![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 189 to 213 of 272. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on August 9, 2009, at 2:18:58
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Deneb on August 9, 2009, at 1:45:36
> Dr. Bob doesn't enjoy blocking people, it is just something he has to do as an administrator.
I don't think the 'has to' is forced upon him from without. His 'decision' arises from the rules that he voluntarily decided on and the way that he chooses to interpret the words of others.
> He says he's sorry when he does it.
Yes... And then he does it again, over and over. That wasn't quite what I thought 'sorry' meant...
> Also Dr. Bob is trying to block less now by letting people solve problems on their own.
Intermittently. He seems to try this intermittently, yes.
Posted by SLS on August 9, 2009, at 5:46:51
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Deneb on August 9, 2009, at 1:45:36
I think the whole civility thing is an experiment of sorts. Are we teachable? Would we change our manner of communication? Would we become better people? Obviously, Dr. Hsiung has concluded that it has had positive results. It is hard not to acknowledge, though, that people do show more respect for each other than before the advent of enforceable rules of civility.
All I can say is that something doesn't feel right to me right now.
An interesting experiment would be to announce a moratorium on the enforcement of the rules of civility for a few months and see what happens.
- Scott
Posted by Deneb on August 9, 2009, at 5:53:10
In reply to Re: make change, posted by SLS on August 9, 2009, at 5:46:51
> An interesting experiment would be to announce a moratorium on the enforcement of the rules of civility for a few months and see what happens.
>
>
> - ScottPlease don't do that. I just visited a forum with no civility rules and it was awful there. Very scary.
Posted by SLS on August 9, 2009, at 5:56:42
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Deneb on August 9, 2009, at 5:53:10
> > An interesting experiment would be to announce a moratorium on the enforcement of the rules of civility for a few months and see what happens.
> Please don't do that. I just visited a forum with no civility rules and it was awful there. Very scary.
Okay. I vacate my suggestion.
:-)
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on August 9, 2009, at 10:27:46
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2009, at 20:58:59
"Privacy is very important to me. I am not comfortable with Twitter because I am not comfortable with the level of exposure there. I feel frustrated because I don't feel that I've been able to communicate those concerns to you in such a way that you see them the way I do."
I mean, it's not certain that Dr. Bob doesn't understand them. At any rate, he was open to honoring people's feelings whether he understood the reasoning or not. And it's possible that he understood every word, but just didn't agree.
Although admittedly, I can't quite recall the entire conversation and may have missed the mark. My brain gets totally disorganized when my computer isn't working right.
Posted by Deneb on August 9, 2009, at 10:34:32
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dinah on August 9, 2009, at 10:27:46
Wow Dinah, you're good! You're the Queen of "I statements". :-)
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 9, 2009, at 13:34:28
In reply to Re: make change » Dr. Bob, posted by Kath on August 8, 2009, at 18:37:43
> How about:
>
> Privacy is important to me and I feel frustrated.
>
> Deneb> How about "I've often felt frustrated about privacy issues. Privacy is really important to me."
Those are both fine. Feeling frustrated is a statement about you more than me.
> It seems to me that if a person wanted to get the fact that they felt privacy didn't seem to be given as much priority as they wished it would here at PB - It seems to me that it might not be possible to say that in any way that would be acceptable.
But also fine would be:
"I feel privacy doesn't seem to be given as much priority as I wish it would here at PB."
or, more directly:
"I wish privacy were given more priority here at PB."
And of course Dinah's suggestion was excellent.
> The way that makes me feel reminds me of the earlier days in my marriage, when I'd try to talk with my husband about something & it just would NOT work out - I remember feeling really like a big metal door clanged down between us & I would think, "OK. Fine. I guess I just can't be heard about this. Oh well. I feel less close & I feel a sense of aloneness in this relationship, when I'd hoped to be able to share honestly about how I felt. Oh well. Whatever."
>
> Things don't feel like that now in my marriage, thank God. But I DO remember how it felt. And it didn't feel nice. I don't find it a nice feeling to not be able to be honest & open about how I feel.
>
> KathWhat's different in your marriage now, may I ask? It's nice to be able to be honest and open, but that doesn't always bring people closer.
--
> the stupid rules
Remember, the idea here is not to post anything that could lead others (including me) to feel accused or put down.
> sometimes the best way to support a person in this kind of position is NOT to try and get them to tow some line that you don't really believe in. Rather, it is an attempt to get the ... rules changed.
>
> alexandra_kAt this time, would you feel more supported if others encouraged you to apologize or rephrase or if they attempted to get that rule changed?
Bob
Posted by Kath on August 10, 2009, at 18:06:50
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on August 9, 2009, at 13:34:28
> But also fine would be:
>
> "I feel privacy doesn't seem to be given as much priority as I wish it would here at PB."
>
> or, more directly:
>
> "I wish privacy were given more priority here at PB."YAYYYYYYYYYY - so there IS a way to say it. Good.
> > Things don't feel like that now in my marriage, thank God. But I DO remember how it felt. And it didn't feel nice. I don't find it a nice feeling to not be able to be honest & open about how I feel.
> >
>
> What's different in your marriage now, may I ask? It's nice to be able to be honest and open, but that doesn't always bring people closer.Yes, you may ask & I'm okay with answering also.
:-)
I think the main thing that's changed is that if my husband reacts defensively about something I say, I no longer allow my discomfort about his potential/perceived anger to silence me.I will maybe say something like, "I am not attacking you. What I'm saying is not meant to be a judgement about you...." & then go on to talk more about whatever it is.
I must give myself a jolly good pat on the back about this also! I actually usually get pretty teed off that he's taken it personally. But I am able to rise above my anger/frustration, to keep the conversation from just turning into nastiness. I refuse to allow that to happen.
Another example is if he responds to a comment with something like, "So you're saying that I always buy lentils that are broken!" (This actually was a phone conversation on Friday!) And I replied, "No, that's not what I'm saying at all! The lentils that we have right now have lots of broken ones in them. When you asked me if there was anything else I'd like you to bring home, I said, "If they have any green lentils that don't have broken ones in them, could you get some of them." (I sprout lentils & it's a pain to pick out the broken ones, in case anyone's wondering why the heck it matters! lol)
Kath
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 10, 2009, at 18:19:12
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Kath on August 10, 2009, at 18:06:50
> I will maybe say something like, "I am not attacking you. What I'm saying is not meant to be a judgement about you...." & then go on to talk more about whatever it is.
>
> I must give myself a jolly good pat on the back about this also! I actually usually get pretty teed off that he's taken it personally. But I am able to rise above my anger/frustration, to keep the conversation from just turning into nastiness. I refuse to allow that to happen.Thanks for replying. You deserve that pat on the back! I think it can help here, too, to focus on the issue instead of the person. At least when being negative. :-)
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on August 11, 2009, at 9:51:34
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on August 9, 2009, at 13:34:28
Would you feel more supported in your alleged mission for this site if people encouraged you to apologize or change your rules, or if they attempted to get e.g., Zen or Muffled to not say 'sh*t' without an asterisk?
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 12, 2009, at 4:33:07
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on August 9, 2009, at 13:34:28
> At this time, would you feel more supported if others encouraged you to apologize or rephrase or if they attempted to get that rule changed?
Maybe you'd feel supported by both. I'm sad not to be seeing either.
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on August 12, 2009, at 5:36:40
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 11, 2009, at 9:51:34
>
> Would you feel more supported in your alleged mission for this site if people encouraged you to apologize or change your rules, or if they attempted to get e.g., Zen or Muffled to not say 'sh*t' without an asterisk?
>
>that doesn't make your policy right.
Posted by Deneb on August 12, 2009, at 8:56:09
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 12, 2009, at 5:36:40
Hey Alex,
I really like you here. Please don't get blocked. Maybe you can fight for changing the rules while still following the rules? Protesters aren't very effective in jail.
Please don't get blocked. Try to rephrase or something, even if you don't believe it is right. You know I care about you. I don't want to force you to do anything of course, but I am selfish and really like seeing you here.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 12, 2009, at 20:06:04
In reply to Re: make change » alexandra_k, posted by Deneb on August 12, 2009, at 8:56:09
> Try to rephrase or something, even if you don't believe it is right.
No. I can't believe one friend would ask that of another.
Bob being divisive again...
Not able to answer a straight question...
Not able to look at himself instead of turning things around onto others.
Whatever - this site is indeed his to do with what he wills.
Just don't expect many posters to stand by and watch you do what you do with your rules.
I quit.
Posted by Deneb on August 12, 2009, at 20:24:33
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 12, 2009, at 20:06:04
I'm sorry Alex. Ignore what I say if you don't agree. I just don't really understand why you think the way you do.
I'm sorry, I won't ever try to make you rephrase or apologize again.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 12, 2009, at 20:28:54
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 12, 2009, at 5:36:40
Bob's 'above' the rules. He thinks it is perfectly acceptable for him to judge that Muffled or Zen were being 'uncivil' in saying 'sh*t' without an asterisk. He thinks civility has to do with decency - so I guess he thought their saying 'sh*t' without an asterisk was indecent, too. He judged that the community would be 'better off' if they were blocked for a time.
If he goes around judging other people to be 'civil' or 'uncivil', 'decent' or 'indecent', to be 'positive contributors' or to be 'harmful for the community' then it seems hypocritical for him to expect that we will treat him the same way we treat others here.
I wouldn't say of someone here that their idea or behavior was 'stupid'. Bob is big enough to look after himself, however. People have told him repeatedly why they have trouble with some of what he does. Look, now, here he is trying to say what he thinks makes a good friend. What gives him authority? It isn't like there is anything like a consensus from the psychiatric community. What gives him expertise to be the authority?
What it comes down to: It is his site.
But I think it is positively harmful for him to present himself like he has some access to the true nature of friendship, civility, or decency, that escapes those who do not agree with him. Maybe he doesn't think this... But then what is it that justifies his not altering his behavior in light of what people have had to say about the harmful effects of his judgements / punishments?
What it comes down to: It is his site.
The issue is then one of false advertising.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 12, 2009, at 22:17:56
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 12, 2009, at 5:36:40
> >
> > Would you feel more supported in your alleged mission for this site if people encouraged you to apologize or change your rules, or if they attempted to get e.g., Zen or Muffled to not say 'sh*t' without an asterisk?
> >
> >
>
> that doesn't make your policy right.
>
> Friends,
It is written here,[...that doesn't make...].
In reading justs parts of this topic, I find many aspects of what I think is of great importance to the members of a mental health community.
The aspect of the apology that is being discussed here is one of them. You see, there could be unbeknownst to some of you the thread where this came up . If you could email me for that, then I think that you could see aspects of importance here and what could be the issue involving the apology.
The apology is to who? The board? Mr. Hsiung as head of the board? The member? something else?
Now if the apology is to the member that was the recipiant of the stament in question, then is it not up to that member to accept or not the apology on the basis of being sincere and sufficiant? If so, how could one determine if it is or is not? Would an apology make what is unacceptable any less unacceptable to allow the statement to stand as not being sanctioned?
Let us reason together. Could one be coached to post an apology in order to avoid a sanction? If so, is that sincere and sufficiant of the one apologizing?
Lou
Posted by alexandra_k on August 14, 2009, at 19:54:13
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on August 12, 2009, at 4:33:07
> Maybe you'd feel supported by both. I'm sad not to be seeing either.
you don't see people trying to get teh rules here changed???before i was talking about the stupid rules...
now i'm actually thinking that it is denseness or dumbness on your part. obviously deliberate obtuseness at any rate.
i don't think it is civil at all of you to play such pointless games with us talking things round and round and i can't tell whether it is due to denseness, dumbness, or deliberate obtuseness. i also can't tell which interpretation would be more charitable.
at this point, i really don't care. because i don't voluntarily seek out interactions that are like that. i thought you were different... i think i was delusional, or something...
Posted by alexandra_k on August 14, 2009, at 20:07:25
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 14, 2009, at 19:54:13
>
> > Maybe you'd feel supported by both. I'm sad not to be seeing either.I'm not actually looking for support when I post on the admin board. Not terribly sure what the point of the admin board is anymore, but I remember when the admin board was different in the sense that it wasn't about 'support and education' (in Bob's sense).
So I'm not looking for support. I'm not even looking for other people to post in agreement with what I'm saying about the rules. Not too much looking in the archives shows me that others have felt similarly. Not too much looking on the boards now shows me that many have reduced their input significantly or left because they didn't feel that you were approaching the issue receptively or intelligently. Because they got sick of you talking around the issue and they gave up wondering whether it was that you didn't get it or whether you couldn't get it.
Posted by Sigismund on August 14, 2009, at 22:02:59
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 14, 2009, at 20:07:25
>Could one be coached to post an apology in order to avoid a sanction?
Yes, although I know nobody who would react well to any attempt at coaching from me.
>If so, is that sincere and sufficient of the one apologizing?It's implicit in your question. Perhaps not.
Posted by muffled on August 14, 2009, at 22:09:48
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Sigismund on August 14, 2009, at 22:02:59
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 16, 2009, at 18:11:22
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 12, 2009, at 20:28:54
> I wouldn't say of someone here that their idea or behavior was 'stupid'. Bob is big enough to look after himself, however.
Would you say of another poster here that their idea or behavior was 'stupid' if you thought they were big enough to look after themselves?
--
> If he goes around judging other people to be 'civil' or 'uncivil' ... then it seems hypocritical for him to expect that we will treat him the same way we treat others here.
>
> what is it that justifies his not altering his behavior in light of what people have had to say about the harmful effects of his judgements / punishments?
>
> What it comes down to: It is his site.I don't expect you to feel the same way about me and others, but I do ask you to treat both me and others civilly.
Yes, it's up to me to decide on the rules here. How would it make you feel to abide by them?
--
> you don't see people trying to get teh rules here changed???
>
> alexandra_kI don't see them doing that now to try to support you.
> >Could one be coached to post an apology in order to avoid a sanction?
>
> Yes, although I know nobody who would react well to any attempt at coaching from me.
>
> SigismundIs anybody else assuming they won't be effective if they try to help Alex avoid a block?
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on August 17, 2009, at 5:44:24
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on August 16, 2009, at 18:11:22
Once again you try and turn things around... And sabotage the whole discussion. Can't be bothered talking to you, really.
> Would you say of another poster here that their idea or behavior was 'stupid' if you thought they were big enough to look after themselves?
No, that is not it. The thing is that you put yourself in the position of judging that others words are 'uncivil' or 'not good for the community' or 'disrespectful' or whatever when there is far from consensus among the experts that the persons words are these things. How civil is that (in your sense)?? And yet... You repeatedly do this. And what is more, you think that up to a one year block is appropriate sanction for the times (which are idiosyncratic at best) that you choose to extend your (idiosyncratic at best) interpretation in an attempt to justify this. That is your decision. Don't be so very surprised if people judge that to be... Uncivil at best. Stupid, even, if you expect that people will just lap it all up because you profess 'psychiatrist' and 'university of chicago' affiliation (even when you aren't bound by their codes of conduct in your little enterprise here).
> I don't expect you to feel the same way about me and others, but I do ask you to treat both me and others civilly.
whatever that means...
> Yes, it's up to me to decide on the rules here. How would it make you feel to abide by them?
depends on the rule and on how you choose to interpret my words when you judge them.
> > you don't see people trying to get teh rules here changed???
> I don't see them doing that now to try to support you.
i didn't think the admin board was about support. most people i know have simply given up on the whole thing and have either left or simply choose to refrain from wasting their breath trying to be heard on admin.
> Is anybody else assuming they won't be effective if they try to help Alex avoid a block?
how about you Bob? anything you think you can do to avoid your blocking me??
interpret my words charitably (civilly even???)?
consider your conduct??
i don't know why i don't just leave you to your little chosen circle of idealizers, really. 'good' little group you have selected, indeed...
Posted by Nadezda on August 17, 2009, at 15:25:30
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 17, 2009, at 5:44:24
I'm not sure, Alex, why you assume that people who don't particularly agree with you and who more or less accept the idea of civility as an important practical one, that can be understood and reasonably applied, are idealizers of Bob.
Someone has to apply the rule. Or how else would it be effectuated? whom would you suggest for that role other than Bob? Aside from his role as owner of this board, and per se, I don't see anyone else who's established a claim to doing it here.
There may be circumstances when a year long block is appropriate-- the specifics would be debatable. Many may not agree with Bob's particular judgments in cases, or even with some elements of his general approach. Is there anyone whose general approach and specific decisions you expect to agree with entirely?
Do you honestly feel that civility is any more obscure in meaning than fairness, reasonableness, or any other value? Do you honestly think that there's some need for concensus among experts-- even if there were experts, to be summoned-- to validate the worth of something like civility? Isn't that merely a norm of social interaction? Why do we need experts for that?
I 'm really having trouble following the implications, or assumptions, of many of your positions about this.
And I personally feel uneasy with some of the discussion.. I don't know if you'll get blocked or not, and I certainly hope you don't-- I wouldn't presume to suggest that you say anything you don't believe-- but I wonder if you have any feeling that any of what you've said could possibly be hurtful or make anyone feel put down?
Nadezda
Posted by alexandra_k on August 17, 2009, at 15:37:07
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Nadezda on August 17, 2009, at 15:25:30
> I'm not sure, Alex, why you assume that people who don't particularly agree with you and who more or less accept the idea of civility as an important practical one, that can be understood and reasonably applied, are idealizers of Bob.
What is important practically about blocking muffled and zen for saying 'sh*t' without an asterisk and yet not blocking nikki for the same? what is important practically about blocking lou for posting more than three and a row and not blocking others for the same? is this understandable or reasonably applied? it is understandable that zen got blocked for one year for saying something along the lines of 'I was having a sh*t day' - do you think? or do you... simply not really think on these cases? how come?
(Is it really that you disagree with me that the above is unfair and unreasonable?)
And it can't have been mere oversight, even. It was brought to his attention about the unfairness during the year that zen was blocked... What is that? A sign that he has too much power, I think. 'Better to leave the past in the past' - indeed. Never mind that his decision to do so was affecting anothers present. And that is not okay.
> Do you honestly feel that civility is any more obscure in meaning than fairness, reasonableness, or any other value?
And countries get invaded in the name of 'freedom'. Yeah. Don't make it right.
> Do you honestly think that there's some need for concensus among experts-- even if there were experts, to be summoned-- to validate the worth of something like civility? Isn't that merely a norm of social interaction? Why do we need experts for that?
Well... Maybe if the UN reached something like consensus about when an invasion was justified people would be left feeling a little different about the invasion. Not to 'validate the worth of something like freedom' - of course. But to put some checks and balanced on what is allowed to declare it falls under its name.
> but I wonder if you have any feeling that any of what you've said could possibly be hurtful or make anyone feel put down?
And I could... Wonder the same about you. And round and round and round we go (and as usual Bob will prevail).
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.