![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 7 to 31 of 71. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on January 5, 2006, at 21:33:17
In reply to Lar's block, posted by ClearSkies on January 5, 2006, at 16:35:16
((((Larry))))
I hope you are okay...
And I hope this doesn't lead to more bad feelings between us.I am sorry you got blocked.
And I know you will be hurting right now.
And I hate it when you are hurting and I wish you didn't have to hurt and I'd stop it if I could...But I can't.
And I know that you were trying to help Deneb
And I know you put a lot of time and energy and effort into trying to help her.
And I know you did this at a time when you were struggling yourself.And while all of that is true...
At the very same time it is true that...I thought you were going to get blocked for that.
Like last time you got blocked.
I thought you were going to get blocked for that too.And I understand the reasons for the block...
And I agree with the block...Though that can be true at the very same time as my wishing that you didn't feel hurt and my wishing that you weren't blocked.
And I really hope this doesn't lead to more bad feelings between us.
Posted by Jakeman on January 5, 2006, at 21:51:42
In reply to Lar's block, posted by ClearSkies on January 5, 2006, at 16:35:16
> @$#&!!!!
>
> Argh!! How words trip us up! I am so so sorry, Larry.
> ClearSkiesLar,
I'm surprised that your're blocked again. I've never seen you as a mean sprited person. I have trouble figuring out what's going on here.
warm regards ~Jake
Posted by alexandra_k on January 5, 2006, at 22:00:56
In reply to Re: Lar's block, posted by Jakeman on January 5, 2006, at 21:51:42
posters don't get blocked because they are 'mean spirited people' they get blocked because they posted something uncivil...
Posted by James K on January 5, 2006, at 22:05:03
In reply to Lar's block, posted by ClearSkies on January 5, 2006, at 16:35:16
I'm new around here so I don't know about past histories. I've read the civility clause, and I'm going to read it again regularly till i've got it down.
I would like to say that Larry if you're reading, and I'm not sure I would be, please come back when you can. In the short time I've been here I've come to depend on you to bring the Knowledge.
And to administration, or Dr. Bob, if there is any precedent or room for leniency I encourage to consider it. I understand the need for the rules and wouldn't presume to tell you how to run your site. I just feel this poster is important to me and 6 weeks is a long time.
Thank you for listening,
James K
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 6, 2006, at 0:45:12
In reply to Lar's block, posted by ClearSkies on January 5, 2006, at 16:35:16
Oh.. Larry..
I had to stay out of that post.. those posts.. I now I couldn't be civil.
Hang in there..
Nikki x
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 6, 2006, at 3:02:23
In reply to Re: Lar's block, posted by jamestheyonger on January 5, 2006, at 17:04:10
> How much longer do we have to go through the cycles of manipulation and false threats of harm ?
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. I've asked you to be civil before, so now I'm going to block you from posting for a week.
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.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by spriggy on January 6, 2006, at 6:18:07
In reply to Re: blocked for week » jamestheyonger, posted by Dr. Bob on January 6, 2006, at 3:02:23
Posted by wildcard on January 6, 2006, at 10:14:00
In reply to Lar's block, posted by ClearSkies on January 5, 2006, at 16:35:16
Yeah, know how you feel.
Posted by wildcard on January 6, 2006, at 16:29:29
In reply to Re: Lar's block, posted by Jakeman on January 5, 2006, at 21:51:42
I see what you were trying to say...
Posted by Declan on January 6, 2006, at 18:54:46
In reply to Re: Lar's block, posted by alexandra_k on January 5, 2006, at 21:33:17
Something is wrong with the system when speaking uncomfortable truth is blocked like this. I realise of course that we need civility guidelines, and rules are of their nature bureaucratic. But all things considered, it just doesn't seem right.
Declan
Posted by wildcard on January 6, 2006, at 18:56:51
In reply to Re: Lar's block, posted by Declan on January 6, 2006, at 18:54:46
Posted by zeugma on January 6, 2006, at 20:11:43
In reply to Re: Lar's block, posted by Declan on January 6, 2006, at 18:54:46
Something is wrong with the system when speaking uncomfortable truth is blocked like this.>>
it's perfectly consistent with the history of this place. when truth and civility clash, civility wins.
-z
Posted by Jakeman on January 6, 2006, at 20:14:31
In reply to Re: Lar's block » Jakeman, posted by wildcard on January 6, 2006, at 16:29:29
Posted by Jakeman on January 6, 2006, at 20:18:27
In reply to Re: Lar's block, posted by Declan on January 6, 2006, at 18:54:46
Posted by alexandra_k on January 6, 2006, at 21:13:15
In reply to Declan » Declan, posted by zeugma on January 6, 2006, at 20:11:43
> speaking uncomfortable truth is blocked
speaking uncomfortable truth?
or
offering one (judgemental) interpretation out of frustration?
Posted by zeugma on January 6, 2006, at 22:31:37
In reply to Re: Declan, posted by alexandra_k on January 6, 2006, at 21:13:15
it's a matter of judgement. whether what larry said was true. it seemed to me (and for this i will get blocked, but no matter) that they were trying to manipulate each other. i believe deneb was trying to get larry to help her. larry tried to get her to help herself.i don't like to manipulate people. i do it, in the course of my job, and i stay up too late feeling terrible about it. no matter that the manipulations i engage in are pettier, more ignoble than the ones we are discussing. my own conscience is wracked. if we pretend that 'manipulative' is value neutral (like say, orange) then i hate manipulativeness the way i hate orange- just an unreasoning aversion to it. i hate it more in myself than others. i don't know why that is. a quirk.
i think sometimes the only manipulations i engage in are those for my personal gain. if i knew how to persuade someone from jumping off a building, i would probably save myself the trouble and walk away. and we are all irritated by do-gooders.
and i don't like to manipulate others. and i understand why manipulating another can maake the other physically sick. that is my reaction to being manipulated. and to manipulating others. that's why i don't do it, unless it benefits me and isn't too much trouble. for this my conscience keeps me up too late.
time for bed.
-z
Posted by alexandra_k on January 6, 2006, at 23:15:47
In reply to Re: Declan » alexandra_k, posted by zeugma on January 6, 2006, at 22:31:37
hmm.
i'm going on a dictionary hunt...
1 : to treat or operate with the hands or by mechanical means especially in a skillful manner
thats where Linehan emphasises that 'manipulation' is a SKILLFUL thing to do (and people learn skills of successfully manipulating their environment in skills training)
2 a : to manage or utilize skillfully
ditto
b : to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one's own advantage
hmm. malevolent intent...
3 : to change by artful or unfair means so as to serve one's purpose
hmm. malevolent intent again...
> it's a matter of judgement. whether what larry said was true. it seemed to me (and for this i will get blocked, but no matter) that they were trying to manipulate each other.in the skillful sense or in the malevolent sense?
i don't think you have bad intentions. bad desires. or that you would treat someone else unfairly in order to further your own ends :-(
and i think... it is judgemental to say that someone is doing this... and that... sometimes we can be our own worst enemy with attributing malevolent intent to ourself :-(
> i think sometimes the only manipulations i engage in are those for my personal gain.
:-(
that doesn't sound like the z i know...> and i don't like to manipulate others. and i understand why manipulating another can maake the other physically sick. that is my reaction to being manipulated. and to manipulating others. that's why i don't do it, unless it benefits me and isn't too much trouble. for this my conscience keeps me up too late.
is it...
about objectification?
its okay to manipulate the environment or inanimate objects...
but dehumanising to manipulate another person?
Posted by Tabitha on January 7, 2006, at 10:13:40
In reply to Lar's block, posted by ClearSkies on January 5, 2006, at 16:35:16
Wouldn't it be nice if Dr. Bob had just stepped in and said something like "Can we not use words like 'manipulate', 'lie', and 'game' here? It tends to sound accusatory. Thanks."
I think that might have gotten the point across without all the upset to Larry, Deneb, and everyone else.
Posted by Sarah T. on January 7, 2006, at 12:08:22
In reply to Re: Lar's block, posted by Tabitha on January 7, 2006, at 10:13:40
What synonyms for "manipulate," "lie," and "game" would you use?
Posted by Dinah on January 7, 2006, at 12:11:51
In reply to Re: Lar's block » Tabitha, posted by Sarah T. on January 7, 2006, at 12:08:22
I wonder if it would make a difference had the wording been:
"You have described yourself as being..."
Posted by Sarah T. on January 7, 2006, at 12:28:18
In reply to Re: Lar's block, posted by Dinah on January 7, 2006, at 12:11:51
> I wonder if it would make a difference had the wording been:>> "You have described yourself as being..."
Hi Dinah,
Your suggestion looks perfect to me. I wonder what Dr. Bob thinks.
S.
Posted by Nickengland on January 7, 2006, at 13:44:48
In reply to Re: Lar's block, posted by Dinah on January 7, 2006, at 12:11:51
Hi Dinah
>I wonder if it would make a difference had the wording been:
>."You have described yourself as being..."
In effect, Larry was blocked because he did not state a premise which was there already...also because he used Deneb's own words -
That means it was civil for Deneb to use the words about herself.
Uncivil for Larry for using them without stating the premise of his assumption which Deneb had created when she expressed her actions..
I think the words you mention above would have meant Larry would not have been blocked...he already used "you" so that means for the lack of 5 words he was blocked more or less, for each word, just over a week totalling 42 days.
Do you feel the block was justifed?
Posted by Dinah on January 7, 2006, at 14:27:12
In reply to Re: Lar's block » Dinah, posted by Nickengland on January 7, 2006, at 13:44:48
I don't know if the alternate wording would have been acceptable. That's why I asked.
I read the post differently than Dr. Bob did. But Dr. Bob wasn't the only one to read the post that way.
It wouldn't have been my call to block Lar, no. And certainly not for six weeks. I think Dr. Bob has the discretion to block for lesser lengths of time. But experience has taught me that it's not much use to ask for that discretion to be used.
But then I was reading the exchange in context of knowing that Lar was favorably disposed to Deneb and concluding that he was unlikely to wish to be uncivil or hurtful to her. In fact, I have a tendency to keep context in mind a lot when reading posts. Prior history between two people, a person's characteristic style of expression and the possibility for misunderstanding, that sort of thing. Perhaps it's better for the community that Dr. Bob judges a post strictly on its content. Because keeping context in mind can obscure sudden changes in context. Not that I'm saying there was a sudden change in context this time. But it does happen.
Posted by Tabitha on January 7, 2006, at 16:00:03
In reply to Re: Lar's block » Tabitha, posted by Sarah T. on January 7, 2006, at 12:08:22
> What synonyms for "manipulate," "lie," and "game" would you use?
I wouldn't suggest using synonyms for those words. Any synonyms would most likely also be considered uncivil here.
Posted by Nickengland on January 7, 2006, at 18:28:39
In reply to Re: Lar's block » Nickengland, posted by Dinah on January 7, 2006, at 14:27:12
Hello Dinah,
I must apologise, I think my post was alittle aggressive...I had to "get it out" some how written on the boards how I felt about the block - sorry that it was to your post..
>But then I was reading the exchange in context of knowing that Lar was favorably disposed to Deneb and concluding that he was unlikely to wish to be uncivil or hurtful to her. In fact, I have a tendency to keep context in mind a lot when reading posts. Prior history between two people, a person's characteristic style of expression and the possibility for misunderstanding, that sort of thing. Perhaps it's better for the community that Dr. Bob judges a post strictly on its content. Because keeping context in mind can obscure sudden changes in context. Not that I'm saying there was a sudden change in context this time. But it does happen.
That makes complete sense to me, I fully understand what you're saying..
Its intersting how sometimes negative situations on here do then turn out to be better somehow along the lines. Its a shame that they happen in the first place, but then if something good arises that was not in place before - I guess its like every cloud has a silver lining so to speak...hopefully that will be the outcome of this :-)
Warm regards
Nick
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.