![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 16 to 40 of 60. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2005, at 10:17:28
In reply to Re: Very clever, Lou :-)- » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2005, at 10:10:41
"I'm Movin On" was recorded by Hank Snow, not Hank Williams. My apologys. The song is somewhat about a locomotive.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2005, at 15:06:42
In reply to Re: list of criteria » Dr. Bob, posted by malthus on January 21, 2005, at 6:12:03
There is a suggestion that one post directly to the poster vs posting to a third party,(directly to you)is not supportive.
Well, I tried that and there is a large body of objections to me requesting clarification about what someone wrote either to me or about something relevant to me in the archives. I do agree that to post directly has its merits, but I also think that there is the potential for conflict because of the potential for there to be confrontation.
OTOH, posting to the admin. board has also posts objecting to that in the archives.
I propose the following:
That there be appointed 12 spacific deputys in charge of objections to posts by other posters. The deputys will have 1 hour to respond to an email to the objection or request for a determination. Each deputy could have their own specialty and be on call durring their 2 hour convieniant times to answer objections to posts.
They will reply accordingly and there could be an appeal to Dr. Hsiung. I can think of many posters here that have particular expertise in distinct areas to handle calls for objections by other posters. I think that this has the potential to prevent confrontation and at the same time avoid the admin. board to have it there. Am I on the right track?
Lou
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 21, 2005, at 15:20:42
In reply to Lou's reply to Fallen-alswelthtedswel » Fallen4MyT, posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2005, at 5:01:47
You are very welcome Lou I am glad Dr Bob replied to you too :)
> Fallen,
> You wrote,[...Lou was serious...a reply from Dr....].
> Dr. Hsiung has replied and agrees that a list could be something here that could be explored. Someone said it,[...all's well that ends well...].
> Thanks for your considerate post to me.
> Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2005, at 15:34:30
In reply to Lous' response to -list of criteria-24/7, posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2005, at 15:06:42
Friends,
I am retracting my suggestion because:
A. I do not think that to have a person take a 2-hour shift, 7 days a week could be expected.
B. The replying in 1 hour would be too difficult to do if many posts were presented to the deputy
C. What if there are not 12 posters here that could volunteer?
D. The decisions could be appealed which leaves Dr.Hsiung to be the final authority so that any decision could still have to be determined by him anyway. Now if the deputy's decision was binding, then that could be a different situation. Then appeals could be done on a basis of distinct errors by the deputy and these could be listed as for a grounds to appeal. Lou
Posted by Atticus on January 21, 2005, at 15:40:37
In reply to Re: list of criteria, posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2005, at 1:09:19
Well, toss yet another idea in Dr. Bob's "Terrible Idea" bin. Has it occurred to you that purely humorous posts meant to boost someone's spirits or just stand as banter between two chums that leads both to leave PB in a better mood might be just as valuable as an explicitly "supportive" post? There are many different ways for human beings to interact in a way that is mutually positive for both. I think this idea may be the biggest stinker yet: having people say, "I don't think so-and-so's post is as supportive as another post, and is therefore of lesser value. I prefer to interact with fellow Babblers with poems (not at all supportive -- just pure observation and creative expression) and humour (not "supportive" under the kinds of literal interpretation to which Dr. Bob is prone.) There's no place for me on a Psychobabble that loses all sense of proportion and rates a really good joke lower than a shoulder to cry on. People need both, and IMO, to compare the two is to compare apples and oranges and decide which is superior. For once, Bob, please, don't jump into the pond with both feet until you've thought a proposed idea through. Who wants to see their posts evaluated publicly? I think that's something almost all of us have expressed a distaste for. Atticus
Posted by Atticus on January 21, 2005, at 15:43:54
In reply to jokes are funny but not in admin or under Lou's, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 21, 2005, at 0:02:54
And Lou's gotten a reply from Dr. Bob. I still think this idea smells to high heaven. (And a little humor never hurts to leaven a situation with perspective, I think. See my above post to Bob.) Atticus
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2005, at 15:50:05
In reply to Re: jokes are funny but not in admin or under Lou's » Fallen4MyT, posted by Atticus on January 21, 2005, at 15:43:54
Could someone clarify to me what is meant in the subect line,[...under {Lou's}...] Under Lou's (what)?
Lou
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 21, 2005, at 15:58:58
In reply to Re: jokes are funny but not in admin or under Lou's » Fallen4MyT, posted by Atticus on January 21, 2005, at 15:43:54
. (And a little humor never hurts to leaven a situation with perspective, I think. See my above post to Bob.) Atticus
Wow, I'm really surprised, Gardener already said she knew Lou well enough that she thought it was okay, so that's completely different, but I know if I made a serious request to Dr. Bob that maybe wasn't understood by everyone, but was important to me, and a string of jokes appeared underneath it, from people with whom I wasn't sure where I stood, I would feel humiliated and demeaned.
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 21, 2005, at 15:59:54
In reply to Lou's response to Atticus' post-undrLu, posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2005, at 15:50:05
> Could someone clarify to me what is meant in the subect line,[...under {Lou's}...] Under Lou's (what)?
> LouI think it meant under Lou's request to Dr Bob.
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2005, at 16:04:06
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Atticus' post-undrLu, posted by Gabbix2 on January 21, 2005, at 15:59:54
Gabbix2,
That makes sense. There is a limited amount of space to write in the subject line. I see it .
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 21, 2005, at 16:17:38
In reply to Re: jokes are funny but not in admin or under Lou's » Atticus, posted by Gabbix2 on January 21, 2005, at 15:58:58
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 21, 2005, at 16:19:53
In reply to Lou's response to Atticus' post-undrLu, posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2005, at 15:50:05
Please forget I said anything, it's water under the bridge and really not important enough for me to be raving on about I think I need to go for a walk, yeah, that's it... outside.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 21, 2005, at 17:32:50
In reply to Re: jokes are funny but not in admin or under Lou's » Fallen4MyT, posted by Atticus on January 21, 2005, at 15:43:54
Atticus I agree with you on the "idea" I am totally against it.... I am guilty of MANY ZANY silly posts. I love to lol and sometimes (you are soooo right) it is more needed and cathartic.
I was concerned not that this line of jokes was in Admin but it was under someone's *serious* thread.> And Lou's gotten a reply from Dr. Bob. I still think this idea smells to high heaven. (And a little humor never hurts to leaven a situation with perspective, I think. See my above post to Bob.) Atticus
Posted by malthus on January 21, 2005, at 17:55:37
In reply to Lous' response to -list of criteria-24/7, posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2005, at 15:06:42
> There is a suggestion that one post directly to the poster vs posting to a third party,(directly to you)is not supportive.
> Well, I tried that and there is a large body of objections to me requesting clarification about what someone wrote either to me or about something relevant to me in the archives. I do agree that to post directly has its merits, but I also think that there is the potential for conflict because of the potential for there to be confrontation.
> OTOH, posting to the admin. board has also posts objecting to that in the archives.
> I propose the following:
> That there be appointed 12 spacific deputys in charge of objections to posts by other posters. The deputys will have 1 hour to respond to an email to the objection or request for a determination. Each deputy could have their own specialty and be on call durring their 2 hour convieniant times to answer objections to posts.
> They will reply accordingly and there could be an appeal to Dr. Hsiung. I can think of many posters here that have particular expertise in distinct areas to handle calls for objections by other posters. I think that this has the potential to prevent confrontation and at the same time avoid the admin. board to have it there. Am I on the right track?
> LouAre you directing this question to me Lou? I have struggled with feeling ignored most of my life and continue to. I had reservations about even posting about how ignored I felt in that previous thread. I was afraid nobody would respond to what I said. And that is exactly what happened. Not one poster in this thread has replied to me directly about what I am GENUINELY feeling and that is really hurtful. I'm remembering what it feels like being on the outside looking in and trying to break into a clique. Ugh!! I know this all has roots in my past and that this is an issue I struggle with at work and in my own family. I know I don't post that much but I was hoping for some "mutual support". I am truly fragile and disappointed right now. It's sadly ironic to me that this whole thread is about supporting others in a mental health forum and that I feel the way I do.
malthus
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2005, at 18:09:51
In reply to Re: Lous' response to -list of criteria-24/7, posted by malthus on January 21, 2005, at 17:55:37
Malthus,
You wrote,[...are you directing this question to me,Lou?..] and, [...in that {previous} thread...]. Could you give me the first URL in the {previous} thread that you are referring to?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2005, at 18:19:51
In reply to Re: jokes are funny but not in admin or under Lou's » Atticus, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 21, 2005, at 17:32:50
F4MT,
You wrote,[...was concerned...under someone's serious thread...].
There is a lot to consider in this situation as you point out. Am I to understand that you are considering these type of posts in question to be diverting the thread's initial question and possibly considering them to constitute "shifting the focus"? If you could reply to that , then I could understand if that is what you mean.
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on January 21, 2005, at 18:42:18
In reply to Re: Lous' response to -list of criteria-24/7, posted by malthus on January 21, 2005, at 17:55:37
Ugh, you are right malthus. What happened here seems to be exactly what you described as feeling hurtful to you. I'm sorry your suggestions were overlooked by me, and perhaps others. I admit to suffering from mental laziness right now. I only seem to be posting brief, and usually silly posts, because actually composing something supportive and thoughtful feels like too much. (I'm way behind on work and all I can do in leisure time is veg out.)
My own reaction when I read your post was that your suggestions have some merit. I prefer direct communication myself. I admit to being less enthusiastic about the idea of a published list of criteria for what is considered to be supportive. I think each situation, each poster, and each person who replies contributes something to the end result (a post which may or may not be supportive), and this would make for an almost infinite number of possible supportive responses. And I think what is not supportive is not always clear, either. Some of us are looking for someone to validate our feelings, some of us would like solutions or suggestions for action, and some of us want both or don't know what we are looking for...we just need something.
I think assessing this is more of an art than a science.
warmly,
gg
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 21, 2005, at 19:44:31
In reply to Lou's response to Fallen4MyT's post-shiftfocus? » Fallen4MyT, posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2005, at 18:19:51
Yes Lou I was a little concerned on the focus to your thread and a lot concerned on if it would hurt your feelings..But as I saw you and GG joke on it I feel better and know you were not offended. Right?
> F4MT,
> You wrote,[...was concerned...under someone's serious thread...].
> There is a lot to consider in this situation as you point out. Am I to understand that you are considering these type of posts in question to be diverting the thread's initial question and possibly considering them to constitute "shifting the focus"? If you could reply to that , then I could understand if that is what you mean.
> Lou
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2005, at 20:11:20
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Fallen4MyT's post-shiftfocus? » Lou Pilder, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 21, 2005, at 19:44:31
F4MT,
You wrote,[...and concerned if it would hurt...].
Thanks for putting yourself in my shoes. Is there a concern that the posts in question could have the potential to be considered to constitute a breach of the forum's goals of support and education?
Lou
Posted by Atticus on January 21, 2005, at 21:50:58
In reply to Re: jokes are funny but not in admin or under Lou's » Atticus, posted by Gabbix2 on January 21, 2005, at 15:58:58
Gabbi,
It seems to me that if Lou wasn't offended and clearly understood the humorous intent, it begs the question as to why you insist on being offended on his behalf. I think Lou is more perceptive than you're giving him credit for, and gg and I are both known for snarky, silly posts not meant to hurt anyone. I feel like you're trying to start a disagreement here that didn't exist between Lou and I in the first place. And in any case, if it makes you feel better, I'll make it a point never to respond to any of your posts, lest you don't see the humor. Atticus
Posted by Atticus on January 21, 2005, at 21:59:12
In reply to Re: jokes are funny but not in admin or under Lou's » Atticus, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 21, 2005, at 17:32:50
Yet the question I posed to Gabbi remains: Why pick a fight on behalf of someone who clearly got the jokes by gg and myself, was not offended by them, offered witty responses, and in the end got a serious answer from Dr. Bob before you even posted this. If I were Lou, I might be a bit offended that both you and Gabbi appeared to have such a low opinion of my mental acuity that you felt you had to intervene on my behalf. To me, that's worse than a joke that jiggles a thread a bit. Atticus
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 21, 2005, at 22:00:46
In reply to Re: jokes are funny but not in admin or under Lou's » Gabbix2, posted by Atticus on January 21, 2005, at 21:50:58
> Gabbi,
> It seems to me that if Lou wasn't offended and clearly understood the humorous intent, it begs the question as to why you insist on being offended on his behalf.I had realized what that's what I was doing and that's why I posted a second time to you Atticus, that I needed to get outside, crack open a window or something, maybe my second post didn't come across the way it was intended. It was both an acknowledgement that I was getting in your business, and an awareness that I was making it look like I wasn't giving lou enough credit, something I don't think I'm guilty of, though it did look like that here. I guess what I'm saying is I'm sorry. I goofed.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 21, 2005, at 22:10:23
In reply to Lou's reply to Fallen4MyT-supedu » Fallen4MyT, posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2005, at 20:11:20
Ah heck I dunno Lou I was just not wanting you to feel sad is all
> F4MT,
> You wrote,[...and concerned if it would hurt...].
> Thanks for putting yourself in my shoes. Is there a concern that the posts in question could have the potential to be considered to constitute a breach of the forum's goals of support and education?
> Lou
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 21, 2005, at 22:13:37
In reply to Re: jokes are funny but not in admin or under Lou's » Fallen4MyT, posted by Atticus on January 21, 2005, at 21:59:12
Atticus if you look up way up you will see my post hit before GG's and Lou's banter. I think highly of Lou and would have chili with him any day :)
> Yet the question I posed to Gabbi remains: Why pick a fight on behalf of someone who clearly got the jokes by gg and myself, was not offended by them, offered witty responses, and in the end got a serious answer from Dr. Bob before you even posted this. If I were Lou, I might be a bit offended that both you and Gabbi appeared to have such a low opinion of my mental acuity that you felt you had to intervene on my behalf. To me, that's worse than a joke that jiggles a thread a bit. Atticus
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 21, 2005, at 22:22:23
In reply to Re: jokes are funny but not in admin or under Lou's » Atticus, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 21, 2005, at 22:13:37
If I were Lou, I might be a bit offended that both you and Gabbi appeared to have such a low opinion of my mental acuity that you felt you had to intervene on my behalf.
That's just not true. People have intervened on my behalf before and I've appreciated it, and I've done it for others, it has absolutely nothing to do with my opinion of their mental acuity or vice versa, there are lots of reasons someone might be compelled to do such a thing.
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.