![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 21 to 45 of 73. Go back in thread:
Posted by crushedout on December 14, 2003, at 3:04:38
In reply to Re: yes, posted by kara lynne on December 14, 2003, at 1:52:26
oh my. i just went back to find my original pbc and realized that i had posted to someone *else* whose posts i found offensive. i mixed the two posters up. this is embarrassing.i dunno if that changes your evaluation. here's a link to my most recent post, for which i was blocked.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20031123/msgs/285693.htmlsorry for being a flake. i'm not usually like this, i swear.
> I guess you could just point me to the post with the words that got you pbc'd, and then where you repeated them.
Posted by kara lynne on December 14, 2003, at 12:18:47
In reply to Re: yes, posted by crushedout on December 14, 2003, at 3:04:38
No need to be embarrassed, it gets confusing sometimes. Yes, I saw that post. While I don't think it was block-worthy it seems to be a typical example of a post that will inevitably get blocked: a reasonable reaction to feeling insulted, eg. But what had you said before that that warranted your pbc? Because in that post I still don't understand the specific crime--that you found something 'outrageous and offensive'?
I'm just wondering what rule was violated.
Posted by crushedout on December 14, 2003, at 12:40:16
In reply to Re: yes, posted by kara lynne on December 14, 2003, at 12:18:47
well, my outrage was toward dr. bob, and although to be perfectly frank, he was very opaque in explaining to me why i was blocked (both online and off), it seems that part wasn't what did it. i think it was my assertion that the poster's posts had been offensive and making inappropriate assumptions about people. now, one question that folks haven't addressed is why *i* was blocked and others weren't, when in a later thread, people kind of let him have it way more than i did (you guys know what i'm talking about? i think the thread started as "mind's eye" or something). perhaps the distinction was that he *asked* for the criticism when they did it.
i'm certainly not advocating for those others to *also* be blocked, since i agreed wholeheartedly with what they wrote. i'm just trying to understand why *i* was blocked and they weren't.
my previous pbc was for a much more glaring violation, now that i look back at it. but i was new at the time and didn't understand the rules at all.
here it is, if you must see it (i'm a little embarrassed by it, because i may have been overreacting, but also please remember i was new):
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20031011/msgs/268926.html
(i can't believe i'm laying out my crime history for all to see! i hope this can't be used against me in a court of law.)
> No need to be embarrassed, it gets confusing sometimes. Yes, I saw that post. While I don't think it was block-worthy it seems to be a typical example of a post that will inevitably get blocked: a reasonable reaction to feeling insulted, eg. But what had you said before that that warranted your pbc? Because in that post I still don't understand the specific crime--that you found something 'outrageous and offensive'?
>
> I'm just wondering what rule was violated.
Posted by crushedout on December 14, 2003, at 12:47:44
In reply to Re: yes » kara lynne, posted by crushedout on December 14, 2003, at 12:40:16
i also for the life of me cannot understand why the poster that offended me (and so many others) was never told to be civil. i think that really makes no sense. especially since he attacked dinah directly, accusing her of "grumbling and obligatory thinking," whatever that means. to make yourself vulnerable on this site and then be criticized directly by someone that doesn't even know you seems like it should violate the rules.right now i'm so mad at dr. bob that i can't bring myself to respond to his email asking me if he was "missing something." hello. yes, he was.
> well, my outrage was toward dr. bob, and although to be perfectly frank, he was very opaque in explaining to me why i was blocked (both online and off), it seems that part wasn't what did it. i think it was my assertion that the poster's posts had been offensive and making inappropriate assumptions about people. now, one question that folks haven't addressed is why *i* was blocked and others weren't, when in a later thread, people kind of let him have it way more than i did (you guys know what i'm talking about? i think the thread started as "mind's eye" or something). perhaps the distinction was that he *asked* for the criticism when they did it.
>
> i'm certainly not advocating for those others to *also* be blocked, since i agreed wholeheartedly with what they wrote. i'm just trying to understand why *i* was blocked and they weren't.
>
> my previous pbc was for a much more glaring violation, now that i look back at it. but i was new at the time and didn't understand the rules at all.
>
> here it is, if you must see it (i'm a little embarrassed by it, because i may have been overreacting, but also please remember i was new):
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20031011/msgs/268926.html
>
> (i can't believe i'm laying out my crime history for all to see! i hope this can't be used against me in a court of law.)
>
> > No need to be embarrassed, it gets confusing sometimes. Yes, I saw that post. While I don't think it was block-worthy it seems to be a typical example of a post that will inevitably get blocked: a reasonable reaction to feeling insulted, eg. But what had you said before that that warranted your pbc? Because in that post I still don't understand the specific crime--that you found something 'outrageous and offensive'?
> >
> > I'm just wondering what rule was violated.
>
>
Posted by kara lynne on December 14, 2003, at 13:22:07
In reply to one more mini-rant (please bear with me), posted by crushedout on December 14, 2003, at 12:47:44
"grumbling and obligatory thinking,"
That got to me too! I don't know why that wasn't addressed.
As for being embarrassed, I still wouldn't be. You were new and didn't know the drill. And as you can see, we're all still trying to figure it out.
Posted by NikkiT2 on December 14, 2003, at 14:14:36
In reply to Re: yes » kara lynne, posted by crushedout on December 14, 2003, at 12:40:16
You weren't blocked for your comments.
What you were blocked for, was repeating the comments after having been asked not to (as thats what a PBC really is)..
Thats why YOU were blocked and others weren't. Other didn't repeat what they had said after being asked not to.
It's quite easy really to follow the rules. When ever I have been PBC'd or blocked, I knew full well that it was coming and I had made that choice to use the words I had used and to face the consequences.
Nikki
Posted by NikkiT2 on December 14, 2003, at 14:16:39
In reply to one more mini-rant (please bear with me), posted by crushedout on December 14, 2003, at 12:47:44
Well, Dr Bob is a busy man, he cannot be expected to notice everything. He has a full time job, and life.. I don;t work but don't have time to look at every single post made here.
Plus he has the administrative side to deal with.
I think some people here expect way too much of him.
And wasn't Dr Rod PBC'd for his comments??
Nikki
Posted by crushedout on December 14, 2003, at 14:22:02
In reply to Re: yes » crushedout, posted by NikkiT2 on December 14, 2003, at 14:14:36
but that doesn't make sense because then the others would have at least gotten PBC'd and they didn't.
and, it turns out (because i'm a dork), that i wasn't repeating anything. i thought i was, but in fact, it had been a totally separate conversation with a different poster for which i was pbc'd.
> You weren't blocked for your comments.
>
> What you were blocked for, was repeating the comments after having been asked not to (as thats what a PBC really is)..
>
> Thats why YOU were blocked and others weren't. Other didn't repeat what they had said after being asked not to.
>
> It's quite easy really to follow the rules. When ever I have been PBC'd or blocked, I knew full well that it was coming and I had made that choice to use the words I had used and to face the consequences.
>
> Nikki
Posted by crushedout on December 14, 2003, at 14:32:26
In reply to Re: one more mini-rant (please bear with me) » crushedout, posted by NikkiT2 on December 14, 2003, at 14:16:39
> And wasn't Dr Rod PBC'd for his comments??
absolutely not. that was my whole point. he was asked what kind of doctor he was, and when he didn't respond, was told he had to re-register with a different name. he was never asked to be civil in relation to his comments to dinah.
Posted by stjames on December 14, 2003, at 16:00:19
In reply to Re: one more mini-rant (please bear with me) » crushedout, posted by NikkiT2 on December 14, 2003, at 14:16:39
> Well, Dr Bob is a busy man, he cannot be expected to notice everything. He has a full time job, and life.. I don;t work but don't have time to look at every single post made here.
>
> Plus he has the administrative side to deal with.
>
> I think some people here expect way too much of him.
>
> And wasn't Dr Rod PBC'd for his comments??
>
> NikkiWhile I agree totally with what you say, in this case it was well pointed out to Dr Bob the issues others had with Dr Rod.
Posted by kara lynne on December 14, 2003, at 16:45:49
In reply to Re: yes, posted by crushedout on December 14, 2003, at 14:22:02
-and, it turns out (because i'm a dork), that i wasn't repeating anything. i thought i was, but in fact, it had been a totally separate conversation with a different poster for which i was pbc'd.-
so I still am, as I originally was, confused about why *exactly* you were blocked.
I also never saw Dr. Rod get civilized over that comment to Dinah.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 14, 2003, at 18:22:15
In reply to one more mini-rant (please bear with me), posted by crushedout on December 14, 2003, at 12:47:44
> he attacked dinah directly, accusing her of "grumbling and obligatory thinking," whatever that means.
In which post did he do that? Sorry if I missed something...
Bob
Posted by crushedout on December 14, 2003, at 18:33:26
In reply to Re: grumbling and obligatory thinking, posted by Dr. Bob on December 14, 2003, at 18:22:15
> > he attacked dinah directly, accusing her of "grumbling and obligatory thinking," whatever that means.
>
> In which post did he do that? Sorry if I missed something...
>
> Bobright here:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20031123/msgs/284894.html
but that's only the tip of the iceberg, dr. bob. you missed a lot more than that.
see the "mind's eye" thread, shortly after that one, and especially the following summary of comments that at least one person pointed out as having great potential to touch nerves (i'm trying to put this gently):
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20031202/msgs/286082.html
please don't block joslyn for this. i'm really not interested in getting her in trouble. just in getting you to see what the problem is.
crushed
Posted by crushedout on December 14, 2003, at 18:38:57
In reply to Re: grumbling and obligatory thinking, posted by Dr. Bob on December 14, 2003, at 18:22:15
> > he attacked dinah directly, accusing her of "grumbling and obligatory thinking," whatever that means.
>
> In which post did he do that? Sorry if I missed something...
>
> BobAdmittedly, Dr. Rod seemed fairly receptive to this criticism and seems to be mending his ways (i'm actually not sure if this is true since i stopped reading his posts awhile ago). But if that's an option (getting verbally schooled by other posters rather than being PBC'd or blocked), i should have been given that same opportunity. Which is why I've been annoyed with you. You've been oblivious to this inequity, despite my repeatedly trying to point it out to you.
Posted by kara lynne on December 14, 2003, at 19:12:36
In reply to Re: grumbling and obligatory thinking, posted by Dr. Bob on December 14, 2003, at 18:22:15
Posted by crushedout on December 14, 2003, at 19:15:13
In reply to grumbling, obligatory thinking/Thanks Dr. Bob (nm), posted by kara lynne on December 14, 2003, at 19:12:36
kara lynne,
can i ask what you're thanking him for?
just wondering.
crushed
Posted by kara lynne on December 14, 2003, at 21:04:21
In reply to Re: grumbling, obligatory thinking/Thanks Dr. Bob » kara lynne, posted by crushedout on December 14, 2003, at 19:15:13
He said he missed it before and would look into it.
Posted by crushedout on December 14, 2003, at 21:10:12
In reply to Re: grumbling, obligatory thinking/Thanks Dr. Bob, posted by kara lynne on December 14, 2003, at 21:04:21
> He said he missed it before and would look into it.
oh ok. thanks.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 15, 2003, at 8:36:39
In reply to Re: grumbling and obligatory thinking » Dr. Bob, posted by crushedout on December 14, 2003, at 18:33:26
> > > he attacked dinah directly, accusing her of "grumbling and obligatory thinking," whatever that means.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20031123/msgs/284894.htmlYes, there he says:
> Your grumbling and obligatory thinking cloud your vision from seeing this truth about yourself...
I think I see what you mean about the phrase you quoted, and maybe it was a mistake to let it go, but FWIW, he did qualify what he said:
> your story sounds much like this... This is my experienced guess...
And also I'm not sure the gist of it was really an "attack", since the "truth" he was referring to was:
> You will be whole when you know you are "enough" to handle tomorrow better than you handled yesterday... What you are reluctant to accept is that you've always been "enough"...
Which I think was pretty supportive...
Bob
Posted by crushedout on December 15, 2003, at 9:05:32
In reply to Re: grumbling and obligatory thinking, posted by Dr. Bob on December 15, 2003, at 8:36:39
Bob,I really think you're splitting hairs. What do the civility rules say? "could lead others to feel accused or put down," right? that's very broad. and dinah DID feel put down, I reckon. and MANY of us had alarm bells going off, so why aren't yours?
You should just admit you were wrong. This is ridiculous.
crushed
> > > > he attacked dinah directly, accusing her of "grumbling and obligatory thinking," whatever that means.
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20031123/msgs/284894.html
>
> Yes, there he says:
>
> > Your grumbling and obligatory thinking cloud your vision from seeing this truth about yourself...
>
> I think I see what you mean about the phrase you quoted, and maybe it was a mistake to let it go, but FWIW, he did qualify what he said:
>
> > your story sounds much like this... This is my experienced guess...
>
> And also I'm not sure the gist of it was really an "attack", since the "truth" he was referring to was:
>
> > You will be whole when you know you are "enough" to handle tomorrow better than you handled yesterday... What you are reluctant to accept is that you've always been "enough"...
>
> Which I think was pretty supportive...
>
> Bob
Posted by Dinah on December 15, 2003, at 9:06:50
In reply to Re: grumbling and obligatory thinking, posted by Dr. Bob on December 15, 2003, at 8:36:39
Supportive? Well, this is why I stayed out of this, and why I wish you had too, Dr. Bob. Now I have to deal with my feelings of intense anger and betrayal and hurt again, Dr. Bob. And I don't have time for that right now.
That you found that post not unsupportive was quite bad enough, Dr. Bob. That you find it supportive is well nigh unbearable.
I was accused of being delusional:
"Memories acquired in a delusional or dissociated state will be a mixture of real and imagined... Sad to say that your story sounds much like this... You witnessed part of it, delusions filled in some,"
I was told I had an undisciplined and impulsive mind. (And yes, I know he didn't say "you have a" but why would it be included if that wasn't the implication.
"Sometimes the quest for knowing "why" serves as a distraction for the undisciplined impulsive mind"
And the fact that he says I am "enough" does not in any way make up for "Your grumbling and obligatory thinking cloud your vision".
The only way I feel I can even continue to post here is because you are enforcing the do not post rule. I feel sorry for those you refuse to enforce that rule for because they have to be be the recipient of such a "supportive" post before they can invoke the rule.
I am halfway inclined to ask *you* never to post to me again, so I'd better get away from the computer for a while.
Geez, Dr. Bob. Do you think you can hurt me worse?
Posted by crushedout on December 15, 2003, at 9:11:43
In reply to Re: grumbling and obligatory thinking » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on December 15, 2003, at 9:06:50
if it helps any, as i'm sure you've gathered, i share your rage, dinah. and not just because i feel like i was punished unfairly.
> Supportive? Well, this is why I stayed out of this, and why I wish you had too, Dr. Bob. Now I have to deal with my feelings of intense anger and betrayal and hurt again, Dr. Bob. And I don't have time for that right now.
>
> That you found that post not unsupportive was quite bad enough, Dr. Bob. That you find it supportive is well nigh unbearable.
>
> I was accused of being delusional:
>
> "Memories acquired in a delusional or dissociated state will be a mixture of real and imagined... Sad to say that your story sounds much like this... You witnessed part of it, delusions filled in some,"
>
> I was told I had an undisciplined and impulsive mind. (And yes, I know he didn't say "you have a" but why would it be included if that wasn't the implication.
>
> "Sometimes the quest for knowing "why" serves as a distraction for the undisciplined impulsive mind"
>
> And the fact that he says I am "enough" does not in any way make up for "Your grumbling and obligatory thinking cloud your vision".
>
> The only way I feel I can even continue to post here is because you are enforcing the do not post rule. I feel sorry for those you refuse to enforce that rule for because they have to be be the recipient of such a "supportive" post before they can invoke the rule.
>
> I am halfway inclined to ask *you* never to post to me again, so I'd better get away from the computer for a while.
>
> Geez, Dr. Bob. Do you think you can hurt me worse?
Posted by stjames on December 15, 2003, at 12:19:53
In reply to Re: grumbling and obligatory thinking, posted by Dr. Bob on December 15, 2003, at 8:36:39
How did this help, Dr Bob ?
Posted by stjames on December 15, 2003, at 12:44:03
In reply to Re: grumbling and obligatory thinking, posted by stjames on December 15, 2003, at 12:19:53
Posted by kara lynne on December 15, 2003, at 15:19:53
In reply to Re: grumbling and obligatory thinking » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on December 15, 2003, at 9:06:50
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.