msgs/328.html & in her post said "THANK YOU BEARDY... that's all I was trying to say."Note that it *WASN'T* SandraDee who told Lou to stop answering with the City of Peace posts? Beardy wasn't reprimanded by Dr. Bob, so I assumed her post was considered okay. But now SandraDee just clicked on Beardy's post & never bothered changing the subject line & she was blocked.
Dr. Bob, I think you've made an error, perhaps reading the posts when you were sleepy & missed the connection? Please rethink your blocking SandraDee for something she DIDN'T do.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 3, 2002, at 14:07:37
In reply to for Dr. Bob too --- blocked for week - SD? » krazy kat , posted by IsoM on July 3, 2002, at 12:43:11
> Wasn't Sandra just asking Lou not to answer all posts with references to the city of peace? She wasn't asking him to stop posting. If someone were in a thread I was involved in and they kept answering my questions with "I had a vision and it explained everything" without explaining it, I'd ask them to try a different approach.
She asked him to stop posting about something that was important to him. Without, at least in that post, saying anything about any different approaches.
> Also, she may have felt pressured with the continued "push" of the "city of gates". It gets very frustrating to swim through the thick mystery Lou has written about.
No one has to to swim though anyone else's posts here.
> I know you say, "don't read a post(s)" but as long as we're civil, isn't the point here to interact?
>
> - kkTo interact in a supportive way, yes.
----
> Note that it *WASN'T* SandraDee who told Lou to stop answering with the City of Peace posts? Beardy wasn't reprimanded by Dr. Bob, so I assumed her post was considered okay. But now SandraDee just clicked on Beardy's post & never bothered changing the subject line & she was blocked.
>
> IsoMI thought Beardy's point was that Lou was proselytizing, which I thought was a valid issue to discuss, so I let it go at that point.
SandraDee should've bothered to change the subject line. Besides, two wrongs wouldn't have made a right...
Bob
Posted by krazy kat on July 3, 2002, at 15:33:07
In reply to Re: blocked for week - SD, posted by Dr. Bob on July 3, 2002, at 14:07:37
What was your response to my swimming comment, Dr. Bob? That no one has to swim through anyone's posts? (I deleted it by mistake). Well, no one has to post at all here, frankly. (I mean that in a straightforward way, no sarcasm.) But it's a good site and good people do. And often we'll try to get through threads because there's something of value in there for us - it just may be hard to find.
> > To interact in a supportive way, yes.
I still don't see how her interaction was unsupportive. Especially if you read the whole thread.
> > I thought Beardy's point was that Lou was proselytizing, which I thought was a valid issue to discuss, so I let it go at that point.Again, perhaps Sandra did feel pushed, or as if he were proselytizing. But now she can't defend her stance.
> > SandraDee should've bothered to change the subject line. Besides, two wrongs wouldn't have made a right...
I really don't think she meant it "meanly". I'm getting a little nervous -- I thought we were doing pretty well over on Faith. If we have to check and recheck the wording so carefully, how can a conversation go on at all?
From my experience, changing subject lines is something that is difficult to remember and, as a new poster, something Sandra may not be aware of. Would another pbc for a newcomer have helped?
Again, I worry that she'll get frustrated and not come back.
Please reconsider.
- kk
Posted by IsoM on July 3, 2002, at 15:38:14
In reply to Re: blocked for week - SD, posted by Dr. Bob on July 3, 2002, at 14:07:37
Dr. Bob, Beardy's first post simply had "Please stop answering all posts with City of Peace (nm) » Lou Pilder" - nothing else, no mention of proseltyzing. Her next post did have the subject of proseltyzing. You didn't caution her first post.
And Bob, I think you know that many people never think to change the subject line, even whe it veers off the topic. They figure if they do, the original poster might not see it even if it's addressed to that poster. What you're doing is censoring SandraDee, not for what she's saying, but for not changing the subject line instead. And what "two wrongs" are you referring to?
Can't you see that Sandra hasn't been putting Lou down? She hasn't been unsupportive but has been trying her best to clarify just what Lou's trying to say. She really wanted to discuss things with Lou, not have an argument. She asked him a number of times in different ways but Lou didn't seem to quite understand. She was feeling frustrated with asking, she wasn't attacking Lou or putting him down. Can't you see that?
I normally try to stay out of these sort of discussions because nothing productive happens but I find it really incredible that you've come down on Sandra for this. I feel strongly enough to speak up & make a fuss over what should have been overlooked. Honestly, it's like a parent jumping in to "fix" any small dispute that their children may have that their kids would've straightened out by themselves without the parents getting all excited.
Bob, excuse me, AND I'm *not* being sarcastic, but have you ever admitted that you've made an mistake here? It's your web-site - you do have the right to say how it should be administered, but to never say that you've slipped is not a healthy view to take. Personally, I have issues with people who can't say they're wrong from time to time & not feel ashamed or afraid to admit it. It doesn't belittle them but increases their stature in my eyes.
Posted by krazy kat on July 3, 2002, at 15:56:31
In reply to totally disagree with you... » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on July 3, 2002, at 15:38:14
if IsoM, feels this strongly. Really. And I think it is, too.
Lou's posts have a history of causing controversy (I'm not saying they should not be here, and I'm very happy to see them on Faith, which seems so appropriate to me). That thread was going fine. We're trying to clarify some things. That's all.
> > What you're doing is censoring SandraDee, not for what she's saying, but for not changing the subject line instead. - from IsoM --
That's how it seems to me, as well.
> > it's like a parent jumping in to "fix" any small dispute that their children may have that their kids would've straightened out by themselves without the parents getting all excited. - IsoM
And often, Dr. Bob Will allow people to do this by themselves. Or is it just that he's not checking the board at that time, and if he were, pbc's would be flying? I'd hate to think that's the case...
I have questioned Dr. B. about the ability to admit to a mistake and that darn signature paragraph appeared stating something like "I'm doing the best I can. Please give me some room." And it seems that was supposed to take care of that. (I can't stand that paragraph - it's so impersonal.) But never a retraction on a decision, that I've seen.
Oh well.
- kk
Posted by lou pilder on July 3, 2002, at 22:08:24
In reply to for Dr. Bob too --- blocked for week - SD? » krazy kat , posted by IsoM on July 3, 2002, at 12:43:11
IsoM,
I believe that your question could be phrased as follows:
If a person is blocked for saying something to another person that causes their being blocked, can the blocked person be excused from the block if the person that the remark was directed to excuses the remark?
Now this would have to be a precident for all posters. So this really isn't a one-person issue. For instance, suppose Krazy Kat writes that Kid_A
should stop using poetry in his posts? Now let's go on and Dr. Bob issues a 7 day block to Krazy Kat with the admonishment that she can not read the poetry, but she should not tell Kid_A to not post poetry.
So I believe that the person that has had a post directed to them to stop talking about anything is really a wrong thing for a person to say to anyone.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on this in many instances, all consistant with the person's freedom to speak. You see, the act of telling someone not to speak, is just as wrong as preventing someone from speaking. Sometimes it is referred to as "coercive censoring". The statement to "stop posting" can be construed by a reasonable man to be a threat to the one that is being told to stop speaking, for it is implied. And threats are not civil.
When I was a teacher, there was a student that posted signs next to signs in the main hallway that said, "Beat West High". His sign said, "Love West High". He was told that he could not post his signs for they were unpopular for evryone had to be against West High and our team had to win and his signs could cause the others to think that West High was just as good as our school.
I defended the student's right to post the unpopular signs on the grounds that the main hallway was a public forum, in a sesnse, and that speech could not be restricted just because it was unpopular and annoying to those that held the view that evryone in the school had to hold the same values.The Pricipal took down the signs of the student in spite of my defense of the student. I lost that one.
Well, at the game, a fight broke out between the 2 schools in the stands and 15 students were severly injured. Most of them were also expelled. The student with the "Love West High" signs came to school the next day and was greeted by the Principal that censored him and made him "Student of the Month" and spoke over the loud speaker to the school saying that he apologised for censoring him and that there would be no more "pep rallys".
So I believe that for one here to tell someone that they can not speak, in any fashion or way that is civil, is tremendously out of line. For if that is allowed to happen, then only those in clique with others would be allowed to post.
Now the defense of the poster not knowing about the subject line is to me no different than the defense that "I didn't know the gun was loaded" defense. You are supposed to know if the gun is loaded.
Now as far as her quoting beadedlady's remark, that, to me , is a worse offense for it is called "pileing on" in football and the penalty for unneccessary roughness is greater than the first roughness. I also consider it what is called a "cheap shot" in football. Because Dr. Bob did not admonish Beadedlady' remark, the other poster could claim that it was fair for her to also reinforce the same remark. but Dr. Bob spoke to that when he said thast the context of the 2 were different.And they were as Dr. Bob explianed.
I beleive in freedom of speech. But telling another to not speak, to me, is worse than censoring the speech.
Lou
Posted by krazy kat on July 3, 2002, at 22:47:08
In reply to Lou responds to IsoM'question » IsoM, posted by lou pilder on July 3, 2002, at 22:08:24
To begin with, I am too tired and not capable of following such a long post due to my medicine, so please forgive me if I misinterpret anything. But thanks for posting here, per my request. However...
> If a person is blocked for saying something to another person that causes their being blocked, can the blocked person be excused from the block if the person that the remark was directed to excuses the remark?I don't think this is the case with Sandra at all -- I have asked Dr. B., Lou, if including phrases such as "in my opinion" could 'allow', well, almost anything to be said and he never responded...
> Now this would have to be a precident for all posters. So this really isn't a one-person issue. For instance, suppose Krazy Kat writes that Kid_A
> should stop using poetry in his posts? Now let's go on and Dr. Bob issues a 7 day block to Krazy Kat with the admonishment that she can not read the poetry, but she should not tell Kid_A to not post poetry.I agree, which is why it cannot work...
> > The statement to "stop posting" can be construed by a reasonable man to be a threat to the one that is being told to stop speaking, for it is implied.But Sandra never said to stop posting - she just asked that you not answer all questions with the City "theme". Did that bother you? Why couldn't the two of you discuss this, if so?
> Now as far as her quoting beadedlady's remark, that, to me , is a worse offense for it is called "pileing on" in football and the penalty for unneccessary roughness is greater than the first roughness. I also consider it what is called a "cheap shot" in football. Because Dr. Bob did not admonish Beadedlady' remark, the other poster could claim that it was fair for her to also reinforce the same remark. but Dr. Bob spoke to that when he said thast the context of the 2 were different.And they were as Dr. Bob explianed.Totally disagree, Lou. Next time you accidentally respond to a post with its previous subject line, I feel compelled to point it out now. You, and Dr. Bob are assuming too much.
> I beleive in freedom of speech. But telling another to not speak, to me, is worse than censoring the speech.
She never told you not to speak. She tried to engage you in a discussion. There's no reason the two you could not have worked this out yourselves, and if Sandra is 'banned', I should certainly be, because I asked you to clarify things.
Lou, the thread(s) have been going well. Is it that when a poster hits a point that they're invading your security zone, you fight back? I expected you to be reasonable. You have not been. Why I Even try...
Adios again, Lou.
- kk
> Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on July 4, 2002, at 9:17:00
In reply to Re: blocked for week - SD? » Dr. Bob, posted by krazy kat on July 3, 2002, at 11:04:23
I tend not to get involved with blocking, as I normally see just reason for them.
but, having patiently gone through all the posts on PB Faith I can't see any reason for SandraDee to be banned.. it really is most unfair.
She, quite reasonably, asked simply for clarification... She wanted to know what LOU though, not what the 7 gates thought. She was interested in his responce, but it is painfully tiring to have to read the long posts about the city of lou's with no real answer to what she was asking. All she did was ask to know his feelings without 1000 word essay on his experience.
I hope you do reconsider this ban Dr Bob.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 4, 2002, at 14:41:06
In reply to Lou - thanks for your post!! from kk, posted by krazy kat on July 3, 2002, at 22:47:08
Krazy Kat,
You bid me, "Adios again, Lou"
Krazy Kat, you will always see me evryware. Wherever there is a homeless person, you will see me there. Wherever there is a person without gloves or a coat in the winter, you will see me there. Wherever there are people fighting for freedom, you will see me there. Wherever you see people hungry, you will see me there. Wherver you see people persecuted for rightiousness sake, you will see me there. Whever you see children without mother and father, you will see me there. Whever you see the stars and look up into the sky,or see a tree, you will see me there. For when I was in the City of Peace, I was told, " The heavens declare the Glory of God, and the firmament His handiwork."
Shalom Krazy Kat, and I will be glad to see you again.
Lou
Posted by ShelliR on July 4, 2002, at 15:49:29
In reply to totally disagree with you... » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on July 3, 2002, at 15:38:14
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 4, 2002, at 16:21:28
In reply to Lou - thanks for your post!! from kk, posted by krazy kat on July 3, 2002, at 22:47:08
Krazy Kat,
You asked me if "--you fight back?"
Krazy Kat, in my posts , I am always trying to be perfect. But I am human also. So are you and forgive me for I wasn't "fighting back" in any of my posts.
Your "adios again, Lou" was very kind and I hope to converse with you soon.
Remember me and I forgive you for any and all of your posts directed at me.
Lou
Posted by krazy kat on July 4, 2002, at 17:15:10
In reply to Lou's answer to Krazy Kat-more » krazy kat , posted by Lou Pilder on July 4, 2002, at 16:21:28
I was not brought up to have such horrific manners. I apologize.
I'm glad you forgive me because then you won't harbor unnecessary anger.
But keep in mind, this is the sort of reaction that can come from your "approach".
Bye.
Posted by Angel Girl on July 4, 2002, at 17:25:10
In reply to Re: blocked for week - SD? » Dr. Bob, posted by krazy kat on July 3, 2002, at 11:04:23
I have to agree with the protest here by krazy kat and IsoM in defence of SandraDee.
I have followed that thread and agree that Sandra was merely asking Lou for straightforward answers to her questions, to which she still hasn't got. She never asked Lou not to post. She did not resort to name calling and was never uncivil or disrespectful to Lou. All she wanted was simple straightforward answers to her questions.
What is so wrong with that???
I think you should reconsider your decision on the blocking of SandraDee. I think it was very unfair and a mistake, dare I say that for risk that I will be blocked next.
I have only been reading and posting to these boards for a few months but I have yet to see you admit to make a mistake and do undo a blocking. Nobody is perfect and we all make mistakes. I think that it would go alot further with posters if you could once admit to making a mistake, reconsider your decision and to retract the punishment. Otherwise you come across as being rigid and unfair. JMHO!!! I mean no disrespect but I think that blocking SandraDee was very uncalled for. I am usually one who stays away from controversy and confrontations but I can not choose to stay silent in this matter.
Angel Girl
Posted by Zo on July 4, 2002, at 19:09:37
In reply to Re: blocked for week - SD? -- Dr. Bob, posted by Angel Girl on July 4, 2002, at 17:25:10
. .. which is exactly why the policy doesn't work. For us. It works FOR BOB, and I guess you go along with his policies to the extent you believe that a site should work for the Admin--and the feedback of its members doesn't matter. And it is Bob's feeling that to allow the appeal blocks would be "opening a can of worms."What some of us are asking of Bob means genuine inconvenience for him.
Just putting that out on the table.
Zo
Posted by Angel Girl on July 4, 2002, at 20:14:36
In reply to It is against Bob's policy to reconsider blocks,, posted by Zo on July 4, 2002, at 19:09:37
ZoWhy would it be opening a can of worms??? Because if he would reconsider just once, it would set him up to reconsider every time somebody disagreed with a decision he makes???? And what inconvenience???? To take the couple of minutes it might take to unblock a person who was unfairly blocked??? PULEEZZZZZZZEEEEE!!!!
We are all humans, all humans make mistakes, including Dr Bob, although I have yet to see him to ever admit to one on this site.
I'm just asking that he admit that he made a mistake and correct it. Does he think he will lose the respect of the posters if he admits he made a mistake???? I think he loses more respect by never reconsidering his actions, admitting to making a mistake now and then and correcting his error. Nobody on the face of this earth, including Dr Bob are perfect and free of making errors. With all due respect, it shows maturity to recognize when you've made a mistake, admit it and then do whatever you can to correct it. JMHO!!!
Is that asking too much????
Angel Girl
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 4, 2002, at 21:58:28
In reply to I am sorry for attacking you » Lou Pilder, posted by krazy kat on July 4, 2002, at 17:15:10
Krazy Kat,
I appreciate your apology. I do realise that "this sort of reaction" can occur in anyone.
When I was a teacher, a student yelled out, (expletive), which was directed at me, in the classroom. Evryone stoped and turned around to see him. Not one sound could be heard for many minuets. Evryone was stunned.
The student spoke and said," I do not even know that I yelled that out." He was an honor student and we all could not beleive that he yelled that out. And neither could he!
The student then got up and walked out of the room. I learned that he went to the Principal's office and told him what had happenened and he asked to be suspended for 3 days. The Principal gave him the choice to stay in school because he had confessed and was remorsfull. But the student said, "No, I will take my suspension for I do not want to be treated in a special manner. I accept the responsibility for my actions.
The student was suspended and graduated Magna Cum Laude.
Lou
Posted by IsoM on July 4, 2002, at 22:51:21
In reply to Re: Thanks (nm) » IsoM, posted by ShelliR on July 4, 2002, at 15:49:29
Shelli, Angel, Zo, KK, Nikki, sweet dreamy Dr. Eamer, SandraDee (if she's still reading the boards), Beire-Dei, Emma, kiddo, Alii, Rach, Bookgurl, Judy, mouse, mist, Tina, Shar, Fi, Angel Girl, Jane, kid_A, Phil, Colin, Seamus, Ritch, Jon, Scott, & many others, thank you for the wonderful information, support, humour, & encouragement I've enjoyed here. And thank you to those who've defended the wrong blocking of SandraDee. My leaving isn't a big thing & will have no lasting repurcussions. I've been given help & information & hope I've given some back. Take care, folks. Smarminess wins in the end, it seems.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 4, 2002, at 23:47:39
In reply to Re: blocked for week - SD? » Dr. Bob, posted by krazy kat on July 3, 2002, at 11:04:23
[Posted by Reneb on July 3, 2002, at 20:19:37
In reply to http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020527/msgs/280.html]
> I agree with IsoM and Krazy Kat. I think that SandrDee was very frustrated because she couldn't get a straight answer from Lou. I can't believe that Lou, who is constantly sharing his views to the frustration of many posters, is allowed to continue when it is very clear that he has in fact angered many, when told to "please stop". He continues to push his religious beliefs. Dr. Bob says "don't read them" well I think it's difficult not to read a response to your post.
>
> Dr.Bob, I have never disagreed with a block until now.
>
> Thanks for listening.
>
> Renee
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 5, 2002, at 0:43:11
In reply to totally disagree with you... » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on July 3, 2002, at 15:38:14
Sandra's blocking - a question for you... » Lou Pilder
Posted by IsoM on July 3, 2002, at 16:20:53
In reply to http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020527/msgs/350.html> Lou, you know I don't discuss faith issues with you. That's our agreement, but that doesn't mean we don't respect each other's posts or attempts to help others. I'd like to ask if you're willing to help SandraDee.
>
> As you know, she's been blocked. I think you have difficulty unravelling various posts (I have difficulty in my weak areas too) so I'll list them for you.
>
> Beardy asks you not to respond to every post with a reference to your City of Peace:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020527/msgs/277.html
> & then her following post talks about proselytizing. You two amiably continue your discussion.
>
> Then SandraDee posts this:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020527/msgs/328.html
> She hasn't attacking you but was responding to Beardy's post & using the old subject line without changing it.
>
> Please also read my two posts at PB Admin:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/5948.html
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/5953.html
>
> How do you feel, Lou? Were you feeling attacked by Sandra or were you hoping that the matter would be clarified & that you two could have a meaningful discussion? If you don't feel slighted or attacked & would rather carry on your conversation with Sandra, please let Dr. Bob know. I'm not trying to pressure you into appealing to Dr. Bob if you did feel attacked but somehow I don't think you took it that way.
>
> You know I rarely feel this strongly about something, but I think a mistake's been made. I'd hate to see Sandra, a relatively new poster, give up in frustration. What do you think?
>
> I don't want to enter into a long discussion but am just asking if you feel similarly, please let Dr. Bob know.----
Re: Sandra's blocking - a question for you... » IsoM
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 3, 2002, at 16:30:35
In reply to Sandra's blocking - a question for you... » Lou Pilder, posted by IsoM on July 3, 2002, at 16:20:53> KK,
> I know waht yor feelings are on this topic, and I always answer anyone's questions. And I will answer your question. And I think that there is merit in your concern here. For there are many religions that allow the victim to exonerate the accused. It is my undertanding that in Islam, a relative of a murdered person can veto the beheading of the convicted. (If any Islamic people reading this can correct me or substantiate me, please respond. Thanks in advance, Lou)
> but you must place your post on the Administratin board for this is in the administrative forum.
> Lou----
Correction:The previous post was asked by Iso M (nm)
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 3, 2002, at 16:35:27
In reply to Re: Sandra's blocking - a question for you... » IsoM, posted by Lou Pilder on July 3, 2002, at 16:30:35----
Re: Sandra's blocking - a question for you... » Lou Pilder
Posted by IsoM on July 3, 2002, at 16:36:27
In reply to Re: Sandra's blocking - a question for you... » IsoM, posted by Lou Pilder on July 3, 2002, at 16:30:35> Lou, this is IsoM, me, asking - not Krazy Kat in the previous post like you've thought. And I have placed this post on the PB Admin board. It's included in the links of the posts I've given you.
----
Re: Sandra's blocking - a question for you...
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 3, 2002, at 16:46:25
In reply to Re: Sandra's blocking - a question for you... » Lou Pilder, posted by IsoM on July 3, 2002, at 16:36:27> Iso M,
> I will return to the board this evening. Perhaps there will some input upon my return by others on your question for discussion. I like the question. But it is the adminastrative aspect of the board that decides those type of issues.
> Lou----
Re: Sandra's blocking - a question for you... » Lou Pilder
Posted by krazy kat on July 3, 2002, at 18:34:22
In reply to Re: Sandra's blocking - a question for you... » IsoM, posted by Lou Pilder on July 3, 2002, at 16:30:35> this was IsoM's ?, Lou, but one I had as well. You are absolutely right - it needs to be on admin, but you didn't seem to be there. :) So, if you like, please offer your opinions there to the thread already begun.
----
Re: Sandra's blocking - a question for you... » Lou Pilder
Posted by krazy kat on July 3, 2002, at 18:36:35
In reply to Re: Sandra's blocking - a question for you..., posted by Lou Pilder on July 3, 2002, at 16:46:25> sorry i restated what was already said.
>
> Lou, it is an admin decision, but (supposedly) our views mean something, so yours' would be important here.----
Fuck you, Lou, I am so Fuckin' sick of you...
Posted by krazy kat on July 3, 2002, at 23:05:49
In reply to Re: Sandra's blocking - a question for you... » Lou Pilder, posted by krazy kat on July 3, 2002, at 18:36:35> and this board. And I am not in any sort of "odd" mood stance. My finger hurts because it was stung by a wasp. And I am tired. But that's it.
>
> And this board has obviously become Lou's space for pulling folks into a cult.
>
> Fuck you, Lou. I have tried to work with you. I was here first. You have ruined it. Fuck you.
>
> - kk, no apologies tomorrow or the next from me -what the Hell you gain from this, I do not know...----
Lou'd reply to kk....
Posted by krazy kat on July 3, 2002, at 23:27:49
In reply to Fuck you, Lou, I am so Fuckin' sick of you..., posted by krazy kat on July 3, 2002, at 23:05:49> it's not what "I" gain from it but what you do...
>
> arrghhhh!!!!!
Posted by shar on July 5, 2002, at 2:07:58
In reply to Thanks and goodbye too..., posted by IsoM on July 4, 2002, at 22:51:21
There is so much of this that is the natural ebb and flow that occurs in groups. Especially groups that have an authority figure--like this one. Dynamics-wise (IMHO) it is very much like a family here. We can ask Dr. Bob (dad) to do things, to not do things, to reconsider things he's done already.....but it is a much Safer place than most of our homes would've been, and the Consequences of being told yes, no, maybe--well they are really pretty minor (as in, nobody will assault you, berate you, shame you, humiliate you, abuse you). Maybe someone will get annoyed or upset with another poster, but it is a great thing to learn how to handle that and accept that we don't have to change because someone else thinks we should, we can survive someone being annoyed with us....we can even continue to like them just fine.
Here, you voice your opinion and Dad does what he thinks is right. That's about the only option available to the person in authority. Disagreements (even strong ones) are accepted here, unlike in many homes (at least mine). Getting mad is ok, within certain boundaries. Being frank, same thing. Input can be given, too, which is also different than what many of us grew up with. We are accepted, by and large, as we are; there will always be posters that have rough patches with each other, and with Dr. Bob. But, just think how much freedom that is compared to everyday life (at least mine).
I want there to be a way for you to stay and get something for yourself here, even when you disagree with Bob or whomever. Maybe you think his decisions about blocking someone are wrong, and you can say so. Every time you feel that way, you can say so. AND you can continue to be here and give support and get support, and joke around, etc. Here we don't have to start at square one with somebody who knows nothing about depression or other dx, we can actually speak and be heard and often understood.
Being able to say frankly what we think is about as good as it gets in life, IMO. I certainly can't do it except in very few relationships I have. Expressing how we feel, what we believe, and who we are is not often safe, but it is safe here. What is the worst that can happen? You can be blocked, or get a PBC, but that's about as bad as it gets. In the meantime, you can be reaping the benefits of being with people who understand much about you in a way not many others can. AND you get to be accepting and understanding of others in that same way...something that I feel good about doing when I can.
The exodus only hurts us individuals. It doesn't effect change, and we miss out on having you here.
Well, like I said, I sure wish you wouldn't leave. Your feelings and opinions about how the board is run have been noted and paid attention to. You've been heard, by many of us. What more do we get in life but to be heard? For something that isn't under our direct control, that's about all we can expect (and do not often get even that much). Is there nothing here for you?
Shar
Posted by tabitha on July 5, 2002, at 3:26:16
In reply to Sure wish you wouldn't leave. » IsoM, posted by shar on July 5, 2002, at 2:07:58
Posted by Zo on July 5, 2002, at 6:43:44
In reply to Sure wish you wouldn't leave. » IsoM, posted by shar on July 5, 2002, at 2:07:58
I want to support those who feel comfortable with the ways things are presently run on the board---and I want to support those of us who do not.Perhaps you have to be forty, fifty, older. . and to have come into your own, to understand the conviction with which someone like myself or, if I may, Iso, have no *interest* in having a "dad," kindly or not. No *interest* in the boring sexual/power politics of *Control.* The whole guy thing. . it gets very, very old. Fast.
If it makes you feel secure to have an "authority figure" in charge, fine.
Please respect that women my age neither want nor appreciate one. it's offensive, it's stifling, and they tend to be dead wrong nearly *all* the time.
Bob is just a person. My pdoc to who I owe my life is just a person. I am just a person. You are just a person. If things can't proceed on that basis. . .something's wrong.
Forgive me if I've been naive.. . .but I thought everybody knew this stuff. I honestly did.
Zo
Posted by Phil on July 5, 2002, at 6:52:35
In reply to Sure wish you wouldn't leave. » IsoM, posted by shar on July 5, 2002, at 2:07:58
Posted by ShelliR on July 5, 2002, at 11:23:28
In reply to Thanks and goodbye too..., posted by IsoM on July 4, 2002, at 22:51:21
< My leaving isn't a big thing & will have no lasting repurcussions.>
Wrong. Your leaving *is* a big thing.I think that *everyone* has a part of themselves (sometimes larger than others) where they display irrationality. So this is Dr. Bob's area.
We are sometimes convinced that even if the everyone else sees the sky as blue,we see it as yellow. And nothing anyone can say will change our mind, or make us even consider that the sky is indeed blue. This posture is one of the reasons why so many of us go to therapy.
So Dr. Bob made a major error and because it is his board, we have to accept that. We also have to accept that the administration board serves more to vent and support each other, rather than actually to initiate or produce change.
But to leave because of it, well why?
There is so much good that happens on PB; so much wonderful insight that you contribute to this board. Way more than Dr. Bob's positions, which sometimes annoy us, sometimes really anger us, but generally don't impact what we believe.
And in the scheme of things at PB, Bob's irrational moves are not that often. Weigh the good against the bad. Every leader disappoints in some way, I believe. But I do think there would be chaos without intervention.
The bottom line is we want you to stay. Your tremendous contribution is part of you--no one else can contribute the same things in the same way.
Would you reconsider?
Shelli
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.