![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 62 to 86 of 117. Go back in thread:
Posted by SLS on December 3, 2009, at 22:37:19
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on December 3, 2009, at 10:54:14
Well, for what it's worth, I think that allowing for the amending of posts is a bad idea. People can amend threads. That's what posting is for.
What were the advantages to amending posts?
1. Prevent the "wasting" of a post so as to circumvent the 3-post rule?
2. Prevent the "premature" reactions by the reader to extant uncivil words by obviating the need for the author to compose, and the reader to open, a follow-up post? Conversation is a behavior of sequential actions. One does not go back in time and amend their words. This would only serve to prompt authors of subsequent posts to change theirs in response. Things will get pretty messy.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on December 4, 2009, at 5:36:02
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by SLS on December 3, 2009, at 22:37:19
> 1. Prevent the "wasting" of a post so as to circumvent the 3-post rule?
Sorry. This makes no sense. Please disregard.
Hey! Look at me! I just amended my previous post!
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2009, at 0:35:15
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by SLS on December 3, 2009, at 22:37:19
> You didn't reply to my example of changing "F*ck you" to "Bless you".
I'd appreciate that change, too. :-)
> I find it very upsetting that you refer to my distress at being upset about change, and tell me that change can be for the better. I feel [unheard]
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that your distress was *just* about change.
> > That would seem to preserve as much incivility to you as possible?
>
> It would preserve the reality. If someone is uncivil to me, that's the reality.OK, I think I see now. That would seem to preserve as much uncivil reality as possible, but preserving as much reality as possible may be more important to some people (including you) than whether what's preserved is civil.
> You are responding to this as if you believe the only use will be people who read their post and say oops. I didn't intend my post to read quite that way, let me amend it before it hurts anyone. While I am asking you about people who will express anger and/or hostility by deliberate attacks that are later amended to pretend they never happened.
Since this is a support group, I think it's reasonable to assume that most posters don't intend to hurt and to trust their motivations for amending. But as a backup, deputies and I could check the copy of the original saved by the server to see if someone's denying something that did happen.
> An on board post that is posted and later revised is available to a large part of the Babble population before revision, depending on time involved. If the post later says something different, the reality of what is on Babble is changed. Those who saw one version have one version of reality. Those who saw the second version have a second version of reality. Only those who saw both versions have the actual reality.
That's true, those who didn't see the first post could be said to have an incomplete version of reality. To some extent, they would need to try to accept not knowing the original message.
> What really flabbergasts me is that my proposal achieved what I'm guessing to be your goal, avoiding administrative consequences for incivility, while still preserving what I thought you counted dear.
Where did you get the idea that my goal was avoiding administrative consequences for incivility?
> I'm not clear if responding to the thread is sufficient or if responding to that particular post is necessary.
Responding to any post would be sufficient. Just the most recent post would be amendable.
> Who are your priority in this?
>
> Dinah> What were the advantages to amending posts?
>
> - ScottIt would be a way to avoid, or at least lessen, hurt feelings. It would also give posters more control over what they post.
Bob
Posted by muffled on December 8, 2009, at 1:48:29
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2009, at 0:35:15
"It would be a way to avoid, or at least lessen, hurt feelings. It would also give posters more control over what they post.
Bob "
??? Seems feelings are beinging hurt by bob right now...
Anyway FWIW.I dunno, but on the site I post on, I think people edit their posts not because they are uncivil, but cuz we post it and we feel dumb for what we said, or upon re reading the post a little later, we realize it may 'sound' wrong.
Or maybe we disclosed too much and we want to retract some info.
But I dunno, but I doubt it ever has a whole lot to do w/civility. People tend to be very careful of each others feelings as best we can. So if something 'sounds' kinda harsh, we tend to give the poster the benefit of the doubt.
Seems to work good most of the time...Bob....are you LISTENING at all???
:(
seems noboddy here so far is really even interested in editing...so WHY are you persuing this????I go now damnit.
Posted by SLS on December 8, 2009, at 6:48:04
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2009, at 0:35:15
How would a reader be alerted when an author has edited their posts?
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on December 8, 2009, at 8:09:22
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2009, at 0:35:15
> Since this is a support group, I think it's reasonable to assume that most posters don't intend to hurt and to trust their motivations for amending. But as a backup, deputies and I could check the copy of the original saved by the server to see if someone's denying something that did happen.
Deletion/amendment *is* a denial. Not a verbal one, but a denial.
> That's true, those who didn't see the first post could be said to have an incomplete version of reality. To some extent, they would need to try to accept not knowing the original message.
Because of you. Because you said so. Not because it's inherently better. It *is* your site, true. But this seems very arbitrary, and without, IMO, explanation other than what you keep repeating without much elaboration. That this would be a way to lessen or avoid hurt feelings. I don't even understand that. You are proposing a change that is of minor benefit to anyone at all, given the limitations, but that takes away one of the fundamental advantages of Babble.
> Where did you get the idea that my goal was avoiding administrative consequences for incivility?
Because you proposed it as a way to deal with incivility. Not as a way to correct technical issues, but a way to deal with incivility.
> Responding to any post would be sufficient. Just the most recent post would be amendable.
Thank you for clarifying.
> It would be a way to avoid, or at least lessen, hurt feelings. It would also give posters more control over what they post.
You say this over and over, and yet reject without explanation a proposal that actually does give posters significantly more control over what they post, and a lot more over what can be found by Google. And don't really explain why it would avoid or lessen hurt feelings.
Dr. Bob, I know this is a support site. And ideally no one would ever troll here. Or bait. Or behave childishly. Or be deliberately unkind. And at its current size and google visibility maybe that's true. But you've been here longer than I have, and you know that this is not an idyllic enclave. You warn us of that over and over. You have always believed in leaving incivility up as a warning of that fact. And that I do grasp, because it is true. Disappearing posts (or disappearing them and substituting them with other posts - per your own description of revision) does not represent reality. My memory is not so short. I remember things that were far from supportive.
I remember times when you refused to remove posts that were enormously hurtful to the poster involved. And if that's what you're trying to fix, that's admirable, but this proposal won't do it. The facts of the situation would be all wrong. I can't say what is more similar, for fear of being uncivil or insensitive.
I get that you're going to do this. I don't think I'll ever understand *why* you would mess with reality, mess with something that made Babble special, for the reasons you have given.
Posted by Dinah on December 8, 2009, at 8:24:07
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dinah on December 8, 2009, at 8:09:22
It may be that as a long term, if temporarily inactive, deputy, it's easier for me to remember the times when people were less than supportive, because my attention was drawn to those times.
But it may be that as a long term deputy, if temporarily inactive, I have a greater understanding of what does happen and the potential for how things can be used by those who don't wish to be supportive, or who in anger or under the influence lash out at others and connect. Even if they regret it later, there is damage in the meantime. An ice bullet causes just as much damage, even if it later disappears. IMO, the wound is harder to heal if it is hidden. At least it is for me.
Also, I'm aware that the civility rules already allow incivility of some sorts, and realize the pain and anger that can cause. Because there *is* a difference between incivility and incivility facilitated by board guidelines. At least there is for me. Incivility by one person is less painful to me and more easily forgiven than incivility facilitated by others, in particular the authorities.
The fact that other former deputies have contributed to this thread with their own reservations may possibly be because we are aware of what has happened here. But *you* should also be aware of what has happened here. Do you have reason to believe that these things are no longer an issue at Babble?
Posted by SLS on December 8, 2009, at 15:22:57
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2009, at 0:35:15
Hi Doctor.
Aren't you assuming that the author will edit their posts before the reader can have their feelings hurt?
Wouldn't it be better to just let the author submit a follow up post with an automatic "New" flag available for the reader to see? Feelings are bound to be hurt with or without a retro-editing function. Someone can always post an apology. Allowing people to make mistakes and rectify them after the fact is a learning experience. Either allow posts to be deleted or fully editable, or just leave them alone.
Are you trying to eliminate cross-posting and prevent the escalation of conflict? Placing the words "Sorry" or "Apology" in the subject line of a follow up post should do the trick. What do you think?
I guess we are about to see what are the effects of allowing the editing of posts. When do we start?
- Scott
Posted by twinleaf on December 9, 2009, at 11:18:59
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on December 8, 2009, at 15:22:57
I see a lot of hopeful things in this thread. I think Dr. Bob is really making an extra effort to treat individual posters respectfully, and is genuinely trying to understand what posters really want to say to him. I think his asking the question about whether or not people feel safe here shows that he is becoming much more open to hearing how we really do feel about the issues which are important to us.
At the moment, it seems as though he is working hard on a solution to a "problem" which only he thinks we have- the need to erase or amend posts. Rarely, posters have asked for erasures because they have posted identifying information....e-mails and phone numbers.... which, upon reflection, they do not want to have on the internet. Dr. Bob has always been extremely co-operative in rapidly removing these identifiers whenever he is asked. I don't think we need anything more than this. Leaving original posts, and adding modified ones, which may include apologies or modified thoughts, seems to have worked just fine.
However, this does leave us with several unsolved problems. I think Dr. Bob knows that the answer to his question about whether people feel safe is, far too often, "no". Many people have ceased active posting, citing feelings of lack of safety, and almost all of the remaining posters post only in a brief, superficial manner. There is one exception to this- there still is fairly active medication information-sharing on the medication board. This is very helpful, but it involves little or no sharing of our personal selves. The volume of posting is way, way down, and there do not even appear to be any deputies who are willing to be active.
What is making people feel unsafe? The thing I would put first is the sense of not being heard or understood by Dr. Bob. The most recent example of this is, by at least 100-3, posters expressed their fears of being more likely to lose their privacy and anonymity if their posts were automatically forwarded to Twitter and Facebook. Dr. Bob never acknowledged to anyone that this was a valid fear on their parts. Instead, he attributed their concerns to a general "fear of novelty". Posters here do not have any special fear of new things; they are here, at least in part, because they are open to trying new, and possibly challenging, medications and therapeutic approaches. They also want to take the risk of forming new and rewarding relationships here. I think we all felt insulted to have our legitimate fears of loss of privacy translated, without any evidence, into a generalized fear of change.
While we all understand that Babble is a public forum, and that people find it through Google, the chances of being identified through the increased connections with Facebook and Twitter are real. It happened to me soon after Dr. Bob put the initial connections in place. My son has a very active
Facebook account. Someone posted a thread containing something I had written in 2004 about brain imaging. It was put there because it was relevant to what my son does; he is an experimental physicist who designs magnetometers which can be used, among other things, for new, more sensitive MRIs. Someone posted my comments on his Facebook because they thought that he might be interested in what I said, and the studies I mentioned. My son realized it was actually me- his mother- because my name was so unusual- a place name where we had often hiked when he was a child. He asked if it was indeed me, and I said it was. He saw how much additional, personal, sensitive information I had also posted here, and promised me that he would not read it. I would not have been nearly so lucky if someone had posted the same information to my employer- which could well have happened, and could still happen at any time..The second reason that people feel unsafe is closely related to the first one. Dr.Bob puts changes in place, such as the one about Twitter and Facebook, which may affect our safety and privacy, without prior consultation or discussion with us. Posters like me, who expressed disagreement, right at the start, about linking to these social networks, but who did so in a courteous and civil manner, are blocked without any warning- in my case, for five months. We do not expect that Dr. Bob will always agree with us, or necessarily do what we would like, but we do expect to be respectfully heard and understood. I do not think that respectful disagreement with Dr. Bob's views should result in a lengthy posting block. or indeed, in any block at all. But, more importantly, I think a real discussion within the community of changes like this one are vital.
This leads into the final reason for our feelings of lack of safety...long blocks. I have never seen a single poster express support for them. No-one, including Dr, Bob. has ever given any reasons for them- no explanation of how they are helpful to the posters involved, or to the community. I do not believe that there are any good or constructive reasons for them.
So, to sum up (sorry- long post!), we would like to hear from Dr. Bob something along the lines of. "yes, I do understand that there are things which I have done which have caused many of you to feel unsafe. I understand that you will not feel safe if I continually misinterpret what you are telling me. I understand, also, that you will feel unsafe if I take actions, without consulting with you, which may result in a loss of your privacy, and which could affect your jobs or personal life. And, finally, I understand that you do not think there are any appropriate reasons for long blocks, and that the fact that I continue to use them causes you to feel unsafe."
I used that format, above, just to express my thoughts clearly. I am not presuming to tell Dr. Bob what to do. But I am telling him where the problem areas are for us, and pointing out to him that, if there is to be a solution to the present crisis facing Babble, it will need to involve changes on his part. Without them, the sense of unsafety, and the progressive decline in posting, will just go on. I think Dr. Bob knows that Babble is very important to a great many people, and has been a very constructive force in their lives in the past. All of us who have had that very positive experience would love to find a way for Babble to be that way again. This is my contribution to that effort.
Posted by muffled on December 9, 2009, at 15:41:58
In reply to What we hope to see....(long!), posted by twinleaf on December 9, 2009, at 11:18:59
Bless you twinleaf.
That was a well worded, obviously well thot out post.
It is nice that you are trying to help.
I too beleive Bob is trying to make it work, but what are his reasons for doing so? THAT I do not know. I have never understood what drives him, what his motivations are in running this site.
WE have beem talking to him for YEARS about his lack of understanding, and he has changed some, but I am starting to believ he will never really understand. I don't think he is able to.
I am hoping he could get some help in running this site. Non babbler help. It is not fair to ask babblers to be admin, deps maybe, but not admin.
Cuz Bob is great at the tech stuff, this site runs very well technically.
But he needs some help w/the interpersonal end of things.
IF he would be willing to let them be a full partner and not override their decisions etc.
Maybe someone else would be willing to take over this site if Bob was willing to let go of it, just kinda be a silent partner or something...
Then we can get rid of the darn buttons.
But some good concrete examples in your post, thats helpful I think.
I am sure glad for you that your son is respectful of your privacy. Sorry that happened though, must have kinda shook you up :(
Anyhow, sorry to be a wet blanket, but I don't hold much hope for real big changes here.....
But I do keep popping back, ever hopeful...
I think what we longer term posters envision for babble is NOT what Bob envisions....and...as ever....its Bobs site...
Sigh.
Nice post though.
Great thinking there.
Thx
M
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 10, 2009, at 5:05:32
In reply to Re: What we hope to see....(long!), posted by muffled on December 9, 2009, at 15:41:58
> How would a reader be alerted when an author has edited their posts?
>
> - ScottFor example, the original post is 1234.html and says:
> > You're offensive!
The poster decides to edit that. In the meantime, 3 posts have been posted elsewhere. The original post, 1234.html, becomes:
> > revised, see: 1238.html
The new post is 1238.html and says:
> > I feel offended!
> this would be a way to lessen or avoid hurt feelings. I don't even understand that.
>
> DinahThe idea is the latter is an I-statement, so it would avoid hurt feelings if the other poster hadn't seen the original and lessen them if they had.
> Aren't you assuming that the author will edit their posts before the reader can have their feelings hurt?
>
> - ScottNot necessarily, revising could be a face saving alternative to an explicit apology and an implicit acknowledgement that what was originally posted oughtn't to have been.
--
> Deletion/amendment *is* a denial. Not a verbal one, but a denial.
I don't see revising as denying. Revise: 1 a : to look over again in order to correct or improve <revise a manuscript>. Deny: 1 : to declare untrue <deny an allegation>. Maybe we should agree to disagree?
> You ... reject without explanation a proposal that actually does give posters significantly more control over what they post
In your proposal, the original isn't revised, so how does that give posters more control or lessen or avoid hurt feelings?
> > Where did you get the idea that my goal was avoiding administrative consequences for incivility?
>
> Because you proposed it as a way to deal with incivility. Not as a way to correct technical issues, but a way to deal with incivility.Right, with the goal of lessening or avoiding hurt feelings.
> Disappearing posts (or disappearing them and substituting them with other posts - per your own description of revision) does not represent reality.
It would represent an incomplete reality. I do see now that for some people representing as much reality as possible may be more important than whether what's represented is civil.
> I don't think I'll ever understand *why* you would mess with reality, mess with something that made Babble special, for the reasons you have given.
I've done my best to explain. You don't understand or you don't agree?
> Even if they regret it later, there is damage in the meantime. An ice bullet causes just as much damage, even if it later disappears. IMO, the wound is harder to heal if it is hidden. At least it is for me.
Yes, there's damage in the meantime. But a bullet that melts wouldn't keep causing pain like a bullet that stays solid. Which is why they take out bullets.
> Incivility by one person is less painful to me and more easily forgiven than incivility facilitated by others, in particular the authorities.
>
> DinahPeople may speed more if they wear seat belts. Would you say seat belts facilitate speeding?
--
> It may be that as a long term, if temporarily inactive, deputy, it's easier for me to remember the times when people were less than supportive, because my attention was drawn to those times.
>
> But it may be that as a long term deputy, if temporarily inactive, I have a greater understanding of what does happen and the potential for how things can be used by those who don't wish to be supportive, or who in anger or under the influence lash out at others and connect.
>
> The fact that other former deputies have contributed to this thread with their own reservations may possibly be because we are aware of what has happened here. But *you* should also be aware of what has happened here. Do you have reason to believe that these things are no longer an issue at Babble?
>
> Dinah> on the site I post on, I think people edit their posts ... cuz we post it and we feel dumb for what we said, or upon re reading the post a little later, we realize it may 'sound' wrong.
>
> seems noboddy here so far is really even interested in editing...so WHY are you persuing this????
>
> muffled> Wouldn't it be better to just let the author submit a follow up post with an automatic "New" flag available for the reader to see? Feelings are bound to be hurt with or without a retro-editing function. Someone can always post an apology. Allowing people to make mistakes and rectify them after the fact is a learning experience. Either allow posts to be deleted or fully editable, or just leave them alone.
>
> Are you trying to eliminate cross-posting and prevent the escalation of conflict? Placing the words "Sorry" or "Apology" in the subject line of a follow up post should do the trick. What do you think?
>
> - Scott> At the moment, it seems as though he is working hard on a solution to a "problem" which only he thinks we have- the need to erase or amend posts. ... Leaving original posts, and adding modified ones, which may include apologies or modified thoughts, seems to have worked just fine.
>
> What is making people feel unsafe? The thing I would put first is the sense of not being heard or understood by Dr. Bob.
>
> twinleafI believe the potential for posters to be less than supportive, or to feel what they say is dumb, or harsh, are issues. How heard or understood by me they feel is an issue, too, but a separate issue. People can already submit a follow-up post and apologize. Sometimes they do, but sometimes they don't, which is why I believe there's a need for something else. Revising could also be a way to rectify and to learn. It would be a compromise between making posts fully editable and leaving them uneditable.
--
> we would like to hear from Dr. Bob something along the lines of. "yes, I do understand that there are things which I have done which have caused many of you to feel unsafe. I understand that you will not feel safe if I continually misinterpret what you are telling me. I understand, also, that you will feel unsafe if I take actions, without consulting with you, which may result in a loss of your privacy, and which could affect your jobs or personal life. And, finally, I understand that you do not think there are any appropriate reasons for long blocks, and that the fact that I continue to use them causes you to feel unsafe."
>
> twinleafYes, I understand that I and other posters may do things which cause you to feel safe or unsafe. I understand that you may not feel safe if you feel misunderstood by me or other posters. I understand that you may not feel safe if your privacy, your job, or your personal life could be affected. I understand that you may not think there are any appropriate reasons for long blocks, and that the fact that I continue to use them may cause you to feel unsafe.
I join muffled in feeling glad your son respects your privacy. I'd like to redirect discussion about the buttons to that other thread, which I do intend to return to.
--
> I am hoping he could get some help in running this site. Non babbler help. It is not fair to ask babblers to be admin, deps maybe, but not admin.
> IF he would be willing to let them be a full partner and not override their decisions etc.
> Maybe someone else would be willing to take over this site if Bob was willing to let go of it, just kinda be a silent partner or something...
> Then we can get rid of the darn buttons.
>
> MYou'd like a parent on your side?
--
Would any of you be interested in having a babblechat about this? If so, when would be a good time for you?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on December 10, 2009, at 8:20:52
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dr. Bob on December 10, 2009, at 5:05:32
> > this would be a way to lessen or avoid hurt feelings. I don't even understand that.
> >
> > Dinah
>
> The idea is the latter is an I-statement, so it would avoid hurt feelings if the other poster hadn't seen the original and lessen them if they had.Repeating what you've said does not help me understand what you've said.
You appear to be at the broken record stage, which is a boundary setting way of responding, not a discussion way of responding.
I see no point in continuing a conversation once it reaches this stage. I should have realized there was no point in continuing this from the beginning. This was the next time, and again I behaved the same way in the hope that the outcome would be different. Therapy obviously has not taken for me.
I don't know why you're so set on this, but you are. So why bother? Nadezda was right.
Posted by Dinah on December 10, 2009, at 9:16:02
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dr. Bob on December 10, 2009, at 5:05:32
Honestly, though, Dr. Bob. I'd appreciate it if you could explain, from the recipient's point of view, why someone would feel their hurt lessened. Let's use a couple of different examples rather than
"F*ck you, Dr. Bob"
changed to
"Bless you, Dr. Bob"
since your reaction likely isn't really typical.
Pretend you're another poster, and tell me how you think that recipient poster's thought processes would go if they read:
"You are a self righteous b*tch. I hate you and wish you were dead. You constantly lick Dr. Bob's *ss, and pretend to be all nice but really you are a vicious b*tch."
Then that was changed to
"I'm angry with you."
or even
"You are just so sweet."
What do you see the recipient's feelings being upon seeing the amended version if they've already seen the former version. What do you think that their thought processes would be?
What if they hadn't seen it, but lots of other people had, what do you foresee happening? How do you think people will respond? Will it make a difference how well liked the uncivil poster and the recipient poster may be? What do you think the thought processes would be from those who read it. You think this would lead to board harmony. So you must have some idea in mind about how people will react. What do you foresee happening?
How about on the meds board, if someone changes
"You are unbelievably ignorant about medications. You should just shut up and quit confusing people."
to
"I'd like to propose an alternate way of looking at this."
How about if a poster posted"You are fat and disgusting."
and then just removed the sentence.
I'm really interested in your thought processes, Dr. Bob. Because I'm not sure how you think posters think. And I really do want to know that or I will never be able to understand what you're saying.You keep repeating that amending it will lessen hurt feelings, so that wouldn't really explain things to me. Could you expound on that to say what precisely you think a poster would think if they saw the original and then the subsequent post?
Could you say what you think third party posters would think, or how it would play out on board, and whether you think it would be different if it was a popular or unpopular poster posting and/or receiving?
And really, any quick look back at the archives would point out that while the vast majority of posters might not do this, there have always been a small minority who have done similar enough things to make this not unlikely. This is open to the entire world. It isn't a closed community of known and trusted Babblers.
I get that the amendment of reality doesn't matter enough to stop this change to Babble, even though you understand that it is crazymaking. But I really am curious as to what you see as the benefit? Please don't be a broken record about this. I'm making the effort of having a conversation.
Nadezda explained things from the writing poster's point of view. But obviously my nature, and what I perceive as being the natural reaction of others, isn't what you see human nature as being. I just can't imagine what you think the recipient poster's point of view may be.
Posted by muffled on December 10, 2009, at 11:00:43
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dr. Bob on December 10, 2009, at 5:05:32
> I am hoping he could get some help in running this site. Non babbler help. It is not fair to ask babblers to be admin, deps maybe, but not admin.
> IF he would be willing to let them be a full partner and not override their decisions etc.
> Maybe someone else would be willing to take over this site if Bob was willing to let go of it, just kinda be a silent partner or something...
> Then we can get rid of the darn buttons.
>
> MYou'd like a parent on your side?
*yes, cuz the one parent we got just don't get the personal stuff. he don't understand hurt and stuff.
Ya, you sure got that right.
Need more balanced parenting.
LOL< but you ain't old nuff to be my daddy ha ha ha.
So mebbe it more actually like I want a fellow adult that understands us babblers. Cuz dude, the one we got sure don't.
Ah sugar and spice, you dunno WHAT friggin restraint I showing man....
I being GOOD.
Posted by muffled on December 10, 2009, at 11:18:11
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dr. Bob on December 10, 2009, at 5:05:32
"Would any of you be interested in having a babblechat about this? If so, when would be a good time for you?"
I am pacific coast time, and I gots kids, so I gotta take care them kids for supper and stuff.
I think it be interesting to have chat re: this cuz I don't care so much bout the function that being proposed(ha ha listen to me!!!)but I kinda curious why Bobbo so set on it? WHY? This nother experiment? Bobs having fun playin and he don't care bout it botherin peoples here?
But see, mebbe on chat, then maybe it more clear somehow??? Mebbe not, that be interesting too.
I think, I dunno, but if you do IM chat, then you can save the chat? and then read it later? Is that so? Then maybe that be better option? Cuz depending, but sometime it takes me time to think and stuff.
Proly Bob , proly he make me nutty on chat even MORE, but we can see4 if it a time I can be there.
I think even tho Bob being kinda a dinkhead we should respect he trying to set up a chat w/concerned parties(damn, listen to me talk huh?!).
So I up for it.
But mebbe I in a bad time zone(LOVE that word ZONE! who thot of that word!?, it WAY cool).
So like for me 7:30 pacific coast, which be mebbe 9:30 central? is good but mebbe that late I dunno.
OK.
So mebbe Bob bein an *ss alot, but mebbe he a trying *ss hey?
we be nice and let him try I s'pose?
I will.
K
Posted by muffled on December 10, 2009, at 11:23:28
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on December 10, 2009, at 9:16:02
LOL LOL LOL!!!!
Hey mebbe I say a baddie huh?
Hey is d*nkhead a baddie? See I fixed it now.
If so forgive me cuz i be uncivilized!!!!
hate it when I can't figger stuff.
Dunno.
Kinda makin me laff anyhow :)
when in doubt laff yer frikken head off.
Its a good way of thinking :)
I like it anyhows
:)
I like laffin, but I don't want me head to fall off, but DEFINATELY I LOVE laffin!!!
K? Everyboddy can laff and we all be happy :)
Posted by Justherself54 on December 10, 2009, at 12:19:14
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dr. Bob on December 10, 2009, at 5:05:32
> I am hoping he could get some help in running this site. Non babbler help. It is not fair to ask babblers to be admin, deps maybe, but not admin.
> IF he would be willing to let them be a full partner and not override their decisions etc.
> Maybe someone else would be willing to take over this site if Bob was willing to let go of it, just kinda be a silent partner or something...
> Then we can get rid of the darn buttons.
>
> MYou'd like a parent on your side?
When you read what Muffled wrote how did you come up with "you'd like a parent on your side?"?. I really would like to know as it makes no sense to me.
Posted by twinleaf on December 10, 2009, at 15:44:57
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dr. Bob on December 10, 2009, at 5:05:32
When I posted yesterday, I was trying to put into words what I felt the reasons for 100 or more posters leaving Babble were. They nearly all cited feeling "unsafe". I may well not have gotten their exact feelings right, but, overall, they have been pretty clear about their reasons for leaving, as well as their sadness at having to do so.
I was hoping, (still!), that, together with Dr. Bob, we would find a way back to making Babble a vibrant, safe and helpful mental health community.Because of my clear focus on community-wide, rather than personal concerns, I was quite amazed to find Dr. Bob directing my suggestions back at just me, and adding something that I did not say- that I might "feel unsafe if I was not understood by other posters". I have never had the slightest problem with anyone here, other than Dr. Bob! I have shared many personal things which have found resonance with other posters, but, at times, they have felt and thought differently from me- no problem! There has always been a basic trust and respectful tolerance of differences in experience and opinions, combined with a wonderful, warm appreciation of our common experience. If it had not been like that, I would not still be trying to find a way to make it work again. I, and everyone else, would quickly forget Babble.
By responding to me as if only I have problems with him, Dr. Bob is not only trying to put me on the defensive (he will not be successful in that no matter how hard he tries), he is also, for about the thousandth time, avoiding the real problems on this forum, which he has played a major part in creating. I have spent almost all of 2009 being blocked, three times for objecting to the long blocks themselves, and once for objecting to the automatic forwarding of our posts to social networks. I have been blocked, not for incivility (although Dr. Bob has always managed to find some third-party individual whom I "might have hurt."). I have been blocked because I said what I believed and what my moral principles were. During that time, pretty much all of the posters with whom I interacted here, and who grew to mean a lot to me, have pretty much left. In varying ways, they all say the same thing: they do not feel heard or respected, and therefore, they do not feel safe. I am just giving a tiny fraction of the list of posters who decided during the past year that it was not safe enough to remain ( and I don't want to hurt anyone by not mentioning them- it's just that these people made up my own community here, and now they have all left): Partly Cloudy, Stella-by-Starlight, rskontos, Happyflower, alex. Daisy and Dinah.
If we all keep in mind how much Babble meant to us in the past,
wouldn't it be wonderful to begin recreating it, as it was at its' best? And, if we can make it even better, and welcome new people to a great place, wouldn't that be wonderful? Babble at its best was by far the most supportive. informed, and emotionally profound mental health forum around. So many of us know that, and we are, obviously, going to great lengths to get it back! But even the most dedicated of us will give up eventually if we do not receive understanding and respectful responses from Dr. Bob. I would have expected that he would have easily grasped the fact that i was attempting to address generic problems which hundreds of posters have had with Babble, and not personal ones which he thinks his repeated blocks may have caused me. I was asking him to consider the effects that his actions have had on the entire community (not just on me). Nothing more, but definitely nothing less.
Posted by twinleaf on December 12, 2009, at 9:21:03
In reply to trying to untwist Dr.Bob's responses to me..., posted by twinleaf on December 10, 2009, at 15:44:57
I mentioned my son receiving an old psychobabble thread on his Facebook account containing identifying information about me in order to give a concrete, recent example of how linking to social networks increases the chances of all of us losing our privacy. It could happen to any of us- with family members, friends, employers, prospective employers, insurers. I was using my own example to make a point about the increased danger of loss of privacy which his actions have for every one of us. This, the main point, and the only point, was completely ignored by him. Does he think that if he ignores or twists reality that it is going to disappear, or automatically become what he says it is/would like it to be?
Given what appears to be a very negative, and probably sarcastic, taunting frame of mind in his comments to me, I do not at all appreciate any comments about how lucky I am that my son respected my privacy. I am not lucky. I know how to raise a son who will feel loved and respected; he;s just treating me the way I've always treated him. I do not appreciate patronizing comments about this from someone who, contrary to all reasonable expectations, has steadily treated me with an extreme degree of lack of respect
Posted by muffled on December 12, 2009, at 19:25:02
In reply to yet another example...., posted by twinleaf on December 12, 2009, at 9:21:03
Sorry peoples been hurt.
I was kinda hopin babble could be Ok, one last time...
but ya, mebbe it too late Bob. You really blew it.
Sorry you can't understand.
I go now.
I sorrys people gots hurt :(
I hate seeing peoples get hurt :(
TGC all.
Life is Ok, we be OK.
Everybody be OK. Life hard but it be OK.
I go now.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 15, 2009, at 14:07:36
In reply to yet another example...., posted by twinleaf on December 12, 2009, at 9:21:03
> This, the main point, and the only point, was completely ignored by him.
I'm sorry you felt ignored. I do intend to return to that other thread, about the buttons, but haven't had a chance yet.
> what appears to be a very negative, and probably sarcastic, taunting frame of mind
Would anyone like to try to show twinleaf how she might interpret things more charitably, encourage her to apologize, or suggest she not address those she can't get along with? You have the power to help her avoid being blocked again.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 15, 2009, at 14:46:14
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Justherself54 on December 10, 2009, at 12:19:14
> You keep repeating that amending it will lessen hurt feelings, so that wouldn't really explain things to me. Could you expound on that to say what precisely you think a poster would think if they saw the original and then the subsequent post?
First, sorry about not replying sooner. I can't predict what posters would think, but two possibilities that have been suggested are:
1. The poster reads the original and feels hurt. Then they read the revision, see it as an implicit apology, and feel less hurt.
2. The poster reads the original and feels hurt. Then they read the revision, see it as an attempt to avoid administrative consequences, and feel more hurt.
Lots of factors could influence which it would be, but IMO posters have some power to choose their cognitions.
> I get that the amendment of reality doesn't matter enough to stop this change to Babble, even though you understand that it is crazymaking.
>
> DinahEven though I understand it could be crazy making for some people. And similarly, I get that my explanations may not matter enough to change your mind.
--
> When you read what Muffled wrote how did you come up with "you'd like a parent on your side?"?. I really would like to know as it makes no sense to me.
>
> Justherself54I'm not sure, but it made sense to Muffled! :-)
Bob
Posted by 10derHeart on December 15, 2009, at 14:56:16
In reply to Re: being blocked again, posted by Dr. Bob on December 15, 2009, at 14:07:36
>You have the power to help her avoid being blocked again.
Dr. Bob, I realize from past interactions you do think this.
But I really, really, really, really do not think I or others have this power. I really, really, really, really do not think so.
Oh...and I don't mean just TL, of course, I mean in relation to anyone.
Posted by muffled on December 15, 2009, at 15:10:38
In reply to Re: being blocked again » Dr. Bob, posted by 10derHeart on December 15, 2009, at 14:56:16
> >You have the power to help her avoid being blocked again.
>
> Dr. Bob, I realize from past interactions you do think this.
>
> But I really, really, really, really do not think I or others have this power. I really, really, really, really do not think so.
>
> Oh...and I don't mean just TL, of course, I mean in relation to anyone.*yeah, the implication would be we think TL(or anyone) is too dumb. She is so NOT. If she wants to reword, she is more than able to do so. That is her choice.
Sometimes, yes, a person can help a poster who is struggling emotionally. But here TL is just making sense and speaking her piece, thats all.UGH, WHY do I post?????
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 15, 2009, at 15:20:16
In reply to Re: being blocked again » Dr. Bob, posted by 10derHeart on December 15, 2009, at 14:56:16
> >You have the power to help her avoid being blocked again.
>
> Dr. Bob, I realize from past interactions you do think this.
>
> But I really, really, really, really do not think I or others have this power. I really, really, really, really do not think so.True, you may not. I can't know for sure. But I wouldn't assume you don't. Just to be clear, I'm not saying anyone can compel anyone else to do anything. But I do wonder if posters sometimes underestimate how much they can influence each other. I've seen it happen, it's part of support and education.
Bob
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.