![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 267 to 291 of 536. Go back in thread:
Posted by Angel Girl on February 2, 2005, at 17:19:30
In reply to ps » Angel Girl, posted by alexandra_k on February 2, 2005, at 17:03:57
>
>
> >And what about Lou who walked away from that situation with absolutely nothing. Was that fair to me?
>
> When you accept an apology from someone then you are supposed to let it go.
>
> Lou apologised to you. You vaccilated a lot between 'I know he didn't mean it' and blaming him for your hurt. I followed the threads.
>
> He offered to alter the header if he could.
> He was asked to consider how posters may respond to his headers.
>
> IMO you didn't show any regard for Lou's feelings until you realised that that wasn't winning you any friends.
>
> It is ok. I block myself.
The only comment that I'm going to make in regards to all of yours comments is that I am very offended. I'm not even going to defend your comments even though my opinion differs from yours.AG
Posted by Angel Girl on February 2, 2005, at 17:21:35
In reply to ps » Angel Girl, posted by alexandra_k on February 2, 2005, at 17:03:57
One more comment. Please don't ever post to me again and I will extend to you the same courtesy. This also includes babblemail.
Thanks,
AG
Posted by Fallen4MyT on February 2, 2005, at 18:26:27
In reply to Re: is it a rabbit?/ Dr Bob ...Alex..Dinah??? » Fallen4MyT, posted by alexandra_k on February 2, 2005, at 15:34:10
<<>I have never seen one like Atticus or AG or even Susan 47 received ....could someone explain this tome so that I may understand why being the same way as in not civil is gentle to one and not to many???
I think context is relevant here…
I was trying really hard to see things another way…
But (due to my lack of empathy) I could not.
Dr Bob offered me another way to view that and I accept that way of viewing it.
I never intended to hurt.
I didn’t speak out of anger.
I didn't intend to attack or accuse.
And I do think he is making a special effort to be sensitive lately.>>
And Alex you may have a point here on Dr Bob and TRYING to make an effort since the AG issue. However, I do not think when she said it was insenitive of you know who...to post that by her name that she was meaning to be hurtful either IN FACT she was clearly trying very hard to use I STATEMENTS as not to harm. Understand I do NOT want you to be blocked of block yourself..hey I am leaving on friday but I DO think being fair to all means ALL and I would like to see that for ALL. I know you were on that stuck up and made a poll for AG and I think that was very nice...I do see how some posters can honestly say "I never intended to hurt.
I didn’t speak out of anger.
I didn't intend to attack or accuse." and they still got a block I am bothered by that and NOT YOU as a person.
Posted by Angel Girl on February 2, 2005, at 19:16:43
In reply to Re: is it a rabbit?/ Is this a PBS or ?? - Dr. Bob » alexandra_k, posted by Angel Girl on February 2, 2005, at 17:16:24
> > I hereby block myself from posting to Babble for a week.
> >
> > One week because it is my first offence.
> >
> > Fair is fair, right?
>
>
> Why are you attaching my post to this plea to Dr Bob. Did I say you should be blocked. All I said was I wanted equal punishment for equal crimes. Treat us all the same. In fact, I stated I didn't want to see you blocked and this was not about you personally, I feel that . damn, I don't know how to use the dam *I* statement to make my point.
>
> AG
Dr. Bob, I'm sorry for my frustration in trying to find the right way to use an *I* statement. I've made it very clear that I still do not understand it.Maybe, I will replace what I said with:
I feel frustrated and misunderstood. <-------- Is that ok?
It is not my intention to see Alexandra get blocked, it never was. I guess I didn't convey that well enough.
AG
AG
Posted by alexandra_k on February 2, 2005, at 20:15:45
In reply to Re: is it a rabbit?/ Is this a PBS or ?? - Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on February 2, 2005, at 16:58:51
Things are getting a bit too heated and intense for me.
Maybe I'll get a block, maybe I won't.
At this point all I can say is 'whatever'.
Last remark:
Angel Girl - Atticus protested against the automated asterisking system. His protest was to turn it off because he felt he was perfectly capable of inserting his own asterisks.
Dr Bob replied that it was a safety net and that he could turn it off but if he swore he would be blocked.
Atticus turned it off and at that point chose to accept the consequences of 'unintentionally' swearing without asterisks.
The words c*nt and f*ck unasterisked are not appropriate to this site. There were a few boo boo's when the automated system was first set up. I was just fooling around but I stopped once I realised that some people really are offended.
I know that you weren't trying to get me blocked. But I feel bad that people would suggest that I am getting special treatment. I feel guilty and I am not sure what for.
Maybe Dr Bob made a bit of a boo boo in your case. I don't know. But once you started acting out then there was no way the block could have been rethought without reinforcing your acting out.
I don't have a problem with people expressing their emotions. I don't have a problem with you expressing your emotions. But when they are SO VERY INTENSE and that intensity is so very constant then that is something that I personally find really hard to refrain from reacting too. That is my failing. I appreciate that. But I see the cycle being played out over and over and over and I don't want to be part of it anymore. I have to jump off it for my own mental health. I can't cope with it anymore.
And that tells me that I need a break.
I think it would be a good idea if we do not post to each other.
I am sorry if I have hurt you.
I just can't deal with this anymore.
I do need a break.
Posted by JahL on February 2, 2005, at 21:14:48
In reply to Re: gated communities, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2005, at 3:55:29
Hi Dr B.
It's been a while.
I don't have the time or motivation to read through this entire thread but I think I get the gist.
I certainly don't want to become involved in any 'heated debate' - I know why this issue arrouses emotions so - because the ease with which I can misconstrue the comments of others means I quickly become personally involved. Not good for anyone.
Aaaaaannyyyway. I'm essentially with Dinah & co. on this one.
You and I discussed something similar a few years back; the introduction of the Faith Board. I argued that you were giving in to the politically correct (you to me: 'that's not necessarily a bad thing') protestations of a single board member and that you compromised the integrity of what was essentially a Meds Board.
As a confirmed atheist I was offended that my heartfelt posts about my struggles with Bipolar suddenly became associated with a religious forum. In essence, your ill thought out tinkering scared me off.
Please don't construct segregated communities - we all need to pull together on this one. Imagine the fun us social phobics will have deciding whether to approach a group for membership ('will they all laugh at me?')...
Now I return and I see a whole plethora of boards. Some may serve a purpose but I dunno...
You mention somewhere that this site no longer retains the same wonderful atmosphere it once enjoyed. I agree to a degree. I believe there are a number a reasons for this, one being that your constant tinkering with this site reminds one that it is a research project first and foremost.
The site perhaps now no longer has the same intimate feel to it that was partly created by yourself. You seem much more remote these days. Whereas once you were the friendly patriach, now you appear to me as 'The Master' :-)
I dunno...I just think you should leave well alone. There has been much talk on this site before about 'cliques' forming and your plans seem destined to create even more hurt feeling...
As I say, I've been away a long time and I might not have understood this issue entirely correctly. If not, I apologise. I really don't want to quarrel with anyone - I know passions are running high - I just want to sit back and follow what happens.
Aside from all this Dr B, you know I think you're a top man. I honestly attribute a great deal of my survival up to this point (it hasn't been easy) to PsychoBabble and the endless hours you must put in. Thanks.
Just stop messing about and forget about segregated groups ;-)
Best wishes from the miserable UK,Jah
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 2, 2005, at 23:59:47
In reply to ps » Angel Girl, posted by alexandra_k on February 2, 2005, at 17:03:57
> I thought Lou's actions were insensitive
>
> AG> IMO you didn't show any regard for Lou's feelings until you realised that that wasn't winning you any friends.
>
> alexandra_kMaybe take a moment to reflect on something Sabrina posted at Social?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050202/msgs/451596.html
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. And if someone asks you not to post to them, please don't post to them.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 3, 2005, at 0:42:11
In reply to Re: gated communities » Dr. Bob, posted by JahL on February 2, 2005, at 21:14:48
> Please don't construct segregated communities - we all need to pull together on this one. Imagine the fun us social phobics will have deciding whether to approach a group for membership
How would it be segregation? What if we pull together by trying to make them work? Do social phobics have an easier time with larger or smaller groups?
> your constant tinkering with this site reminds one that it is a research project first and foremost.
The only constant is change?
> The site perhaps now no longer has the same intimate feel to it that was partly created by yourself. You seem much more remote these days. Whereas once you were the friendly patriach, now you appear to me as 'The Master' :-)
I do think one change has been in my role...
> I just think you should leave well alone. There has been much talk on this site before about 'cliques' forming and your plans seem destined to create even more hurt feeling...
There always have been, and always will be, people who feel excluded. Is it well enough? I think it could be better.
> Aside from all this Dr B, you know I think you're a top man. I honestly attribute a great deal of my survival up to this point (it hasn't been easy) to PsychoBabble and the endless hours you must put in. Thanks.
You're welcome, it's nice to have you around again! Would you like to be the patriarch of a small board? :-)
Bob
Posted by Dinah on February 3, 2005, at 9:44:44
In reply to Re: patriarchs, posted by Dr. Bob on February 3, 2005, at 0:42:11
I assume that last sentence was playfulness?
I of course can't speak for JahL, but in general, I wouldn't think it was all that polite to answer someone who thinks something is a bad idea by asking them to be a major part of it.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on February 3, 2005, at 17:00:56
In reply to Re: patriarchs » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on February 3, 2005, at 9:44:44
maybe he was serious? maybe...maybe dr bob has people who sign on as him to help him read the boards.,...maybe not? maybe thats the inconsistancy? i dunno
> I assume that last sentence was playfulness?
>
> I of course can't speak for JahL, but in general, I wouldn't think it was all that polite to answer someone who thinks something is a bad idea by asking them to be a major part of it.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 3, 2005, at 21:59:52
In reply to Re: patriarchs » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on February 3, 2005, at 9:44:44
> I assume that last sentence was playfulness?
>
> I of course can't speak for JahL, but in general, I wouldn't think it was all that polite to answer someone who thinks something is a bad idea by asking them to be a major part of it.It was playful, but I do also think it might be a new way for old-timers who had some time and energy to spare to support others...
Bob
Posted by Dinah on February 4, 2005, at 6:39:25
In reply to Re: patriarchs, posted by Dr. Bob on February 3, 2005, at 21:59:52
> It was playful, but I do also think it might be a new way for old-timers who had some time and energy to spare to support others...
>
> BobMy original thought upon reading this was to tell you that I was certain you could think of a way to restate this so that it would be more sensitive to those old-timers who have told you exactly what they think of this idea, and how little supportive it would be to others.
However on second thought I have another proposal. I ask to become matriarch of a small board. I'd like it to be one of the larger of the small boards, about half a million members give or take. Membership could be accessed by will of the poster rather than the matriarch. Since I wouldn't feel any desire to curtail the freedom of any posters who decide to post anywhere else, I request that their membership in this small board not be held against them if they should desire membership in more than one small board, unless membership in the other small board is limited to a much lower number than a half million, say a hundred thousand. Clearly it wouldn't be fair to the other small board, with membership of less than a hundred thousand, to let in members who were also a member of another small board. In fact, I strongly encourage anyone who desires to join this small board to also join any other small board with membership of a hundred thousand or more, since I wouldn't want patriarchs or matriarchs to be in a popularity contest either.
Let's see. The background colors for this small board should be mod pink and mod yellow, but muted like a watercolor for those with tendencies to migraine.
I'm sure that you will come up with other ideas that I may not have thought of, so I wish to say that these are not the sole parameters of the board that I wish to add.
I have my welcome all worked out.
Welcome to this cozy board, where no matter how long or short a time you've been posting here, everyone knows your name. (Well, it's next to your post title you know.) And more importantly, where everyone is ready to welcome you warmly.
Posted by gardenergirl on February 4, 2005, at 7:04:33
In reply to Head on wall. Thud. Thud. Ouch!!! » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on February 4, 2005, at 6:39:25
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 4, 2005, at 8:03:34
In reply to Head on wall. Thud. Thud. Ouch!!! » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on February 4, 2005, at 6:39:25
> I ask to become matriarch of a small board. I'd like it to be one of the larger of the small boards, about half a million members give or take.
Half a million sounds cozy to you?
I do suppose coziness would be in the eye of the beholder. Some people might consider 15-50 too cozy. Or not enough variety. That would be fine, they wouldn't have to take part. But as long as that did feel cozy for some people, there would IMO be some value added...
> Since I wouldn't feel any desire to curtail the freedom of any posters who decide to post anywhere else...
Wanting the freedom to post anywhere is not wanting to have to make a commitment to somewhere?
> I wouldn't want patriarchs or matriarchs to be in a popularity contest either.
1. That's a really good point. Nobody wants to feel unvalued. Which goes along with having been shut out in the past. And someone might feel unvalued not only if they can't join a board, but also if they do join a board and then others don't join them there.
I think a lot would depend on the chemistry. And not all small boards would take off. So people would need to have some way to move from one to another.
2. If the number of "votes" (members) were capped (at a small number), then wouldn't it be less like a popularity contest?
3. Is someone more likely to feel valued as a member of a group of 15-50 or half a million?
> Welcome to this cozy board, where no matter how long or short a time you've been posting here, everyone knows your name... And more importantly, where everyone is ready to welcome you warmly.
1. People here are wonderfully supportive (and joining together to oppose this idea may be an example of that), but the truth is, not everyone is in fact welcomed warmly. Even with the new green newbie indicators.
2. It's one thing to know someone's name, another to know who they are... Who could keep a half a million people straight? Even with profiles?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on February 4, 2005, at 10:01:13
In reply to Re: feeling unvalued, posted by Dr. Bob on February 4, 2005, at 8:03:34
Are you turning me down?
> > I ask to become matriarch of a small board. I'd like it to be one of the larger of the small boards, about half a million members give or take.
>
> Half a million sounds cozy to you?
>
Delightfully.> I do suppose coziness would be in the eye of the beholder. Some people might consider 15-50 too cozy. Or not enough variety. That would be fine, they wouldn't have to take part. But as long as that did feel cozy for some people, there would IMO be some value added...
>
> > Since I wouldn't feel any desire to curtail the freedom of any posters who decide to post anywhere else...
>
> Wanting the freedom to post anywhere is not wanting to have to make a commitment to somewhere?
>
Not at all, Dr. Bob. I commit to one place, but except for marriage or therapy, my commitment to one place does not preclude my commitment to more than one place.> > I wouldn't want patriarchs or matriarchs to be in a popularity contest either.
>
> 1. That's a really good point. Nobody wants to feel unvalued. Which goes along with having been shut out in the past. And someone might feel unvalued not only if they can't join a board, but also if they do join a board and then others don't join them there.
>
Indeed, Dr. Bob. I fear I could no more be part of a system that makes patriarchs or matriarchs or groups feel that way than I could with one that makes individual posters feel that way. That's why I would like members of this VSG to also be able to join other VSG's where size is not a very important consideration. That's why I suggested a cut off of 100,000. If someone wishes to be part of a group with less than a 100,000 poster limit, then naturally I could understand and even support the fact that they would have to choose between the two groups. But if they want to be part of a hundred groups with a membership limit of 100,000 or more, I'd still want them to feel like they could post there.
I still am shocked that you wish to sponsor a system that invariably will.> I think a lot would depend on the chemistry. And not all small boards would take off. So people would need to have some way to move from one to another.
>
Charming...> 2. If the number of "votes" (members) were capped (at a small number), then wouldn't it be less like a popularity contest?
>
No.> 3. Is someone more likely to feel valued as a member of a group of 15-50 or half a million?
>
I can only speak for myself.> > Welcome to this cozy board, where no matter how long or short a time you've been posting here, everyone knows your name... And more importantly, where everyone is ready to welcome you warmly.
>
> 1. People here are wonderfully supportive (and joining together to oppose this idea may be an example of that), but the truth is, not everyone is in fact welcomed warmly. Even with the new green newbie indicators.
>
Well, you won't let us welcome them on the newbie board. But the official greeters do a fine job. Naturally they would probably feel even more welcome if the official greeters still felt an obligation to greet, but others could greet if they feel they have something to add. Perhaps the matriarchs and patriarchs would feel a similar obligation on the VSG's, even if they were very small groups of 100,000 or more.> 2. It's one thing to know someone's name, another to know who they are... Who could keep a half a million people straight? Even with profiles?
>
> BobTrust me? I have an excellent memory.
You know, Dr. Bob. A determined and clever poster knows that even when the battle is lost, there are other ways to achieve victory. A wise administrator will allow the determined and clever posters their victories, realizing that there is value in keeping the subversives in plain view.
Posted by Dinah on February 4, 2005, at 10:40:10
In reply to Re: feeling unvalued, posted by Dr. Bob on February 4, 2005, at 8:03:34
> 1. That's a really good point. Nobody wants to feel unvalued. Which goes along with having been shut out in the past. And someone might feel unvalued not only if they can't join a board, but also if they do join a board and then others don't join them there.
>
> 1. People here are wonderfully supportive (and joining together to oppose this idea may be an example of that), but the truth is, not everyone is in fact welcomed warmly. Even with the new green newbie indicators.
>I wanted to thank you for the above two paragraphs. For maybe the second time in this thread you seemed to hear, acknowledge, and respect what the posters are trying to say. I didn't comment the other time, but I think Gabbi did.
Posted by Dinah on February 4, 2005, at 11:02:48
In reply to Why yes. I am. :( » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on February 4, 2005, at 10:01:13
Perhaps the official greeter duties could be extended off the newbie board. Or you could have a separate roster of official greeters for the other boards. Or even each separate board.
I of course refuse to post on a restricted board, so I have never offered to be an official greeter on the newbie board. But I would be happy to be an official greeter elsewhere, with the attendent obligation. Clearly I would be more effective as an official greeter on those boards that I post most regularly on, but perhaps you could extend an invitation for people to be official greeters on each of the boards. Official greeters for people with green flags next to their names but who started their posting career not on the newbie board but rather elsewhere.
You know, Dr. Bob. You really ought to consider opening up a problem to discussion and brainstorming by posters rather than just coming up with what you think are the best solutions and handing them down to us as decisions.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 4, 2005, at 23:18:50
In reply to Oh, another idea for Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on February 4, 2005, at 11:02:48
> A wise administrator will allow the determined and clever posters their victories, realizing that there is value in keeping the subversives in plain view.
What victory do you suggest I allow which determined and clever posters?
> perhaps you could extend an invitation for people to be official greeters on each of the boards.
Everyone's always been invited to greet people on the other boards...
> You know, Dr. Bob. You really ought to consider opening up a problem to discussion and brainstorming by posters rather than just coming up with what you think are the best solutions and handing them down to us as decisions.
Does anyone feel they haven't an opportunity to discuss and brainstorm? I'm sorry if I presented this as a decision, I'm far from sure it's the best solution.
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on February 5, 2005, at 0:26:41
In reply to Re: other ideas, posted by Dr. Bob on February 4, 2005, at 23:18:50
I'm a bit worried that people are going to be given a hard time and / or a cold shoulder on the present boards if they decide to join up to a smaller board.
That the division will come as a matter of self-fulfilling prophecy.
If someone who joins up to a smaller board reads that other people think that smaller boards are elitist and co then they may take that personally. They may think that that is what the other posters think of them.
Then they will either 'repent' from the smaller board or abstain from the rest of the boards.
If people are determined that this isn't going to work then they certaintly have the ability to stabotage it or at least ensure that it results in division...
Posted by Dinah on February 5, 2005, at 4:57:21
In reply to Re: other ideas, posted by Dr. Bob on February 4, 2005, at 23:18:50
> What victory do you suggest I allow which determined and clever posters?
None at all. I was feeling playful yesterday. I'm not today. I was just discussing the whole thing with my therapist and accurately foresaw the course of our interaction, that's all. And was feeling playful about it. Today my crystal ball, appears rather gloomy and overcast, despite the validation. No playfulness at all.
>
> > perhaps you could extend an invitation for people to be official greeters on each of the boards.
>
> Everyone's always been invited to greet people on the other boards...Sigh. You missed my point entirely. As usual. An *official* greeter feels an obligation to greet. Extending the duties of an official greeter outside the newbie board, or adding additional official greeters outside the newbie board would help address an issue you brought up as one that you feel needs addressing. Blah Blah Blah. Thud Thud. Ouch.
>
> > You know, Dr. Bob. You really ought to consider opening up a problem to discussion and brainstorming by posters rather than just coming up with what you think are the best solutions and handing them down to us as decisions.
>
> Does anyone feel they haven't an opportunity to discuss and brainstorm? I'm sorry if I presented this as a decision, I'm far from sure it's the best solution.
>
> BobNot just about this, Dr. Bob. That was a global suggestion, not an issue specific one. Thud Thud. Ouch.
I must be horrible at communicating, or you must be horrible at receiving. My head is getting a dent.
Posted by Dinah on February 5, 2005, at 5:00:17
In reply to Re: other ideas, posted by alexandra_k on February 5, 2005, at 0:26:41
I'll have you know that I have had this exact same conversation about the 2000/2001 boards with Dr. Bob and have never held it against the 2000'ers. Nor do I recall ever refusing to speak to an official greeter.
Please don't post to me any more.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 5, 2005, at 5:35:54
In reply to Re: other ideas, posted by alexandra_k on February 5, 2005, at 0:26:41
I would just like to say that my above post was not intended to be aimed at anyone in particular.
It is just a general concern that I have...
Posted by gardenergirl on February 5, 2005, at 7:54:50
In reply to Re: other ideas » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on February 5, 2005, at 4:57:21
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 5, 2005, at 14:17:01
In reply to Re: other ideas » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on February 5, 2005, at 4:57:21
> If someone who joins up to a smaller board reads that other people think that smaller boards are elitist and co then they may take that personally.
>
> alexandra_kI agree. If we go ahead with this, that might need to be considered uncivil...
--
> > Everyone's always been invited to greet people on the other boards...
>
> An *official* greeter feels an obligation to greet.I've been reluctant to introduce obligations here... Also, if there were designated greeters, others might be less inclined to participate in the welcome?
> Extending the duties of an official greeter outside the newbie board, or adding additional official greeters outside the newbie board would help address an issue you brought up as one that you feel needs addressing.
>
> DinahWhat issue was that? I think it takes more than being greeted to feel cozy somewhere...
Bob
Posted by Dinah on February 5, 2005, at 14:42:59
In reply to Re: other ideas, posted by Dr. Bob on February 5, 2005, at 14:17:01
I was responding to your own words.
> ... but the truth is, not everyone is in fact welcomed warmly. Even with the new green newbie indicators.
> Bob
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050128/msgs/453004.html
I'm going to go away for a while, Dr. Bob. Before I get permanent brain damage.
Or say something spectacularly uncivil.
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.