![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 88 to 112 of 125. Go back in thread:
Posted by Deneb on April 18, 2006, at 23:16:21
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » special_k, posted by Dr. Bob on April 18, 2006, at 22:24:20
Dr. Bob! You're trying out a new system! Wow!
((((Dr. Bob))))
This means that there is great incentive for me to be civil for long periods of time. The new system applies to everyone right? Not just to special k? I'm going to try to never be uncivil again, but it's good to know that if I make a mistake in, say, five years, I won't get an 8 week block right?
Dr. Bob, you sure wrote a lot to special k. How come you don't write a lot to me when I get blocked? I wish you would write a lot to me. Can I please please please give you a hug at the Babble Party? Please don't say no here. Tell me in person. I promise I won't write about it on the boards.
It would make so soooo happy if I could just give you a small hug...
I imagine giving you a hug all the time. I swear I won't go all psycho and stuff. I'm just a quiet person in real life...really quiet.
You would make me very very happy, if you would just allow me one small hug. I'm getting happy just thinking about it! Please consider it.
Deneb*
Posted by Deneb on April 18, 2006, at 23:18:35
In reply to Re: New blocking system, posted by Deneb on April 18, 2006, at 23:16:21
No pressure, I'm not pressuring you to let me hug you. It's entirely up to you. I'll be okay if you don't want to let me hug you.
Deneb*
Posted by NikkiT2 on April 19, 2006, at 5:20:13
In reply to Re: New blocking system, posted by Deneb on April 18, 2006, at 23:16:21
>Dr. Bob, you sure wrote a lot to special k. How come you don't write a lot to me when I get blocked? I wish you would write a lot to me.
BECAUSE he was trying out a new system. If you try and remember, you were the first person he wrote the "its not because I don't like you" to. Infcat, that whole sentence came about due to your complaints I believe. Thats means he does take notice of you.
And, would you like a long post if it meant you were blocked?!
Nikki
Posted by Deneb on April 19, 2006, at 9:14:00
In reply to Re: New blocking system » Deneb, posted by NikkiT2 on April 19, 2006, at 5:20:13
You're right Nikki! Dr. Bob does take notice of me! :-)
Sometimes I forget.
Deneb*
Posted by Damos on April 19, 2006, at 19:15:08
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » special_k, posted by Dr. Bob on April 18, 2006, at 22:24:20
Okay, I feel a little like Demi Moore in A Few Good Men.
"I object!"
Overruled.
"I strenuously object!"
Overruled.
Is there really anything I can say in objection to this block that I haven't said in my other forays onto Admin questioning previous ones? Not really. Will anything I or anyone else says make the least little bit of difference? It appears not.
Thanks for the lesson in advanced Babbematics Bob, but it doesn't change anything. Giving the appearance of doing something isn't the same as actually doing something. The appearance of change doesn't signify any *real* intent to change. Your wonderful new calculation doesn't change the fact that the punishment significantlty outweighs any perceived crime or slight. It is also focuses solely on negatives or the lack thereof.
Surely the 'unofficial' PBC was sufficient. Surely the fact that there were more than a dozen posts by Deputies none of which raised issue with the post/statements prior to that counts for something.
And yes I can hear people saying "He's only questioning it because they're friends." Well you're right in a sense. I do feel honour bound to speak up for my friend. Honour bound because my friend is not uncivil, is not insensitive, is not inconsiderate. Simply is not, and I will not allow those implications to go unchallenged.
I do not understand what you are trying to achieve. To protect people from their feelings? You can't do it. I do not understand what good is served by this and some other blocks; what supportive or educational end. I don't see what is served other than to make someone just "Shut the f*ck up".
The selection of the statements re American/Americans was sadly predictable and I'm not going to waste more words flogging that poor dead horse again. But to suggest that there may be some New Zealander out 'there' somewhere who may be offended is really a bit much when what was being said was that; "I who am one won't be offended, and I who know more of them than any of you ever will don't know one that would be either." You are basically telling this person that *you* know better. And that is simply not true. How far do your idiosyncratic civility rules and the 'boundaries' of babble extend? As an Australian who knows plenty too, I can't think of one who would be either. But again we've spoken at length about this previously.
Special, I'm sorry, I've failed to do you and what you are trying to achieve justice yet again. I'm sorry that you've been blocked, and will miss you. Please take very good care of you.
((((((((((Special_K))))))))))
Posted by henrietta on April 19, 2006, at 19:36:29
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Damos on April 19, 2006, at 19:15:08
I'm sorry, Special, I haven't been here. Haven't been here to support you and tell you how much I admire you. Believe me, there are plenty of "Americans" who agree with you, and are not offended by your honest comments. I'm one, and nearly every friend I have is one.....(I say "nearly" because tho' at the moment I can't think of one who would not agree, I suppose there must be some).So, I'm both supporting you and sorta defending Americans, I guess. We aren't all #######s.
Love you, girl. Take good care of yourself during your respite, your blessed release from this #######.
love, Hen
Posted by Dinah on April 19, 2006, at 19:46:44
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Damos on April 19, 2006, at 19:15:08
Damos, speaking only for myself, I try not to act deputorially in a thread I'm heavily involved in, so you can't use the fact that I posted without posting as deputy as any sort of guide. I think there is a conflict of interest in those hopefully few situations and I try to avoid conflicts of interests wherever possible.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 19, 2006, at 20:56:09
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Damos on April 19, 2006, at 19:15:08
> what was being said was that; "I who am one won't be offended, and I who know more of them than any of you ever will don't know one that would be either."
That by itself would've been fine.
> to suggest that there may be some New Zealander out 'there' somewhere who may be offended is really a bit much
> You are basically telling this person that *you* know better. And that is simply not true.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I knew better the probability that New Zealanders would feel offended. But I didn't think it was zero. And why take the risk?
Bob
Posted by Racer on April 19, 2006, at 21:05:55
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Damos on April 19, 2006, at 19:15:08
Just for the record, I was offended by some of what Special K posted. And my feelings were hurt, too, by the exchange I had with her.
In the larger scheme of things, that probably doesn't matter much -- but it kinda matters to me. Do I think that someone should be blocked for hurting *my* feelings? No. I only bring that up to show that it wasn't a hypothetical Someone whose feelings could Potentially have been hurt. It was an individual, whose feelings were hurt directly, and who felt quite put down by some of the statements made -- especially by the implication that I was being "over"-sensitive about it.
Again, I'm not saying that the block was justified simply because it was my feelings that were hurt. I'm only saying that someone's feelings were hurt, that someone felt put down. It's quite possible that someone else here also feels hurt or put down, but hasn't said so.
Peace.
Posted by verne on April 19, 2006, at 21:28:23
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Damos, posted by Racer on April 19, 2006, at 21:05:55
As an American, not especially patriotic or sensitive about it, I often feel hurt, annoyed, frustrated, and dismayed by the anti-american tone by some posters.
And not just on the politics board. Someone asks themselves "Why do I feel unsafe" on the social board and one response is a link posted to a book about what *Americans* are unreasonably afraid of. http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20060413/msgs/634039.html
It wears me down for one.
Verne
Posted by Racer on April 19, 2006, at 21:33:20
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Damos, posted by Racer on April 19, 2006, at 21:05:55
>It was an individual, whose feelings were hurt directly, and who felt quite put down by some of the statements made -- especially by the implication that I was being "over"-sensitive about it.
>I realized, as soon as I hit "Submit," that I wasn't all that clear about that. My feelings were individually hurt, by some of what SK wrote to me, but some of it was about the lumping together of Americans, as well. Just as you might feel a twinge if someone said, maybe, that all Aussies love sheep, smell like lanolin, or speak Strine. Kinda diminishes that identity thing, you know?
Anyway, I'll get over it, and I was just wanting to make it clear that it wasn't only the remarks that were directed at me that I was reacting to.
Posted by Damos on April 19, 2006, at 22:17:23
In reply to Whoops! Clarification of part of that, posted by Racer on April 19, 2006, at 21:33:20
Hi Racer,
I apologise if you felt I was discounting your feeling in my post, I in no way meant to do that. That there was hurt on both sides of the exchange was obvious and saddens me greatly.
Re your previous post. In the larger scheme of things, any scheme of things it does matter - much.
For the record, my identity wouldn't be the least little bit diminished if you made those types of remarks, just as it isn't when people spell and pronounce my name incorrectly - but that's me.
Again, I'm sorry that you were hurt and really do appreciate your replying as you have.
Posted by Damos on April 19, 2006, at 22:42:09
In reply to Clarification » Damos, posted by Dinah on April 19, 2006, at 19:46:44
Dinah, I respect and admire the way you manage the potential poster/deputy conflict and had always assumed that that was in fact the case. It is an unenviable position for all deputies to be in.
If you or any other deputy felt I was doing anything more than simply stating how things 'appeared' to me then I apologise. I have an unfortunately tendency to be inarticulate(amongst other things).
Damos
Posted by gardenergirl on April 19, 2006, at 23:35:58
In reply to Re: Clarification » Dinah, posted by Damos on April 19, 2006, at 22:42:09
> If you or any other deputy felt I was doing anything more than simply stating how things 'appeared' to me then I apologise.
I think it was a legitimite question. At one point I almost posted a caveat to clarify that I too felt a conflict of interest by my participation in that thread. I wanted to explain why I had not taken any action as a deputy, and I didn't want anyone to assume that meant I thought every post was okay.
It is a tough spot sometimes. Not all that often, but sometimes.
And thanks for speaking up for special_K by letting us look through your lenses for a moment.
Take care,
gg
Posted by damos on April 20, 2006, at 0:10:47
In reply to What Racer Said., posted by verne on April 19, 2006, at 21:28:23
Hey Verne,
Don't think we've ever posted, but just wanted to say that I read and appreciate your posts.
I'm sorry you feel that way, and even sorrier that it wears you down. Your journey seems plenty tough enough.
Don't know what to say, and even less what to do about any of this and it frustrates me so much.
Thanks,
Damos
Posted by Dinah on April 20, 2006, at 6:57:34
In reply to Re: Clarification » Dinah, posted by Damos on April 19, 2006, at 22:42:09
No, I find you're quite articulate.
I just feared that my lack of action on the thread, and waiting till Dr. Bob arrived, might have given the wrong impression on several fronts. As gg said, it occurred to me to disclose my conflict of interest during the thread, but I thought that in itself might be a conflict of interest as I posted as a poster, if that makes sense.
Fortunately these circumstances are rare.
Posted by zeugma on April 20, 2006, at 10:02:05
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Damos on April 19, 2006, at 19:15:08
< to suggest that there may be some New Zealander out 'there' somewhere who may be offended is really a bit much when what was being said was that; "I who am one won't be offended, and I who know more of them than any of you ever will don't know one that would be either." You are basically telling this person that *you* know better. And that is simply not true. How far do your idiosyncratic civility rules and the 'boundaries' of babble extend? As an Australian who knows plenty too, I can't think of one who would be either.>>
hello Damos.
at the risk of generalizing (which I had sworn I would not do in numerous earlier versions of this post) you may well be right about Australians/ New Zealanders, and I would be the last to say you were *wrong.* But America is so polarized at the moment, that people who may question American policies themselves might display heightened sensitivity to critiques emanating from others about America. I started a much earlier draft of this listening to the words of an American political figure that in their vacuousness offend me more than the diatribes of a thousand critics of American policy. But so polarized is this nation that no doubt many listening found them sensible and civilized utterances. In a country where opinion is so bitterly divided, feelings are on edge constantly. That is why it hard to say things civilly on the Politics board. If I quoted those words that I find vacuous- no doubt others would object that I had no right to think that it was civil to quote them and then describe them as vacuous, since someone, somewhere might find them informative and sensible.
This is the polarized reality of political discourse here. I hope these words are explanatory, at least.
((special k))
-z
Posted by Bobby on April 20, 2006, at 21:23:35
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » special_k, posted by Dr. Bob on April 18, 2006, at 22:24:20
I know being blocked hurts you. Here---take one of my don't give a s*** pills. Hope you're better soon.
Posted by Damos on April 20, 2006, at 21:33:06
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Damos, posted by zeugma on April 20, 2006, at 10:02:05
Hello ~Z,
Being *wrong* is not a problem for me, as a matter of fact it's one of the few things I'm really good at ;-)
More than just explanatory. Thoughtful, intelligent and greatly appreciated - as always.
Thanks and warm regards,
DamosP.S: Sorry for being such an appalling slack correspondent, and largely absent friend.
Posted by alesta on April 21, 2006, at 14:04:43
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » zeugma, posted by Damos on April 20, 2006, at 21:33:06
damos you're just *so sweet*. i just wanna hug you sometimes!! nothin but love for you, man.aim :)
Posted by muffled on April 22, 2006, at 10:29:43
In reply to you guys heard? damos is a sweetiepie! :-) » Damos, posted by alesta on April 21, 2006, at 14:04:43
Posted by Damos on April 23, 2006, at 23:57:33
In reply to you guys heard? damos is a sweetiepie! :-) » Damos, posted by alesta on April 21, 2006, at 14:04:43
I think I'm more mudpie than sweetiepie but thanks okay.
You guys are really sweet and incredibly special and precious to me too.
Love and big hugs to you both.
((((((((((Alesta))))))))))
((((((((((Muffled))))))))))
Posted by Declan on April 30, 2006, at 14:40:40
In reply to Re: I *didn't* interpreted it that way » gardenergirl, posted by AuntieMel on April 17, 2006, at 10:40:23
It was nice of Alex to say I was talking about the policies and not the people, but actually I don't think that people/policy dichotomy is helpful. Elections seem to be decided on personell and soundbites (there you go again, where's the beef?) more than policy.
What I was trying to open up for discussion was: what is it about the spirit of the times today that makes it particularly hard for the centre/left to construct a viable narrative and win with it.
A lot of discussion about politics is multilayered. If I was to say the Democrats support base was fractured (or incoherant!), surely noone would think I was referring to individual people. Clearly I am referring to the support demographic.
The cluelessness that I asserted related to the inability of the centre/left to deal with the feel of today. This might be more obvious in Australia, the ALP being as it is.
Declan
Posted by alesta on May 1, 2006, at 15:14:06
In reply to Thankyou » AuntieMel, posted by Declan on April 30, 2006, at 14:40:40
Posted by AuntieMel on May 1, 2006, at 17:38:33
In reply to Thankyou » AuntieMel, posted by Declan on April 30, 2006, at 14:40:40
Well, I am *very* pleased to see you.
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.