![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 42 to 66 of 71. Go back in thread:
Posted by lucie lu on December 9, 2008, at 14:37:45
In reply to Re: Blocked, posted by Phillipa on December 9, 2008, at 13:02:37
A couple of things, in no particular order and to no one in particular. First, a quick comment about whether board dynamics were being influenced by new people (via the "PB experiment," and my sincere apologies to any newcomers who might have joined through this route!) As a participant in the original admin discussion about that issue, I am sensitive to the issue of how new members might affect existing group dynamics. Interestingly, I have seen on the psych board only a few new posters since then, certainly nothing like the "deluge" we feared. With regard to the present situation we've been discussing, nearly all involved were regular posters, many long-time. So the "new poster" factor does not seem to have played any part here.
The second is that I think that a lot of what we are debating boils down to the role and administration of boundaries on Babble. That is what PB's guidelines are - just boundaries. And those of us who participate on the psych board should be VERY familiar with the concept of boundaries. While PB is not therapy, there are similarities. Therapeutic boundaries exist for the protection of both participants. They create a safe place where the work of therapy can be done. Where boundaries have collapsed, and there are unfortunately too many instances we are aware of, the consequences have been disastrous; the blocked poster is one who was profoundly (and wantonly, IMO) injured by a former T - an experience from which I think she is still having a hard time recovering from, and which is still a major source of her great pain.
So Babble is not therapy, but many of the dynamics are similar and that is why it works. Participants need safety above all to enable them to interact on a genuine and deep level with other Babblers, share deep and personal things, and participate in one anothers' growth and healing. We can disagree with one another and still remain safe because the board is boundaried. Without boundaries? I really believe this circle of safety, as in therapy, is destroyed. We can say that we should be able to handle "exceptions" but can we really? Who really knows where a boundary crossing or violation will lead? Or what the consequences will be for any individual? In therapy, boundary crossings usually start with the best of intentions, but in some cases may precede more flagrant and profound boundary violations which are very destructive to both the therapy and the participants. My point is, that we need to keep boundaries on Babble for our own and others' protection, and to ensure that the board remains a safe place where caring and healing can take place. So although we as individuals may not like rules much (believe me, I have issues with authority as much as anyone plus I have a *serious* mamma bear gene :) I have come to learn in therapy that boundaries really exist for everyone's protection. The point is not to ignore people in need, but to help them as much as possible *within the boundaried space.* This is not to say that other helpful actions can't be taken outside that boundaried space, e.g. other forms of personal communication (b-mail? chat?), and perhaps ways to do this should be more actively explored and facilitated in cases like this one. But I really believe that it is critical to keep reasonably intact boundaries in place to keep the PB "space" safe and functional for everyone and at all times. Once broken, hard to repair. There is too much at stake, the board is an invaluable resource for most of us, so let's protect it as well as each other. Safety is such a rare and valuable commodity in this world.
Lucie
Posted by Justherself54 on December 9, 2008, at 15:26:22
In reply to Re: Blocked, posted by lucie lu on December 9, 2008, at 14:37:45
What a great post. I've been on and off the boards for a few years now and have struggled with the "mama bear" syndrome also. Thank you, as it's helped me accept the boundaries of babble a little better.
Posted by TherapyGirl on December 9, 2008, at 18:35:52
In reply to Lou's request for clarification-pstvmnd?, posted by Lou Pilder on December 9, 2008, at 8:29:50
I meant for her to work her way out of the emotional place she is in.
Posted by Toph on December 9, 2008, at 18:57:10
In reply to Re: Blocked » Toph, posted by seldomseen on December 9, 2008, at 13:08:42
> Because we are not the subjects of the research study. There is no guinea pig factor here (although they are incredible cute).
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20081003/msgs/861412.htmlI prefer hamsters s. Getting furry Nikki for Christmas was one of my best Christmases ever. But I digress. I don't feel like a rodent. And I think, as misguided as Bob may be at times, that he is well-intentioned. I simply feel uneasy about 230 people observing and/or participating here who are doing so with completely different motivations than what made you and I become attached here. It changes the place like the preverbial butterfly wing theory, and it changes me and how I react. My hamster would bury himself in his cedar chips when I watched and run relentlessly on that damn wheel when I tried to sleep. Then there's the whole issue of spilling my guts to someone who is merely hoping for grist for a paper. Creeps me out.
Posted by twinleaf on December 9, 2008, at 19:40:21
In reply to Re: This is so hard » twinleaf, posted by Dinah on December 8, 2008, at 18:23:41
I was responding to your comments to me.
1. You pointed out to me that my comment "if I could have said something like, 'tell us how you are feeling, but don't provoke or attack others" " would be characterizing that poster in a negative fashion. Well, yes! I said I would have liked to have been able to say that, but could not because of the guidelines. In my original post, I pointed out that supportive, cautioning posts (yours were among the clearest and most supportive) to that poster were not effective because SSSS was so extremely upset that she couldn't really pay attention to them.. I mentioned that I would have liked to be able to use language that was a bit stronger, but knew THAT I COULD NOT DO SO BECAUSE OF THE SITE GUiDELINES. I was expressing the wish for either posters or deputies to have a broader range of options when there appears to be an emergency situation. I was very surprised and disappointed to be treated as though I did not know the rule about not using negative characterizations, when my knowledge of it was the basis of my writing about and hoping for more flexible rules in cases in which a poster is clearly extremely distressed. I am not alone in this view; several other posters to this thread expressed the same view.
2. You said to me, "I'd like to point out that other posters aren't therapists." I felt extremely belittled and put down by this comment. I know that I have never made any demands that any poster should be a therapist- to me, or to anyone else. I was inquiring about the possibilities of deputies and perhaps posters having slightly more flexibility in situations where posters are in extreme distress. I don't know if that would be helpful or possible, although I was hopeful that an open-minded dialogue about it might ensue, I hoped that the deputies would lead the way.
3. You also told me, "(posters) can help if they feel able to, but they can also feel hurt and distressed themselves. The needs and feelings of *all* posters are important." I felt very hurt and put down by this comment, because the assumption behind it is that I am insufficiently sensitive to know this. Every single post that I have ever written to Babble has included a clear acknowledgement of other posters' feelings and points of view. I have never criticized anyone for not responding, or responding differently than I might have hoped. In particular every post in this particular thread has included more than just empathy for SSSS' views as I understand them. They also include an awareness of how distressing some of the posts were to others, and how challenging it was for deputies to respond. It goes without saying that, in the most recent example, many people did not want to respond directly because they were distressed by what was happening. I have never written one word which could cause you to think otherwise. Because of that, it is very unpleasant and discouraging that you feel you need to remind me about such a basic behavior. A comment like yours implies that my participation here has involved a large degree of personal insensitivity to others. In reality, the exact opposite is true, both here and in my actual life.
4. You told me, " you keep referring to deputies and Dr. Bob as being rejecting." You are misreading what I actually said. I do not, and have never viewed either DR BOB OR ANY OF THE DEPUTIES as being rejecting. What I am saying is that the ACT OF BEING BLOCKED can feel rejecting to the person who has been blocked. Usually, blocks occur when uncomfortable feelings, anger among them, are running high, and running over. The experience of being cut off, and being unable to continue a dialogue or make reparations is painful. I can only speak for myself, but when I was blocked, I did feel ejected from my "tribe". I felt somehow guilty, ashamed and alone; the experience seemed to bring up a lot of painful feelings from long ago. I know that you and the other deputies can and do continue to feel concern and caring, and to stay in personal contact with blocked posters. No-one is accusing you of any cold, rejecting or impersonal behavior towards blocked posters- because there isn't any. But I hope you will recognize and understand that the experience of being blocked may in and of itself be extremely painful and lonely.
Although it is beyond my personal experience, I do think that posters occasionally become extremely upset, and try to push the deputies to block them because they feel that they are bad and deserve punishment. We have all seen instances of that. Because this can happen. it's good for deputies to be aware of these dynamics. This doesn't mean that the deputies have to be therapists. Everyone in positions of responsibility encounters these pressures. from executives to parents.
Before I am misunderstood once again, let me say that I do think that blocks are appropriate. I'd like to say once again, so as to be absolutely clear, that I do not, and have never felt that the deputies were being rejecting. They aren't. We absolutely need to have clear rules, and clear consequences for not following them. But that does not mean that people who are blocked do not suffer because of it- they do. I think that is why it is always a good idea to consider each situation as requiring individual treatment. When it is clear that a poster is really suffering, more thought could perhaps go towards using alternative methods for a longer period of time, even though a block might eventually become necessary. When someone appears hostile and destructive, and we don't have a clear sense of other feelings he/she may be struggling with, a quicker block might be appropriate.
I have taken quite a bit of time to respond to you, because you did not appear to understand the reasons for my initial post, above. It is extremely disappointing to me to have each point I made in trying to contribute to a discussion about a recent Babble event subtly distorted and misread so that it could be thrown back at me as an implicit criticism. In this one thread alone, I have been accused of not understanding the rule of remaining supportive, of expecting other posters to act as therapists, of being insensitive to, and ignoring the feelings of, other posters and of considering the deputies to be personally cold and rejecting towards blocked posters. Because every one of these allegations is false, I wanted to make as strong a case as I could for myself. I am pretty sure I will be the only one to do that, but that will be enough.
Posted by Nadezda on December 9, 2008, at 22:30:15
In reply to the reasons for my post... » Dinah, posted by twinleaf on December 9, 2008, at 19:40:21
The problem for the deputies and Bob is that when one poster writes uncivil posts, another poster(s) may well be hurt, and if there is no legitimate action taken to limit the hurtfulness, its quiet presence damages us all, and it often concretely ripples out so that many are caught in the immediate web of hurtfulness.
There were several angles of hurt in this and other instances of blocks, and, while I don't like the idea of blocking, I see that sometimes it is necessary to spare the community a lot of turmoil and pain.
I know we all feel for SSSS, but there are others involved who also need our concern. I'm sorry that the situation evolved as it did. But I believe that Dinah and Racer's actions were quite correct in this situation and that they acted in the interests of us all, as well as the posters directly involved.
Nadezda
Posted by lucie lu on December 9, 2008, at 23:27:41
In reply to the reasons for my post... » Dinah, posted by twinleaf on December 9, 2008, at 19:40:21
TwinLeaf,
I am sorry that you felt so hurt and unhappy with Dinah's post. It seems to me that you have taken comments very much to heart than I think were made for all of us. Hey, I got, and deserved (sorry for that), the equivalent of a PBC, as did muffy. I haven't gone back to reread the whole thread but I never thought that anyone's comments were directed at you. I was a bit surprised, that in one of my posts where I was sympathizing with the deputies for having a tough job, that you in particular seemed to think that comment was aimed at you. It wasn't at all! In fact it was not at all aimed at any one person, and certainly not you. Sometimes we just respond to a general tone or viewpoint and it may be a composite of many expressed. That was the case with me. I won't speak for Dinah but the way her post read to me, that's how I took it.
The reason I'm saying this, TwinLeaf, is to express that you are anything but insensitive, unthoughtful or unknowledgeable. I have always thought quite the contrary about you, and I like you and enjoy reading your intelligent comments. I think you are regarded as a person of compassion and integrity. IMO you really shouldn't feel you have to defend your personal or posting qualities, I don't think they have ever been in question. Again, I am sorry you felt singled out and experience distress as a consequence.
Feelings have run high on all sides over this. I really believe that this is because everyone here cares so much, about SSSS, other posters, and the board as a whole. There has been lots of good and useful discussion. To everyone, I hope that we can feel that it is OK to express our feelings and views, then get back to the business of doing what we do on Babble. We are all good people trying to do the best we can.
All the best,
Lucie
Posted by twinleaf on December 9, 2008, at 23:40:51
In reply to Re: the reasons for my post..., posted by Nadezda on December 9, 2008, at 22:30:15
I agree with you. I do not have any disagreement with the deputies' actions, which I do think were necessary and thoughtfully carried out. In the case of this particular poster, SSSS, whose journey many posters feel they have been a part of, the elements of pain and suffering were so prominent that I thought it might be a pertinent time to have a discussion as to how one poster's personal distress, the feelings and needs of all other posters, and the regulations governing how the site is run might ALL be considered, with the aim and hope of maximizing support and helpfulness for everyone, and minimizing pain and hurt. I did have a personal bias in this- I would have liked to see a little more emphasis on flexibility in how these situations are handled. However, I was never critical of anything that the deputies, or anyone else, had done. At that point, I was principally interested in an open exchange of ideas. If any change at all were to come out of that, I assumed it would be at a much later time.
I was not expecting to be criticized, misunderstood and put down by a deputy for something as potentially constructive as that.
Posted by lucie lu on December 9, 2008, at 23:42:46
In reply to Re: the reasons for my post... » twinleaf, posted by lucie lu on December 9, 2008, at 23:27:41
I did just go back and rescan the thread. Clearly there were some exchanges between individuals in response to a particular point or points. But in these posts, including mine, the rest of the comments seemed very general and addressed to all. Or at least so I took it.
-L.
Posted by lucie lu on December 9, 2008, at 23:47:21
In reply to Re: the reasons for my post... » Nadezda, posted by twinleaf on December 9, 2008, at 23:40:51
As I like and respect TwinLeaf and the other posters here, I feel very much the same about Dinah. Not just as a deputy but a fellow Babbler. Dinah, you are known for your wise and measured responses as well as your sympathy and compassion for other Babblers. This is not a personality contest or judging anyone, I just wanted to express those feelings.Lucie
Posted by twinleaf on December 9, 2008, at 23:56:31
In reply to Re: the reasons for my post... » twinleaf, posted by lucie lu on December 9, 2008, at 23:27:41
Thank you. lucie. I appreciate everything that you said, and can more than reciprocate, as I always love your posts, and find them invariably so warm and intelligent. Just to clarify, I was not upset by anything in your long post about SSSS, and all the issues that situation was bringing up. I didn't feel that anything you said in that post was directed at me in a critical manner; it was just one of those good, illuminating, insightful posts that I was very glad to read.
I responded to one post only, which had my name on it.
Posted by llurpsienoodle on December 10, 2008, at 5:04:40
In reply to Re: Blocked for 2 weeks » Deputy Racer, posted by BayLeaf on December 8, 2008, at 8:31:59
This block may have been an action to help the community feel safer. It certainly helped me feel safer.
I did ask SSSS if she was okay, and she replied that she "was feeling a little annoyed".
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20081205/msgs/867302.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20081205/msgs/867306.html
Perhaps it was worse than that by the time she posted on my thread -- the post about female dogs. If you look at the times on these posts, there was a very quick succession of things, and I did not anticipate that things would escalate in the way they did.
I took the analytical tone of these posts (links above) to be a sign that she was being thoughtful of civility issues.
It's often hard to "talk someone down" when their feelings are changing so quickly.
I'm not sure what you would have done in my place, but I personally did not feel comfortable opening up a line of b-mail dialog with her at this point, or being in a chat room or something like that.
Was this prescient?
Did my ignoring her contribute to an escalation in heated feelings? (Ignoring her was the only thing I thought of doing, in order to protect my own feelings-- you know the drill-- take care of yourself, find your own safe place, there are no safe places in the world, etc.)
I don't think I will ever learn what was going on in someone's head, based on the scanty evidence of a few posts. I certainly was very much surprised by the BITCHES post. That was unexpected.
I somehow doubt that it's civil to talk about my personal feelings in reaction to these events. I will leave you all to deduce them.
-Ll
Posted by Dinah on December 10, 2008, at 7:52:36
In reply to the reasons for my post... » Dinah, posted by twinleaf on December 9, 2008, at 19:40:21
I am at a loss. As you described what I said, I thought "How horrible of me to have said such things!"
But I was in my own mind, and I know what I was thinking. I had no desire to put you down or accuse you. I did not even *think* those things, much less post them deliberately.
I must express myself very badly, and have unfortunate word choices, to have given that impression. However, since many people have had the same experience with me lately, I will accept that my skills at expressing my thoughts are worse than I thought them to be.
I feel so very sad that you might think I'd write a post the way you read it. And if I did express myself so badly that you saw no other way to interpret what I wrote, I am very sad that you didn't ask me if I meant to say something that I had hoped you did not think in character for me.
I especially feel hurt because you are family to me. I guess I kind of thought that family would know that whatever my flaws, I'd never intentionally hurt anyone at all. Even if I was angry with you, which I wasn't, I would have been even more careful of how I posted and walked away if I felt unable to post with generosity of spirit. What you heard me say is so out of keeping with anything I'd post on purpose that it surprises me that you don't trust my scrupulousness (or self-righteousness perhaps) to prevent me from posting it, even if you don't trust my good nature or generosity of spirit to stop me.
I apologize for causing you pain. I would not wish to hurt you for the world.
Posted by Nadezda on December 10, 2008, at 9:40:07
In reply to Re: the reasons for my post... » twinleaf, posted by Dinah on December 10, 2008, at 7:52:36
I want to say, But...but...but......?
How did this all get to such a point?
I thought Dinah's answer, if I understand which was the post that caused some stir, was very general. While it was in response to the point make by twinleaf, I didn't really think it was directed at twinleaf--or at anyone specific-- if you see the difference.
And it really only stated the general rationale for such types of actions, which I do think sometimes people forget in the warmth of their concern for the person who's been blocked. I know I myself was concerned about those who were the objects and readers of the posts by SSSS -- and, in particular, that the concern for SSSS might seem, inadvertantly, to diminish the other person/peoples' needs.
It is a lot to expect the hurt person to want, necessarily, to gently suggest that the poster might be careful-- if that would, in fact, be helpful-- which it might not be. The deputies are not always able to catch these things before they escalate== and their gentle warnings may also be taken as unwelcome reproofs-- which themselves then cause further escalation. Then, there are limits-- we don't have time or energy for bmail correspondence to remedy these things.. There is simply the reality that we all have demanding lives and can't attend to everything in the way it might deserve ideally. It just isn't possible to do all we might like.
I'm sure I'm not saying anything that you, twinleaf, and everyone else, don't already know-- and I'm not suggesting in any way that your concern for blocked posters is misplaced. It's great that people want to support those who've been blocked, because it can be experienced as a rejection and be painful. The support is, I feel, an important source of comfort.
I just think there are constraints to what we can expect. This is the system that's evolved. It's fine to offer potential improvements. But, however bad it may feel at a moment, and however much it could be improved over time, we need to respect and care about those who administer it, not only because they're very dedicated and we're lucky to have them, but because they are other posters with issues, and sensitivities, vulnerabilities like our own. They may not be our particular ones-- but we do need to consider their needs too. Which is not to say we shouldn't protest blocks, but that perhaps we should be aware that the deputies can be hurt, too-- and have many demands placed on them.
It's difficult, I know-- we get up in what we're feeling and it's hard to see what others write from their point of view. But I truly don't think Dinah meant to do more than throw an emphasis on certain points-- and to say, "these are the things that weighed most heavily in my decision"-- not because we don't know or act in accordance with them-- but because she was throwing a light on them.
I think this is a hope that we can read others' posts in the best, and most curious, rather than conclusory, way we can. If we try to give one another the benefit of the doubt, and remember that many criticisms come from feelings of hurt or confusion that we may not understand-- and that may not reflect on us-- maybe we can avoid at least a little of the pain.
Nadezda
Posted by muffled on December 10, 2008, at 9:59:52
In reply to Re: the reasons for my post..., posted by Nadezda on December 10, 2008, at 9:40:07
seems a poster blowing up ends up causing others pain too
:-(
it spreads like ripples on a pond
the pain spreads
God I hate to agree with the Bobster....damn, but he right again...
he used to say to me...that blocking wasn't about me so much, it was about all. that my blowing up, even though it was generally directed at myself, AFFECTED and even triggered others
i didn't really beleive him at the time
i was too busy being angry
i know now
i am so sorry if my past blowups ever caused rifts/hurts with other babblers
(((((babblers)))))
hell, heres a small un for ((Bob)) even though I not so fond of him
M
Posted by twinleaf on December 10, 2008, at 10:01:36
In reply to Re: the reasons for my post... » twinleaf, posted by Dinah on December 10, 2008, at 7:52:36
Thank you for posting back to me, Dinah. This whole episode is just so sad, starting with SSSS' distress and then gradually spreading through the community, When I read the whole thread over just now, it seemed to concern mainly SSSS' actions and state of mind, and posters' reactions to them. Mostly, people expressed regret, caring and support for her; I did that, too, but I also opened up the question of whether more flexibility and a longer grace period before blocking would have helped SSSS. This thought was not intended as a criticism of any deputies, but rather as a possible way out when such a situation occurs again.. As soon as I offered that thought, I received your post with four individual statements which any reasonable person would interpret as containing criticisms and put-downs.
I regret that I did not ask you if you really meant what you wrote. I assumed that you did, because you have often said that you think over your posts, rewrite them, and sometimes do not even send them if you feel they have not expressed your views adequately. I very much appreciate your posting to me and I feel very, very badly about what happened. If I am honest with myself, I am not going to be able to say truthfully that I wasn't hurt. By the same token, you are not going to feel that you meant anything hurtful by your comments. Let's just close the door permanently on this episode.
Posted by Dinah on December 10, 2008, at 10:39:40
In reply to Re: the reasons for my post... » Dinah, posted by twinleaf on December 10, 2008, at 10:01:36
I too would like to close the door on this incident. But the truth is that I feel angry and hurt, and not for the first time with regard to your posts to me and/or deputies on the Administration board. And I'm talking about how I feel, not criticizing you. I work very hard at being generous of spirit, since I'm not entirely sure it comes naturally to me. I don't do it to get appreciation, of course. But I'm not perfect by any means, and sometimes I find it really upsetting to try so hard to be good, and to feel like my efforts have not been received as I intend them. Particularly when it's someone I like and respect. Again, that's a statement about *me*.
I'll get over it. I don't like feeling negative emotions. They make my head hurt.
But I was wondering if you'd be willing to compromise on one statement.
You said:
"As soon as I offered that thought, I received your post with four individual statements which any reasonable person would interpret as containing criticisms and put-downs."Would you be willing to compromise on:
"As soon as I offered that thought, I received your post with four individual statements which *a* reasonable person *could* interpret as containing criticisms and put-downs."
If that's not ok with you, I understand, and I hope in either case our long term relationship can withstand this misunderstanding.
Posted by Dinah on December 10, 2008, at 10:57:40
In reply to Re: the reasons for my post... » twinleaf, posted by Dinah on December 10, 2008, at 10:39:40
I may have given the wrong impression. I don't mean I need to work hard on generosity of spirit with you in particular.
It's a stance I try to adopt, and as a way of life it does sometimes require hard work. In general.
Posted by gardenergirl on December 10, 2008, at 11:36:33
In reply to Re: the reasons for my post... » Dinah, posted by twinleaf on December 10, 2008, at 10:01:36
and I did not interpret those statements the way it was suggested any reasonable person would. I believe twinleaf is a reasonable person, too. And her perception of Dinah's post is her own experience, and thus is valid, as is anyone else's perception about it. Dinah's experience of making the post is equally valid.
I think it's helpful to clearly distinguish the difference between one person's actions and another person's experience of those actions, and that is the whole point of "I-statements." Both aspects of the communication, both experiences are real. Each are true for that person, even while the two experiences may seem diametrically opposed. I don't view this or any communication about our internal experiences about a shared event as a zero-sum situation where only one experience is "the right one." And that's why I think "I-statements" are always more effective, more accurate, clearer, and more respectful communications about a shared experience of an event than "You-statements". And that's why I agree with that aspect of the civility rules, since the stance or frame of reference a person takes when communicating really does make a difference in the message. Saying, "I felt X about what someone did" is not just another way of saying, "Someone did X." Anyone could argue about whether that person really did do X, but no one can rationally argue with my feeling about it.
gg
Posted by twinleaf on December 10, 2008, at 13:10:24
In reply to Re: the reasons for my post... » twinleaf, posted by Dinah on December 10, 2008, at 10:39:40
Dinah, the problem I have with this whole posting sequence is that anyone reading it through would not ever think that I criticized either your or Racer's actions as deputies, or any other posters' opinions or thoughts. I praised your posts attempting to help SSSS avoid going into an extreme emotional meltdown which would be harmful to others and would necessitate a block. When the block came, I did not question that it was needed; the only comment I made was that her pain and suffering were so apparent that I wondered whether a bit more time to offer calming and supportive posts would have made any difference. I certainly don't know the answer to that, (it probably would not have) and I actually was wondering more about what the best response might be in a similar future situation. To sum up, I simply did not do or say anything which was critical or undermining of the deputies or of anyone else- not even in the most subtle manner. That was a very difficult situation; I personally was not sure when the right time to impose a block would be, and I accepted without question that you and Racer had done the best that anyone could do. The only thing I did- speculating in an objective manner about how best to respond in a similar future situation is simply not the equivalent of a put-down, attack or criticism of either one of you, or of anyone else.
It was therefore a shock to me to have my thoughts responded to as if I had been pushing up against, or had gone over the Board's civility guidelines. It was a shock to have a deputy remind me not to employ negative characterizations, when I had not been anywhere near to doing so, to point out to me that posters are not psychotherapists, when that has simply not been an issue in any post I've written over the last five years, to remind me that I must consider the
feelings and needs of other posters, when almost every post of mine, including the ones on this thread, have shown how important I feel this to be, and finally to characterize me as feeling that deputies act with vengeance when they block posters. I have never accused any deputy of having any negative feelings and do not feel that this is a factor at all. It is, however, a fact that the act of being blocked can feel like a rejection- probably more so when Babble has become an emotionally important community to someone. My point in bringing that up was that it is one factor to consider when a block is being considered.I feel that I dealt with everyone in a fair manner. and that my posts earlier on in this thread were nonjudgemental, supportive and easily able to hold the needs and interests of posters in difficulty, observing posters, and deputies simultaneously in mind. However, If the situation had been reversed, and I had posted those four statements to you, Dinah, I would have received a PCB as a minimum; I would more likely have been blocked.
. Now, while you do not feel the need to address or modify any of your statements to me, which came first in time, you are asking me to modify one of mine, which came second in time as a response to yours. It would not occur to me to ask you to change something you have said. I feel that you say what you think and believe, and that is sacrosanct. However, I spoke what I felt to be the truth, also, when I said that your post contained statements "which any reasonable person would interpret as containing criticisms and put-downs".
While I understand well what may be coming next, I have to stick by what I believe to be true.
Posted by Dinah on December 10, 2008, at 13:21:05
In reply to changing my phrasing... » Dinah, posted by twinleaf on December 10, 2008, at 13:10:24
All that's coming from me is the statement that I feel unequal to the challenge of phrasing myself in such a way as to cause no offense, so I am withdrawing from this conversation.
I have apologized for expressing myself so poorly as to lead you to feel accused or put down. I cannot, with honesty, apologize for intending to lead you to feel accused or put down. I am at a loss of what more to do, particularly since I feel no confidence in my ability to restate anything in any less offensive way.
I'm sorry I'm unable to offer anything more.
I suppose I always hope that two decent people who wish to maintain a positive relationship can work out disagreements in such a way as to add depth and strength to a relationship. I am sad to see this discussion end without that happening. Given my positive feelings towards you, I regret it very much.
Posted by gardenergirl on December 10, 2008, at 13:47:30
In reply to changing my phrasing... » Dinah, posted by twinleaf on December 10, 2008, at 13:10:24
I would love to hear your thoughts about my post above. http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20081003/msgs/867858.html
If you're interested in responding but not on the boards, please feel free to babblemail or email them (gardenergirl88 at yahoo)
gg
Posted by Nadezda on December 10, 2008, at 14:35:56
In reply to Re: changing my phrasing... » twinleaf, posted by gardenergirl on December 10, 2008, at 13:47:30
I also would hope to understand how you came to your feeling about Dinah's post. I really don't understand at all.
All I can add, by way of footnote to gg's original post, is that I,too, don't read Dinah's post as at all having four statements that put you down or criticized you, or actually anyone.
I'm not even sure what these four statements were.
I don't want to hurt Dinah or you any further by continuing the discussion, but I'm genuinely perplexed.
Nadezda
Posted by 10derHeart on December 10, 2008, at 15:24:30
In reply to Re: changing my phrasing..., posted by Nadezda on December 10, 2008, at 14:35:56
Posted by muffled on December 10, 2008, at 16:20:09
In reply to Re: This is so hard » TherapyGirl, posted by twinleaf on December 8, 2008, at 18:02:23
as ever, this written stuff is SO hard to put context to.
So much of communication involves body language, inflection and tone of voice.
None of this is possible w/written words.
Also the delay doesn't help much either.
It is interesting to discuss this dilemma.
But sometimes I have discovered....its just not possible.
So I call it a day and walk away.
That rhymes.
Day, away.
Hmmm.
Can we discuss, not so much who said what etc, but focus on useful possible ways to help any babbler in distress?
Not what was done in the past, but in general.
The choices are VERY limited IMHO.
1. post gently and civilly
2. b-mail more firmly if you are their friend
3. offer to go and 'chat' with them
4. walk away for a day or two so as not to be triggered
5. blocking may be necessary if others are being blatantly hurt or there is alot of disruption
6. ?My only other comment is wattup w/PBC paranoia!!! Had it myself B4, so I 'get' it. Its all about 'punish' etc for me. That I was 'bad'. My own perceptions, right or wrong.
I wonder how we could 'promote?' PBC's as just what they are (I think?) and that is primarily a teaching thing, a reminder? Think of it a a word from someone who cares enuf to try and teach and help you understand how this place works.
NOT, "OH NO!! I got a PBC now I am gonna get blocked!!! I'm scared! I'm bad, evry one will hate me."
Mebbe better, "oh crap, I got a PBC, where did I go wrong, and how can I do it differently? It kinda feels bad, but at least I am learning, and I (should) only get blocked if I really screw up. Its OK."
Of course I don't even understand some PBC's, but then I have to think to myself, this place is NOT really a true democracy. There is one ultimate king here, and whether or not we agree, Bob is KIng. He has the final word, the ultimate authority. It is HIS site. He owns it, sorta runs it, maintains it, pays for it, and rules it.
Sucks.
But thats the way it is.
Like it or lump it.
Mostly its not SO bad.My ramdom thots.
I feel they are rational, but then I read some of my post from a year ot two back....and I THOT I was rational THEN!!! LOL! but now I read my posts and I wonder what in heck was I thinking????? I was SO convinced at the time....
Sigh.
S'pose I human after all.
Guess thats a good thing.
Hmmm.
Best wishes all.
M
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.