![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 50 to 74 of 81. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 4, 2010, at 16:08:48
In reply to uncivil posts....., posted by twinleaf on December 4, 2010, at 9:00:21
> :
> "Remember, a block can be the result of a minor infraction, but if it's long, that's the result of a long pattern of uncivil posts".
>
> Bob
>
> All of the posts for which I have received blocks were about changes which might make Babble more vital and thriving. I was about to receive a block of one year for using the word "outlandish" to describe a block given another civil protester. All of my blocks were given because Bob found some word in my posts that he claimed made him feel "put down". No other posters were ever involved; I could never know what he would happen to find uncivil. I finally felt so hounded and unfairly singled out for punishment that I could not stay here.
>
> I'm here right now because I thought some of the administrative changes spearheaded by Solstice were very promising. I noticed that Bob, far from punishing civil protesters like me as he has done in the past, was showing interest and responsiveness. I think it is wonderful that he is willing to set up a Council which would review and modify blocks, and I hope there will be enough community interest to make it a reality.
>
> I am definitely willing to let bygones be bygones if we are moving into a new era where Bob shares some responsibility with us in the running of the community. But I did want to remind those who think the present block system is fair of what happened to me. I will never be able to believe that I have ever been uncivil to Bob, even though he apparently thinks so. ; No amount of lengthy blocks can change my mind on that point. There is no point blocking me for a year could serve other than inflicting emotional distress and punishment on me, While in the past Bob has cited punishment as one of the legitimate reasons for long blocks of repeat offenders, I doubt that he would want to give it as a reason now. I think my situation is a very powerful example of the dangers of one-person rule, and also of how much harm long, idiosyncratic blocks can do, and why the blocking system urgently needs changing.
>
> As Bob, Solstice and others move ahead, I want to give my strong support to their efforts.
>
> twinleaf,
You wrote,[...a word...he (Mr. Hsiung) claimed made him feel "put down"...emotional distress..one-person rule...harm...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here. Let us look at Mr. Hsiung's TOS here in relation to what could be considerd to be a foundation of his thinking that he uses to administer the community here. It reads:
**** I want to be open to feedback, but if you could also please try to accept what I decide and trust that I'm doing my best to be fair and to do what I think will be good for the community as a whole, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks
****
Now if you could post answers to the following, then I could respond accordingly.
1A. Do you have the knowledge of the historical significance of the statement here?
2A. Do you know the names of the people who said what could be considerd to be the same thing?
1B. Do you know what happened to those that led their country under the foundation that the statement has the potential to purport?
2B. Do you know if there is a country or community today that has the same type of thinking from it's leaders that is stated here? If so, could you post the name of it here?
1C. If he is open to feedback, does that mean that he {will} reply to the person requesting the feedback? If not, what in your opinion could be the purpose of the statement and is that a sound mental-health concept?
2C. In regards to doing what he thinks will be good for this community as a whole;
1. do you see that the statement says {will be} and not {is}? You see, what {will be} good for this community as a whole could mean that in the future it will be good for this community. That means that one can not determine until then as to if what he does was good or not untill that time happens. This gives people a hope that what he does will be good. For time will be the judge as to what he does was in fact good or not for this community. Historically, leaders used this gramatical structure to offer a dream or hope for good to result to them from the leaders policy. People then could have a hope, or a false hope. They could not know the future, could they? So the leader then says to try and trust him for that hope of what he does will be good. If the hope was a false hope, based only on trusting the leader, then historically, we could look at those leaders that used the same gramatical structure in what they told their people to see what happened to the people, and the country, that embraced the hope. When that happened, their minds could be molified to think that they to do whatever they wanted to do because they thought that at the end, the ends could justify the means. (let the reader understand).
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 4, 2010, at 17:00:20
In reply to Lou's request-trzmhe » twinleaf, posted by Lou Pilder on December 4, 2010, at 16:08:48
> > :
> > "Remember, a block can be the result of a minor infraction, but if it's long, that's the result of a long pattern of uncivil posts".
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > All of the posts for which I have received blocks were about changes which might make Babble more vital and thriving. I was about to receive a block of one year for using the word "outlandish" to describe a block given another civil protester. All of my blocks were given because Bob found some word in my posts that he claimed made him feel "put down". No other posters were ever involved; I could never know what he would happen to find uncivil. I finally felt so hounded and unfairly singled out for punishment that I could not stay here.
> >
> > I'm here right now because I thought some of the administrative changes spearheaded by Solstice were very promising. I noticed that Bob, far from punishing civil protesters like me as he has done in the past, was showing interest and responsiveness. I think it is wonderful that he is willing to set up a Council which would review and modify blocks, and I hope there will be enough community interest to make it a reality.
> >
> > I am definitely willing to let bygones be bygones if we are moving into a new era where Bob shares some responsibility with us in the running of the community. But I did want to remind those who think the present block system is fair of what happened to me. I will never be able to believe that I have ever been uncivil to Bob, even though he apparently thinks so. ; No amount of lengthy blocks can change my mind on that point. There is no point blocking me for a year could serve other than inflicting emotional distress and punishment on me, While in the past Bob has cited punishment as one of the legitimate reasons for long blocks of repeat offenders, I doubt that he would want to give it as a reason now. I think my situation is a very powerful example of the dangers of one-person rule, and also of how much harm long, idiosyncratic blocks can do, and why the blocking system urgently needs changing.
> >
> > As Bob, Solstice and others move ahead, I want to give my strong support to their efforts.
> >
> > twinleaf,
> You wrote,[...a word...he (Mr. Hsiung) claimed made him feel "put down"...emotional distress..one-person rule...harm...].
> I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here. Let us look at Mr. Hsiung's TOS here in relation to what could be considerd to be a foundation of his thinking that he uses to administer the community here. It reads:
> **** I want to be open to feedback, but if you could also please try to accept what I decide and trust that I'm doing my best to be fair and to do what I think will be good for the community as a whole, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks
> ****
> Now if you could post answers to the following, then I could respond accordingly.
> 1A. Do you have the knowledge of the historical significance of the statement here?
> 2A. Do you know the names of the people who said what could be considerd to be the same thing?
> 1B. Do you know what happened to those that led their country under the foundation that the statement has the potential to purport?
> 2B. Do you know if there is a country or community today that has the same type of thinking from it's leaders that is stated here? If so, could you post the name of it here?
> 1C. If he is open to feedback, does that mean that he {will} reply to the person requesting the feedback? If not, what in your opinion could be the purpose of the statement and is that a sound mental-health concept?
> 2C. In regards to doing what he thinks will be good for this community as a whole;
> 1. do you see that the statement says {will be} and not {is}? You see, what {will be} good for this community as a whole could mean that in the future it will be good for this community. That means that one can not determine until then as to if what he does was good or not untill that time happens. This gives people a hope that what he does will be good. For time will be the judge as to what he does was in fact good or not for this community. Historically, leaders used this gramatical structure to offer a dream or hope for good to result to them from the leaders policy. People then could have a hope, or a false hope. They could not know the future, could they? So the leader then says to try and trust him for that hope of what he does will be good. If the hope was a false hope, based only on trusting the leader, then historically, we could look at those leaders that used the same gramatical structure in what they told their people to see what happened to the people, and the country, that embraced the hope. When that happened, their minds could be molified to think that they to do whatever they wanted to do because they thought that at the end, the ends could justify the means. (let the reader understand).
> Lou
>
> twinleaf,
Now let's look at;
****I'm doing my best to be fair****
Now that leaves for Mr. Hsiung to not have to do what is fair, for he states that he is doing {"my best"} to be fair, which is IMHO hugely different from to do what {is} fair. You see, could one be the judge of, if or if not, Mr. Hsiung is or is not doing {his best} to be fair or could only Mr. Hsiung make that determination? (let the reader understand). Being this the case here, if Mr. Hsiung is not fair, so what? He says that he is doing {his best} and also to trust him. Now that IMHO could lead to a situation that could cause the infliction of emotional distress, the suicde of a member, the death of a member, and a member being subjected to antisemitic or antiIslamic violence or other anti violence for one could be subjected to unfairness and Mr. Hsiung says that he is doing his best to be fair, not to be fair which is very different IMHO. But someone's best may be someones else's worst.(let the reader understand). You see, to be fair generally means to be in accordance with the rules. Since the rules are Mr. Hsiung's rules, could he draft them in a way that could allow the rules or the TOS to be arbitrary or caprecious or discriminatory and be {fair}? I think that there are a great deal of posts from me to Mr. Hsiung that are outstanding and the fact that they are outstanding IMHO could be used by anyone to make their own determination in that regard.
I ask if you could post answers to the following and if so, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A. Is leaving requests outstanding going to be good for the community as a whole? If so, could you post why you think that here?
B. Is leaving the requests outstanding being open to feedback?
C. Could people be bullied or die or get a life-ruining condition as a result of there being outstanding requests?
D. What does {busy} mean IYHO to the average person when Mr. Hsiung is posting but leaving requests outstanding?
Lou>
>
>
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 5, 2010, at 3:55:08
In reply to uncivil posts....., posted by twinleaf on December 4, 2010, at 9:00:21
> All of my blocks were given because Bob found some word in my posts that he claimed made him feel "put down".
No:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080313/msgs/817760.html
was about a poster and 10derHeart asked you to be civilhttp://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080313/msgs/818771.html
was about a poster and Dinah asked you to be civilhttp://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080313/msgs/820730.html
was about a poster and I asked you to rephrasehttp://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080719/msgs/842199.html
was about a poster and 10derHeart asked you to be civilhttp://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080719/msgs/842327.html
was about a poster and I blocked youhttp://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20081003/msgs/869489.html
was about a deputy and I asked you to be civilhttp://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20081003/msgs/870212.html
was about a poster and I asked you to be civilhttp://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20081003/msgs/870405.html
was about the deputies and me and 10derHeart blocked youhttp://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20081228/msgs/875304.html
was about me and Dinah blocked youhttp://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20081228/msgs/882365.html
was about a poster and the deputies and I blocked youhttp://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090529/msgs/902602.html
was about a poster and Dinah asked you to be civilhttp://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090529/msgs/902634.html
was about a poster and Dinah and Dinah asked you to be civilhttp://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090707/msgs/905524.html
was about me and I asked you to be civilhttp://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090707/msgs/905861.html
was about me and I blocked youhttp://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20091103/msgs/929473.html
was about me and I blocked youhttp://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100714/msgs/964584.html
was about me and I asked others to ask you to rephrase or apologizehttp://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/967411.html
was about me and I asked others to ask you to rephrase or apologize> I could never know what he would happen to find uncivil.
If you can't predict, a civility buddy might help:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#buddies
> I will never be able to believe that I have ever been uncivil to Bob, even though he apparently thinks so. ; No amount of lengthy blocks can change my mind on that point. ... I think my situation is a very powerful example of the dangers of one-person rule
I accept that I may not be able to change your mind on that point.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 5, 2010, at 3:57:59
In reply to Bobbo and Dr. Bob stuffies!!!Yayyy!!!!! » Dr. Bob, posted by muffled on December 4, 2010, at 3:39:25
> HEY!!!! I got an idea, Dr. Bob STUFFIES!!! And somes can cuddle their Bobs(guess who!!!and it sure ain't ME!!!!LOL!) and somes can place their Bobs on the shelf by their computer and cuss him out!!! LOL!!!
> ROFL ROFL!!!! an if Bob naughty we put Dr. Bob in the backyard!!!!!
> LOL LOL!!!!Thanks for the smiles. Could I get stuffies made like t-shirts or mugs? :-)
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on December 5, 2010, at 8:49:52
In reply to Re: uncivil posts, posted by Dr. Bob on December 5, 2010, at 3:55:08
If I were twinleaf, I would feel slapped. Did you consider conveying that information privately?
gg
Posted by sigismund on December 5, 2010, at 15:02:36
In reply to Ouch! » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on December 5, 2010, at 8:49:52
I don't have a good enough back to read all that but anyone who has been here a while knows the general pattern of Twinleaf's posts.
And as I said, I think this is the most unfortunate meeting of the civility rules and a poster in the last 5 years.
Posted by Deneb on December 5, 2010, at 15:19:05
In reply to Re: uncivil posts, posted by Dr. Bob on December 5, 2010, at 3:55:08
Wow Dr. Bob, you must be organized! Did you find every one of Twinleaf's PBC and blockings posts?
Can you do the same for me? I bookmarked them before but I lost them after my computer broke down and I needed a new computer.
I like to remember them so I don't do the same thing in the future. Plus I just like to have complete records. Also I can show others it is possible to learn to be civil after a history of being uncivil.
Thanks Dr. Bob!
Posted by Free on December 5, 2010, at 16:52:42
In reply to Re: Ouch!, posted by sigismund on December 5, 2010, at 15:02:36
Oh... Bob...
17 links?
Are they evidence from crime scenes?
Or are they nails for the coffin? And for whom are they?
Anyway I look at it, they have the opposite effect of reflecting poorly on Twinleaf.
I don't need to go through all the threads.
I was on-line during some of the more gnarled moments. I saw firsthand how and what took place as it went down.
Most unfortunate meeting of the civility rules and a poster, indeed.
Free
Posted by Free on December 5, 2010, at 16:58:51
In reply to Re: Ouch! » sigismund, posted by Free on December 5, 2010, at 16:52:42
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 5, 2010, at 17:00:55
In reply to Re: Ouch!, posted by sigismund on December 5, 2010, at 15:02:36
> Did you consider conveying that information privately?
>
> gg1. What would've been the point? She said her mind couldn't be changed.
2. If claims are posted, I think it's reasonable to post data that supports them (or doesn't).
3. Posts and blocks are all public.
4. I consider it uncivil to post information that one knows (or should know) to be false.
5. We've been discussing how it's a long pattern of uncivil posts that leads to long blocks, and sometimes seeing is believing.
> anyone who has been here a while knows the general pattern of Twinleaf's posts.
>
> And as I said, I think this is the most unfortunate meeting of the civility rules and a poster in the last 5 years.
>
> sigismundNot everyone has been here a while.
All blocks are unfortunate. One measure of how unfortunate might be the outcome.
Bob
Posted by jammerlich on December 5, 2010, at 22:07:29
In reply to Re: uncivil posts, posted by Dr. Bob on December 5, 2010, at 17:00:55
> 2. If claims are posted, I think it's reasonable to post data that supports them (or doesn't).
>
> 4. I consider it uncivil to post information that one knows (or should know) to be false.
>
> BobOh dear, I just have to chime in now. It has been my understanding that the rules, as they are applied here, give little to no consideration to the actual truth. It seems what really matters (again, as the rules are actually applied, not how I think they should be) is whether someone feels accused or put down.
So, if one babbler posts something that refutes a claim made by another, the other could feel accused or put down, regardless of the truth of the evidence. In fact, we've seen babblers blocked for this very reason lately. At least, that is my understanding of things. We've had a group jumping up and down with evidence (that I know, personally, to be true)to refute claims made by another, yet those people got blocked.
And as for #4, this is rampant here on babble (relating to the above issues but also in other situations), yet the bearers of false information are permitted to continue the practice without so much as a pbc.
So, Dr. Bob, I ask you, is it only ok for you to do this, or can we all? What is the actual civility standard, the truth or whether someone feels accused or put down? It seems very fuzzy here.
Posted by muffled on December 5, 2010, at 22:10:42
In reply to Re: uncivil posts, posted by jammerlich on December 5, 2010, at 22:07:29
Hiii!!!!
:)
Posted by sigismund on December 5, 2010, at 22:49:20
In reply to Re: uncivil posts, posted by jammerlich on December 5, 2010, at 22:07:29
It seems what really matters (again, as the rules are actually applied, not how I think they should be) is whether Bob feels someone might feel accused or put down.
Posted by jammerlich on December 6, 2010, at 10:11:55
In reply to Jamster!!!!, posted by muffled on December 5, 2010, at 22:10:42
Hey, Muffly!! :)
Posted by muffled on December 6, 2010, at 10:30:53
In reply to Re: Jamster!!!! » muffled, posted by jammerlich on December 6, 2010, at 10:11:55
I can't post here no more, but I hope you doing ok :)
Best wishes to you.
It was so nice to see your name there :)
TC
M
Posted by gardenergirl on December 6, 2010, at 11:44:47
In reply to Re: uncivil posts, posted by Dr. Bob on December 5, 2010, at 17:00:55
> > Did you consider conveying that information privately?
> >
> > gg
>
> 1. What would've been the point? She said her mind couldn't be changed.I guess that depends on your intent. If your intent was to correct her statement to her, then doing it privately would be kinder. You yourself have stated how reiterating previous admin actions when giving someone a block would be more "shaming", and you didn't want to do that.
>
> 2. If claims are posted, I think it's reasonable to post data that supports them (or doesn't).Yes. But you could also simply post that your experience suggests otherwise, and even that one could examine the archives to see the posts themselves.
>
> 3. Posts and blocks are all public.>
> 4. I consider it uncivil to post information that one knows (or should know) to be false.Or should know? Yikes, methinks the bar just got set to a new level. I'm not sure I'm comfortable posting under the conditions of what I "should know." But I suppose you mean if you've previously told someone something, then they "should know". Is that what you mean?
>
> 5. We've been discussing how it's a long pattern of uncivil posts that leads to long blocks, and sometimes seeing is believing.Why now, when you've resisted doing this in the past in order to avoid shaming someone excessively?
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2010, at 0:24:38
In reply to Re: uncivil posts » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on December 6, 2010, at 11:44:47
> It has been my understanding that the rules, as they are applied here, give little to no consideration to the actual truth. It seems what really matters ... is whether someone feels accused or put down.
I know it can be confusing. The Administration board is different in that its goal isn't support and education.
> > 4. I consider it uncivil to post information that one knows (or should know) to be false.
>
> this is rampant here on babble
>
> jammerlichIt is? Could you notify us of an example?
--
> > > Did you consider conveying that information privately?
> >
> > 1. What would've been the point? She said her mind couldn't be changed.
>
> I guess that depends on your intent. If your intent was to correct her statement to her, then doing it privately would be kinder.True, but what would've been the point of correcting her statement to her?
> > 2. If claims are posted, I think it's reasonable to post data that supports them (or doesn't).
>
> Yes. But you could also simply post that your experience suggests otherwise, and even that one could examine the archives to see the posts themselves.Yes, but there's a difference between posting data and just posting that I have data or that data's out there.
> > 4. I consider it uncivil to post information that one knows (or should know) to be false.
>
> Or should know? Yikes, methinks the bar just got set to a new level. I'm not sure I'm comfortable posting under the conditions of what I "should know." But I suppose you mean if you've previously told someone something, then they "should know". Is that what you mean?Right.
> > 5. We've been discussing how it's a long pattern of uncivil posts that leads to long blocks, and sometimes seeing is believing.
>
> Why now, when you've resisted doing this in the past in order to avoid shaming someone excessively?My intent wasn't to shame anyone. My intent was to refute a false claim. Otherwise, false claims can lead to misunderstandings:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/971577.html
Bob
Posted by Solstice on December 8, 2010, at 10:29:35
In reply to Re: uncivil posts, posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2010, at 0:24:38
> My intent wasn't to shame anyone. My intent was to refute a false claim. Otherwise, false claims can lead to misunderstandings:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/971577.html
>
> BobDuring my life I have made my share of false claims that were based more on my subjective feelings about something than on fact. Thank goodness - often enough - one way or another I was confronted with the 'facts.' The shaming I felt in those moments was akin to being caught with my pants down. Maybe in my own arrogance I too quickly made a claim that I presented as fact. When facts come to light that expose the error of the claim, it can feel quite shaming. But where does the shaming come from? Is it the person or situation that exposed the facts? Is it the facts themselves? Or is it our own selves.. maybe we shame ourselves when in our own defensiveness we make very large claims that question the motives of others.. without first making sure.
It is my opinion that it is unwise to make a claim without first verifying that we have sufficient support for the validity of our claim. When we do, we shame ourselves. That isn't necessarily a 'bad' kind of shame. It's probably something that protects our ability to function as a cohesive society. During the learning process I wouldn't have said 'thank goodness' for the shame I felt when I made brash self-protective claims that were false and injurious to another. But after going through the process of revising the way I feel about my own humanity (and my response to my own mistakes/failures), I realized that the shame I felt when the facts refuting my claim were exposed might be a thing. It certainly motivated me to learn to identify my own self-defensive feelings and to take a step back when my feelings were intense. And most important of all, it taught me to do my own self-checking... to verify my claim with facts before I made it.
So this situation, in my opinion, is a call to compassion. I didn't read the links. I was around when most of those things took place, but I don't remember off-hand the specifics. What I do know is that Twinleaf does NOT have to be error-free. Twinleaf can have a 'record' and still be a valued, welcomed, respected, and powerful member of the community. Not only that - Twinleaf, like every single one of us (including Bob) has an inborn desire to be held in good regard by others. So the links Bob posted may have felt bad to Twinleaf - and others on her(? or his?) behalf. But the only person here who has not had times when their claims were confronted with opposing facts are people who have closed their eyes and not looked at the facts that confronted them. We're all in this together. We've all had missteps. And we need not make Bob 'bad' in our circling the wagons around Twinleaf. We can have compassion for how this feels to Twinleaf.. and also recognize that Bob didn't create the facts. The facts are just there. And the only reason he called attention to them was to refute an erroneous claim that, if not refuted, could have created misunderstandings and unnecessary trouble. I've been on both sides of that fence.. and being on either one feels pretty bad.
a very, Very imperfect Solstice
Posted by floatingbridge on December 8, 2010, at 12:00:11
In reply to Re: This place is dying., posted by hyperfocus on November 29, 2010, at 14:01:39
Hyperfocus, how the hay did you ever become so sensible :) I'm doing some catch up reading and just found your post. Thank you.
:)
fb
!>>This place is dying.
> Changing, maybe, not dying.
>
> >I get the feeling that too great a proportion of the activity on Psycho-Babble has become focused on the definition and enforcement of civility rather than on its presumed focus on mental illness.
> Yeah but activity by whom? Not Dr. Bob, surely. He hardly posts. All the activity around civility is by posters.
>
> If I had a forum and I had a rule that you can't write anything containing the letters a x and y, posters might well question the intent and motives of this rule, the consequences of this rule, together with my sanity. But it's my forum. If you don't like the rules, then, unfortunately, all I can do is show you the (virtual) door. If you write a post like "hyperfocus needs to get his brain XRAYED" what should I do?
>
> I've never seen anybody here get sanctioned for posting about drugs or mental illness. The only time this happens is when people ask about getting drugs without a prescription or about getting non FDA-approved meds. People get blocked for two reasons:
> 1. Going after other posters, including Dr. Bob
> 2. Battling Bob on admin, which eventually leads to 1
>
> There's a lot of stuff in life you can control and a lot of stuff you can't. How Dr.Bob runs Psycho Babble falls into the 2nd category. Dr. Bob owns this sandbox and if you don't want to play by his rules then you're free to pickup your toys and leave - go to another forum or setup your own(which is not difficult to do.) But I bet pretty soon you're going to run into the same issues PB tries to address.
>
> Maybe I'm in the minority but I don't find the rules of civility that difficult to understand. You can't say anything that causes anybody on PB to feel accused or put down. Fin. The focus here is supposed to be on =mutual support and education. I've never seen anybody blocked for providing support or education. You can go outside these lines but if you do you run the risk of getting sanctioned. You don't have free speech here and pleading your case on Admin is simply futile. Yeah it can be hard sometimes and require extra effort to interact in a community with these restrictions, but it's not impossible.
>
> Every day I read a post or see a poster exhibiting behavior that makes me angry and frustrated. But I'm not allowed to go after anybody here. To me this separates the action from the poster and forces me to address the situation differently - in a positive way. Because of my social phobia my behavior in real life upsets and disturbs people and they usually treat me like if I'm the problem, not my disease, and make me feel worthless. But that isn't supposed to happen here because we are all hurting and all vulnerable. So if the rules force us to not accuse or put down anybody here in any way, I'm fine with that. It just means that problems with people need to be addressed differently. I don't see the difficulty in doing this.
>
> Maybe the reason Dr. Bob is so inflexible with the rules is just a simple lack of time. You've got one person moderating a community of potentially thousands. So I guess he just doesn't have the time to try to see intents and motives and nuances. And so he has to strongly discourage people from straying outside the lines of civility. If people weren't afraid of getting blocked for a long time, the forum will spiral into chaos. Yeah, a lot of times Dr. Bob may make mistakes in judgment and sanction people unnecessarily and everything else he's criticized for, but he's just one person - one administrator on a forum with thousands of posters. So put yourself in his shoes. On other forums, like was mentioned in another thread, there's all kinds of nasty stuff - splintering, cliques, moderators playing favorites, trolling, harassment, bullying, people getting banned on a whim. Not saying PB is totally immune to these things, but there's no posting utopia anywhere on the net.
>
> I'm sure people in this thread will think I'm sucking up to Dr. Bob, but that's fine. I owe a great deal to this site and I feel protective towards it. It's the only place I can come to to ask questions about meds and mental illness and try to help others. If this site blocked search engines from finding posts then I probably wouldn't have found it. So if some teenager is out there battling bullying and social phobia and depression and sees a PB post on Twitter on Facebook or whatever, then to me that's worth whatever privacy I give up here (which in 2010 isn't that much.) If somebody vulnerable comes here and sees that going after posters is not tolerated at all and decides to stick around, then that's worth whatever restrictions on free speech we have.
>
> As much as I would like people like Larry Hoover and fayroe and jade and twinleaf and all the others to come back, I can't control what other people do. They chose to leave the community here. Nobody twisted their arm and forced them to leave. They left to prove a point or principle
>
> The only thing I would like to see change is this infinite jeopardy system of blocking where minor infractions can lead to long blocks. But I like PB how it is and I don't want it to change much.
Posted by sigismund on December 8, 2010, at 15:32:50
In reply to Re: uncivil posts, posted by Solstice on December 8, 2010, at 10:29:35
That was just very lovely.
Thank you.
Posted by floatingbridge on December 8, 2010, at 15:53:59
In reply to Re: uncivil posts, posted by Solstice on December 8, 2010, at 10:29:35
Seconding Sigi, Solstice.
I have gratitude and respect for you and others taking the time and intelligent attentiveness to write, reason, parse, reflect, evaluate and willingly reevaluate.
Someone like myself, besides being very reactive, do not possess the endurance or communication skills. Thus the greater importance of others working for our (or any) community's behalf.
My hat is off to many of you.
fb
Posted by Solstice on December 8, 2010, at 16:31:40
In reply to Re: uncivil posts » Solstice, posted by floatingbridge on December 8, 2010, at 15:53:59
> Seconding Sigi, Solstice.
>
> I have gratitude and respect for you and others taking the time and intelligent attentiveness to write, reason, parse, reflect, evaluate and willingly reevaluate.
>
> Someone like myself, besides being very reactive, do not possess the endurance or communication skills. Thus the greater importance of others working for our (or any) community's behalf.
>
> My hat is off to many of you.
>
> fb
We all do what we can, don't we? The 'body' needs All of its parts. I don't think one part can be considered to have more importance than another. Maybe you are part of the sympathetic nervous system, and I'm part of the parasympathetic. Bottom line is.. one does not survive without the other - and together they ensure survival of the 'body.' :-)Solstice
Posted by floatingbridge on December 8, 2010, at 16:58:43
In reply to Re: uncivil posts » floatingbridge, posted by Solstice on December 8, 2010, at 16:31:40
Solstice, how super-kind of you. Not that I remember which system does what :) my point is I appreciate your expression of my value here. You, or someone else jere, said somewhere that to feel valued (or whatever word seem appropriately equivalent) is a fundamental human need.
:)
fb
>> Seconding Sigi, Solstice.
> >
> > I have gratitude and respect for you and others taking the time and intelligent attentiveness to write, reason, parse, reflect, evaluate and willingly reevaluate.
> >
> > Someone like myself, besides being very reactive, do not possess the endurance or communication skills. Thus the greater importance of others working for our (or any) community's behalf.
> >
> > My hat is off to many of you.
> >
> > fb
>
>
> We all do what we can, don't we? The 'body' needs All of its parts. I don't think one part can be considered to have more importance than another. Maybe you are part of the sympathetic nervous system, and I'm part of the parasympathetic. Bottom line is.. one does not survive without the other - and together they ensure survival of the 'body.' :-)
>
> Solstice
>
Posted by Solstice on December 8, 2010, at 18:02:39
In reply to Re: uncivil posts » Solstice, posted by floatingbridge on December 8, 2010, at 16:58:43
> Solstice, how super-kind of you. Not that I remember which system does what :) my point is I appreciate your expression of my value here. You, or someone else jere, said somewhere that to feel valued (or whatever word seem appropriately equivalent) is a fundamental human need.
>
> :)
>
> fbThe sympathetic nervous system is the quick response - the reactionary part - it is probably the biggest thing responsible for the survival of mankind. ItIt notices that slight sound in the bushes and rather than dismissing it, it responds to it strongly and protectively (which is perfect if that noise is a poisonous snake :-) The sympathetic nervous system is also that massive adrenalin rush that gives the father sudden and superhuman strength to lift a car off his child. I wouldn't want to live without it :-)
The parasympathetic nervous system is what calms the sympathetic system down after the danger has passed. One doesn't survive well without the other. When we face potential harm or danger - the sympathetic system ensures we pay attention. It overtakes us - gathers all our resources and puts us in 'high gear' to either fight or flee. The parasympathetic system is slower to react - and will review the situation. If what sounded like a snake turns out to be a squirrel, it's the parasympathetic system that puts the brakes on and returns us to a normal state. Without the sympathetic system, we wouldn't respond appropriately to harm and danger. Without the parasympathetic, we'd be unnecessarily overwroght. I wouldn't want to have to choose between the two.
And yes.. there is not a single person who does not need to feel accepted and valued. Think about it this way: your heart, kidneys, liver, bone marrow, lungs, pancreas, lymph system.. all do Very different things. The heart is kinda glorious, I guess - famous for being *important*. We don't hear much about bone marrow though, it's kinda behind the scenes.. but the heart would have nothing to pump if that bone marrow was not tucked away inside the bones creating those red & white blood cells. If you had to pick - which organ would you consider *most* important? As for me - they are all my favorites :-) One is not more valuable than the other. And what's interesting when you think about it - is - how many people spend a LOT of time and money on their hair? They fix it, color it, cut it, condition it, and worry about it when it starts falling out. Men will spend enormous amounts of money trying to stick hair on a bald head. So out of everything else - the hair on a person's head probably gets the most attention.. it's what we notice about others - and what they notice about us. But it is one of the few things that we really can live without! So my point is that the 'glory' of a part is not necessarily a statement about its value.
I know you didn't ask for my little speech here FB - but I think there is too little affirmation in the world. Too much competition. Too little conscious recognition of how valuable we all are to each other. Much of the strife and contention we experience in life would be greatly diminished if people were more liberal with their affirmation of each other.
Solstice
Posted by PartlyCloudy on December 8, 2010, at 19:05:58
In reply to Re: uncivil posts » floatingbridge, posted by Solstice on December 8, 2010, at 18:02:39
> > Solstice, how super-kind of you. Not that I remember which system does what :) my point is I appreciate your expression of my value here. You, or someone else jere, said somewhere that to feel valued (or whatever word seem appropriately equivalent) is a fundamental human need.
> >
> > :)
> >
> > fb
>
> The sympathetic nervous system is the quick response - the reactionary part - it is probably the biggest thing responsible for the survival of mankind. ItIt notices that slight sound in the bushes and rather than dismissing it, it responds to it strongly and protectively (which is perfect if that noise is a poisonous snake :-) The sympathetic nervous system is also that massive adrenalin rush that gives the father sudden and superhuman strength to lift a car off his child. I wouldn't want to live without it :-)
>
> The parasympathetic nervous system is what calms the sympathetic system down after the danger has passed. One doesn't survive well without the other. When we face potential harm or danger - the sympathetic system ensures we pay attention. It overtakes us - gathers all our resources and puts us in 'high gear' to either fight or flee. The parasympathetic system is slower to react - and will review the situation. If what sounded like a snake turns out to be a squirrel, it's the parasympathetic system that puts the brakes on and returns us to a normal state. Without the sympathetic system, we wouldn't respond appropriately to harm and danger. Without the parasympathetic, we'd be unnecessarily overwroght. I wouldn't want to have to choose between the two.
>
> And yes.. there is not a single person who does not need to feel accepted and valued. Think about it this way: your heart, kidneys, liver, bone marrow, lungs, pancreas, lymph system.. all do Very different things. The heart is kinda glorious, I guess - famous for being *important*. We don't hear much about bone marrow though, it's kinda behind the scenes.. but the heart would have nothing to pump if that bone marrow was not tucked away inside the bones creating those red & white blood cells. If you had to pick - which organ would you consider *most* important? As for me - they are all my favorites :-) One is not more valuable than the other. And what's interesting when you think about it - is - how many people spend a LOT of time and money on their hair? They fix it, color it, cut it, condition it, and worry about it when it starts falling out. Men will spend enormous amounts of money trying to stick hair on a bald head. So out of everything else - the hair on a person's head probably gets the most attention.. it's what we notice about others - and what they notice about us. But it is one of the few things that we really can live without! So my point is that the 'glory' of a part is not necessarily a statement about its value.
>
> I know you didn't ask for my little speech here FB - but I think there is too little affirmation in the world. Too much competition. Too little conscious recognition of how valuable we all are to each other. Much of the strife and contention we experience in life would be greatly diminished if people were more liberal with their affirmation of each other.
>
> Solstice
>
>Amen
PartlyCloudy
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.