![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 200 to 224 of 348. Go back in thread:
Posted by Maxime on November 6, 2010, at 23:06:07
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by Dr. Bob on November 6, 2010, at 16:59:03
Dr. Bob, I think redirects are necessary to keep the medication board on track. What is the point of having the other boards if everything gets dicussed on the med board where it doesn't belong? If I am visiting PB for information on meds, I don't want to have to wade through all the threads that shouldn't be there to begin with.
Posted by ed_uk2010 on November 7, 2010, at 3:18:57
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » Dr. Bob, posted by Maxime on November 6, 2010, at 23:06:07
> Dr. Bob, I think redirects are necessary to keep the medication board on track. What is the point of having the other boards if everything gets dicussed on the med board where it doesn't belong? If I am visiting PB for information on meds, I don't want to have to wade through all the threads that shouldn't be there to begin with.
I think the problem here is that threads sometimes get redirected to boards which get very little traffic. Personally, I think there are too many boards. Faith, Health and Politics could all be merged with social ie. to create a general non-psych-med discussion board.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 7, 2010, at 11:32:46
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » Maxime, posted by ed_uk2010 on November 7, 2010, at 3:18:57
> Do I see you on a path to facilitating the interconnectedness? If so, I will walk with you. :-)
>
> BTW, math+sensitivity+street is a great formula. :)
>
> FreeOK, let's walk together. :-)
> I think the problem here is that threads sometimes get redirected to boards which get very little traffic. Personally, I think there are too many boards. Faith, Health and Politics could all be merged with social ie. to create a general non-psych-med discussion board.
>
> ed_uk2010I see the problem as how much traffic the other boards get. If there were more interest in those topics, then those threads wouldn't die (as soon).
I'd be open to redirecting Health to Social, what do others think?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on November 7, 2010, at 11:35:38
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by Dr. Bob on November 7, 2010, at 11:32:46
I'd be ok with combining Health and Social.
I'd rather Faith and Politics be kept separate.
Posted by muffled on November 7, 2010, at 11:47:58
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by Dr. Bob on November 7, 2010, at 11:32:46
Are you willing to admit you were wrong bout some what you did?
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 7, 2010, at 11:48:01
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb, posted by ron1953 on November 3, 2010, at 18:41:37
> It's more like a teeny weeny clique.
I'd like to ask those who care about ron -- or object to blocks in general -- to do what they can to try to prevent another block.
Protests haven't proved all that effective at preventing blocks and may even encourage behaviors that lead to them. You have the right to protest (as long as you're civil), but if your goal is to prevent more blocks, please consider a different strategy.
Bob
--
> You have the power to pick your battles.
>
> Battling Dr. Bob on PB Admin? Generally results in frustration and effects on policy ranging from
> - none
> - the exact opposite of what you intended to accomplish
> - some other seemingly random policy change that isn't what you wanted.
>
> Choose wisely!http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090302/msgs/893534.html
Posted by Dinah on November 7, 2010, at 11:57:01
In reply to Re: another block, posted by Dr. Bob on November 7, 2010, at 11:48:01
> I'd like to ask those who care about {poster} -- or object to blocks in general -- to do what they can to try to prevent another block.
Would you consider changing the standard working to "I'd like to ask those who would like to see Poster be able to continue posting (or avoid a block) -- or object to blocks in general -- to do what they can to try to prevent another block."
I think asking those who care about a poster to do this makes a lot of assumptions about what those who care about a poster think is appropriate for that poster.
Posted by Dinah on November 7, 2010, at 11:57:51
In reply to How about a small change in wording?, posted by Dinah on November 7, 2010, at 11:57:01
Speaking of a change in wording, I meant "in the best interests of" not "appropriate".
Posted by Dinah on November 7, 2010, at 12:07:24
In reply to Re: How about a small change in wording?, posted by Dinah on November 7, 2010, at 11:57:51
Of course, in keeping with what I said earlier in the thread, what I'd really like to see if I had my druthers (which clearly I do not) is something more like:
"I'd prefer Poster to choose to remain at Babble and continue to post. I'd like to ask those of you who agree with my goals to encourage Poster to make that choice by rephrasing or retracting the above statement. Perhaps one of you could also volunteer to be Poster's civility buddy, to help Poster avoid future rephrasings and retractions."
To me, that helps put responsibility where it actually lies.
Posted by ron1953 on November 7, 2010, at 12:20:17
In reply to Re: another block, posted by Dr. Bob on November 7, 2010, at 11:48:01
Bob, I'll use the Merriam-Webster dictionary, one of your cited sources inthe civility rules:
Their definition of clique is:
"A narrow, exclusive circle or group of persons; especially: one held together by common interests, views or purposes."
Also, the dictionary does not characterize the word as derogatory.
I simply stated how *I* saw things. My intent was not to flame, nor insult, nor upset. It is simply my personal point of view. I do not see that as uncivil. Apparently, uncivil can be found wherever the looker wants to see it.
As always, I remain baffled.
Posted by ron1953 on November 7, 2010, at 12:29:27
In reply to Re: another block )) Dr Bob, posted by ron1953 on November 7, 2010, at 12:20:17
I tire of these silly games played by people who wear their mental illnesses as a badge and make it the main part of their identity. May you all go enjoy your circle jerk, your sick codependent relationships with your therapists, your ceaseless resistance to change and most of all .....
GO PHUCK YOURSELVES !
Bob, you're a phucking quack of the worst kind, and contribute nothing positive to your fans' mental health - you actually help perpetuate illness.
Posted by ron1953 on November 7, 2010, at 12:31:27
In reply to And one more thing....., posted by ron1953 on November 7, 2010, at 12:29:27
block my IP address, that I may never view this shite ever again.
Posted by ron1953 on November 7, 2010, at 13:14:07
In reply to Don't just block me, posted by ron1953 on November 7, 2010, at 12:31:27
Why is there so little activity here?
Because most people easily see through the nonsense, and particularly the incivility of Bob and his few minions, and have no desire to be a prt of it.
Also, Bob's civility rules can easily be distilled down to one sentence:
If you can't blow sunshine up somebody's rectum, SHUT THE PHUCK UP (or we'll do it for you).
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 7, 2010, at 15:19:38
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb, posted by ron1953 on November 3, 2010, at 18:41:37
> It's more like a teeny weeny clique.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person, and I'm sorry if this hurts you.
I do hope that you choose to remain a member of this community and that members of this community help you, if needed, to avoid future blocks.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express yourself, including a link to a nice post by Dinah on I-statements, are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceYou might want to consider asking another poster to be your "civility buddy" and to preview your posts before you submit them.
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
PS: According to the formula:
duration of previous block: 6 weeks
period of time since previous block: 8 weeks
severity: 2 (default) + 1 (uncivil toward particular group) = 3
block length = 15.52 rounded = 15 weeks
Posted by ed_uk2010 on November 7, 2010, at 15:58:07
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by Dr. Bob on November 7, 2010, at 11:32:46
>I'd be open to redirecting Health to Social, what do others think?
I think it's a good idea.
Posted by Phillipa on November 7, 2010, at 18:02:05
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » Dr. Bob, posted by ed_uk2010 on November 7, 2010, at 15:58:07
I feel it's a good idea also!!!!Phillipa
Posted by 10derheart on November 7, 2010, at 18:10:45
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by Dinah on November 7, 2010, at 11:35:38
Posted by Willful on November 7, 2010, at 19:23:25
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by Dinah on November 7, 2010, at 11:35:38
I understand the problem of underpopulated boards, and threads that die after being redirected. But I am against moving health to social. For me, health can often be upsetting and I see social as a lighter, more friendly place, where more general matters are discussed. The mood of social is overall more relaxed-- even if people tell problems and issues of everyday or stresses of emotional things. Health can often be about very disturbing problems of another order entirely.
I can see grouping certain boards together, like maybe health, alternative and neurotransmitters, or , more narrowly, if it would be visited enough, a uniting of health and alternative, which seem closely related. However, I really would hope that health and social would be kept apart from one another.
Willful
Posted by alexandra_k on November 7, 2010, at 20:16:10
In reply to Re: another block )) Dr Bob, posted by ron1953 on November 7, 2010, at 12:20:17
> Bob, I'll use the Merriam-Webster dictionary, one of your cited sources inthe civility rules:
>
> Their definition of clique is:
>
> "A narrow, exclusive circle or group of persons; especially: one held together by common interests, views or purposes."
>
> Also, the dictionary does not characterize the word as derogatory.
>
> I simply stated how *I* saw things. My intent was not to flame, nor insult, nor upset. It is simply my personal point of view. I do not see that as uncivil. Apparently, uncivil can be found wherever the looker wants to see it.
>
> As always, I remain baffled.
>
>Here is my way of showing support for Ron:
It is baffling to me, too, that the above is thought to be uncivil. Babble is exclusive in the sense that those who are blocked are excluded. I think that Bob has said before that exclusion isn't necessarily a bad thing. He doesn't seem to have trouble with excluding people from here for a time, anyways.
I respect your decision to move along from here because of how baffling the PBC / blocking thing is. I wish you well. Take care.
Posted by Maxime on November 7, 2010, at 21:30:37
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » Maxime, posted by ed_uk2010 on November 7, 2010, at 3:18:57
> > Dr. Bob, I think redirects are necessary to keep the medication board on track. What is the point of having the other boards if everything gets dicussed on the med board where it doesn't belong? If I am visiting PB for information on meds, I don't want to have to wade through all the threads that shouldn't be there to begin with.
>
> I think the problem here is that threads sometimes get redirected to boards which get very little traffic. Personally, I think there are too many boards. Faith, Health and Politics could all be merged with social ie. to create a general non-psych-med discussion board.
>
>
>
>I agree Ed. There needs to be a non-psych med discussion board, but the psychology board should remain as is.
Posted by Maxime on November 8, 2010, at 0:16:55
In reply to Re: Food for thought » ron1953, posted by SLS on November 6, 2010, at 9:26:10
I have no trouble following your thinking Scott. I hope you will keep on posting.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 8, 2010, at 4:21:11
In reply to So Bob, posted by muffled on November 7, 2010, at 11:47:58
> I really don't like it when you say things like the above. It sounds to me like you are putting the sole responsibility for blocks on those who are in danger of being blocked and the community rather than facing up to the substantial role that you play
>
> alexandra_k> I still maintain that PsychoBabble is therapeutic, in a funny, laid-back kind of way, and it is this that distinguishes it from other sites, and what brings blocked posters back after even very long blocks.
>
> vwoolf> The members of the group grew stronger and closer by going THROUGH stuff, not by avoiding it. ... Most of all, there was love - unconditional love.
>
> I'm talking about REAL safety where members would (and did) bend over backwards to help another member.
>
> ron1953> This is not 'OUR' site as posters, but FULLY and completely BOB's site.
> I feel UTTERLY POWERLESS on this site.
> All he seems to care about is *numbers*, not us as individuals. ... He did not care that MANY very capeable long term posters left. He just didn't care.
>
> muffled> I don't think I've ever been in a group of people where so many people who have chosen not to remain part of the group, still remain a part of the group for purposes of telling people how they no longer wish to be part of the group.
>
> I have, in the past, proposed that Dr. Bob reserve participation on the Administrative board to those who are actively posting, on topic, on other boards. But he has rejected that idea, and prefers to allow things as they are. He apparently feels that criticisms of Babble, even if unaccompanied by other posting, are supportive to the community.
>
> Dinah> I often feel ... drained by the undercurrent of what seems to me to be self-destructive negativity on the site.
>
> vwoolf> So, I have scars on my leg to show the punishment I took for being 'bad'. Cuz I must have been bad to get banished like that.
> I liken that block to me as a kid playfully saying f*rt to a parent and them backslapping me into a wall and then telling me I could not speak to my main support friends for a week. NO DISCUSSION.
> WAY OVERKILL.
> its just not safe here. Its just not.> Are you willing to admit you were wrong bout some what you did?
>
> muffledI feel criticisms aren't necessarily "supportive", but can sometimes help us understand what's going on and be valuable in that way. Pondering the above clues, I imagine a hypothetical poster X:
X sees themselves as a powerless victim and me as an uncaring persecutor. Of course I do have power. I do play a "substantial role" in blocks. But I'm not the only one with power. X has the power to bend over backward to help other posters. X also has the power to get themselves blocked. X uses the latter power, repeatedly, which seems self-destructive.
What brings X back after even a very long block? Maybe my unconditional love (blocked posters are always welcome back). But it's not completely unconditional. That would be safe for them, but would require me to give up my power to choose whom to love.
Does that scenario resonate with any of you? It reminds me again of shame and guilt:
> Shame ... comes to you as a feeling so deep and so incapable of your getting a grasp on it that it seems there is nothing you can do.
>
> guilt is one of the great inventions of nature. For mature guilt lets you know what is unacceptable, and offers you opportunity to do something about it. ... worth can be defined by realistic possibilities, not by the un-focused and "hidden" demands of shame-making expectations.http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100714/msgs/958778.html
I've been wrong (for example, about the original Facebook/Twitter buttons) and used my power to do something about it (make them opt-out). Some blocks may be overkill, but I've never left a scar on anyone's leg. X isn't safe anywhere as long as they carry shame around inside them.
Unconditional love from me: unrealistic. 9 realistic possibilities:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/968845.html
I hope X -- with the help of others -- chooses wisely.
Bob
Posted by SLS on November 8, 2010, at 6:45:49
In reply to Re: Food for thought » SLS, posted by Maxime on November 8, 2010, at 0:16:55
> I have no trouble following your thinking Scott. I hope you will keep on posting.
Thanks, Maxime.
:-)
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on November 8, 2010, at 9:47:13
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Dr. Bob on November 8, 2010, at 4:21:11
> What brings X back after even a very long block? Maybe my unconditional love (blocked posters are always welcome back). But it's not completely unconditional. That would be safe for them, but would require me to give up my power to choose whom to love.
Do you really choose whom to love on Babble? I recognize that you don't mean love in the sense in which it is commonly used. But still, in saying that you choose whom to love seems a bit more expansive than I see your actions as being.
First of all, I suppose I don't see you loving anyone, but that may be a difference in definition of love.
But second, I don't see you as choosing to love some posters and choosing not to love others. I see you as choosing to approve of some behaviors and disapprove of others. Wouldn't you say that you would just as easily choose to love the same posters you chose to unlove, if they made different choices? And vice versa? That's been my experience of you. If so is it the posters you are choosing to love, or the behaviors?
I think a lot of people do see your blocks as rejection of them, and not limits about behaviors. I suppose I'd feel that way myself.
In that case, might I suggest that you not use phrases like "choose whom to love", no matter how that is meant in a therapeutic sense? And instead say that you wish to maintain your power to choose what behaviors to tolerate?
To put it bluntly, do you really choose to love some posters and choose not to love others? Or do you not love or not love the posters so much as you approve or disapprove of behaviors?
No one wants to be unloved. And I think perhaps it's not wise for anyone to seek your love. Your approval perhaps, but not your love.
Posted by Dinah on November 8, 2010, at 9:56:22
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Dr. Bob on November 8, 2010, at 4:21:11
Whoops. Sorry for focusing on the negative, Dr. Bob.
I suppose I found the mention of "love" a bit distressing, even in an abstract sense. There are a lot of implications, from the purely practical to the theological, in my understanding of love and the choice to love.
That doesn't mean I don't appreciate the rest of your post. I do.
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.