![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 12 to 36 of 81. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by Nickengland on August 6, 2005, at 19:31:35
In reply to Please Be Civil » Nickengland, posted by gabbii on August 6, 2005, at 19:15:59
I dont think you quite take the whole train wreck thing seriously gabbi.
Any follow ups to this, you can read my message at the bottom of the page.
I'm not posting on this 'admin' board anymore, so please dont reply to this message to tempt me further.
Great tag-team by the way, you make a fine pair!
Thanks
Posted by wildcard on August 6, 2005, at 19:33:23
In reply to Wow » crushedout, posted by gabbii on August 6, 2005, at 18:57:55
you are not by any means referring to the bombings in London in any manner are you? i mean you of all people would have no reason to HIDE behind a remark such as "i think youre the bomb" when how ironically, Nickengland and the babbler that you are referring to had a disagreement would you? of course not-that would be against admin. rules now wouldn't it. I HOPE THAT NO PERSON ON THIS SITE WOULD EVER BE DISTASTEFUL ENOUGH TO TRY AND HURT ANYONE WITH A REMARK ABOUT TERRORISM-whether open about it or in a cowardly remark!....and i hope that Dr.Bob looks at your timing w/ that remark and see's it for what it is...a way to try and go between the lines and say something that horrible. Dr.Bob-block me if u must but pls. take a look at the above.
Posted by gabbii on August 6, 2005, at 19:47:51
In reply to how distasteful!!!! » gabbii, posted by wildcard on August 6, 2005, at 19:33:23
I use that expression all the time, it's a standard sign off to Crushed, but I apologize I wasn't thinking, and it was bad timing.
I would not make fun of tragedy, and though I can see how it looked to you, perhaps you just could have asked?
Posted by wildcard on August 6, 2005, at 19:49:55
In reply to Please Be Civil » gabbii, posted by Nickengland on August 6, 2005, at 19:31:35
I do not blame you one bit for being upset. I lived through 9/11 here in the states but please do not allow certain babblers to hurt you. Look at the source of the remark. I agree-do not even respond to this kind of "support" any longer as neither will i. There are people here that we can do good for so let's use that. Take care and my prayers are with you.
Posted by crushedout on August 6, 2005, at 19:53:06
In reply to Nickengland, posted by wildcard on August 6, 2005, at 19:49:55
but what is that supposed to mean?> please do not allow certain babblers to hurt you. Look at the source of the remark.
Posted by wildcard on August 6, 2005, at 19:57:26
In reply to Re: how distasteful!!!! » wildcard, posted by gabbii on August 6, 2005, at 19:47:51
Posted by wildcard on August 6, 2005, at 20:00:18
In reply to excuse me » wildcard, posted by crushedout on August 6, 2005, at 19:53:06
it refers to gabbi's remark; your the bomb.
Posted by crushedout on August 6, 2005, at 20:02:01
In reply to Re: excuse me, posted by wildcard on August 6, 2005, at 20:00:18
and what are you trying to imply about her when you say "consider the source"?
Posted by wildcard on August 6, 2005, at 20:04:31
In reply to Re: excuse me » wildcard, posted by crushedout on August 6, 2005, at 20:02:01
exactly what it states.
Posted by crushedout on August 6, 2005, at 20:13:26
In reply to DNP to me anymore » crushedout, posted by wildcard on August 6, 2005, at 20:04:31
I think her comment "consider the source" could lead gabbi to feel put down. It seems to imply something negative about gabbi, don't you agree?
I'd ask wildcard myself but she's asked me not to post to her, presumably because she doesn't like my questions? (I tried to work it out instead of "running to the teacher," by asking what she meant, but...oh well. It didn't work.)
> exactly what it states.
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.