![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 13 to 37 of 37. Go back in thread:
Posted by muffled on August 20, 2007, at 21:55:59
In reply to Re: oops, she finally gets it..., posted by confuzyq on August 20, 2007, at 20:20:24
LOL! You remind me of me! ;-)
Thanks for caring :-)
M
Posted by confuzyq on August 21, 2007, at 6:06:28
In reply to Re: oops, she finally gets it... » confuzyq, posted by muffled on August 20, 2007, at 21:55:59
Posted by meeple on August 23, 2007, at 9:00:49
In reply to Therapy to understand Babble ? SIGH, posted by zazenducke on August 20, 2007, at 11:39:15
((((Zazenduckie)))) I don't think that therapy will help you understand Babble. I'm not sure what is required for one who gets blocked (such as yourself) to find peace here at Babble. I think part of it is about having this ability to let things kind of roll off your back (ie., the capacity to be more resilient and not let it get to you). I'm not sure how many people here have that, however, and for those who get blocked when they really are trying to be careful, I'm not sure that that is a feasible expectation.
So... How else to find peace? Dissociation is one option. I think that is how people who stay here manage to find peace. They protest briefly then need to get back to the regularly scheduled program and thus they repress the unfair verdicts and exhorbatent blockings in order for them to live with themselves and continue to participate here.
How else to find peace? Foster IRL relationships and activities. Basically... Move on. It is sad, yeah. But maybe... This is Bob's attempt to help combat internet addiction. Bob's attempt to ensure we don't become too attached to him. Perhaps...
Hang in there.
Posted by Deputy Dinah on August 23, 2007, at 9:04:28
In reply to Therapy to understand Babble?, posted by meeple on August 23, 2007, at 9:00:49
Please don't post when you're blocked.
I've blocked this screen name and asked Dr. Bob to set the length of any additional block.
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Dr. Bob is always free to override deputy decisions. His email is on the bottom of each page. Please feel free to email him if you believe this decision was made in error.
Dinah, posting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by karen_kay on August 23, 2007, at 12:53:36
In reply to Therapy to understand Babble?, posted by meeple on August 23, 2007, at 9:00:49
there's an error as to your original post.
so, i guess i can't welcome you :)
phoohey!
'no welcome for you!'
so sorry meeple. maybe this isn't your first post? maybe i've taken too many klonopin (i am acting particularly nice to certain posters, you know! and i'm not having self induced heart attacks whenever cars drive by, so i think the meds ahve seomthign to do with it...)
what was i saying again?
hopefully, when you are unblocked, you'll come back, change your name, and i'll welcome you?
take care and i appreciate your contributions to b-land. you are heard and understood. we're not kicking you from our 'hood!
and if you have any extra meds, coudl you throw a few my way/ i'll stand outside with my arms outstreched, waiting......
kk
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 23, 2007, at 19:15:24
In reply to Bob, deputies?, posted by muffled on August 20, 2007, at 14:35:35
> I wonder how we can help Zaz better understand whats happening so she don't have to be afraid and confused and hurt?
It would be great to help posters better understand what's happening to them (and keep it from happening to them again). One way to do that might be to offer to be their "civility buddy" and preview their posts before they submit them?
Bob
Posted by sam123 on August 23, 2007, at 22:23:19
In reply to Why is asking about hobbies uncivil? » Dr. Bob, posted by zazenducke on August 20, 2007, at 8:30:47
In some contexts asking if someone has any hobbies
can be a veiled put down. Asking someone who really has nothing going on in their life would only draw attention to the obvious and no one likes to be reminded they are a loser. "Don't you have any hobbies ?" can be a veiled way of saying "don't you have anything better to do ?"I have not read the post that caused this PBC.
I would say if you honestly want to know about someones hobbies asking that would be civil.
It is possible to use any phrase in ways that have different meanings. Most of this is done by tone of voice, facial expression, or other non-verbal
communication. All of which is lost in a medium such as an internet board or an e-mail.
Posted by muffled on August 23, 2007, at 23:38:24
In reply to Re: helping posters better understand, posted by Dr. Bob on August 23, 2007, at 19:15:24
> > I wonder how we can help Zaz better understand whats happening so she don't have to be afraid and confused and hurt?
>
> It would be great to help posters better understand what's happening to them (and keep it from happening to them again). One way to do that might be to offer to be their "civility buddy" and preview their posts before they submit them?
>
> Bob**Well at the risk of being repititious...I feel nervous personally about the prospect of being responsible for anothers posts. What if they got blocked???????????
Or a PBC and then they get mad at me?
If possible, I would like if YOU could explain, when asked, for a greater explanation. Mebbe you could keep track of each time you do that and have a link to those...
I know you are busy, but you are the ultimate authority here, and you have done so occasionally in the past.
Just sometimes I don't understand....
And if its hurtful and frightening to me, then its proly to others...
Just wish babble could be more predictable, understandable.
And the old long blocks?
What of them?
Are you going to reconsider?
Cuz I think they just hurt is all, I don't think there's much eaducation going on after awhile.
Just hurt.
Babbles not supposed to be bout hurt is it?
I really wish you would give me a complete answer to my questions, and I'll try to shut up and accept what you say.
Muffled
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 25, 2007, at 14:39:25
In reply to Re: helping posters better understand » Dr. Bob, posted by muffled on August 23, 2007, at 23:38:24
> > > I wonder how we can help Zaz better understand whats happening so she don't have to be afraid and confused and hurt?
> >
> > It would be great to help posters better understand what's happening to them (and keep it from happening to them again). One way to do that might be to offer to be their "civility buddy" and preview their posts before they submit them?
> >
> > Bob
>
> **Well at the risk of being repititious...I feel nervous personally about the prospect of being responsible for anothers posts. What if they got blocked???????????
> Or a PBC and then they get mad at me?
> If possible, I would like if YOU could explain, when asked, for a greater explanation. Mebbe you could keep track of each time you do that and have a link to those...
> I know you are busy, but you are the ultimate authority here, and you have done so occasionally in the past.
> Just sometimes I don't understand....
> And if its hurtful and frightening to me, then its proly to others...
> Just wish babble could be more predictable, understandable.
> And the old long blocks?
> What of them?
> Are you going to reconsider?
> Cuz I think they just hurt is all, I don't think there's much eaducation going on after awhile.
> Just hurt.
> Babbles not supposed to be bout hurt is it?
> I really wish you would give me a complete answer to my questions, and I'll try to shut up and accept what you say.
> MuffledFriends,
It is written here,[...I feel nervous..of being responsible..what if...?...I would like if YOU could explain, when asked,..authority here...hurtful..to others...wish..could..don't think there's much...just..not supposed to be..?...I really wish you...and I'll try...what you say...].
The response above was to a statement by Dr. Hsiung,[...offer to their "civility buddy"..before they submit...].
I am unsure as to the new rules that were made here when I rejoined the forum as to if I could post particular links and such. If you would like to email me concerning the poster's concern here, which IMO could involve the meaning of {support} and {education},I could offer you a historical analysis to the concern and Dr. Hsiung's statement as to what historically it could mean so that you could have what may be unbeknownst to you available in order for you to make your own determination as to what the aspects of this topic could involve and how it could or could not effect your mental health.
I am asking that you include a statement that you are at least the age of 21 if you are going to email me concerning this topic.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by muffled on August 25, 2007, at 23:09:10
In reply to Lou's response to mufflled's post-inftdsts, posted by Lou Pilder on August 25, 2007, at 14:39:25
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 6, 2007, at 2:03:31
In reply to Re: helping posters better understand » Dr. Bob, posted by muffled on August 23, 2007, at 23:38:24
> > It would be great to help posters better understand what's happening to them (and keep it from happening to them again). One way to do that might be to offer to be their "civility buddy" and preview their posts before they submit them?
>
> I feel nervous personally about the prospect of being responsible for anothers posts. What if they got blocked???????????
> Or a PBC and then they get mad at me?That's a good question. What I meant above was offering feedback that they would be free to accept or not. If they did end up getting a PBC, or being blocked, I'd hope they'd remember that you tried to help and did your best.
(That's different than having a "mandatory" civility buddy, which has been discussed before:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20051205/msgs/597469.html
which really would be taking responsibility for another poster's posts.)
> If possible, I would like if YOU could explain, when asked, for a greater explanation.
I thought Sam explained this one well...
> And the old long blocks?
> What of them?
> Are you going to reconsider?
> Cuz I think they just hurt is all, I don't think there's much eaducation going on after awhile.
> Just hurt.
> Babbles not supposed to be bout hurt is it?I'm open to considering alternatives to long blocks. The goal of Babble isn't hurt, but unfortunately some hurt I think is inevitable. But let's try to minimize it as much as possible.
Bob
Posted by zenhussy on September 6, 2007, at 4:05:06
In reply to Re: helping posters better understand, posted by Dr. Bob on September 6, 2007, at 2:03:31
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 6, 2007, at 10:27:44
In reply to Re: helping posters better understand, posted by Dr. Bob on September 6, 2007, at 2:03:31
> > > It would be great to help posters better understand what's happening to them (and keep it from happening to them again). One way to do that might be to offer to be their "civility buddy" and preview their posts before they submit them?
> >
> > I feel nervous personally about the prospect of being responsible for anothers posts. What if they got blocked???????????
> > Or a PBC and then they get mad at me?
>
> That's a good question. What I meant above was offering feedback that they would be free to accept or not. If they did end up getting a PBC, or being blocked, I'd hope they'd remember that you tried to help and did your best.
>
> (That's different than having a "mandatory" civility buddy, which has been discussed before:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20051205/msgs/597469.html
>
> which really would be taking responsibility for another poster's posts.)
>
> > If possible, I would like if YOU could explain, when asked, for a greater explanation.
>
> I thought Sam explained this one well...
>
> > And the old long blocks?
> > What of them?
> > Are you going to reconsider?
> > Cuz I think they just hurt is all, I don't think there's much eaducation going on after awhile.
> > Just hurt.
> > Babbles not supposed to be bout hurt is it?
>
> I'm open to considering alternatives to long blocks. The goal of Babble isn't hurt, but unfortunately some hurt I think is inevitable. But let's try to minimize it as much as possible.
>
> BobDr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...hurt I think is inevitable.... let's try to minimize {it},(hurt), as much as possible...].
The post that you replied to writes in part,[...I would like if YOU could explain, when asked, for greater explanation...] (the (YOU) in caps was as written by the member).
You cited a statement by a member,(Sam), as explaining that (well). Sam wrote,
[...are you going to reconsider...]and,
[...they ..hurt us all...]and,
[...I don't think there is much education...]and,
[...just hurt...]and,
[...babble about {hurt}?...]
I am unsure as to what the the grammatical structure could mean of your reply to the statement that the member had to you,[...I would like if (YOU) could explain, when asked,for greater explanation...]. My next post will go into the details and questions that could arrise from your reply here to the member.
If anyone is considering posting a response in this thread, I would like for you to email me if you like to see the historical parallels that could be involved in this discussion and perhaps by knowing what I could email to you that other psychiatrists/psychologists write that may be unbeknownst to you, that could help you IMO to make your own determination as to some aspects of this discussion that could or could could not be relevant to mental health concepts.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by muffled on September 6, 2007, at 11:07:40
In reply to Re: helping posters better understand, posted by Dr. Bob on September 6, 2007, at 2:03:31
> That's a good question. What I meant above was offering feedback that they would be free to accept or not. If they did end up getting a PBC, or being blocked, I'd hope they'd remember that you tried to help and did your best.
>
> (That's different than having a "mandatory" civility buddy, which has been discussed before:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20051205/msgs/597469.html
>
> which really would be taking responsibility for another poster's posts.)**Well, its hard fir me to figger this, but I guess its just a failing on my part, but I guess if someone b-mailed me and asked if I thot the post was OK, I WOULD respond, with the discalimer that I didn't know for sure....but I wouldn't want to be doing alot of that...
I guess MY problem is, is that sometimes I have posted what I thot was just fine at the time...but then gotten pbc/blocked etc. Sometimes my judgement seems to be impaired as far as understanding that what I have written is wrong (according to babble standards...)
AND as Sam said, the written word can be taken wrongly.
So in this latter instance, a civility buddy wouldn't work.> > If possible, I would like if YOU could explain, when asked, for a greater explanation.
>
> I thought Sam explained this one well...**yes that poster worded it well, but I didn't know you agreed with Sam UNTIL you said so, until that point it was Sams opinion, but I don't understaND YOU(Bob) very well, so I would never assume ANYthing about you one way or another...
Thats why, the explanation/agreement w/anothers explanation has to come fro you(Bob).
>
> > And the old long blocks?
> > What of them?
> > Are you going to reconsider?
> > Cuz I think they just hurt is all, I don't think there's much eaducation going on after awhile.
> > Just hurt.
> > Babbles not supposed to be bout hurt is it?
>
> I'm open to considering alternatives to long blocks. The goal of Babble isn't hurt, but unfortunately some hurt I think is inevitable. But let's try to minimize it as much as possible.*Sigh. Ya, we'll see :-(
Minimize hurt.....
I don't think long blocks minimize hurt necc...
We have to learn...
Whatever.
M
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 6, 2007, at 16:03:07
In reply to Lou's response to DR. Hsiung's post-smsez » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 6, 2007, at 10:27:44
> > > > It would be great to help posters better understand what's happening to them (and keep it from happening to them again). One way to do that might be to offer to be their "civility buddy" and preview their posts before they submit them?
> > >
> > > I feel nervous personally about the prospect of being responsible for anothers posts. What if they got blocked???????????
> > > Or a PBC and then they get mad at me?
> >
> > That's a good question. What I meant above was offering feedback that they would be free to accept or not. If they did end up getting a PBC, or being blocked, I'd hope they'd remember that you tried to help and did your best.
> >
> > (That's different than having a "mandatory" civility buddy, which has been discussed before:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20051205/msgs/597469.html
> >
> > which really would be taking responsibility for another poster's posts.)
> >
> > > If possible, I would like if YOU could explain, when asked, for a greater explanation.
> >
> > I thought Sam explained this one well...
> >
> > > And the old long blocks?
> > > What of them?
> > > Are you going to reconsider?
> > > Cuz I think they just hurt is all, I don't think there's much eaducation going on after awhile.
> > > Just hurt.
> > > Babbles not supposed to be bout hurt is it?
> >
> > I'm open to considering alternatives to long blocks. The goal of Babble isn't hurt, but unfortunately some hurt I think is inevitable. But let's try to minimize it as much as possible.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Dr. Hsiung,
> You wrote,[...hurt I think is inevitable.... let's try to minimize {it},(hurt), as much as possible...].
> The post that you replied to writes in part,[...I would like if YOU could explain, when asked, for greater explanation...] (the (YOU) in caps was as written by the member).
> You cited a statement by a member,(Sam), as explaining that (well). Sam wrote,
> [...are you going to reconsider...]and,
> [...they ..hurt us all...]and,
> [...I don't think there is much education...]and,
> [...just hurt...]and,
> [...babble about {hurt}?...]
> I am unsure as to what the the grammatical structure could mean of your reply to the statement that the member had to you,[...I would like if (YOU) could explain, when asked,for greater explanation...]. My next post will go into the details and questions that could arrise from your reply here to the member.
> If anyone is considering posting a response in this thread, I would like for you to email me if you like to see the historical parallels that could be involved in this discussion and perhaps by knowing what I could email to you that other psychiatrists/psychologists write that may be unbeknownst to you, that could help you IMO to make your own determination as to some aspects of this discussion that could or could could not be relevant to mental health concepts.
> Lou
> lpilder_1188@fuse.netFriends,
In the above post, here is a correction to what Sam said:
[...asking if someone has any hobbies can be a veiled put down...reminded that they are a loser..Don't you have any hobbies?..(could be equivalent to) don't you have anything better to do?...It is possible to use any phrase in ways that have different meanings...which is lost in a..internet board...].
I apologize for the error and my next post will be to this post by Sam and Dr. Hsiung's post citing Sam's post as the correction.
Lou
>
>
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 6, 2007, at 16:29:29
In reply to Lou's response to DR. Hsiung's post-correction, posted by Lou Pilder on September 6, 2007, at 16:03:07
> > > > > It would be great to help posters better understand what's happening to them (and keep it from happening to them again). One way to do that might be to offer to be their "civility buddy" and preview their posts before they submit them?
> > > >
> > > > I feel nervous personally about the prospect of being responsible for anothers posts. What if they got blocked???????????
> > > > Or a PBC and then they get mad at me?
> > >
> > > That's a good question. What I meant above was offering feedback that they would be free to accept or not. If they did end up getting a PBC, or being blocked, I'd hope they'd remember that you tried to help and did your best.
> > >
> > > (That's different than having a "mandatory" civility buddy, which has been discussed before:
> > >
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20051205/msgs/597469.html
> > >
> > > which really would be taking responsibility for another poster's posts.)
> > >
> > > > If possible, I would like if YOU could explain, when asked, for a greater explanation.
> > >
> > > I thought Sam explained this one well...
> > >
> > > > And the old long blocks?
> > > > What of them?
> > > > Are you going to reconsider?
> > > > Cuz I think they just hurt is all, I don't think there's much eaducation going on after awhile.
> > > > Just hurt.
> > > > Babbles not supposed to be bout hurt is it?
> > >
> > > I'm open to considering alternatives to long blocks. The goal of Babble isn't hurt, but unfortunately some hurt I think is inevitable. But let's try to minimize it as much as possible.
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Dr. Hsiung,
> > You wrote,[...hurt I think is inevitable.... let's try to minimize {it},(hurt), as much as possible...].
> > The post that you replied to writes in part,[...I would like if YOU could explain, when asked, for greater explanation...] (the (YOU) in caps was as written by the member).
> > You cited a statement by a member,(Sam), as explaining that (well). Sam wrote,
> > [...are you going to reconsider...]and,
> > [...they ..hurt us all...]and,
> > [...I don't think there is much education...]and,
> > [...just hurt...]and,
> > [...babble about {hurt}?...]
> > I am unsure as to what the the grammatical structure could mean of your reply to the statement that the member had to you,[...I would like if (YOU) could explain, when asked,for greater explanation...]. My next post will go into the details and questions that could arrise from your reply here to the member.
> > If anyone is considering posting a response in this thread, I would like for you to email me if you like to see the historical parallels that could be involved in this discussion and perhaps by knowing what I could email to you that other psychiatrists/psychologists write that may be unbeknownst to you, that could help you IMO to make your own determination as to some aspects of this discussion that could or could could not be relevant to mental health concepts.
> > Lou
> > lpilder_1188@fuse.net
>
> Friends,
> In the above post, here is a correction to what Sam said:
> [...asking if someone has any hobbies can be a veiled put down...reminded that they are a loser..Don't you have any hobbies?..(could be equivalent to) don't you have anything better to do?...It is possible to use any phrase in ways that have different meanings...which is lost in a..internet board...].
> I apologize for the error and my next post will be to this post by Sam and Dr. Hsiung's post citing Sam's post as the correction.
> LouFRiends,
Here is what I see so far in relation to aspects of this thread.
A. ZZDuck wrote a statement that DR. Hsiung posted here that he is blocking ZZDuck for 3 weeks for posting that statement here.
B.Sam posted ;
1. [...that statement by ZZDuck (can} be a put down...]
2. [...Asking someone (that XXX) would draw attention to XXX and no one likes to br reminded that XXX...]
3. [...Don't you XXX? can be a veiled way of saying,XXX...]
4. [...It is posible to use any phrase in ways that have different meanings...]
5.[...All...is lost...as an internet board...]
My next post will be about more concerning the issues that I see here concerning ZZDuck's statement and Sam's post and that Dr. Hsiung has posted that Sam has explained it well.
If anyone would like to email me concerning what might be unbeknownst to you here, that could be fine.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by sam123 on September 6, 2007, at 23:18:11
In reply to Lou's response to Dr. Hsiung's post-welexSm?, posted by Lou Pilder on September 6, 2007, at 16:29:29
> B.Sam posted ;
> 1. [...that statement by ZZDuck (can} be a put down...]
Sorry to pick nits, but I never said that.I said:
"In some contexts"
"I have not read the post that caused this PBC."I still have not read the post that caused the block. I never said anything about ZZDuck.
I was just offering some ideas on how the phrase in question might be seen as uncivil.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 7, 2007, at 6:08:39
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dr. Hsiung's post-welexSm?, posted by sam123 on September 6, 2007, at 23:18:11
> > B.Sam posted ;
> > 1. [...that statement by ZZDuck (can} be a put down...]
>
>
> Sorry to pick nits, but I never said that.
>
> I said:
>
> "In some contexts"
> "I have not read the post that caused this PBC."
>
> I still have not read the post that caused the block. I never said anything about ZZDuck.
> I was just offering some ideas on how the phrase in question might be seen as uncivil.Friends,
In my statement,
[...that statement by ZZDuck (can} be a put down...],
I was not quoting Sam, for the three dots mean that there are words left out, such as {In some contexts} and {asking if someone has any hobbies}.
The statement in question by ZZDuck is listed in the thread so that discussants in the thread can have a knowlege of that statement by ZZDuck.
It is that the statement by Sam,[...{asking if someone has any hobbies}, {can} be a...put down...]and the action that DR. Hsiung has taken,that he thinks that Sam explained that well, which is posted by Dr. Hsiung as being fine to discuss here, that is part of this discussion now.
Sam posted,[...I was...offering...ideas of how {the phrase in question} might be seen as uncivil...]. The {phrase in question} in this thread could be {that statement by ZZDuck} that can be seen here in this thread.
In,[...that statement by ZZDuck {can} be a put down...], this is my paraphrase of what I think could be an aspect of the thread. The statement does not say anything about ZZDuck, but says that {the statement} {can} be a put down, not that it always is a put down. It is the aspect of [...that the statement {can}...] that is of what I think is important here in this discussion, for if {that statement} {can} be a put down, then could that statement also be of the nature that it is not a put down? If so, what then are the criteria for making that determination? And did not ZZDuck post that it was not intended to be a put down?
Also, what if ZZDuck prefaced the statement in question with {I believe}? Would the preface make the statement in question acceptable? Does the context of the statement in question mean that it goes without saying that ZZDuck believes that?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 7, 2007, at 6:49:42
In reply to Lou's response to Sam's post-A » sam123, posted by Lou Pilder on September 7, 2007, at 6:08:39
> > > B.Sam posted ;
> > > 1. [...that statement by ZZDuck (can} be a put down...]
> >
> >
> > Sorry to pick nits, but I never said that.
> >
> > I said:
> >
> > "In some contexts"
> > "I have not read the post that caused this PBC."
> >
> > I still have not read the post that caused the block. I never said anything about ZZDuck.
> > I was just offering some ideas on how the phrase in question might be seen as uncivil.
>
> Friends,
> In my statement,
> [...that statement by ZZDuck (can} be a put down...],
> I was not quoting Sam, for the three dots mean that there are words left out, such as {In some contexts} and {asking if someone has any hobbies}.
> The statement in question by ZZDuck is listed in the thread so that discussants in the thread can have a knowlege of that statement by ZZDuck.
> It is that the statement by Sam,[...{asking if someone has any hobbies}, {can} be a...put down...]and the action that DR. Hsiung has taken,that he thinks that Sam explained that well, which is posted by Dr. Hsiung as being fine to discuss here, that is part of this discussion now.
> Sam posted,[...I was...offering...ideas of how {the phrase in question} might be seen as uncivil...]. The {phrase in question} in this thread could be {that statement by ZZDuck} that can be seen here in this thread.
> In,[...that statement by ZZDuck {can} be a put down...], this is my paraphrase of what I think could be an aspect of the thread. The statement does not say anything about ZZDuck, but says that {the statement} {can} be a put down, not that it always is a put down. It is the aspect of [...that the statement {can}...] that is of what I think is important here in this discussion, for if {that statement} {can} be a put down, then could that statement also be of the nature that it is not a put down? If so, what then are the criteria for making that determination? And did not ZZDuck post that it was not intended to be a put down?
> Also, what if ZZDuck prefaced the statement in question with {I believe}? Would the preface make the statement in question acceptable? Does the context of the statement in question mean that it goes without saying that ZZDuck believes that?
> LouFriends,
The gramatical structure of the statement in question by ZZDuck uses the word {hobby} that DR. Hsiung has posted that he thinks that [...Sam explained it well...].
My friends, a hobby generally means that it is a pursuit outside of one's regular occupation, in their spare-time, and generally means that one does not make a living from doing it.
The taxing laws of many countries make a distinction as to if what one is declaring income from is a hobby or not.
ZZDuck's use of {hobby} as to this forum can be determined as feasible or not as to how one {belives} the forum is operated. One could ask themselves in making their own determination as to if the forum is a hobby or not:
A. Does Dr.Hsiung derive his major income from the forum?
B. Is the forum operated in the spare-time of Dr. Hsiung?
C.Is the forum outside of his regular occupation as a university psychiatrist?
These questions can be be answered by Dr. Hsiung. But not withstanding a clear understanding as to the clarification of the questions, could not it be reasonable for one here that they could think that the forum is a hobby? If not, why not?
Lou
Posted by sam123 on September 7, 2007, at 8:51:01
In reply to Lou's response to Sam's post-B, posted by Lou Pilder on September 7, 2007, at 6:49:42
> A. Does Dr.Hsiung derive his major income from the forum?
> B. Is the forum operated in the spare-time of Dr. Hsiung?
> C.Is the forum outside of his regular occupation as a university psychiatrist?
> These questions can be be answered by Dr. Hsiung.
They have already been answered in the FAQ, on this board countless times, or in the test all take for consent to post on this board.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 7, 2007, at 9:48:38
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Sam's post-B, posted by sam123 on September 7, 2007, at 8:51:01
>
> > A. Does Dr.Hsiung derive his major income from the forum?
> > B. Is the forum operated in the spare-time of Dr. Hsiung?
> > C.Is the forum outside of his regular occupation as a university psychiatrist?
> > These questions can be be answered by Dr. Hsiung.
>
>
> They have already been answered in the FAQ, on this board countless times, or in the test all take for consent to post on this board.Friends,
It is written here,[...already been answered...{countless times}...].
That is a response to my questions above.
Perhaps some people have a clear understanding as to what Dr. Hsiung has or has not posted pertaining to the questions above. Also, perhaps there are members that do not have a clear understanding due to the nature of their condition concerning retention and memory and other aspects of their condition.
The subject in my post was;
[...could not it be reasonable for >one here< that they could think that the forum is a hobby?...]
What one {believes} as to the forum's operation could be influened by many factors. I do not know the factors that have influenced the member, ZZDuck to post {that statement} in question. I believe that it could be reasonable for one to {think}, and reasonable people can disagree and disagreements can be cleared up.
In a diverse population of members that comprise a broad spectrum of individual differences, and have members that seek support and education concerning mental health issues, there are considerations IMO to look at posts by members in the light of the nature of the members special circumstatnces.
I do not think that I could stay very long on a forum that was not concerning mental health issues and the poulation was not made up of people seeking support and education concerning mental health issues.
I ask, as to the answers to the questions being in many places here, what could the answers to the questions, in your opinions, lead a person {of the nature of the population here} to believe? Has it not been posted here,[...It is possible to use {any phrase} in ways that have different meanings...]? If so, could not ZZDuck's meaning be diferent from what others think it means? If so, could this not be a {disagreement} rather than something else? If so, could not the disagreement be cleared up by having dialog?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 8, 2007, at 7:24:07
In reply to Re: helping posters better understand, posted by Dr. Bob on September 6, 2007, at 2:03:31
> > > It would be great to help posters better understand what's happening to them (and keep it from happening to them again). One way to do that might be to offer to be their "civility buddy" and preview their posts before they submit them?
> >
> > I feel nervous personally about the prospect of being responsible for anothers posts. What if they got blocked???????????
> > Or a PBC and then they get mad at me?
>
> That's a good question. What I meant above was offering feedback that they would be free to accept or not. If they did end up getting a PBC, or being blocked, I'd hope they'd remember that you tried to help and did your best.
>
> (That's different than having a "mandatory" civility buddy, which has been discussed before:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20051205/msgs/597469.html
>
> which really would be taking responsibility for another poster's posts.)
>
> > If possible, I would like if YOU could explain, when asked, for a greater explanation.
>
> I thought Sam explained this one well...
>
> > And the old long blocks?
> > What of them?
> > Are you going to reconsider?
> > Cuz I think they just hurt is all, I don't think there's much eaducation going on after awhile.
> > Just hurt.
> > Babbles not supposed to be bout hurt is it?
>
> I'm open to considering alternatives to long blocks. The goal of Babble isn't hurt, but unfortunately some hurt I think is inevitable. But let's try to minimize it as much as possible.
>
> BobDr. Hsiung and Sam,
You both have posted in this thread. In regards to a statement here by the member, ZZDuck, attempting to have dialog with Dr.Hsiung concerning {hobbies}, DR. Hsiung, you wrote,[...I thought Sam explained this one well...]. Sam, you wrote,[...asking if someone has {any} >hobbies< {can be} a..put down...]and,[...Asking someone who really has nothing going on in their life would only draw attention to the obvious and no one likes to be reminded (that) they are a XXX...]and,[...Don't you have any hobbies?...]and,[...I would say if you {honestly} want to know about someones hobbies asking that >would be civil<...]and,[...it is possible to use any phrase in ways that have different meanings...].
DR. Hsiung, ZZDuck posted that there was not an intention to put you down by attempting to have dialog with you. As I read {that statement} by ZZDuck that is cited by you, I can not see anything in the statement that Sam says could be related to you such as {having nothing going on in your life...drawing attention to the obvious...reminding you that you are a XXX ...anything better...]. And looking at what Sam wrote here,[..."Don't you have any hobbies?" can be a veiled way of saying "don't you have anything better to do?"...], let us see if ZZDuck wrote such?.
Did ZZDuck write what Sam quoted? ("Don't you have any hobbies?"). Let us look at what ZZDuck wrote:
[...XXX...]. I see that as being different from,[...Don't you...]. And asking, according to Sam, {could} be, in some contexts, a veiled put down. If it {could be} , then could it also be that {it could not be}? How could anyone make a judgement as to a person's attempt to have dialog with someone to be a put down? If any one knows the criteria to make such a conclusion, could you post those criteria here? And as far as the context, the forum is one where people seek support and education concerning mental health issues, and is it not been in the past here others having dialog with Dr. Hsiung which could mean that DR. Hsiung welcomes members to have dialog with him here? If so, then is not ZZDuck responding to the context of the forum by attempting to have dialog with Dr. Hsiung?
Did ZZDuck write anything in {that statement} that could remind you of anything? I agree with Sam that a statement like,[.."Don't you have any...?] could be equilvalent to,[...don't you have anything better....]. But did ZZDuck write that?. ZZDuck wrote,[..XXX...] which I see as being different.
Sam, you wrote,[...if you honestly want to know about someones hobbies asking thst would be civil...].
Dr. Hsiung and Sam, ZZDuck in {that statement} asked about DR. Hsiung's hobbies. The grammatical structure of ZZDuck's attmpt to have dialog with Dr. Hsiung shows IMO an honest attempt to have dialog with Dr. Hsiung. Members here have asked me if I have any hobbies. I have replied to them, for I can not conclude as to if their attempt to have dialog with me is or is not honest. If one is to make such a judgment about another's integrity, I do not know what could be the criteria that one could use to make such a conclusion, and if one here know the criteria, could you list them here?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 8, 2007, at 8:06:02
In reply to Loui's response to Dr. Hsiung and Sam-integ » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 8, 2007, at 7:24:07
> > > > It would be great to help posters better understand what's happening to them (and keep it from happening to them again). One way to do that might be to offer to be their "civility buddy" and preview their posts before they submit them?
> > >
> > > I feel nervous personally about the prospect of being responsible for anothers posts. What if they got blocked???????????
> > > Or a PBC and then they get mad at me?
> >
> > That's a good question. What I meant above was offering feedback that they would be free to accept or not. If they did end up getting a PBC, or being blocked, I'd hope they'd remember that you tried to help and did your best.
> >
> > (That's different than having a "mandatory" civility buddy, which has been discussed before:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20051205/msgs/597469.html
> >
> > which really would be taking responsibility for another poster's posts.)
> >
> > > If possible, I would like if YOU could explain, when asked, for a greater explanation.
> >
> > I thought Sam explained this one well...
> >
> > > And the old long blocks?
> > > What of them?
> > > Are you going to reconsider?
> > > Cuz I think they just hurt is all, I don't think there's much eaducation going on after awhile.
> > > Just hurt.
> > > Babbles not supposed to be bout hurt is it?
> >
> > I'm open to considering alternatives to long blocks. The goal of Babble isn't hurt, but unfortunately some hurt I think is inevitable. But let's try to minimize it as much as possible.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Dr. Hsiung and Sam,
> You both have posted in this thread. In regards to a statement here by the member, ZZDuck, attempting to have dialog with Dr.Hsiung concerning {hobbies}, DR. Hsiung, you wrote,[...I thought Sam explained this one well...]. Sam, you wrote,[...asking if someone has {any} >hobbies< {can be} a..put down...]and,[...Asking someone who really has nothing going on in their life would only draw attention to the obvious and no one likes to be reminded (that) they are a XXX...]and,[...Don't you have any hobbies?...]and,[...I would say if you {honestly} want to know about someones hobbies asking that >would be civil<...]and,[...it is possible to use any phrase in ways that have different meanings...].
> DR. Hsiung, ZZDuck posted that there was not an intention to put you down by attempting to have dialog with you. As I read {that statement} by ZZDuck that is cited by you, I can not see anything in the statement that Sam says could be related to you such as {having nothing going on in your life...drawing attention to the obvious...reminding you that you are a XXX ...anything better...]. And looking at what Sam wrote here,[..."Don't you have any hobbies?" can be a veiled way of saying "don't you have anything better to do?"...], let us see if ZZDuck wrote such?.
> Did ZZDuck write what Sam quoted? ("Don't you have any hobbies?"). Let us look at what ZZDuck wrote:
> [...XXX...]. I see that as being different from,[...Don't you...]. And asking, according to Sam, {could} be, in some contexts, a veiled put down. If it {could be} , then could it also be that {it could not be}? How could anyone make a judgement as to a person's attempt to have dialog with someone to be a put down? If any one knows the criteria to make such a conclusion, could you post those criteria here? And as far as the context, the forum is one where people seek support and education concerning mental health issues, and is it not been in the past here others having dialog with Dr. Hsiung which could mean that DR. Hsiung welcomes members to have dialog with him here? If so, then is not ZZDuck responding to the context of the forum by attempting to have dialog with Dr. Hsiung?
> Did ZZDuck write anything in {that statement} that could remind you of anything? I agree with Sam that a statement like,[.."Don't you have any...?] could be equilvalent to,[...don't you have anything better....]. But did ZZDuck write that?. ZZDuck wrote,[..XXX...] which I see as being different.
> Sam, you wrote,[...if you honestly want to know about someones hobbies asking thst would be civil...].
> Dr. Hsiung and Sam, ZZDuck in {that statement} asked about DR. Hsiung's hobbies. The grammatical structure of ZZDuck's attmpt to have dialog with Dr. Hsiung shows IMO an honest attempt to have dialog with Dr. Hsiung. Members here have asked me if I have any hobbies. I have replied to them, for I can not conclude as to if their attempt to have dialog with me is or is not honest. If one is to make such a judgment about another's integrity, I do not know what could be the criteria that one could use to make such a conclusion, and if one here know the criteria, could you list them here?
> Lou Pilder
>
Dr. Hsiung and Sam,
Here is a link to a post where a member asks me about hobbies.
She writes,[...Lou, I wonder if you have any hobbies? I do...]
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/769032.html
Here is a link to a post where I reply to her;
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/770788.html
Here is a link to a post where bob thanks me and links to my post, which could be what the thanks is for.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/771808.html
In the posts, could not there be an expectation in the context of this forum that asking another about hobbies is supportive? And if so, could it not be considerd that ZZDuck was being led to believe, if she read the posts here that I have listed, that asking Dr. Hsiung about hobbies was in the context?
Lou PIlder
Posted by zazenducke on October 23, 2007, at 19:33:07
In reply to Therapy to understand Babble?, posted by meeple on August 23, 2007, at 9:00:49
Thanks meeple
I'm attempting to move on
Thanks for answering my question.
Very good advice.
I'm not good at dissociating at all.
Integrity to the nth for me.
I think it is cruel that you are banned from babble. I was reading about shunning on wikipedia and it reminded me of the blocking process on babble.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunning
Hope youre having a good year.
Posted by muffled on October 23, 2007, at 22:44:41
In reply to Shunning is bad WE MISS YOU » meeple, posted by zazenducke on October 23, 2007, at 19:33:07
>> I think it is cruel that you are banned from babble. I was reading about shunning on wikipedia and it reminded me of the blocking process on babble.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunning*Yup, I miss her too.
GOOD ONE! ZaZ!!!! Shunning. PERFECT description.
:-(
This is the end of the 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.