![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 6 to 30 of 30. Go back in thread:
Posted by beardedlady on July 31, 2002, at 17:11:48
In reply to Oh but beardy » beardedlady, posted by mair on July 31, 2002, at 16:53:56
> Those who leave in anger or protest sometimes come back and Ron can criticize Bob in one post and express concern for him in another. If one acknowledges the many positives of these boards, neither seems surprising or inconsistent.
It's not the inconsistency that troubles me so much. It's that some people criticize Dr. Bob when it suits their needs, but they complain about others for doing the same. Still, the real point of my post is that, while we may argue when we disagree with a decision, we have never threatened (or alluded to threatening) to sue Dr. Bob!
> PS: was the quote about a foolish consistency being the hobgoblin of little minds Thoreau's or Emerson's? My best guess is Emerson, but my mind is so small these days I can't really remember. (-:
Oh, c'mon, Mair. Who needs a mind when you've got your Google?
beardy
Posted by mist on July 31, 2002, at 17:58:58
In reply to Oh but beardy » beardedlady, posted by mair on July 31, 2002, at 16:53:56
I agree it's possible to appreciate the site and Dr. Bob and still be critical of him. In this case I was a detached observer but I have had criticisms of him at other times. While I do agree with or at least understand many of his actions, sometimes his basis for determining what's unsupportive or uncivil seems different from mine. Even this time I don't agree with all of the reasons for his PBCs on the PB board. (Swear words don't seem bad to me unless they're used to directly attack someone. I see them as a style of self-expression that some people use and believe they serve a distinct purpose in communication.)
Other times I've thought a poster was glaringly uncivil or unsupportive (or worse) but he didn't seem to notice or say anything about it.
But I don't think Dr. Bob is malevolent or anything. He seems basically well-meaning and with a sense of humor.
Posted by shar on July 31, 2002, at 18:54:45
In reply to Re: Oh but beardy » mair, posted by beardedlady on July 31, 2002, at 17:11:48
>>It's that some people criticize Dr. Bob when it suits their needs, but they complain about others for doing the same.
....a pervasive part of the human condition, I've noticed, here, there and everywhere.
>>Still, the real point of my post is that...we have never threatened (or alluded to threatening) to sue Dr. Bob!
....well, the point of this post is to question the usefulness of bringing up the past, and presenting it to people (some, not me, of course, might say 'throwing it in people's faces'). It does not seem to serve any particular purpose.
What do you get out of doing it? Do you have a purpose in doing it? Do you believe that people have forgotten what they've said before and need reminding? Or, is there a larger point that I just don't grasp? I'm curious because you have done the same thing to me (the 'you previously said' thing), and it just felt like a poke. Not that giving someone a poke when one can is a bad thing, just wondering if there is a point to it.
Shar
Posted by beardedlady on July 31, 2002, at 20:09:13
In reply to Re: Oh but beardy » beardedlady, posted by shar on July 31, 2002, at 18:54:45
> ....well, the point of this post is to question the usefulness of bringing up the past, and presenting it to people (some, not me, of course, might say 'throwing it in people's faces'). It does not seem to serve any particular purpose.Shar:
It's not a poke; it's a reminder. And I find a great bit of usefulness in it. We often remind other people of what they've promised or said or threatened, especially if they seem to have genuinely forgotten or if they go against their word or gang up on others for doing similar things. And I don't find anything wrong with it.
> What do you get out of doing it? Do you have a purpose in doing it? Do you believe that people have forgotten what they've said before and need reminding? Or, is there a larger point that I just don't grasp? I'm curious because you have done the same thing to me (the 'you previously said' thing), and it just felt like a poke.
And what did you just do? Didn't you remind me of something I said in a previous post? You'll find it an inescapable and necessary part of dialogue. Almost every bit of writing on this board discusses something someone previously said. And I don't need to ask what your purpose is for doing it. I don't think you should need to question mine. They are exactly the same.
I believe I also said that I didn't think it was fair of you to have called the posters who chose to leave "selfish," and I asked you to look at it with a little more compassion. You didn't respond to that. And Ron has never responded when several of us asked him why he continued to threaten Dr. Bob with an investigation of his site by lawyers. That's your right and his. But unanswered concerns like that often lead to bad feelings. It's sort of like being snubbed by someone at a party and running into that person somewhere else. The face often triggers a bad feeling before the memory of the incident even returns.
I hope this answers your questions.
beardy
Posted by Phil on July 31, 2002, at 20:22:14
In reply to Re: Oh but beardy » shar, posted by beardedlady on July 31, 2002, at 20:09:13
Dr. Bob saw that my misguided soul was foolishly trying to help, rushed back from wherever he was and erased my posts. Poof
Bob, you may as well erase the ones on Admin too.
I really prefer you would.
Posted by Dinah on July 31, 2002, at 20:34:31
In reply to Re: Oh but beardy}}wrong, posted by Phil on July 31, 2002, at 20:22:14
Perhaps it would save me from making a similar mistake. He erased my post too, you know.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 31, 2002, at 23:04:51
In reply to Re: Oh but beardy » shar, posted by beardedlady on July 31, 2002, at 20:09:13
Posted by shar on August 1, 2002, at 0:11:48
In reply to Re: Oh but beardy » shar, posted by beardedlady on July 31, 2002, at 20:09:13
> > ....well, the point of this post is to question the usefulness of bringing up the past, and presenting it to people (some, not me, of course, might say 'throwing it in people's faces'). It does not seem to serve any particular purpose.
>
>> Shar:
>
>> It's not a poke; it's a reminder. And I find a great bit of usefulness in it. We often remind other people of what they've promised or said or threatened, especially if they seem to have genuinely forgotten or if they go against their word or gang up on others for doing similar things. And I don't find anything wrong with it..........Well, I assumed you didn't find anything wrong with it, or you wouldn't do it. Did you believe Ron genuinely forgot that he threatened to sue Dr. Bob and it was important to remind him of this? Or did he go against his past word in his current post? Do you want to be sure that he never forgets he once wanted to sue Dr. Bob?
> > What do you get out of doing it? Do you have a purpose in doing it? Do you believe that people have forgotten what they've said before and need reminding? Or, is there a larger point that I just don't grasp? I'm curious because you have done the same thing to me (the 'you previously said' thing), and it just felt like a poke.
>
> And what did you just do? Didn't you remind me of something I said in a previous post?.......No. I said you had brought up the past to me before; I described a behavior, an action you took.
.......I did not take something you'd previously said and indicate that you were saying the opposite now, or a different thing now. I did not say "well, one time you said this, and now you're saying that." I find that type of statement so rarely useful in any meaningful way I typically make a point of avoiding it. I see it as an obstacle to an honest exchange of ideas. Of course, an honest exchange of ideas is not always the goal in a conversation.
>>You'll find it an inescapable and necessary part of dialogue. Almost every bit of writing on this board discusses something someone previously said.
.......I find a difference in writing "when you said that, I felt this" or "when you wrote about that, it reminded me of this experience" versus "one time you said this, but now you're saying a different thing." One more closely approaches dialog than the other.
>>>And I don't need to ask what your purpose is for doing it. I don't think you should need to question mine.
.......I agree, I shouldn't "need" to question your purpose. I may not even have the "right" to do it. I was wondering, however, so I asked.
>>They are exactly the same.
........I am truly shocked that you believe they are exactly the same, that you cannot see a difference.
>> I believe I also said that I didn't think it was fair of you to have called the posters who chose to leave "selfish," and I asked you to look at it with a little more compassion>>You didn't respond to that.
........Ok, let's see if we can put this one to bed. When you said that, I thought 'hmmm, I called people selfish?' I don't usually call people names, period. I looked for, and could not find, a post in which I called people who left selfish, but it did not seem worth arguing over. I found your statement to be inaccurate.
.....What response was there? I didn't agree with your assessment regarding fairness and compassion. I could have said so, we could rehash words and phrases, begin a flurry of posts, do some mind-reading, argue over semantics, other people could weigh in, we could have ambushes and trick questions, there could be much cutting and pasting from past posts, a plethora of pitfalls waiting to embrace all participants...and, frankly, that seemed like a lot more energy than I wanted to expend.
.......The long and short of the thing is, I said what I thought and felt, you said what you thought and felt. You thought I was unfair, and should be more compassionate. I didn’t agree with you. Beyond this sort of “bottom line” approach, there is not a lot to say, in my opinion. It comes down to, in my opinion, a willingness to accept or not accept that a person feels a certain way or believes a certain thing. I bet it would be really hard to sway you from your opinion that I was unfair, no matter what I said. The point is, to me, it is not my job to try to change you or your position or belief.
>> And Ron has never responded when several of us asked him why he continued to threaten Dr. Bob with an investigation of his site by lawyers.
.......why. I guess I wonder what kind of answer there is to that question. Why he did it. Would any explanation, beyond his obviously being upset, be satisfactory? And, when he says something supportive about the site, what does it accomplish to then remind him that a while back he threatened to sue Dr. Bob?>>That's your right and his. But unanswered concerns like that often lead to bad feelings.
.......very unfortunate, that is. I am very at ease with our having our own different perspectives, even if I disagree with yours, or don’t understand your position on an issue or a conclusion you reach. I still accept that you feel that way, and still can be comfortable with you. I was eventually saddened that the difference in our opinions ended up making such a difference in how we would relate to each other.
>>It's sort of like being snubbed by someone at a party and running into that person somewhere else. The face often triggers a bad feeling before the memory of the incident even returns.>> I hope this answers your questions.
.......Well, your response sort of went hither and yon, but, more importantly, whether it answers the questions or not, I accept that this is the answer you want to give.
Shar
> beardy
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 1, 2002, at 9:07:14
In reply to Re: Oh but beardy » beardedlady, posted by shar on August 1, 2002, at 0:11:48
> I did not take something you'd previously said and indicate that you were saying the opposite now, or a different thing now. I did not say "well, one time you said this, and now you're saying that." I find that type of statement so rarely useful in any meaningful way I typically make a point of avoiding it. I see it as an obstacle to an honest exchange of ideas. Of course, an honest exchange of ideas is not always the goal in a conversation.
> I find a difference in writing "when you said that, I felt this" or "when you wrote about that, it reminded me of this experience" versus "one time you said this, but now you're saying a different thing." One more closely approaches dialog than the other.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, thanks.
Bob
Posted by shar on August 1, 2002, at 11:58:02
In reply to Re: please be civil » shar, posted by Dr. Bob on August 1, 2002, at 9:07:14
awww, doc. Jes tryin to explain in the clearest terms possible, the difference between one type of question and dialog, and another. I was going for clarity, not incivility. I would hope I could do MUCH better than that if my aim was incivility. I didn't even point it out when I was insulted, once again!! Maybe it is part of the fun of hit and run to stir things up and then enjoy the aftermath.
I am surprised that you thought my post was not civil. The whole point of it, of course, was how little good it does to keep at people once they've had their say, and it seems more mature to let people feel what they feel--which seems like the approach you would WANT on this board...as opposed to the practice of sandbagging people with their past, and perhaps inconsistent, statements.
Shar
Posted by beardedlady on August 1, 2002, at 13:38:27
In reply to Re: please be civil » shar, posted by Dr. Bob on August 1, 2002, at 9:07:14
> Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, thanks.
I didn't see the accusation or put down, but I am really high up, so I might have missed it.
beardy
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 2, 2002, at 13:10:33
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by shar on August 1, 2002, at 11:58:02
> I would hope I could do MUCH better than that if my aim was incivility.
Did I imply that I thought your aim was incivility?
> Maybe it is part of the fun of hit and run to stir things up and then enjoy the aftermath.
Fun like that I wish people would go elsewhere for...
> it seems more mature to let people feel what they feel
People are always free to *feel* what they feel.
Bob
Posted by shar on August 3, 2002, at 2:55:42
In reply to Re: civility, posted by Dr. Bob on August 2, 2002, at 13:10:33
> > I would hope I could do MUCH better than that if my aim was incivility.
>
> Did I imply that I thought your aim was incivility?.........No, you implied that I WAS 'incivil' by saying 'please be civil.' Your private thoughts on the matter of whether you believed my aim was incivility were not expressed. Of course, I disagree that I was incivil. And, the logical extension of that thought was that if I was going to be incivil it would be MUCH easier to spot and MUCH more obvious.
>
> > Maybe it is part of the fun of hit and run to stir things up and then enjoy the aftermath.
>
> Fun like that I wish people would go elsewhere for...
>
.........as do I. We are in complete agreement here.> > it seems more mature to let people feel what they feel
>
> People are always free to *feel* what they feel.
>
........true, true, existentially speaking. It does, however, take a certain amount of maturity on the part of OTHERS to let people be about how they feel, to not harass them over and over about it. Key word, I suppose is "let" as in "allow" or as in "leave people alone" to be in their own spot about an issue, even if it is one that somebody else disapproves of or dislikes or is uncomfortable with or does not understand..........I won't be the next to say I'm leaving, tho at times like this it is tempting.
Shar
> Bob
.........You still have my strong support for the work you do here, and what you offer this community. PB in all its incarnations has saved lives, and kudos to you for that.
Posted by Dinah on August 3, 2002, at 6:28:25
In reply to Re: civility, posted by shar on August 3, 2002, at 2:55:42
>
> .........I won't be the next to say I'm leaving, tho at times like this it is tempting.
>
> Shar
>Good for you, Shar. I'm not making any comments about anyone else here or anywhere else, just expressing admiration for your attitude. One of the best things I've learned in therapy is to try not to run when there is trouble in a relationship (and I think most of us have some sort of relationship with this board), but to try to work things out.
Standard disclaimer - That of course doesn't apply if it is an abusive relationship, so probably our individual views of Dr. Bob's intentions and the worth of this board would influence a person's decision.
Posted by beardedlady on August 3, 2002, at 8:39:04
In reply to Re: civility, posted by shar on August 3, 2002, at 2:55:42
>Shar: Maybe it is part of the fun of hit and run to stir things up and then enjoy the aftermath.
>Bob: Fun like that I wish people would go elsewhere for...
>Shar: as do I. We are in complete agreement here.Your implication here is that it's something I enjoy. You are wrong.
>Shar: it seems more mature to let people feel what they feel
>Bob: People are always free to *feel* what they feel.
>Shar: true, true, existentially speaking. It does, however, take a certain amount of maturity on the part of OTHERS to let >>
>people be about how they feel, to not harass them over and over about it. Key word, I suppose is "let" as in "allow" or as in >"leave people alone" to be in their own spot about an issue, even if it is one that somebody else disapproves of or dislikes or >is uncomfortable with or does not understand.I don't really appreciate this holier-than-thou attitude. You are no better than those you accuse. You reminded me of something I said in a post, just as I reminded someone else. Whether you were absolutely specific or quoted verbatim or were vague, you did the same thing. Call it what you want, disguise it as something else, but put your finger down. I'm tired of having it pointed at me.
I wasn't harassing anyone "over and over" about something. But it seems that you are harassing me (however indirectly in this specific post) over and over about this. I would like you to stop now.
Posted by Phil on August 3, 2002, at 11:13:18
In reply to NOW I'm offended. » shar, posted by beardedlady on August 3, 2002, at 8:39:04
I know Shar and feel like I know beardy and I bet , if all babblers got together, you two would be very close. I'm b*llsh*tting here but I really do believe that.
Please, in the name of Lou Pilder, the son, and the holy ghost, be nice. If I'm staying, y'all are staying. Please???? I can't be civil w/o y'all.
Okay, damnit. I'll sing Barry ManiloYou know I Can't Smile Without You,
I Can't Smile Without You, VOMIT
I can't laugh
and I can't sing,
I'm findin' it hard to do anything.YOU SINGING SPACEPOD
You see, I feel sad when you're sad,
I feel glad when you're glad,
If You only knew what I'm going through, hURL
I just Can't Smile Without You.
You came along just like a song sOUNDS LIKE A tIDE COMMERCIAL
and brightened my day, WE GOT YOUR BRIGHT DAY IN TEXAS, HOLMES..
Who'd've believe that you were part of a dream
Now it all seems light years away. DRY HEAVES
And now you know I Can't Smile WIthout You,
I Can't Smile Without You,
I can't laugh and I can't sing,
I'm finding it hard to do anything.
You see, I feel sad when you're sad, SICK CODEPENDENT MUSIC
I feel glad when you're glad,
If you only knew what I"m going through,(LOTS OF MONEY)
I just can't smile.
Now some people say happiness takes so very long to find. TELL US SOMETHING WE DON'T KNOW, LARRY!
Well I'm finding it hard leaving your love behind me. WHAT THE HECK DOES THAT MEAN?
And you see, sHE'S DATING YOU bARRY, OBVIOUSLY NOT
I Can't Smile Without You,
I Can't Smile Without You,
I can't laugh
and I can't sing,
I'm findin' it hard to SCREW anything.
You see, I feel sad when you're sad,
I feel glad when you're glad,
If You only knew what I'm going through,(SEX CHANGE)
I just Can't Smile Without You.hIS REAL LYRICS
I can't smile without you
Can't dance, can't sing (you did fair on mandy larry.)
I'm jerkin real hard but not
Producing a Thing!! (Zappa)
Posted by shar on August 3, 2002, at 11:18:59
In reply to NOW I'm offended. » shar, posted by beardedlady on August 3, 2002, at 8:39:04
I don't think I can really respond to anything that you said to me in your post. A response would undoubtedly get me in trouble! Plus, just be a rehash of something I've already gotten in trouble for! That is a two-fer I'll happily pass on.
I, too, am offended by the behaviors you describe, which is how this whole thing got started (the finger-pointing part was particularly on target).
Shar
Posted by Dinah on August 3, 2002, at 11:48:54
In reply to Please go to your corners wait for the bell, posted by Phil on August 3, 2002, at 11:13:18
Posted by judy1 on August 3, 2002, at 11:49:28
In reply to My post to Dr. Bob » beardedlady, posted by shar on August 3, 2002, at 11:18:59
Posted by Phil on August 3, 2002, at 13:12:05
In reply to Hey! Leave my darlin' Barry out of it!!! :) (nm) » Phil, posted by Dinah on August 3, 2002, at 11:48:54
Somewhere I found the road
I look back now and wonder why
When you're tipping the scales at 255.Somehow I found this load
I knew I should have rocked out hard
It would have been me and Pam
Not this tub of lardSomewhere down the road
I hope you come to see
that you
belong
to anyone
But meLetting go
I think about you night and day
And no doctor will do
a lo-bot-o-mae
All in good fun<((:-{D))
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 4, 2002, at 0:16:37
In reply to NOW I'm offended. » shar, posted by beardedlady on August 3, 2002, at 8:39:04
> I don't really appreciate this holier-than-thou attitude.
>
> it seems that you are harassing me (however indirectly in this specific post) over and over about this.Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. I've asked you please to be civil before, so now I need to block you from posting for a week.
Bob
Posted by wendy b. on August 5, 2002, at 11:32:46
In reply to Re: blocked for week » beardedlady, posted by Dr. Bob on August 4, 2002, at 0:16:37
> > I don't really appreciate this holier-than-thou attitude.
> >
> > it seems that you are harassing me (however indirectly in this specific post) over and over about this.
>
> Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. I've asked you please to be civil before, so now I need to block you from posting for a week.
>
> Bob
>
>
Dear Bob,None of what Beardedlady posted was any more accusatory or more of a put-down than anything else going on in that conversation. She is feeling unfairly treated, as did I last week, when I was blocked. She was never warned, either, in this thread (that I can find), just blocked. Why?
As respectfully as possible,
Wendy
Posted by SandraDee on August 5, 2002, at 17:05:34
In reply to Re: protest re - Beardedlady's blocking » Dr. Bob, posted by wendy b. on August 5, 2002, at 11:32:46
I agree with the unfairness... why do you warn sometimes and other times just head straight for the chopping block?? It's not very easy to follow the rules when they seem to change.
Posted by Dinah on August 5, 2002, at 17:35:31
In reply to Re: protest re - Beardedlady's blocking, posted by SandraDee on August 5, 2002, at 17:05:34
The PBC and the block do not have to be on the same thread. Sometimes they can be a good period of time apart. I believe that there is just a sequence and that Dr. Bob probably keeps track of everyone's status on a spreadsheet somewhere. PBC, block 1 week, block 2 weeks, block 4 weeks, etc.
I have seen him issues multiple PBC's before giving a block, or PBC's after a block instead of a longer block. I guess he sometimes uses administrative discretion on the side of mercy. But I've never seen him go directly to a block without a warning (somewhere at some time), even for the most egregious offenses. I imagine he has other considerations as well, like overall tone of recent posts, etc. So if you've ever received a PBC, you have the risk of being blocked at your next violation, if you've ever been blocked, you might not receive a PBC first next time, etc. But you might.
I'm not sure I'm perfectly accurate in this description, and I'm not sure if it answers your question, but it's what I've observed over time.
Posted by shar on August 5, 2002, at 20:34:55
In reply to Re: blocked for week » beardedlady, posted by Dr. Bob on August 4, 2002, at 0:16:37
As Dr. Bob stated in his post to Beardedlady:
>I've asked you please to be civil before, so now I need to block you from posting for a week.
>
> Bob
>
>
This is the end of the 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.