![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 2 to 26 of 81. Go back in thread:
Posted by Sonya on August 5, 2005, at 16:32:43
In reply to Generally speaking,, posted by crazy teresa on August 5, 2005, at 16:19:09
Thank you. You've done it again...said exactly what I was thinking.
Posted by crazy teresa on August 5, 2005, at 17:33:47
In reply to Crazy T - took the words out of my mouth!, posted by Sonya on August 5, 2005, at 16:32:43
And by the way, you must be AMAZING!!! ;~} ROFL!!!
Posted by All Done on August 5, 2005, at 18:47:15
In reply to Generally speaking,, posted by crazy teresa on August 5, 2005, at 16:19:09
> I'm curious. Isn't anyone willing to be the bigger/better person (in your own mind) and walk away from all the spatting on this board, or is it enjoyed? Am I seeing anger issues or fun?
Perhaps those that stay do so because they believe there is something or someone worth fighting for. In that case, isn't the bigger/better person the one who stays to defend a principle or a friend?
> Why does it seem to that so much over-anylization takes place?
> ...I do not need to know about or become involved in every petty dispute
I'm not Dr. Bob or even a deputy, but I'm wondering if perhaps you want to rephrase some of this?
Forgive me if I'm out of line here.
Laurie
Posted by All Done on August 5, 2005, at 18:58:13
In reply to Re: Generally speaking, » crazy teresa, posted by All Done on August 5, 2005, at 18:47:15
> Perhaps those that stay do so because they believe there is something or someone worth fighting for. In that case, isn't the bigger/better person the one who stays to defend a principle or a friend?
Sorry. This should have said...
Perhaps those that stay do so because they believe there is something or someone worth fighting for. I don't know that it's possible under these circumstances to determine who is the "bigger/better" person. Everyone has their own reasons for being here or not being here. We all value different things.
Posted by gabbii on August 5, 2005, at 19:22:21
In reply to Re: I should have said, posted by All Done on August 5, 2005, at 18:58:13
Thanks Laurie
I was going to say exactly what you did "we all value different things"
I don't understand threads about booger picking.. some don't understand the reason for admin threads.
Avoiding a controversy doesn't necessarily make a person better, or more mature.
The discussion isn't always, or I dare say most of the time for the sake of fighting.
I've learned a lot here, and I've cleared a lot of things up here.
I don't think generalizations get you very far.> Perhaps those that stay do so because they believe there is something or someone worth fighting for. I don't know that it's possible under these circumstances to determine who is the "bigger/better" person. Everyone has their own reasons for being here or not being here. We all value different things.
Posted by crazy teresa on August 5, 2005, at 21:11:35
In reply to Re: Generally speaking, » crazy teresa, posted by All Done on August 5, 2005, at 18:47:15
>
> > ...I do not need to know about or become involved in every petty dispute
>
> I'm not Dr. Bob or even a deputy, but I'm wondering if perhaps you want to rephrase some of this?
>
> Forgive me if I'm out of line here.
>
> Laurie
RIGHT THERE! THAT'S what I'm talking about! Things are so picked apart and taken out of context the entire post is distorted!
Thanks, Laurie.
Posted by crazy teresa on August 5, 2005, at 21:24:43
In reply to Re: I should have said, posted by gabbii on August 5, 2005, at 19:22:21
I don't recall stating that I avoid conflict, nor did I question anyone's maturity.
I did not say I do not understand the reason for Admin. threads.
I did not generalize. I gave specific examples.
Yet 3 more examples of what I'm talking about! MUCH more is read into posts than what they actually say. I was curious as to why there is so much fighting that goes on and whether or not you enjoy it and how Dr. Bob and the deputies feel about it bexcaue of the positions they're in.
There was really no reason to refer to some other posts that could make others feel bad, now was there?
Posted by gabbii on August 5, 2005, at 21:28:37
In reply to Re: Generally speaking,, posted by crazy teresa on August 5, 2005, at 21:11:35
> RIGHT THERE! THAT'S what I'm talking about! Things are so picked apart and taken out of context the entire post is distorted!
>Laurie was genuinely trying to help you to not get blocked again, I don't know if you're worried about it or not. I know sometimes I feel like something is worth saying even though I know I'll get blocked. If you are concerned though, there are some things that need rewording.
Posted by crazy teresa on August 5, 2005, at 21:52:53
In reply to Generally speaking,, posted by crazy teresa on August 5, 2005, at 16:19:09
I do not understand trying to reason with an unreasonable person who obiviously pays no attention to posts except for tearing them apart and stirring up more conflict and making threats, as presented in the several very long posts currently running on Admin.
Posted by gabbii on August 5, 2005, at 21:58:55
In reply to Re: I should have said » gabbii, posted by crazy teresa on August 5, 2005, at 21:24:43
> I don't recall stating that I avoid conflict,
I hadn't said that you did avoid conflict anywhere. I inferred that you thought it was 'better' from what you said here:
Isn't anyone willing to be the bigger/better person (in your own mind) and walk away from all the spatting on this board,
nor did I question anyone's maturity.
>I took that from what you said here:
>I am curiously reminded of my grade school aged children; as an adult, I need to know when something is terribly wrong, but I do not need to know about or become involved in every petty dispute that occurs every 5 minutes.> I did not say I do not understand the reason for Admin. threads.
I was referring to this:
enjoyed? Am I seeing anger issues or fun?> I did not generalize. I gave specific examples.
I was referring to the title of your post.
"Generally speaking"
Yet 3 more examples of what I'm talking about! MUCH more is read into posts than what they actually say. I was curious as to why there is so much fighting that goes on and whether or not you enjoy it and how Dr. Bob and the deputies feel about it bexcaue of the positions they're in.
>
> There was really no reason to refer to some other posts that could make others feel bad, now was there?
>There was a reason to refer to a post. As an example of reading more into posts than there is, I absolutely meant no insult to anyone who enjoyed that thread. Spriggy is one of my favorite posters.
I simply meant, different strokes for different folks. There was nothing inferred by it.Some like "Reality T.V" some like "Sit Coms"
Had I made judgement on it by labelling it petty, reminiscent of children, then that would be a judgement, and it's quite likely I meant to make someone feel bad, or that it was going to happen.Did you think that anyone involved in the "over analyzation and spatting" on the admin board might feel bad?" Maybe someone who didn't think their questions were over analyzing or defending themselves was spatting?
Posted by gabbii on August 5, 2005, at 22:25:23
In reply to Re: I should have said » crazy teresa, posted by gabbii on August 5, 2005, at 21:58:55
To Clarify Dr. Bob
I didn't mean 'not understand admin threads" in an intellectual sense, but as in.. not understanding the interest in getting involved.
Posted by crazy teresa on August 5, 2005, at 23:10:47
In reply to Re: I should have said » crazy teresa, posted by gabbii on August 5, 2005, at 21:58:55
> > I don't recall stating that I avoid conflict, > I hadn't said that you did avoid conflict anywhere. I inferred that you thought it was 'better' from what you said here:
> Isn't anyone willing to be the bigger/better person (in your own mind) and walk away from all the spatting on this board,No, I don't think it's better. See my post about reasoning with the unreasonable. I don't see the point in 'beating a dead horse.' I see on Admin. some frustration without resolution, with no end in sight because of one person.
>
> nor did I question anyone's maturity.
> >
>
> I took that from what you said here:
> >I am curiously reminded of my grade school aged children; as an adult, I need to know when something is terribly wrong, but I do not need to know about or become involved in every petty dispute that occurs every 5 minutes.I was referring to my job as peacekeeper.
> > I did not say I do not understand the reason for Admin. threads.
> I was referring to this:
> enjoyed? Am I seeing anger issues or fun?This is a website with concerns regarding mental health issues. Are there no people here with anger issues, or those who will only fight for the sake of fighting?
> > I did not generalize. I gave specific examples.
>
> I was referring to the title of your post.
> "Generally speaking"A genuine effort to not get blocked, to show you I was not directing anything at anybody in particular. I was curious and interested.
> Yet 3 more examples of what I'm talking about! MUCH more is read into posts than what they actually say. I was curious as to why there is so much fighting that goes on and whether or not you enjoy it and how Dr. Bob and the deputies feel about it bexcaue of the positions they're in.
> >
> > There was really no reason to refer to some other posts that could make others feel bad, now was there?
> >
>
> There was a reason to refer to a post. As an example of reading more into posts than there is, I absolutely meant no insult to anyone who enjoyed that thread. Spriggy is one of my favorite posters.
> I simply meant, different strokes for different folks. There was nothing inferred by >it.You were talking directly to me and I participated in the post. By saying 'some don't understand the need' in your response I felt like you were being condescending towards me--in my mind, there was no reference to spriggy at all! Thus my point that the longer some of these discussions continue, the more issues that are brought into the debate and the reason for the post in the first place is lost.
> Some like "Reality T.V" some like "Sit Coms"
> Had I made judgement on it by labelling it petty, reminiscent of children, then that would be a judgement, and it's quite likely I meant to make someone feel bad, or that it was going to happen.Again I was referring to my roll as peacekeeper, nothing more.
>
> Did you think that anyone involved in the "over analyzation and spatting" on the admin board might feel bad?" Maybe someone who didn't think their questions were over analyzing or defending themselves was spatting?
>
>I apologize. That was not my intent. My point was that I do not understand why once I make a post(I don't like cabbage), if someone does not like it, why doesn't that someone respond with a reasonable request for clarification (why don't you like cabbage?) and nothing more (OMG, she HATES cabbage, she must want to kill all people who like cabbage and the growers, too!) I do not enjoy having to pick apart each and every sentence and debate it, feeling as if I am being bated--being questioned just to see if someone will get me to slip up so he can feel the joy of seeing another be reprimanned.
t
Posted by gabbii on August 5, 2005, at 23:41:54
In reply to Re: I should have said, posted by crazy teresa on August 5, 2005, at 23:10:47
> You were talking directly to me and I participated in the post.
So did I.
"When you said I don't understand the need" in your response I felt like you were being condescending towards me
**That is not what I said at all**
I said "I don't understand booger threads"
Check the post.
I didn't even know you posted on it, I was referring to the thread topic, which was posted by Spriggy. Nothing personal toward you at all.
Which is why when you said make someone feel bad, the only person I could think of possibly being hurt was Spriggy..it wasn't directed toward you. I dont'make passive/veiled digs.. if I'm going to criticize I'll be direct, or ask.Of course I understand the need, for some, it's lighthearted, it takes your mind off things.. I don't understand the *interest* in that particular subject. But I also don't think I'm important enough that I need to understand everything everyone else does.
--> Again I was referring to my roll as peacekeeper,
But as a peacekeeper watching over Childrens battles.. and you said you wondered if Dr. Bob or Dinah ever felt like you did..Anyway, enough of this eh?
It's not that important.
Posted by All Done on August 6, 2005, at 1:40:03
In reply to Re: Generally speaking,, posted by crazy teresa on August 5, 2005, at 21:11:35
> >
> > > ...I do not need to know about or become involved in every petty dispute
> >
> > I'm not Dr. Bob or even a deputy, but I'm wondering if perhaps you want to rephrase some of this?
> >
> > Forgive me if I'm out of line here.
> >
> > Laurie
>
>
>
> RIGHT THERE! THAT'S what I'm talking about! Things are so picked apart and taken out of context the entire post is distorted!
>
> Thanks, Laurie.
>Gabbi's right. That's where I was trying to help.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2005, at 3:01:16
In reply to Re: I should have said, posted by crazy teresa on August 5, 2005, at 23:10:47
> an unreasonable person who obiviously pays no attention to posts except for tearing them apart and stirring up more conflict and making threats
> no end in sight because of one person.
Please don't jump to conclusions about others or post anything that could lead them to feel accused or put down. The last time you were blocked it was for 1 week, so this time it's for 3.
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 post, should of course themselves be civil.
> I do not enjoy having to pick apart each and every sentence and debate it
Then don't?
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by spriggy on August 6, 2005, at 12:42:12
In reply to Re: blocked for 3 weeks » crazy teresa, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2005, at 3:01:16
somebody doesn't understood my booger thread?
ROFL
*confused look*
Posted by wildcard on August 6, 2005, at 13:32:10
In reply to WHAT?!?! I can not believe this...., posted by spriggy on August 6, 2005, at 12:42:12
My thoughts exactly!
Posted by gabbii on August 6, 2005, at 14:37:02
In reply to WHAT?!?! I can not believe this...., posted by spriggy on August 6, 2005, at 12:42:12
> somebody doesn't understood my booger thread?
>
> ROFL
>
> *confused look*Spriggy, you're too much
Ah spriggy perhaps that thread was ill chosen, maybe the word BOOGER just came into my head..
and I typed it out..
I'm sure there are many many threads on Social I understand less : )
Posted by crushedout on August 6, 2005, at 14:42:30
In reply to Re: WHAT?!?! I can not believe this.... » spriggy, posted by gabbii on August 6, 2005, at 14:37:02
i like admin because i like watching train wrecks. it's a morbid fascination.
i'm not proud of it but i'm also not ashamed. it seems to be a natural human tendency toward conflict and schadenfreude.
i also like to suck my thumb and eat milk and cookies and i really wish i had a mommy.
(ok, i don't really suck my thumb. but the rest is true.)
Posted by Nickengland on August 6, 2005, at 16:03:37
In reply to as i confessed before, posted by crushedout on August 6, 2005, at 14:42:30
>i'm not proud of it but i'm also not ashamed. it seems to be a natural human tendency toward conflict and schadenfreude.
Yes and then there is a natural human tendency toward initiating conflict. Perfectly natural aswell, just as when one tries to stop that conflict.
>i like watching train wrecks
Well, as a matter of fact after the recent tube (train) bombings in London, which we are constantly reminded of here in the UK (and thoughtout the world I imagine) with the police at most train stations and also armed police on trains throughout the day time, comforting scared passengers....not forgetting the deaths and victims of passengers from such 'train wrecks' Quite frankly, I do not like or ever want to see another train wreck ever again in my life.
I don't appreciate statements like that, nor do I really see them fittingly civil at a time like this, and of course I could forward this to Dr Bob for a Determination to see whether or not he thinks it is fit for the "civil rules"
>it's a morbid fascination.
I do not have the same morbid fasination like yourself and so won't bother.
Take care
Nick
Posted by wildcard on August 6, 2005, at 16:35:25
In reply to as i confessed before, posted by crushedout on August 6, 2005, at 14:42:30
hey nick-i guess you proved that posts can be taken many different ways! wasn't yours??? like i said in the babble....GOOD POINT :-0
Posted by crushedout on August 6, 2005, at 16:44:54
In reply to Re: as i confessed before, posted by Nickengland on August 6, 2005, at 16:03:37
Posted by crushedout on August 6, 2005, at 16:56:38
In reply to Re: as i confessed before, posted by wildcard on August 6, 2005, at 16:35:25
i don't actually like watching train wrecks -- i've never seen one. it's an expression. and i was just reiterating a fascination for admin that we had a discussion about in social not to long ago, in a tongue-in-cheek (but not sarcastic) manner.i've asked nick england not to post to me anymore because i'm feeling harassed. i hope he'll honor my request. i had assumed that his apology was sincere and that there were no hard feelings, but it doesn't seem like we can get along with each other, so i feel it's best to disengage. [sigh]
it does feel a bit like kindergarten sometimes. right down to the "timeouts." *wry smile*
Posted by gabbii on August 6, 2005, at 18:57:55
In reply to for the record dr. bob, posted by crushedout on August 6, 2005, at 16:56:38
I have heard the admin board compared to car wrecks.. train wrecks.. but never have I seen that anyone respond that way to a common expression.
It's kind of you know like saying you could "kick someone" figure of speech...
Hey Crushed..
I think you're the bomb!
Posted by gabbii on August 6, 2005, at 19:15:59
In reply to Re: as i confessed before, posted by Nickengland on August 6, 2005, at 16:03:37
I could forward this to Dr Bob for a Determination to see whether or not he thinks it is fit for the "civil rules"
>
> >it's a morbid fascination.
>
>
I do not have the same morbid fasination like yourself and so won't bother.Asking for a civility check is not necessarily a desire to incite conflict, and please don't insinuate that about others.
Thanks.
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.