![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 9 to 33 of 33. Go back in thread:
Posted by ron1953 on July 10, 2010, at 11:52:34
In reply to Re: Is Anybody Responsible for Their Own Feelings? » ron1953, posted by cass on July 9, 2010, at 21:14:35
There's nothing in my comments that advocate hate, attacks, etc.. I agree that calm discussion is more desireable than heated argument, but that is is an ideal, not reality. And Bob (and others) seems to be constantly seeking this impossible ideal from a one-sided perspective which says, "If you word everything just right, everything will be peachy". I'm advocating a middle ground where people are encouraged to be aware of and learn to avoid painful and damaging emotional hijackings, to stay in control despite what others may say. To me, internal temper tantrums are no better than external ones. To practice calm in the face of chaos is transforming, and will often have the effect of calming the attacker.
To get a better idea of what I'm talking about, I suggest reading "Emotional Intelligence"
Posted by SLS on July 10, 2010, at 12:15:07
In reply to Re: Is Anybody Responsible for Their Own Feelings? » cass, posted by ron1953 on July 10, 2010, at 11:52:34
> I agree that calm discussion is more desireable than heated argument, but that is is an ideal, not reality.
Do you feel that this is true in all purviews, or just in those that involve mental illness? I read things from time to time. It isn't often that I come upon the types of arguments you describe. Perhaps this is an Internet thing?
- Scott
Posted by ron1953 on July 10, 2010, at 17:28:30
In reply to Re: Is Anybody Responsible for Their Own Feelings? » ron1953, posted by SLS on July 10, 2010, at 12:15:07
SLS, you quoted me in the previous post, but it was another member's post that described such things as "hate" and "attack". Perhaps they'll address your question.
Posted by SLS on July 10, 2010, at 18:31:13
In reply to Re: Is Anybody Responsible for Their Own Feelings?, posted by ron1953 on July 10, 2010, at 17:28:30
> SLS, you quoted me in the previous post, but it was another member's post that described such things as "hate" and "attack". Perhaps they'll address your question.
I'm sorry. I thought you had written the following:
"I agree that calm discussion is more desireable than heated argument, but that is is an ideal, not reality."
What is this "reality" according to you?
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2010, at 1:46:00
In reply to Re: Is Anybody Responsible for Their Own Feelings? » cass, posted by ron1953 on July 10, 2010, at 11:52:34
> The ongoing push for "civility" clearly illustrates an illogical (and IMO unhealthy) desire to externalize the responsibility for one's feelings.
What about responsibility for one's postings?
> I agree that calm discussion is more desireable than heated argument, but that is is an ideal, not reality. And Bob (and others) seems to be constantly seeking this impossible ideal from a one-sided perspective which says, "If you word everything just right, everything will be peachy". I'm advocating a middle ground where people are encouraged to be aware of and learn to avoid painful and damaging emotional hijackings, to stay in control despite what others may say. ... To practice calm in the face of chaos is transforming, and will often have the effect of calming the attacker.
I agree, it's an impossible ideal. This community will never be 100% civil 100% of the time. But IMO trying to be civil is still worthwhile. And members have, as you say, the right not to remain members.
I advocate staying in control of one's postings despite what others may say. To be civil in the face of emotional hijackings can be transforming. :-)
Bob
Posted by SLS on July 11, 2010, at 4:33:21
In reply to Re: Is Anybody Responsible for Their Own Postings?, posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2010, at 1:46:00
> I agree, it's an impossible ideal.
Oh, no!
Say it ain't so!
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 11, 2010, at 10:40:27
In reply to Re: Is Anybody Responsible for Their Own Postings?, posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2010, at 1:46:00
> > The ongoing push for "civility" clearly illustrates an illogical (and IMO unhealthy) desire to externalize the responsibility for one's feelings.
>
> What about responsibility for one's postings?
>
> > I agree that calm discussion is more desireable than heated argument, but that is is an ideal, not reality. And Bob (and others) seems to be constantly seeking this impossible ideal from a one-sided perspective which says, "If you word everything just right, everything will be peachy". I'm advocating a middle ground where people are encouraged to be aware of and learn to avoid painful and damaging emotional hijackings, to stay in control despite what others may say. ... To practice calm in the face of chaos is transforming, and will often have the effect of calming the attacker.
>
> I agree, it's an impossible ideal. This community will never be 100% civil 100% of the time. But IMO trying to be civil is still worthwhile. And members have, as you say, the right not to remain members.
>
> I advocate staying in control of one's postings despite what others may say. To be civil in the face of emotional hijackings can be transforming. :-)
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...What about responsibility for one's postings?...]
I am unsre as to what you are wanting to mean here. You have postings that you say that your drafting of your rule gives members here the {OK} to post statements that couls lead a Jew to feel put down, which are antisemitic statements. You say that it is [OK} to post those type of statements as your drafting of you ru;lle says. But for a statement ot be {OK} here, could mean that it is {OK} by you for members to post it but not also meaning tht the statement is supportive, and you write that support takes precedence.
You also state that using a word like {only} , precludes others and is not supportive. Yet today , there is my request to you outstanding here for you to post in the thread in question to clear up as to if you are or or not wanting the statement in question to mean that it is or is not supportive.
You ask about the responsibility for postings. Could you post here as to if you are wanting to mean or not that your posting is one that you will take responsibility for if I or another Jew or an Islamic person or anyonee else is harmed because they one inflicting any such harm read your post that says that you drafted your rule that allows a statement that IMO could arrouse antisemitic feelings or anti other feelings toward those that have a faith that says to them that they can have Eternal Life and forgivness another way than the {only} way as posted that you are allowing here to be {OK} to be posted here?
For instance, suppose a child is bullied that is Islamic or Jewish in a school and is harmed or even killed and the killer says that they saw on Dr Bob's site that {only} and it gave the killer a false superiority to use those , like Jews , that do not accept that claim, as outlets for their sadism in the perpetration of a hate crime. Would you take responsibility for the death or injuries that the Jewish child or other incurred if it wasshown that the bully acted on what you posted?
Here is a link to links that have my request outstanding.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/951879.html
Posted by violette on July 11, 2010, at 17:12:19
In reply to Is Anybody Responsible for Their Own Feelings?, posted by ron1953 on July 9, 2010, at 13:36:29
"The ongoing push for "civility" clearly illustrates an illogical (and IMO unhealthy) desire to externalize the responsibility for one's feelings. Appalling."
Hi again Ron,
Years ago, a new boss was transferred from another office. For whatever reason (I can only guess) he started to repeatedly point out my deficiencies-this was after getting high marks on my personnel reviews for several years from at least 2 different supervisors. I wondered why he was singling me out as these mistakes were common to our field partly due to ongoing, unresolved company policies that were contradictory to the interpretation or application of the policies that many did in order to get certain types of jobs done. There were a dozen other people having the same problem.
I sucked it up, and it got worse, to the point where it seemed he was taking out his anger on me. All I could guess was that I had outperformed him on a particularly important job duty, since his attitude towards me only changed at that time. I could only guess as logic can't explain why he singled me out--and besides that, he seemed angry and hateful to me. I suppose I could have gone around thinking there was something wrong with me, and I think at first I did unconsciously in some way or another-and that in itself is unhealthy.
This person was highly regarded by the departmental manager due to high marks in performance measures upon his transfer to the dept. (Again, I don't think there's much logic to emotions) In starting to guess maybe this person might sustain his self esteem by sort of over achieving, thinking he wouldn't appear so angry if it was due to love of career, and thus thinking this very confident person was really fragile inside--I approached him in the most humble, non-confrontational manner I could. Using "I" statements (before I had ever stepped foot in a therapist's office and learned of this) I said softly-maybe I am mistaken or seeing this wrong, but I felt hurt by the way I was singled out when you (again) strongly pointed out issue xyz in front of everyone, while others who have the same issue have been overlooked.(While I confronted him in private, people had witnessed him doing this--but no one stood up for me at the time as this person was 1. the boss and 2. highly regarded at the time and 3. new so no one really knew how this person's character.
This totally backfired on me-this person yelled at me--the worst was that he did not even pause to at least consider what I just said to him; instead, he just yelled at me saying how dare I question his authority.
I left the meeting in tears (sensitivity!). Later, I had a discussion with his boss about it, and was basically told to suck it up. I did. No one at the local office confronted him aside from me, as it started subtley-and could be justified by policy even though I was singled out...Others eventually started to notice this behavior, as it later happened to some other people aside from me and became less subtle as no one stopped him or were afraid to confront him, or maybe just sucked it up too.
This progressed to the point where people from satellite offices--who did not know of this person's 'outstanding work history'/high regard by upper management--would call to complain about how nasty he was to work with. These types of complaints were uncommon to the job field--so finally, management realized how his behavior was hurting morale of the office and causing major conflict all around, affecting the integrity of the entire company.
Going to work everyday while taking responsbility for my emotions in regard to this boss--though this may work for some--enabled this person to continue this destructive behavior. It got to the point where it became more obvious how this guy seemed to be channeling his anger towards certain people. I no longer had good feelings about my job I was once dedicated to, fought myself to go in every day, and started calling off work for the first time.
When others started realizing this and seeing it more clearly-the person was finally fired. It took years for this to happen, a large part of it, I feel, was that the person did it subtely for X amount of time because it wasn't until it escalated to outside the local office that upper management noticed it.
Do I base all my opinions from this one experience? Of course not. It simply illustrates an example of how it can be very unhealthy to suck it up--to take 100% responsiblity for your own feelings. Maybe it could work in the short term, or in different situations, but in this case and I can apply this to other situations, it allowed this person to continue and be more destructive.
Why should everyone at the office have to suffer because of this person's issues? Why can't the person with the destructive behavior take responsbiility for his contributions to the unhappiness of other employees and the overall morale? Why did it have to wait until so many others were affected before this person's behavior was addressed? I can only imagine how this would have affected me had he continued to be hateful towards me, had he not started becoming abusive to other people outside of the local office.
BTW-I'm totally cool with anyone who says, "yeah, maybe I did do something that led you to feel hurt. I'm not sure, but let me think about this and get back to you" partly because I'm an extremely forgiving person who can overlook various hurts if the person merely TRIES to see their personal contributions. If this guy at least acknowledged his responsibility, and perhaps thought about it-I don't think the situation would have gotten so bad, affecting so many people. I can't say for sure.
I think taking responsbility for one's feelings is important but it also needs to be acknowledged, or at the very least, considered by both sides of the coin. It doesn't appear appalling from my view.
In regard to "externalizing": It seems the harmful boss was the one 'externalizing'--channeling his anger towards others, while the people who were hurt were forced to internalize it for some time via sucking it up. Not healthy at all.
My 2 cents. :)
"The ongoing push for "civility" clearly illustrates an illogical (and IMO unhealthy) desire to externalize the responsibility for one's feelings. Appalling."
Posted by ron1953 on July 11, 2010, at 19:02:09
In reply to Re: Is Anybody Responsible for Their Own Feelings? » ron1953, posted by violette on July 11, 2010, at 17:12:19
Your boss story is all too familiar, and I can absolutely empathise. Certainly a different set of dynamics than strictly personal ones, especially because of the money/financial security issues involved. But it's interesting to me because we're taught to respect authority and treat it with deference - that speaking up is rude and out of line. But if people had been more honest and forthright, the mofo would have been fired sooner or the disgruntled would have left or been fired and moved on to a better work environment. So, is honesty the best policy? Perhaps in the long run.
Posted by violette on July 11, 2010, at 20:43:02
In reply to Re: Is Anybody Responsible for Their Own Feelings? » violette, posted by ron1953 on July 11, 2010, at 19:02:09
Ron, I think I hear you better now.
Yeah, I understand the dynamics are different with work-but in terms of taking responsiblity for one's feelings, which is why I brought up an example that illustrates that concept so clearly (and strongly)--why the hell should everyone ELSE have to leave the company instead of the as***** boss taking responsibility for his emotional dumping on others?
Being less sensitive to others' cruelty, though it does not happen that often, is something I'm working on in therapy since it relates to childhood issues...
I'm starting to not question myself as much..but before this, I more likely than not unconsciously interpreted another's abuse as an indication there was something 'wrong with me'...for someone to choose me personally as an outlet of their anger is not seemingly as personal as I once viewed it to be...and I continue to learn while I write things out here and elsewhere.
However, in growing tired of questioning myself, thinking it 'must be me', I have started to realize sometimes my reactions can be 'normal' reactions to abnormal situations, so I am getting better at dealing with this issue. And no, I don't get triggered-hurt-that easily where I'm feeling offended often...it comes from identifying behaviors that match childhood experiences, and what seems to parallel abuse-which seems to originate from another person's own adverse experiences-whether they recognize it or not. Being there is no logic to explain this, I do guess and come to my own conclusions-whether right or wrong.
I, too, believe in directness (being forthright) and honesty. In fact, I feel strongly about that and when others are not so forthright, it can be triggering at times...depending on the situation-esp. if someone won't look into themself...
It seems we do agree on something here...Anyway, thanks for empathisizing in regard to one of my IRL situation and being transparent in how you feel about this. It seems to be a productive discussion as I'm always learning. :)
Posted by ron1953 on July 13, 2010, at 9:23:27
In reply to Re: Is Anybody Responsible for Their Own Feelings? » ron1953, posted by violette on July 11, 2010, at 20:43:02
It's been interesting sharing experiences and points of view. And that's my entire point in challenging the civility overkill, which drives away a whole heck of a lot of people who might otherwise be here sharing, too. PBCs and blocks have whittled the membership down to almost nothing, leaving the little handful of faithful "safety" addicts, and no diversity of opinion. Personally, I don't call that support. And that is why I spend so little time here, as many others have chosen to do.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 13, 2010, at 10:35:38
In reply to Re: Is Anybody Responsible for Their Own Feelings? » violette, posted by ron1953 on July 13, 2010, at 9:23:27
> why the hell should everyone ELSE have to leave the company instead of the as***** boss taking responsibility for his emotional dumping on others?
>
> violetteWhy the hell did the boss's boss keep the *ssh*l*?
> the civility overkill ... drives away a whole heck of a lot of people who might otherwise be here sharing, too. PBCs and blocks have whittled the membership down to almost nothing, leaving the little handful of faithful "safety" addicts, and no diversity of opinion. Personally, I don't call that support. And that is why I spend so little time here, as many others have chosen to do.
>
> ron1953I suppose it has to do with finding a balance. You don't want to drive away people who support others, but you don't necessarily want to keep people who dump on others, either.
IMO, there's been at least a little diversity of opinion here lately. Be the change you wish to see. :-)
Bob
Posted by Willful on July 13, 2010, at 10:40:17
In reply to Re: Is Anybody Responsible for Their Own Feelings? » violette, posted by ron1953 on July 13, 2010, at 9:23:27
The twitter/facebook controversy drove away a lot of people, but I've never been clear, other than that, why people leave or stay here.
I posted here briefly a few years ago, but I left because I eventually felt drained by trying to respond to a lot of suffering without any sense that my responses helped. People seem to go through long periods of just being stuck in certain issues-- I'm sure I've done the same thing-- But when you're on the outside, you see how the emotions they're feeling as so devastating, are come from what they're doing to themselves not from what people are doing to them and you want to alleviate their pain-- but even if you made some small impact after trying really hard to get inside what they were experiencing, it was really hard to see them go through the same thing week after week after month. At least for me.
So I think that might happen to a lot of people-- or other people don't feel helped and give up, or start feeling better and just drop away when they don't feel as needy. People seem to look for something from a site like this, and when that particular need isn't met or isn't there any more, they drop away. I rarely notice someone have a lot of pain. then stay around to help other people later with their issues-- and I very rarely got any sense of other people's realizing how much effort people were putting into trying to reach out. I'm not saying that anyone in particular should be so grateful, but after all while, it does get discouraging. I don't know-- I just found the whole experience sort of draining after a while. I'm not saying my efforts were anything other than the best I could do-- but I rarely felt that anyone noticed that I was really trying. It's ironic, I guess, because now when I read a lot of posts, I feel sort of put off-- it must be my stage of development-- where I'm not as self-destructive, but I"m more like an ex-smoker who gets mad at people who still smoke. At least, I've been trying to figure out why I can't be as empathic as I was-- but maybe that's it.
My leaving, though, had had nothing to do with blocks and pbcs, which I often disagreed with--- One problem that sort of distressed me was how intermittantly Bob and the deputies would get involved, which added a lot to the chaos and sense of unfairness of the rules. So some people would say really awful things and no one would notice-- and other times, someone would say something kind of insensitive and someone would pbc or block them. It often seemed like any little thing could get you a pbc or block-- but you could often get away with being seriously hurtful or unkind. I found that infuriating and upsetting.
Some civility rules are important-- but also, I agree with everyone that the length of the blocks is out of control. A simple formula of the kind Bob uses might be necessary if a machine were running the site-- but imo human beings should have more careful responses-- and it just felt really kind of dehumanizing to see how the blocks were calculated, because the formula generates very long blocks despite what may be minor infractions-- and no matter what, they often seemed out of scale to what had been done. But even though the system bothered me, I don't think it's what caused me to leave
Anyway, I do wish the system were different, but I've often wondered why people leave-- really-- and where they go. I've tried the other obvious places, but I find them really much less sympatico than this place, for all its faults.
Willful
Posted by ron1953 on July 13, 2010, at 10:49:34
In reply to Re: Is Anybody Responsible for Their Own Postings?, posted by Dr. Bob on July 13, 2010, at 10:35:38
> I suppose it has to do with finding a balance. You don't want to drive away people who support others, but you don't necessarily want to keep people who dump on others, either.
>
> IMO, there's been at least a little diversity of opinion here lately. Be the change you wish to see. :-)
>
> BobI honestly don't feel that you effectively encourage/support that balance, despite what you just said. My point, again, is that the constant drumbeat for civility perfection and the convoluted logic of PBCs and blocks, is counter-productive.
Posted by ron1953 on July 13, 2010, at 10:53:27
In reply to Re: Is Anybody Responsible for Their Own Feelings? » ron1953, posted by Willful on July 13, 2010, at 10:40:17
All very excellent observations.
Posted by brokenpuppet on July 13, 2010, at 20:04:53
In reply to Re: Is Anybody Responsible for Their Own Feelings? » ron1953, posted by Willful on July 13, 2010, at 10:40:17
you raise some very good points - most of which I've been thinking about lately as I'm thinking of leaving ...
I haven't been here very long and I probably spent a lot more of the time just quietly reading posts rather than voicing my opinions. When I did post, I felt like I got great responses from very sweet, intelligent and considerate people - so this is definitely NOT the reason I am thinking of leaving.
I do agree that it is hard to see a lot of suffering and feel like you can't really help, but this is not why I'm leaving either. I think it just means that we all have to know ourselves and how to deal with triggers and to look after ourselves first before we try to help others.
my reasons for leaving are to do with trust. yes, it is an issue I have struggled with all my life. from what I've read about the 'twitter/facebook' drama, I was left feeling like Dr Bob didn't take into consideration the posters and their feelings (the human beings which make this site what it is) which in my opinion should have rated higher than whether the site gets more members / rates higher on google etc. I also don't agree with (or understand) some of the 'civility rules' and blocking and while I feel like this might not affect me personally (but who knows...?) it does feel a little inhuman / machine-like to me as well.
another aspect I am uncomfortable with is my comments being able to be used in any research / article etc. I did read and agree with the disclaimer when I signed up but I still have these warning bells at the back of my mind and I feel like I should listen to them.
I don't do so well with confrontation so I've been tossing and turning on whether I should say what's been on my mind or not... (Dr Bob - if you do comment I hope you take these comments as honest feedback and nothing else)
I guess I expected more and I dont know if I can find it here. The people here have been lovely though and I am really sorry to go. I will check back once in a while to see how everyone is going.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 15, 2010, at 13:07:15
In reply to Re: Why people leave... » Willful, posted by brokenpuppet on July 13, 2010, at 20:04:53
> I left because I eventually felt drained by trying to respond to a lot of suffering without any sense that my responses helped. ... it was really hard to see them go through the same thing week after week after month.
>
> I think that might happen to a lot of people-- or other people don't feel helped and give up, or start feeling better and just drop away when they don't feel as needy. People seem to look for something from a site like this, and when that particular need isn't met or isn't there any more, they drop away.
>
> One problem that sort of distressed me was how intermittantly Bob and the deputies would get involved, which added a lot to the chaos and sense of unfairness of the rules.
>
> A simple formula of the kind Bob uses might be necessary if a machine were running the site-- but imo human beings should have more careful responses-- and it just felt really kind of dehumanizing to see how the blocks were calculated, because the formula generates very long blocks despite what may be minor infractions
>
> I've tried the other obvious places, but I find them really much less sympatico than this place, for all its faults.
>
> Willful> When I did post, I felt like I got great responses from very sweet, intelligent and considerate people
>
> I do agree that it is hard to see a lot of suffering and feel like you can't really help ... I think it just means that we all have to know ourselves and how to deal with triggers and to look after ourselves first before we try to help others.
>
> my reasons for leaving are to do with trust. yes, it is an issue I have struggled with all my life. from what I've read about the 'twitter/facebook' drama, I was left feeling like Dr Bob didn't take into consideration the posters and their feelings ... which in my opinion should have rated higher than whether the site gets more members / rates higher on google etc. I also don't agree with (or understand) some of the 'civility rules' and blocking ... it does feel a little inhuman / machine-like to me as well.
>
> another aspect I am uncomfortable with is my comments being able to be used in any research / article etc. I did read and agree with the disclaimer when I signed up but I still have these warning bells at the back of my mind and I feel like I should listen to them.
>
> I don't do so well with confrontation so I've been tossing and turning on whether I should say what's been on my mind or not...
>
> brokenpuppetI agree, it's great to support others, but important to take care of yourself, too. One way to take care of yourself may in fact be to drop away from time to time. It can take a community to support a poster.
Would posters get more of a sense that their posts help if other posters awarded them points?
My ego likes it when Babble rates high on Google, but it's also important for Babble: some posters do inevitably drop away, so if there aren't new posters, well, you can do the math. And new posters find Babble through search engines like Google. I think that's how most of them do, anyway. How did you find Babble yourselves?
Posts here are public. That enables them to reach (and to help) more readers (who may then become posters). But that also means having limited control over how posts are used. The Facebook and Twitter icons are like visual warning bells. Some posters may "listen" to them, feel uncomfortable with the risk, and stop posting. Others may just post more carefully.
There's a dialectic between being human (using judgment) and machine-like (being consistent). In baseball, the umpire is human, the system machine-like (three strikes and you're out, even if the third isn't any "worse" than the first two). Dealing with machine-like systems can be a life skill, and something Babblers help each other with.
As much as I'd like to see posters run Babble, I do think it's been disruptive when I've been around less, so I'm trying to be more present again now.
Thank you both for sharing what your experience here has been like. I'm pleased that though there are issues here, you find this community simpatico and its members sweet, intelligent, and considerate. :-)
And brokenpuppet, I'm glad you feel here that you can try out being more assertive. :-)
Bob
Posted by Dinah on July 15, 2010, at 20:50:13
In reply to Re: Why people come, why people go, posted by Dr. Bob on July 15, 2010, at 13:07:15
> Would posters get more of a sense that their posts help if other posters awarded them points?
:(
Posted by 10derHeart on July 15, 2010, at 21:31:48
In reply to Re: Why people come, why people go, posted by Dinah on July 15, 2010, at 20:50:13
Ditto.
<<sigh>>
Posted by jade k on July 17, 2010, at 7:35:34
In reply to Re: Why people leave... » Willful, posted by brokenpuppet on July 13, 2010, at 20:04:53
Well brokenpuppet,
You are the kind of thoughtful poster I would like to see stay. I also understand your reasons for wanting to leave. What a shame. I don't know what else to say but that I share your concerns (thats actually why I came to admin this morn), and I fear many more feel the same way.
Take care,
~Jade
Posted by jade k on July 17, 2010, at 8:37:49
In reply to Re: Why people come, why people go, posted by Dr. Bob on July 15, 2010, at 13:07:15
Ditto, almost verbatim, willful and brokenpuppets posts. THESE kind of posters I wish we had more of.
> Would posters get more of a sense that their posts help if other posters awarded them points. Dr. Bob
NO.
Are you really considering this?
~Jade
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 17, 2010, at 14:47:20
In reply to Re:Posters Posts and Point system » Dr. Bob, posted by jade k on July 17, 2010, at 8:37:49
> > Would posters get more of a sense that their posts help if other posters awarded them points.
>
> NO.
>
> Are you really considering this?I redirected my reply to the thread on this. Here's a link:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100714/msgs/954779.html
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 10, 2012, at 6:02:09
In reply to Lou's response-ahkountehybul? » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on July 11, 2010, at 10:40:27
> > > The ongoing push for "civility" clearly illustrates an illogical (and IMO unhealthy) desire to externalize the responsibility for one's feelings.
> >
> > What about responsibility for one's postings?
> >
> > > I agree that calm discussion is more desireable than heated argument, but that is is an ideal, not reality. And Bob (and others) seems to be constantly seeking this impossible ideal from a one-sided perspective which says, "If you word everything just right, everything will be peachy". I'm advocating a middle ground where people are encouraged to be aware of and learn to avoid painful and damaging emotional hijackings, to stay in control despite what others may say. ... To practice calm in the face of chaos is transforming, and will often have the effect of calming the attacker.
> >
> > I agree, it's an impossible ideal. This community will never be 100% civil 100% of the time. But IMO trying to be civil is still worthwhile. And members have, as you say, the right not to remain members.
> >
> > I advocate staying in control of one's postings despite what others may say. To be civil in the face of emotional hijackings can be transforming. :-)
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote,[...What about responsibility for one's postings?...]
> I am unsre as to what you are wanting to mean here. You have postings that you say that your drafting of your rule gives members here the {OK} to post statements that couls lead a Jew to feel put down, which are antisemitic statements. You say that it is [OK} to post those type of statements as your drafting of you ru;lle says. But for a statement ot be {OK} here, could mean that it is {OK} by you for members to post it but not also meaning tht the statement is supportive, and you write that support takes precedence.
> You also state that using a word like {only} , precludes others and is not supportive. Yet today , there is my request to you outstanding here for you to post in the thread in question to clear up as to if you are or or not wanting the statement in question to mean that it is or is not supportive.
> You ask about the responsibility for postings. Could you post here as to if you are wanting to mean or not that your posting is one that you will take responsibility for if I or another Jew or an Islamic person or anyonee else is harmed because they one inflicting any such harm read your post that says that you drafted your rule that allows a statement that IMO could arrouse antisemitic feelings or anti other feelings toward those that have a faith that says to them that they can have Eternal Life and forgivness another way than the {only} way as posted that you are allowing here to be {OK} to be posted here?
> For instance, suppose a child is bullied that is Islamic or Jewish in a school and is harmed or even killed and the killer says that they saw on Dr Bob's site that {only} and it gave the killer a false superiority to use those , like Jews , that do not accept that claim, as outlets for their sadism in the perpetration of a hate crime. Would you take responsibility for the death or injuries that the Jewish child or other incurred if it wasshown that the bully acted on what you posted?
> Here is a link to links that have my request outstanding.
> Lou Pilder
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/951879.htmlMr. Hsiung,
In regards to your reminder policy, the above.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 17, 2013, at 8:10:03
In reply to Lou's reminder-duyutehyk?, posted by Lou Pilder on May 10, 2012, at 6:02:09
> > > > The ongoing push for "civility" clearly illustrates an illogical (and IMO unhealthy) desire to externalize the responsibility for one's feelings.
> > >
> > > What about responsibility for one's postings?
> > >
> > > > I agree that calm discussion is more desireable than heated argument, but that is is an ideal, not reality. And Bob (and others) seems to be constantly seeking this impossible ideal from a one-sided perspective which says, "If you word everything just right, everything will be peachy". I'm advocating a middle ground where people are encouraged to be aware of and learn to avoid painful and damaging emotional hijackings, to stay in control despite what others may say. ... To practice calm in the face of chaos is transforming, and will often have the effect of calming the attacker.
> > >
> > > I agree, it's an impossible ideal. This community will never be 100% civil 100% of the time. But IMO trying to be civil is still worthwhile. And members have, as you say, the right not to remain members.
> > >
> > > I advocate staying in control of one's postings despite what others may say. To be civil in the face of emotional hijackings can be transforming. :-)
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > You wrote,[...What about responsibility for one's postings?...]
> > I am unsre as to what you are wanting to mean here. You have postings that you say that your drafting of your rule gives members here the {OK} to post statements that couls lead a Jew to feel put down, which are antisemitic statements. You say that it is [OK} to post those type of statements as your drafting of you ru;lle says. But for a statement ot be {OK} here, could mean that it is {OK} by you for members to post it but not also meaning tht the statement is supportive, and you write that support takes precedence.
> > You also state that using a word like {only} , precludes others and is not supportive. Yet today , there is my request to you outstanding here for you to post in the thread in question to clear up as to if you are or or not wanting the statement in question to mean that it is or is not supportive.
> > You ask about the responsibility for postings. Could you post here as to if you are wanting to mean or not that your posting is one that you will take responsibility for if I or another Jew or an Islamic person or anyonee else is harmed because they one inflicting any such harm read your post that says that you drafted your rule that allows a statement that IMO could arrouse antisemitic feelings or anti other feelings toward those that have a faith that says to them that they can have Eternal Life and forgivness another way than the {only} way as posted that you are allowing here to be {OK} to be posted here?
> > For instance, suppose a child is bullied that is Islamic or Jewish in a school and is harmed or even killed and the killer says that they saw on Dr Bob's site that {only} and it gave the killer a false superiority to use those , like Jews , that do not accept that claim, as outlets for their sadism in the perpetration of a hate crime. Would you take responsibility for the death or injuries that the Jewish child or other incurred if it wasshown that the bully acted on what you posted?
> > Here is a link to links that have my request outstanding.
> > Lou Pilder
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/951879.html
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> In regards to your reminder policy, the above.
> Lou PilderMr Hsiung,
In regards to your policy to keep reminding you, the above.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou PIlder on July 3, 2013, at 16:42:22
In reply to Lou's reminder-duyutehyk?-keepreemynd, posted by Lou Pilder on February 17, 2013, at 8:10:03
> > > > > The ongoing push for "civility" clearly illustrates an illogical (and IMO unhealthy) desire to externalize the responsibility for one's feelings.
> > > >
> > > > What about responsibility for one's postings?
> > > >
> > > > > I agree that calm discussion is more desireable than heated argument, but that is is an ideal, not reality. And Bob (and others) seems to be constantly seeking this impossible ideal from a one-sided perspective which says, "If you word everything just right, everything will be peachy". I'm advocating a middle ground where people are encouraged to be aware of and learn to avoid painful and damaging emotional hijackings, to stay in control despite what others may say. ... To practice calm in the face of chaos is transforming, and will often have the effect of calming the attacker.
> > > >
> > > > I agree, it's an impossible ideal. This community will never be 100% civil 100% of the time. But IMO trying to be civil is still worthwhile. And members have, as you say, the right not to remain members.
> > > >
> > > > I advocate staying in control of one's postings despite what others may say. To be civil in the face of emotional hijackings can be transforming. :-)
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > >
> > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > You wrote,[...What about responsibility for one's postings?...]
> > > I am unsre as to what you are wanting to mean here. You have postings that you say that your drafting of your rule gives members here the {OK} to post statements that couls lead a Jew to feel put down, which are antisemitic statements. You say that it is [OK} to post those type of statements as your drafting of you ru;lle says. But for a statement ot be {OK} here, could mean that it is {OK} by you for members to post it but not also meaning tht the statement is supportive, and you write that support takes precedence.
> > > You also state that using a word like {only} , precludes others and is not supportive. Yet today , there is my request to you outstanding here for you to post in the thread in question to clear up as to if you are or or not wanting the statement in question to mean that it is or is not supportive.
> > > You ask about the responsibility for postings. Could you post here as to if you are wanting to mean or not that your posting is one that you will take responsibility for if I or another Jew or an Islamic person or anyonee else is harmed because they one inflicting any such harm read your post that says that you drafted your rule that allows a statement that IMO could arrouse antisemitic feelings or anti other feelings toward those that have a faith that says to them that they can have Eternal Life and forgivness another way than the {only} way as posted that you are allowing here to be {OK} to be posted here?
> > > For instance, suppose a child is bullied that is Islamic or Jewish in a school and is harmed or even killed and the killer says that they saw on Dr Bob's site that {only} and it gave the killer a false superiority to use those , like Jews , that do not accept that claim, as outlets for their sadism in the perpetration of a hate crime. Would you take responsibility for the death or injuries that the Jewish child or other incurred if it wasshown that the bully acted on what you posted?
> > > Here is a link to links that have my request outstanding.
> > > Lou Pilder
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/951879.html
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > In regards to your reminder policy, the above.
> > Lou Pilder
>
> Mr Hsiung,
> In regards to your policy to keep reminding you, the above.
> Lou PilderMr Hsiung,
In your policy to keep reminding you, the above.
Lou PIlder
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.