![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 152 to 176 of 272. Go back in thread:
Posted by Sigismund on July 16, 2009, at 15:56:35
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on July 16, 2009, at 2:36:29
>> Bob ... has demonstrated so little understanding of how important privacy is for us
So you felt stung by the aspersion on your professionalism?
I still think it is a mistake.
You should have worn it.
Posted by Kath on July 16, 2009, at 16:45:35
In reply to Re: make change » Dr. Bob, posted by Sigismund on July 16, 2009, at 15:56:35
> >> Bob ... has demonstrated so little understanding of how important privacy is for us
Sigis posted:
> So you felt stung by the aspersion on your professionalism?
>
> I still think it is a mistake.
>
> You should have worn it.AND:
>Can anyone name a poster who has been hurt by Twinleaf?
>I hardly know Twinleaf but I can not imagine her doing the kinds of things for which one should be blocked, which mainly are personal attacks and cruelty.
~ ~ ~ I also think it was a mistake. I just don't see how that deserves a block. Maybe things have changed, but I know in the past in one case I can think of there was a vicious personal attack on someone & that poster was still around to perpetrate another similarly vicious personal attack on the same person. Finally there was a block.
Kath - scratching her head in puzzlement.
Despite another post by me, I'm still around Admin, because I seem to be able to be keeping a certain amount of detachment, for now anyway, & am not getting all upset by all this, even though it is upsetting.
Posted by alexandra_k on July 17, 2009, at 7:53:30
In reply to Re: make change » Dr. Bob, posted by muffled on July 16, 2009, at 8:59:26
> "Maybe this is predictable, but since you've accepted that what you can change about me and the rules is limited, are there other things you can change?"
>
> You act like you are open to change, like you want babblers to be more involved in the change....but like you say, it would seem real change on this site is limited.
> I understand you are trying to change behaviours, but we are humans, not a herd of sheep. I thot his was a place for support, not a place to be forced into rigid set of behaviours. Not a p[lace where you get punished in a very hurtful way for what is IMO minor infractions...
> OK I shut up...no use :(
> So, I don't know what else I could change but myself, my behaviours and responses. But I am satisfied for the most part w/my posting behaviours (of course there is alway room for improvement...)
> I am (for the most part) satisfied w/how other posters handle their posting, and how they handle conflict.
> I am NOT satisfied with how Bob, the Administrator and Owner of this site does things.
> You come barging in, when it suits you and start throwing around rules and blocks and generally getting things all stirred up....then you dissapear....you get....too busy.
> I cannot change you Bob, I cannot convince you to ease up on things. So I'm not going to spend alot of time saying much more.
> I found some wonderful people here, and I really do miss them. But the way this place is run is just too hard for me.
>
> So I dunno what I can do but leave, or as I do, pop in from time to time. I cannot be more involved, though I would be willing to be, but not how it stands now. And things don't change...
>
> I see no other options.
> This does not mean I do not like you personally Bob, I don't know you.
> But I do not like how you run this site.
> Myeah. i basically feel the same way.
Posted by alexandra_k on July 17, 2009, at 7:54:58
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Kath on July 16, 2009, at 16:45:35
and i don't really see how 'wondering whether others may be attached to feelings of powerlessness' is civil.
Posted by Sigismund on July 18, 2009, at 16:04:40
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on July 17, 2009, at 7:54:58
First there was powerlessness and that was followed by empowerment.
More weasel words, IMO.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 20, 2009, at 4:02:24
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Kath on July 16, 2009, at 16:45:35
> > Maybe this is predictable, but since you've accepted that what you can change about me and the rules is limited, are there other things you can change?
>
> So, I don't know what else I could change but myself, my behaviours and responses. But I am satisfied for the most part w/my posting behaviours (of course there is alway room for improvement...)
> I am (for the most part) satisfied w/how other posters handle their posting, and how they handle conflict.
> I am NOT satisfied with how Bob, the Administrator and Owner of this site does things.
>
> MOK, you're not satisfied with me, but what you can change about me (and the rules here) is limited.
May I ask how you think your posting behaviors and how others handle their posting and conflict might be improved?
--
> So you felt stung by the aspersion on your professionalism?
>
> I still think it is a mistake.
>
> You should have worn it.
>
> SigismundThe issue isn't whether I felt stung, but whether a post like that could lead another person to feel stung. I'd like people here to feel it's safe to post and not that they're in danger of getting a faceful of cat.
> I'm still around Admin, because I seem to be able to be keeping a certain amount of detachment, for now anyway, & am not getting all upset by all this, even though it is upsetting.
>
> KathI'm glad you've found a way to continue to participate!
Bob
Posted by muffled on July 20, 2009, at 8:22:09
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on July 20, 2009, at 4:02:24
"May I ask how you think your posting behaviors and how others handle their posting and conflict might be improved?"
Weeeeellll.....we could become perfect....
But thats not possible.
We screw up from time to time. We are human.
But I didn't used to come here to have my behaviour modified. I came for support.
I found that here, other posters WERE supportive, even when I had my 'moments'.
Yes, sometimes there are posters that have trouble with emotional lability, or some just have a hard time using the written word, but once they been here awhile, people get to know them and understand that there is usu no malicious intent, its just words gone wrong.
Sometimes yes, there is a need for someone to have a cooling off period (rarely, and then ONLY a short one...)
So this is a long winded answer to say that I don't think people here actually need to change much.....they do well already...given the chance.
Over time, as I have spent more time online, my opinions regarding how this site is run have changed. And no doubt they will continue to evolve.
But at this point, I still remain opposed to the blocking system here.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
I wish you would listen more to your deputies, they are the ones that are here most...
Adieu
M
Posted by antigua3 on July 21, 2009, at 12:09:08
In reply to Re: make change » Dr. Bob, posted by muffled on July 20, 2009, at 8:22:09
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 23, 2009, at 5:06:07
In reply to Re: make change » Dr. Bob, posted by muffled on July 20, 2009, at 8:22:09
> Weeeeellll.....we could become perfect....
> But thats not possible.
>
> But I didn't used to come here to have my behaviour modified. I came for support.
>
> So this is a long winded answer to say that I don't think people here actually need to change much.....they do well already...given the chance.It's not possible for me or the rules to become perfect, either...
If I were about to block you, would you want other posters to try to help you avoid that? If they did, would you consider it support?
I agree, people here do great already. And at the same time, I think it might be possible to do even better in this particular way.
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on July 24, 2009, at 4:15:28
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on July 23, 2009, at 5:06:07
You judge certain words to be 'uncivil' when other posters here do not agree that the words are, in fact, uncivil.
You block posters for a length of time when other posters here do not agree that the words are uncivil, or even if they agree that the words are uncivil they do not agree that the poster should be blocked for the length of time you set.
People aren't going to support you in actions they don't believe in.
I mean really. Think about it for five minutes.
Saying to a poster 'if you don't apologize for that you are going to get blocked' might be true. But really how is that civil (on your particular definition of incivility). Why would we encourage people to apologize when we don't believe they have done anything wrong?
Gay people might well have been involuntarily committed and treated against their will for being gay - but that doesn't mean a friend would 'encourage' or 'support' them to stop having a relationship with someone as a 'show of support'. In this case the appropriate thing to do (and never mind showing 'support') is really to campaign to change the laws that one doesn't believe in.
Or leave the country, of course.
Posted by alexandra_k on July 24, 2009, at 4:24:21
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on July 20, 2009, at 4:02:24
> OK, you're not satisfied with me, but what you can change about me (and the rules here) is limited.
Fine. But what you can change about us accepting or condoning your actions (that we don't believe is justified) is limited too.
> May I ask how you think your posting behaviors and how others handle their posting and conflict might be improved?
May we ask you how you think your posting behavior and how you handle your posting and conflict might be improved?
> The issue isn't whether I felt stung, but whether a post like that could lead another person to feel stung.
B*llsh*t. The issue is whether YOU judge that a post like that 'could' lead another person to feel stung. A person 'could' feel stung by about anything at all. You judge the 'reasonableness' of that and allocate blame / responsibility according to YOUR criterion. Other people have told you repeatedly that people feel stung by your blocking behavior. You have made the decision not to change your posting behavior despite that. But lets not pretend that you have some objective criterion or an independent grip on a truth that others are blinded to.
> I'd like people here to feel it's safe to post and not that they're in danger of getting a faceful of cat.
How about people being in danger of getting a 'faceful of cat' in the form of being blocked by you for one year? Why is it that that isn't factored into an assessment of the justifyability / unjustifyability of your posting behaviour?
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 26, 2009, at 2:08:16
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on July 24, 2009, at 4:24:21
> Why would we encourage people to apologize when we don't believe they have done anything wrong?
Because you wouldn't want them to be blocked.
> How about people being in danger of getting a 'faceful of cat' in the form of being blocked by you for one year? Why is it that that isn't factored into an assessment of the justifyability / unjustifyability of your posting behaviour?
Coming from me, it's consistent with the goal of this site, but coming from fellow posters, it isn't.
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on July 26, 2009, at 2:14:41
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on July 26, 2009, at 2:08:16
> > Why would we encourage people to apologize when we don't believe they have done anything wrong?
> Because you wouldn't want them to be blocked.
Yeah. I guess one might similarly encourage people not to express political dissent when they are in a social group where political dissent is punished by involuntary committment and treatment (e.g., as it used to be considered 'sluggish schizophrenia' in Russia). You can see, though, that people aren't likely to encourage people to stop doing that which they personally have no problem with. Many would say that a better show of support to those individuals would consist in campaigning to change the laws rather than campaigning for the individuals to alter behavior that one personally doesn't find problematic.
> > How about people being in danger of getting a 'faceful of cat' in the form of being blocked by you for one year? Why is it that that isn't factored into an assessment of the justifyability / unjustifyability of your posting behaviour?
> Coming from me, it's consistent with the goal of this site, but coming from fellow posters, it isn't.
What is the goal of the site, again? I thought the goal of this site was for there to be a safe place for people to post in order to give and receive support and education. It isn't at all obvious that blocking people for up to one year is more likely to maximise that than other less harsh alternatives. But really, people have been saying this for years. You seem less interested in finding out what (empirically) best serves the goals of this site and much much more interested in persisting in behavior that others believe is an unjustifyable 'face full of cat'.
Posted by Kath on July 26, 2009, at 13:34:20
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on July 26, 2009, at 2:14:41
> > > Why would we encourage people to apologize when we don't believe they have done anything wrong?
>
> > Because you wouldn't want them to be blocked.~ ~ ~ For me, I need to change two words of the question above. And I think the resulting question is really important...& I don't see an answer to it!!??
Here it is:
"HOW would we encourage people to apologize when we don't KNOW they have done anything wrong?"
How would we even KNOW to say anything to them about it, when we did't recognize any problem!!???It's sort of like, say I lived somewhere where there were NO poisonous snakes. So then I'm walking along a path in a country where there are rattlesnakes, but I didn't know that. So I see a snake in front of me but don't KNOW to stop & not keep walking towards it. How would I know? I wouldn't.
My second question...& I am not trying to be a smarty here. It's a sincere question. It's about wording & I notice myself lately putting a 'disclaimer' at the first of a lot of my posts, because I don't know if I'm walking into unknown danger with them.
OK - my second question has to do with the following:
>>In reply to Re: trust » rskontos, posted by twinleaf on July 8, 2009, at 16:30:39
>> Bob ... has demonstrated so little understanding of how important privacy is for us
>Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If it had been "In my opinion, Bob... etc" would that be okay? I know I-statements are important. But I suspect that it still would not be okay. Just wondering.
Thanks, Kath
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2009, at 0:47:49
In reply to Dr. Bob - questions I'd appreciate answers for...., posted by Kath on July 26, 2009, at 13:34:20
> > > Why would we encourage people to apologize when we don't believe they have done anything wrong?
>
> > Because you wouldn't want them to be blocked.
>
> Yeah. I guess one might similarly encourage people not to express political dissent when they are in a social group where political dissent is punished by involuntary committment and treatment (e.g., as it used to be considered 'sluggish schizophrenia' in Russia). You can see, though, that people aren't likely to encourage people to stop doing that which they personally have no problem with.Not even in a social group like the above?
> Many would say that a better show of support to those individuals would consist in campaigning to change the laws rather than campaigning for the individuals to alter behavior that one personally doesn't find problematic.
But I don't see it as either-or.
> I thought the goal of this site was for there to be a safe place for people to post in order to give and receive support and education. It isn't at all obvious that blocking people for up to one year is more likely to maximise that than other less harsh alternatives. But really, people have been saying this for years. You seem less interested in finding out what (empirically) best serves the goals of this site and much much more interested in persisting in behavior that others believe is an unjustifyable 'face full of cat'.
>
> alexandra_kI agree, research on what administrative approaches maximize support and education are needed. In the meantime, I do persist in believing that this approach is justifiable.
--
> "HOW would we encourage people to apologize when we don't KNOW they have done anything wrong?"
>
> How would we even KNOW to say anything to them about it, when we did't recognize any problem!!???That's a good point, if it's not clear to someone what I consider uncivil, then they can't be expected to step in.
I do however think a number of posters have a pretty good sense of what I consider uncivil. Even if they personally disagree.
> My second question...& I am not trying to be a smarty here. It's a sincere question. It's about wording
>
> > > Bob ... has demonstrated so little understanding of how important privacy is for us
>
> If it had been "In my opinion, Bob... etc" would that be okay? I know I-statements are important. But I suspect that it still would not be okay. Just wondering.
>
> KathIt still wouldn't be OK. Have you seen Dinah's post about the wording of I-statements?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/320097.html
Bob
Posted by Kath on August 6, 2009, at 11:08:10
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2009, at 0:47:49
> It still wouldn't be OK. Have you seen Dinah's post about the wording of I-statements?
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/320097.html
>
> Bob~ ~ Thanks. I read the post. So maybe,
instead of (> > > > Bob ... has demonstrated so little understanding of how important privacy is for us)would this be okay:
"I've felt frustrated many times, because to me, there seems to have been so little understanding of how important privacy is for us."
?
Kath
Posted by Kath on August 6, 2009, at 11:09:54
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2009, at 0:47:49
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2009, at 18:27:01
In reply to Re: make change » Dr. Bob, posted by Kath on August 6, 2009, at 11:08:10
> "I've felt frustrated many times
That part's fine. As an I-statement, I'm not saying it's fine for you to feel frustrated... :-)
> so little understanding
But that part's still about me, right?
Bob
Posted by Kath on August 6, 2009, at 19:09:46
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2009, at 18:27:01
> > "I've felt frustrated many times
>
> That part's fine. As an I-statement, I'm not saying it's fine for you to feel frustrated... :-)
>
> > so little understanding
>
> But that part's still about me, right?
>
> BobYeah. It is. Sorry to belabour it. I'm just using this as an example about practicing I-statments - I'm not saying I feel this way. I hope you don't mind me using this as an example. I'm trying to see if there would have been an okay way to say it.
(I've felt frustrated many times, because to me, there seems to have been so little understanding of how important privacy is for us.)
So how about this:
"I've felt frustrated many times. Privacy is really important to me & I feel like that hasn't been understood."
See. I think it still wouldn't be okay. What do you think?
Kath
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2009, at 20:58:59
In reply to Re: make change » Dr. Bob, posted by Kath on August 6, 2009, at 19:09:46
> So how about this:
>
> "I've felt frustrated many times. Privacy is really important to me & I feel like that hasn't been understood."
>
> See. I think it still wouldn't be okay. What do you think?I agree. Thanks for working on this. Would anybody else like to suggest a way to rephrase that?
Bob
Posted by Deneb on August 6, 2009, at 21:30:14
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2009, at 20:58:59
How about:
Privacy is important to me and sometimes I feel like my thoughts on this are unheard.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 6, 2009, at 23:00:52
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2009, at 0:47:49
> > > > Why would we encourage people to apologize when we don't believe they have done anything wrong?
> > > Because you wouldn't want them to be blocked.> > Yeah. I guess one might similarly encourage people not to express political dissent when they are in a social group where political dissent is punished by involuntary committment and treatment (e.g., as it used to be considered 'sluggish schizophrenia' in Russia). You can see, though, that people aren't likely to encourage people to stop doing that which they personally have no problem with.
> Not even in a social group like the above?
The point is that psychiatrists were UNJUSTIFIED in regarding political dissenters to need to alter their behavior. The psychiatrists should have been the ones to alter their behavior - by ceasing to regard political dissent as a mental illness.
I suppose one strategy could be to get people to stop expressing political dissent (eradicate the 'problematic' behavior in that way). That wasn't the idea, though, the idea was for psychiatrists to stop institutionalizing and medicating those who expressed political dissent (eradicate the 'problematic' behavior in that way).
Similarly - you want us to tow your line on what you consider acceptable and unacceptable turns of phrase. You block people for up to one year. Other people want you to ease up and stop with making normative judgements that the MAJORITY OF CLINICIAN'S - INCLUDING ONES WHO YOU HAVE INVITED TO THIS SITE - DON'T SEE THE SENSE OR BELIEVE IN. Or at least to ease up on your fr*gg*ng punishment for that which is so very idiosyncratic to YOUR VALUES.
> > Many would say that a better show of support to those individuals would consist in campaigning to change the laws rather than campaigning for the individuals to alter behavior that one personally doesn't find problematic.
> But I don't see it as either-or.
Really? ? I thought your whole idea is for US to change and not YOU.
> I agree, research on what administrative approaches maximize support and education are needed. In the meantime, I do persist in believing that this approach is justifiable.
One doesn't need to do a randomized double blind control trial to see the harm, really. You have numerous posters posting numerous posts to you over the years about the harshness of your blocking system and how harmful it has been to them. You have people posting that their therapists reccommend that they stop posting here - for their own mental health - because of the harshness of your blocking system here. Just look at what is in front of your face...
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 7, 2009, at 9:33:47
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 6, 2009, at 23:00:52
> I feel like my thoughts on this are unheard.
>
> DenebThanks for working on this, too, but to me the above doesn't seem significantly different from:
> I feel like that hasn't been understood.
--
> > > > > Why would we encourage people to apologize when we don't believe they have done anything wrong?
> > > >
> > > > Because you wouldn't want them to be blocked.
> > >
> > > Yeah. I guess one might similarly encourage people not to express political dissent when they are in a social group where political dissent is punished by involuntary committment and treatment (e.g., as it used to be considered 'sluggish schizophrenia' in Russia). You can see, though, that people aren't likely to encourage people to stop doing that which they personally have no problem with.
> >
> > Not even in a social group like the above?
>
> I suppose one strategy could be to get people to stop expressing political dissent (eradicate the 'problematic' behavior in that way). That wasn't the idea, though
>
> alexandra_kWhy wasn't that the idea? They didn't want their friends to be involuntarily committed, did they?
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on August 7, 2009, at 13:27:14
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on August 7, 2009, at 9:33:47
The police might have a policy that involves incarcerating those of (insert racial profile of your choosing here).
That doesn't mean that those who are concerned for the individuals need to bleach their skin as a 'strrategy' for dealing with the situation.
The psychiatrists might have a policy that involves incarcerating those of (insert political belief of your choosing here).
That doesn't mean that those who are concerned for the individuals need to persuade them not to voice a political opinion as a way of dealing with this issue.
Similary Bob might have a policy for dealing with an apparent 'issue' that contravenes what the majority of society (including the clinican population) has to say about 'healthy interpersonal relationships'.
That doesn't mean that those who are concerned for the individuals who are blocked according to Babble rules need to persuade those who they genuinely care about to tow Bob's line.
I mean really... THink about it.
Posted by Kath on August 7, 2009, at 18:00:34
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on August 7, 2009, at 9:33:47
> > I feel like my thoughts on this are unheard.
> >
> > Deneb
>
> Thanks for working on this, too, but to me the above doesn't seem significantly different from:
>
> > I feel like that hasn't been understood.~ ~ Ya know - on thinking about it, I don't really understand why these 2 statements aren't okay Dr. Bob.
If I felt that way, isn't it okay to tell that I feel that way?
Kath
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.