![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 255. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Racer on May 20, 2005, at 19:02:40
I realize that I lost my temper in another post -- although I'm not sure how much I actually regret that -- and it got me wondering about something, which I hope you will answer for me.
I have received at least one PBC in the past, and have the idea that several PBCs will add up to a block, starting with one week, and doubling thereafter. That part I get.
What I wonder about is whether there is a sort of probationary system, where if you get, say, a one week block, but then are {ahem} clean for, say, a year, if it's like coming off probation, or if the next block is still for two weeks? Is there ever a period when, say, a PBC has been expunged from your record?
Also, how many PBCs do we have to collect in order to receive a block?
(Yeah, in other words, "Dear Dr Bob, I don't want to have to go stand in the corner...")
Thanks!
Posted by Jakeman on May 20, 2005, at 19:41:32
In reply to Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd?, posted by Racer on May 20, 2005, at 19:02:40
good question
>
> What I wonder about is whether there is a sort of probationary system, where if you get, say, a one week block, but then are {ahem} clean for, say, a year, if it's like coming off probation, or if the next block is still for two weeks? Is there ever a period when, say, a PBC has been expunged from your record?
>
> Also, how many PBCs do we have to collect in order to receive a block?
>
> (Yeah, in other words, "Dear Dr Bob, I don't want to have to go stand in the corner...")
>
> Thanks!
Posted by Minnie-Haha on May 20, 2005, at 20:12:08
In reply to Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd?, posted by Racer on May 20, 2005, at 19:02:40
> I realize that I lost my temper in another post -- although I'm not sure how much I actually regret that -- and it got me wondering about something, which I hope you will answer for me.
>
> I have received at least one PBC in the past, and have the idea that several PBCs will add up to a block, starting with one week, and doubling thereafter. That part I get.
>
> What I wonder about is whether there is a sort of probationary system, where if you get, say, a one week block, but then are {ahem} clean for, say, a year, if it's like coming off probation, or if the next block is still for two weeks? Is there ever a period when, say, a PBC has been expunged from your record?
>
> Also, how many PBCs do we have to collect in order to receive a block?Yeah! I'd like to know the answer to this too. I got blocked after ONE PBC. I got my second block after my first block, with no more PBCs in between. So I Figured you get one warning (PBC) and from then on out, you start getting blocked and you never get a PBC again. But that can't be true, can it? (It doesn't seem that's how other PBCs/blocks work. I never felt any of my transgressions were as outrageous as some I've seen here, so I was suprised that retribution was so swift and sharp. Then I wondered if I just hadn't been a member long enough to have any cred.)
Minnie
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 21, 2005, at 3:41:35
In reply to Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd?, posted by Racer on May 20, 2005, at 19:02:40
> What I wonder about is whether there is a sort of probationary system, where if you get, say, a one week block, but then are {ahem} clean for, say, a year, if it's like coming off probation, or if the next block is still for two weeks? Is there ever a period when, say, a PBC has been expunged from your record?
I wouldn't say it's ever expunged, but if it's been a while, I don't necessarily block the poster the next time...
Bob
Posted by Racer on May 21, 2005, at 10:28:58
In reply to Re: a sort of probationary system, posted by Dr. Bob on May 21, 2005, at 3:41:35
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 21, 2005, at 17:08:06
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd?, posted by Minnie-Haha on May 20, 2005, at 20:12:08
> Yeah! I'd like to know the answer to this too. I got blocked after ONE PBC. I got my second block after my first block, with no more PBCs in between. So I Figured you get one warning (PBC) and from then on out, you start getting blocked and you never get a PBC again. But that can't be true, can it? (It doesn't seem that's how other PBCs/blocks work. I never felt any of my transgressions were as outrageous as some I've seen here, so I was suprised that retribution was so swift and sharp. Then I wondered if I just hadn't been a member long enough to have any cred.)
>
> MinnieI don't think that was it. In your case I'm pretty sure it was because the post you were P.B.C'd on was personal, and so was the second, though the second was disguised.
If you are negative toward a particular poster you are more likely to be blocked after your first P.B.C.
You can also get a quick block if you are P.B.C'd on a thread and then continue being uncivil on the same thread.Oh my who knew I would ever be giving people information on the civility guidelines?
GX2
(Who was once blocked for 9 weeks)
Posted by Minnie-Haha on May 21, 2005, at 22:00:46
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » Minnie-Haha, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 21, 2005, at 17:08:06
> > Yeah! I'd like to know the answer to this too. I got blocked after ONE PBC. I got my second block after my first block, with no more PBCs in between. So I Figured you get one warning (PBC) and from then on out, you start getting blocked and you never get a PBC again. But that can't be true, can it? (It doesn't seem that's how other PBCs/blocks work. I never felt any of my transgressions were as outrageous as some I've seen here, so I was suprised that retribution was so swift and sharp. Then I wondered if I just hadn't been a member long enough to have any cred.)
> >
> > Minnie
>
> I don't think that was it. In your case I'm pretty sure it was because the post you were P.B.C'd on was personal, and so was the second, though the second was disguised.
> If you are negative toward a particular poster you are more likely to be blocked after your first P.B.C.
> You can also get a quick block if you are P.B.C'd on a thread and then continue being uncivil on the same thread...I appreciate, Gabbi, your trying to explain this to me. I really do. (I was trying to accept that my question was going to go unanswered.) But I got PBCd only once -- in February. I got blocked 2 months later (with no PBC/warning). I didn't like it, but I conceded that I'd messed up. Then I was blocked a second time for trying to discuss whether or not a certain kind of behavior (that makes me and others feel put-down) is civil, using completely hypothetical examples *and* with good intentions, which seemed to be very important to a lot of folks on that thread. (It really hurts that even though I declared my intentions *in the very first paragraph* of that thread, I'm accused of not really having that intention at all, but rather of making a covert personal attack.)
I won't argue the first PBC, or the first block (though it seems from my observations that unless people are rabid and cursing, they usually collect a few PBCs before they're blocked). But the second block, IMO, was completely uncalled for.
Finally, does anyone have any idea how the behavior we were talking about *can* be discussed without the person bringing it up getting PBCd/blocked?
Posted by alexandra_k on May 21, 2005, at 22:26:52
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » Gabbi-x-2, posted by Minnie-Haha on May 21, 2005, at 22:00:46
> Then I was blocked a second time for trying to discuss whether or not a certain kind of behavior (that makes me and others feel put-down) is civil,
See... I thought that was the problem. The behaviour in question doesn't *make* anyone feel put down. Feeling put down is not an inevitable result or response to the behaviour. It is about owning your emotional responses as your emotional responses. Taking responsibility for your own responses rather than blaming someone else for *making* you feel that way.
>using completely hypothetical examples
It was very clear what you were getting at and what was really on your mind.
>*and* with good intentions,
Sorry, what was your intention?
I thought it was to get the behaviour stopped so you (and others) wouldn't *have* to feel put down.
In the effort to persuade / convince others that there is something unacceptable in the behaviour you did resort to personal attacks. I thought that that was why you were blocked. It seems that the reason why you find the behaviour upsetting is because you think the poster intends for you to feel upset. You were blaming the poster for your upset.It is hard to learn to take responsibility for ones own emotional responses. And one will get blocked if one blames others for them.
If you can't understand that then my prediction is that you will keep getting blocked... And either leave (as many others have done) or, hopefully come to get this and prevent that from happening.
> Finally, does anyone have any idea how the behavior we were talking about *can* be discussed without the person bringing it up getting PBCd/blocked?
If you can own your own emotions it shouldn't be a problem.
Talk away.
If you don't get this then I would say that you are best to keep away from the topic or it is very likely you will get blocked again....
Posted by so on May 21, 2005, at 23:18:52
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » Gabbi-x-2, posted by Minnie-Haha on May 21, 2005, at 22:00:46
Minnie, someone wrote to you that:
> It is hard to learn to take responsibility for ones own emotional responses. And one will get blocked if one blames others for them.
>It might be especially hard to learn that in an environment where one is expected to own their own emotional responses and the theoretical emotional responses of any hypothetical person who might "be made to feel put down". Some perfectly reasonable people might feel it is contradictory that they are held responsible for what others might feel but they cannot hold others resposible, even in part, for what they do feel.
While some reasonable people apparently find the guidelines to be reasonable, other reasonable people apparently do not. Whether the people considering the guidelines are reasonable or not might not be the determining factor in whether the guidelines are reasonable, or for that matter, what reason the guidelines might be intended to serve.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 21, 2005, at 23:57:14
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » Minnie-Haha, posted by so on May 21, 2005, at 23:18:52
I have been thinking about that...
I think the idea is that saying something that blames or attacks someone else is unacceptable.
The reason it is unacceptable is because anyone would feel hurt or accused if that happened.
Sometimes people feel accused and hurt and put down even thought nobody said anything to accuse them of anything...I just try and worry about me...
And if someone (IMO) accuses or attacks me I request that they not post to me.
I just try and worry about making sure that I am not hurting / accusing anyone else.
No matter how I might or might not think that they 'started it' or whatever. I just worry abotu me because I can't change others but I can take responsibility for myself.
> While some reasonable people apparently find the guidelines to be reasonable, other reasonable people apparently do not.
Some of the rules can be tricky. Especially on the faith board IMO...
Posted by so on May 22, 2005, at 1:02:09
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » so, posted by alexandra_k on May 21, 2005, at 23:57:14
>
> I just try and worry about making sure that I am not hurting / accusing anyone else.
I wonder if you would apply that standard to everthing in your life, though. What about that hypothetical baby torturer -- In real life, can we accuse him then hurt him till he stops?I can acknowledge some therapeutic value to an exercise where people are held responsible for their own and for others feelings as well, but I prefer to be informed before I consent to participate in therapeutic proceedures. The information I consented to said support and education was provided by other members of the group, not by a set of standards designed not only to create a therapeutic milieu but also to effect therapeutic intervention. Taxonomically, support groups are marked by their lack of such therapeutic cross-talk.
We might classify analysis of the rules as they are discussed on this page in three categories. There are people who write that they are:
A. Fair and useful, and understandable.
B. Perhaps fair or useful but not understood.
C. Arbitrary and sometimes a result of failure on the part of the administration to be consistent, perhaps as a result of mixed purposes that the administrator must explain to no one but himself and to the people he doesn't alienate from his group.I probably subscribe to the latter category, though my postion is probably a result in part of polarizaton to balance what I see as undue subscription by others to the first two categories.
People say they don't understand, so others say "see, it's like this, he's trying to x,y and z for our benefit because he knows best" and I would say, "look, this guy is human. just because he graduated med school doesn't mean he has the scoop on human behavior or an absolute handle on what he is trying to do, so it might be as much his problem as it is yours that things don't always work out so well here."
>
> Some of the rules can be tricky. Especially on the faith board IMO...
>
>Tricky is an apt description. "One person's unique, somewhat isolated way of handling things" might be another reasonable description.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 22, 2005, at 1:20:54
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » Gabbi-x-2, posted by Minnie-Haha on May 21, 2005, at 22:00:46
> I won't argue the first PBC, or the first block (though it seems from my observations that unless people are rabid and cursing, they usually collect a few PBCs before they're blocked). But the second block, IMO, was completely uncalled for.
I second What Alex said though (well not necessarily "Making you feel part" ) It was clear, if not glaring, what and to whom you were referring, especially because of the timing of the post. I think you also said something like "Let's try this again"
So basically I think that was it.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 2:45:45
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » alexandra_k, posted by so on May 22, 2005, at 1:02:09
> > I just try and worry about making sure that I am not hurting / accusing anyone else.
> I wonder if you would apply that standard to everthing in your life, though.I am trying to apply it back to RL, yes.
>What about that hypothetical baby torturer -- In real life, can we accuse him then hurt him till he stops?
Accuse him of what?
Torturing babies?
Thats a legal matter...
Hurt breeds hurt... I don't think hurting him is going to help...
> I can acknowledge some therapeutic value...There might be theraputic value in it. But that isn't the intention. My understanding is that it is about keeping the boards safe. I wouldn't be here if people could go off at me whenever they liked and that behaviour was accepted. I would leave if that happened. I think the civility rules work to my benefit because they keep me safe.
>to an exercise where people are held responsible for their own....
I think it is a handy life skill. If you see that your emotional responses are YOUR emotional responses then that brings them back within your control. The notion is that there is more liklihood that you can alter them if they are due to internal factors than if they are solely at the whim of external factors that you have no control over. The whole notion is actually quite empowering.
>...and for others feelings as well,
To the extent that one refrains from accusing them.
>but I prefer to be informed before I consent to participate in therapeutic proceedures.
I don't think it is intended to be a 'theraputic procedure' more a rule to keep the boards safe. I think that you did consent to follow civility rules in signing up.
>The information I consented to said support and education was provided by other members of the group,
Yeah. Not by Dr Bob.
But that is 'support and education' not discipline...>not by a set of standards designed not only to create a therapeutic milieu but also to effect therapeutic intervention.
????? Lost you there... They are rules so that people are ABLE to offer support and education. I wouldn't be here if people repeatedly attacked me. I think most posters would vanish without the civility rules. Then there wouldn't be very many people here to do the support and education thing...
I think I get the basic civility rules...
I get a bit lost in the special faith board stuff...
That is why I leave it alone.
I don't think the rules are 'arbitrary'.
I don't think the rules are a bad thing at all (not that I don't feel free to offer suggestions for 'improvements').
But... Over time... I have come to respect them.
> People say they don't understand, so others say "see, it's like this, he's trying to x,y and z for our benefit because he knows best" and I would say, "look, this guy is human. just because he graduated med school doesn't mean he has the scoop on human behavior or an absolute handle on what he is trying to do, so it might be as much his problem as it is yours that things don't always work out so well here."Sure. Such an argument is an 'appeal to authority' which is a bad argument, basically. I haven't seen anyone do that - saying people should follow them 'cause Bob knows best. I certainly don't appeal to that in my explanations. I can SEE the sense in them for myself. I try and share that as best I can because I know that some people do struggle to understand some of the determinations.
> Tricky is an apt description. "One person's unique, somewhat isolated way of handling things" might be another reasonable description.Though it is charitable to try and see the sense...
At least to try...Otherwise...
There are boards without civility rules.
There are boards fairly much without rules.
There are boards where anything questionable is deleted...I've had a look around.
And I like it here.But I don't think I have had tooooooooo much trouble getting the hang of them.
So.
It is possible.
I reckon anyways
Posted by so on May 22, 2005, at 3:43:48
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » so, posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 2:45:45
I have had bad experiences with authoritarian belief systems. Please don't post to me anymore.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 22, 2005, at 9:32:27
In reply to Don't post to me anymore » alexandra_k, posted by so on May 22, 2005, at 3:43:48
> I have had bad experiences with authoritarian belief systems.
Would you be willing to say more about that? You could redirect a reply to Social or somewhere...
Bob
Posted by so on May 22, 2005, at 10:33:34
In reply to Re: experiences with authoritarian belief systems, posted by Dr. Bob on May 22, 2005, at 9:32:27
> > I have had bad experiences with authoritarian belief systems.
>
> Would you be willing to say more about that? You could redirect a reply to Social or somewhere...
>
> Bob...somewhere like Faith maybe, and then not unless I could criticize ideas without being held liable for the feelings of people who embrace those ideas.
I would rather hear more from you about the economics of holding people to account for their own emotional responses to other's statements as well as for other's emotional responses to their statements. Does that grow from your faith in some particular premise, or is there some science behind that?
Posted by Minnie-Haha on May 22, 2005, at 14:08:30
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » Minnie-Haha, posted by alexandra_k on May 21, 2005, at 22:26:52
> > Then I was blocked a second time for trying to discuss whether or not a certain kind of behavior (that makes me and others feel put-down) is civil,
>
> See... I thought that was the problem. The behaviour in question doesn't *make* anyone feel put down...If name-calling and cursing can result in a PBC or a block, I don’t see how other forms of behavior can’t be discussed as possibly offensive. Whether others think it’s valid or not, I *do* feel put down by the behavior we were talking about, and others feel the same.
For comparison, consider the thread “Is reading certain boards intrusive?” It snowballed into a long, heated debate about whether or not smaller (to some, exclusive) boards should be allowed on Psycho-Babble. It seems that this subject has come up before with similar results. Many people had and still have strong feelings about this. The very idea of such a proposition “made” people feel this way – some even declared they would leave the community if this happened. Those feelings seem to be acknowledged, and to-date no smaller boards have been created. To some, creating boards isn’t a behavior: it’s just another board option. To others, posting on such boards would be exclusionary behavior, even if that is not the intention. In fact, you wrote:“Why hasn’t he [Dr. Bob] implemented the idea already? Do you really believe that people’s negative responses have been completely unrelated to his decision to hold off? … I personally take all this as evidence that he has shown reluctance to implement something that some people feel this strongly about. That shows me that he is reluctant to hurt people over this. Maybe he was hoping that people would come around in time… Maybe he is still hoping this... ”
You also explained your POV on why some would like to have smaller boards:
“ … The idea is that some people don't participate on social because they feel overwhelmed by the number of posters / posts there … ”
Here you acknowledge that larger boards “make” some feel uncomfortable.
> Feeling put down is not an inevitable result or response to the behaviour. It is about owning your emotional responses as your emotional responses. Taking responsibility for your own responses rather than blaming someone else for *making* you feel that way.This is verbatim from the FAQ section "What does 'civil' mean?"
“It's fine to give others feedback as long as its constructive. It tends to be more constructive if you put things in terms of what the other person might do better rather than what they did ‘wrong’. And it tends to be more conducive to harmony to talk about how you feel than what someone else did, for example, to use an I-statement like ‘I feel put down by what you said’ instead of a you-statement like ‘you're so arrogant’.
Of course, some people don’t agree with the “I-statement”, but from my understanding, that doesn’t matter: it’s a civility guideline.
> >using completely hypothetical examples
>
> It was very clear what you were getting at and what was really on your mind.In my first thread, yes, it was clear. In my second thread, I used hypothetical situations. I can’t control that others assume I am talking about a particular person. I am telling you here, as I said at the beginning of my second thread, that I am talking about the behavior, not a person.
> >*and* with good intentions,
>
> Sorry, what was your intention? I thought it was to get the behaviour stopped so you (and others) wouldn't *have* to feel put down.
>
> In the effort to persuade / convince others that there is something unacceptable in the behaviour you did resort to personal attacks. I thought that that was why you were blocked. It seems that the reason why you find the behaviour upsetting is because you think the poster intends for you to feel upset. You were blaming the poster for your upset.In the first thread, yes, I let my emotions get the better of me and I engaged in a personal attack. I done wrong, as they say, and I apologized. But many here have screwed up, apologized, and then been forgiven. The slate is wiped clean.
> It is hard to learn to take responsibility for ones own emotional responses. And one will get blocked if one blames others for them.
Unless they are in response to a breaking of the civility rules, which I assume can be reevaluated from time to time.
> If you can't understand that then my prediction is that you will keep getting blocked... And either leave (as many others have done) or, hopefully come to get this and prevent that from happening.
> > Finally, does anyone have any idea how the behavior we were talking about *can* be discussed without the person bringing it up getting PBCd/blocked?
>
> If you can own your own emotions it shouldn't be a problem…
>
> If you don't get this then I would say that you are best to keep away from the topic or it is very likely you will get blocked again…
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 22, 2005, at 16:25:55
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » alexandra_k, posted by Minnie-Haha on May 22, 2005, at 14:08:30
> > > Then I was blocked a second time for trying to discuss whether or not a certain kind of behavior (that makes me and others feel put-down) is civil,
> >
> > See... I thought that was the problem. The behaviour in question doesn't *make* anyone feel put down...Although obviously we differ on how we feel about the particular behaviour, I'm in complete agreement with you on principle. I find statement offensive actually. If it's acknowledged that people can be "allowed" ; 0 to feel hurt or offended by put downs and insults, then less obvious things can be hurtful too. It's ludicrous to me to have only one half of that particular belief system in effect.
> If name-calling and cursing can result in a PBC or a block, I don’t see how other forms of behavior can’t be discussed as possibly offensive. Whether others think it’s valid or not, I *do* feel put down by the behavior we were talking about, and others feel the same.
>
> For comparison, consider the thread “Is reading certain boards intrusive?” It snowballed into a long, heated debate about whether or not smaller (to some, exclusive) boards should be allowed on Psycho-Babble. It seems that this subject has come up before with similar results. Many people had and still have strong feelings about this. The very idea of such a proposition “made” people feel this way – some even declared they would leave the community if this happened. Those feelings seem to be acknowledged, and to-date no smaller boards have been created. To some, creating boards isn’t a behavior: it’s just another board option. To others, posting on such boards would be exclusionary behavior, even if that is not the intention. In fact, you wrote:
>
> “Why hasn’t he [Dr. Bob] implemented the idea already? Do you really believe that people’s negative responses have been completely unrelated to his decision to hold off? … I personally take all this as evidence that he has shown reluctance to implement something that some people feel this strongly about. That shows me that he is reluctant to hurt people over this. Maybe he was hoping that people would come around in time… Maybe he is still hoping this... ”
>
> You also explained your POV on why some would like to have smaller boards:
>
> “ … The idea is that some people don't participate on social because they feel overwhelmed by the number of posters / posts there … ”
>
> Here you acknowledge that larger boards “make” some feel uncomfortable.
>
> > Feeling put down is not an inevitable result or response to the behaviour. It is about owning your emotional responses as your emotional responses. Taking responsibility for your own responses rather than blaming someone else for *making* you feel that way.
>
> This is verbatim from the FAQ section "What does 'civil' mean?"
>
> “It's fine to give others feedback as long as its constructive. It tends to be more constructive if you put things in terms of what the other person might do better rather than what they did ‘wrong’. And it tends to be more conducive to harmony to talk about how you feel than what someone else did, for example, to use an I-statement like ‘I feel put down by what you said’ instead of a you-statement like ‘you're so arrogant’.
>
> Of course, some people don’t agree with the “I-statement”, but from my understanding, that doesn’t matter: it’s a civility guideline.
>
> > >using completely hypothetical examples
> >
> > It was very clear what you were getting at and what was really on your mind.
>
> In my first thread, yes, it was clear. In my second thread, I used hypothetical situations. I can’t control that others assume I am talking about a particular person. I am telling you here, as I said at the beginning of my second thread, that I am talking about the behavior, not a person.
>
> > >*and* with good intentions,
> >
> > Sorry, what was your intention? I thought it was to get the behaviour stopped so you (and others) wouldn't *have* to feel put down.
> >
> > In the effort to persuade / convince others that there is something unacceptable in the behaviour you did resort to personal attacks. I thought that that was why you were blocked. It seems that the reason why you find the behaviour upsetting is because you think the poster intends for you to feel upset. You were blaming the poster for your upset.
>
> In the first thread, yes, I let my emotions get the better of me and I engaged in a personal attack. I done wrong, as they say, and I apologized. But many here have screwed up, apologized, and then been forgiven. The slate is wiped clean.
>
> > It is hard to learn to take responsibility for ones own emotional responses. And one will get blocked if one blames others for them.
>
> Unless they are in response to a breaking of the civility rules, which I assume can be reevaluated from time to time.
>
> > If you can't understand that then my prediction is that you will keep getting blocked... And either leave (as many others have done) or, hopefully come to get this and prevent that from happening.
>
> > > Finally, does anyone have any idea how the behavior we were talking about *can* be discussed without the person bringing it up getting PBCd/blocked?
> >
> > If you can own your own emotions it shouldn't be a problem…
> >
> > If you don't get this then I would say that you are best to keep away from the topic or it is very likely you will get blocked again…
>
Posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 16:46:31
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » Minnie-Haha, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 22, 2005, at 16:25:55
> I find statement offensive actually.Or: 'I respond to the statement by taking offence'.
>If it's acknowledged that people can be "allowed" ; 0 to feel hurt or offended by put downs and insults, then less obvious things can be hurtful too.
Everybody responds to accusations and insults and putdowns by feeling hurt or offended or whatever.
Whereas with the 'less obvious things' people diverge on how they respond.
>It's ludicrous to me to have only one half of that particular belief system in effect.
???
One side is that if someone posts something accusing or attacking you then you can expect that they will be warned / blocked.If you post something accusing or attacking then you can expect to be warned / blocked.
If someone posts something that doesn't accuse or attack you - but you respond by feeling hurt or accused then they won't get blocked.
But on the upside... If you post something that doesn't accuse or attack someone else - but they respond by feeling hurt or accused then you won't get blocked.
Sounds fair enough to me...
> Whether others think it’s valid or not, I *do* feel put down by the behavior we were talking about, and others feel the same.It is undeniable that people do feel hurt by the behaviour. But... Some people do not feel hurt by the behaviour. People agree in feeling hurt and accused if someone posts something attacking - all people would respond in the same way. But with respect to some behaviour different people feel differently about it.
It is interesting to me that the people who don't mind it try to see what Lou is trying to do with his behaviour... The people who do mind it seem more interested in arguing that the behaviour *in itself* is offensive.
But the trouble is that if the behaviour in itself is offensive then there must be something wrong with the responses of the people who are not offended...
Is this making any sense at all??????
> The very idea of such a proposition “made” people feel this way – some even declared they would leave the community if this happened.Clearly it didn't make *everyone* feel that way. Some people don't find the very idea offensive... It doesn't seem to be anything about the idea, it seems to be about all sorts of other associations that some people have made with the idea...
>Those feelings seem to be acknowledged, and to-date no smaller boards have been created.
No. Dr Bob doesn't seem to have gotten around to it yet... But it is in the pipeline.
> > “Why hasn’t he [Dr. Bob] implemented the idea already? Do you really believe that people’s negative responses have been completely unrelated to his decision to hold off? … I personally take all this as evidence that he has shown reluctance to implement something that some people feel this strongly about. That shows me that he is reluctant to hurt people over this. Maybe he was hoping that people would come around in time… Maybe he is still hoping this... ”
Sure.
But I don't see how his reluctance to hurt has anything do do with whether there is anything intrinsically wrong with creating small boards...> > Here you acknowledge that larger boards “make” some feel uncomfortable.
Nope. I acknowldege that some people respond in that way... That that is why the very idea of them isn't intrinsically nasty - some people see them as a good thing and here is why.
> > > Feeling put down is not an inevitable result or response to the behaviour. It is about owning your emotional responses as your emotional responses. Taking responsibility for your own responses rather than blaming someone else for *making* you feel that way.Sorry.
This started to Gabbi
And ended up going to Minnie.Gabbi - I hope that made a bit of sense.
I don't really know what more to say.
Good luck to you peoples.
Hope ya don't get blocked anymore.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on May 22, 2005, at 17:42:02
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » Gabbi-x-2, posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 16:46:31
> > ... Whether others think it’s valid or not, I *do* feel put down by the behavior we were talking about, and others feel the same.
>
> It is undeniable that people do feel hurt by the behaviour. But... Some people do not feel hurt by the behaviour. People agree in feeling hurt and accused if someone posts something attacking - all people would respond in the same way. But with respect to some behaviour different people feel differently about it.
>
> It is interesting to me that the people who don't mind it try to see what Lou is trying to do with his behaviour... The people who do mind it seem more interested in arguing that the behaviour *in itself* is offensive.
>
> But the trouble is that if the behaviour in itself is offensive then there must be something wrong with the responses of the people who are not offended...These last three paragraphs don't make sense to me. There was discussion here once I assume about cursing that lead to some changes. Perhaps there were some who argued what the cursers intended (or did not intend) by their cursing. Others were just offended by the behavior itself. Neither the offended or the un-offended parties were wrong. Some just found the behavior offensive and others did not. Enough were offended to finally do something about it. It seems to me that enough people here have felt offended by the behavior we're talking about to consider a policy on it. (I won't here hash out whether or not cursing is uncivil, nor will I re-hash why the kind of behavior we're discussing might be uncivil, because those who believe they are have already presented their reasons.)
> > > Here you acknowledge that larger boards “make” some feel uncomfortable.
>
> Nope. I acknowldege that some people respond in that way...OK. But either way, you don't tell those who respond by feeling uncomfortable that they should own their emotions, abandon their hope for smaller boards, and sink or swim on the larger boards.
> ... That that is why the very idea of them isn't intrinsically nasty - some people see them as a good thing and here is why.
If it isn't intrinsically nasty to consider creating smaller boards because some people respond to the larger boards by feeling uncomfortable, then I don't follow how it's intrinsically nasty for those of us who would like to curb the kind of behavior we're talking about because it offends us (makes us uncomfortable).
> > > > Feeling put down is not an inevitable result or response to the behaviour. It is about owning your emotional responses as your emotional responses. Taking responsibility for your own responses rather than blaming someone else for *making* you feel that way.
>
> Sorry.
> This started to Gabbi
> And ended up going to Minnie.OK. But since some of what you wrote was in direct response to what I wrote, I replied.
> Gabbi - I hope that made a bit of sense.
>
> I don't really know what more to say.
> Good luck to you peoples.
> Hope ya don't get blocked anymore.I hope so too.
:o
:)
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 22, 2005, at 17:45:25
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » Gabbi-x-2, posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 16:46:31
>
> > I find statement offensive actually.
>
> Or: 'I respond to the statement by taking offence'.Please don't. I have no desire to speak like you would. I meant what I said, and I thought it through. Taking it upon yourself to reword my thought is putting yourself in the position of educating me, I'll choose who teaches me, thanks. Aside from that, there is no meaningful difference.
If I'd said "It would be impossible for me not to be offended" then there would be a difference.>
> >If it's acknowledged that people can be "allowed" ; 0 to feel hurt or offended by put downs and insults, then less obvious things can be hurtful too.
>
> Everybody responds to accusations and insults and putdowns by feeling hurt or offended or whatever.
>
> Whereas with the 'less obvious things' people diverge on how they respond.
>
> >It's ludicrous to me to have only one half of that particular belief system in effect.
>
> ???
> One side is that if someone posts something accusing or attacking you then you can expect that they will be warned / blocked.
>
> If you post something accusing or attacking then you can expect to be warned / blocked.
>
> If someone posts something that doesn't accuse or attack you - but you respond by feeling hurt or accused then they won't get blocked.
First of all not *everyone* reacts to accusations and put downs by being hurt, not at all. What I see, is you judging what is hurtful, by what has been deemed "uncivil" that is where I'm confused. If according to you, people are permitted to be hurt by being attacked, then they can be hurt by other things, what is considred an attack is personal, not to be decided by you, or Dr. Bob's civility rules.Now, if you are embracing the popular theory that one can *choose* how to respond, then the philosophy dictates that one can choose not to feel hurt by anything. At any rate, it's a theory, undoubtedly one that will be replaced by something else in 10 years.
> But on the upside... If you post something that doesn't accuse or attack someone else - but they respond by feeling hurt or accused then you won't get blocked.
>
> Sounds fair enough to me...It sounds "fair enough" to you because you don't feel hurt or attacked by the particular behaviour. Some people find having their posts scrutinized a form of attack, and they are entitled to that, they are also entitled to ask Dr. Bob to review the civility rules, and are no less "owning their emotions" than someone who feels hurt by being called names.
>People agree in feeling hurt and accused if someone posts something attacking - all people would respond in the same way.
That's absolutely untrue..
I often get a good laugh out of being attacked.
Much *civil* behaviour can drive make me hot under the collar like nothing else, passive aggression is perfectly civil, much sarcasm also gets under the radar.But with respect to some behaviour different people feel differently about it.
>
> It is interesting to me that the people who don't mind it try to see what Lou is trying to do with his behaviour... The people who do mind it seem more interested in arguing that the behaviour *in itself* is offensive.
>
> But the trouble is that if the behaviour in itself is offensive then there must be something wrong with the responses of the people who are not offended...
>
> Is this making any sense at all??????Who decides this for you? I'm not offended by swearing.. what's wrong with me?
In that regard what are legitimate responses according to you would change from generation to generation and culture to culture.
>> Gabbi - I hope that made a bit of sense.I wasn't asking for it to be clarified. As I've said a few times to you, I'm more than familiar with the theory, and I understand it, I simply disagree with it, and not because I'm slooow.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on May 22, 2005, at 18:04:12
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 22, 2005, at 17:45:25
> ... Some people find having their posts scrutinized a form of attack, and they are entitled to that, they are also entitled to ask Dr. Bob to review the civility rules, and are no less "owning their emotions" than someone who feels hurt by being called names...
Regardless of whether or not we as a group agree on if the behavior is uncivil, I am so glad some agree that it's not uncivil to bring it up. If it's not uncivil to ask if what others post is uncivil, I don't see how it's uncivil to ask if questioning the civility of what others post is uncivil. That's all. (Boy if someone came into the middle of this with no background on the debate, I think that sentence might make their head explode!)
Minnie
;)
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 22, 2005, at 18:37:52
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd?, posted by Minnie-Haha on May 22, 2005, at 18:04:12
> > ... Some people find having their posts scrutinized a form of attack, and they are entitled to that, they are also entitled to ask Dr. Bob to review the civility rules, and are no less "owning their emotions" than someone who feels hurt by being called names...
>
> Regardless of whether or not we as a group agree on if the behavior is uncivil, I am so glad some agree that it's not uncivil to bring it up. If it's not uncivil to ask if what others post is uncivil, I don't see how it's uncivil to ask if questioning the civility of what others post is uncivil. That's all. (Boy if someone came into the middle of this with no background on the debate, I think that sentence might make their head explode!)
Owww! And I didn't even come in late.Well, yeah. I understand that there have to be rules for what is commonly found offensive, and I'm glad that they are here. However I don't see how hypothetically, it would be considered *okay* or taking ownership of one's emotions if one was offended by every single thing deemed *uncivil* but somehow not taking ownership if one was offended by something not listed. Sounds like a scary majority rules concept on legitimizing feelings.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 22, 2005, at 19:37:30
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » Minnie-Haha, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 22, 2005, at 18:37:52
I know my post was harsh. But honestly, I'm so sick to death of this topic, we've been over it and over it. I *do* understand the technical difference between "I find that offensive" And "I was offended" however, I've also noticed that by most people they are interpreted interchangeably, and that's the way I speak. I would never say "I responded to that by being offended" It's so *not* me.
Saying "That's offensive" is a blanket judgement, to some saying "I find that offensive" is equal to that. To me, it's not.
And I'm just fine with that.
Posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 20:05:15
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » Gabbi-x-2, posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 16:46:31
I just don't understand why he isn't willing to compromise on that small, but very important part of making the boards visible to the public.
:((((
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.