![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 78 to 102 of 179. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 8, 2013, at 12:51:01
In reply to Notifications - as I recall. » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on May 8, 2013, at 12:30:54
> > The members have no duty to read anyone's post nor to post a response to them.
>
> > Mr Hsiung has in his terms of service that he or his deputies will either post to the statement(s) in the notification or contact the one using the notification procedure directly via b-mail or email. I took Mr Hsiung at his word.
>
> As I recall, this issue was discussed on this board several years ago. The conclusion reached as adopted by Dr. Bob was that only those notifications that require action would be replied to - either by e-mail or by a posting on the board. This precedent was established without its being codified in the TOS or FAQ. Were you present during these discussions?
>
>
> - Scott
>
> Scott,
If you could post a link to that, we could see.
But I have that notifications will either be posted to in the thread OR the member using the notification will be contacted. I know of no post by the admin that states otherwise.
What I am under the impression is that:
A. If there is not a post in the thread to the statement in question by Mr Hsiung or deputy, then one will receive a direct response via e or b mail from them
B. That the standard is just that, and there are not two standards in using the notification procedure.
C. The fact that it is against the rules to not use the notification system by posting that something is against the rules on the board. leaves only the notification system for one to object to what is posted to be allowed to stand.
D. If the notification remains outstanding, then others can think that what is in question is acceptable and will be good for he community as a whole. This means that if hatred toward the Jews is allowed to stand, others could think that hate is supportive and target a Jew for harm or murder, for some could think that the anti-Semitism that is allowed to stand is state-sponsored, and that they will being doing good for the community since they could think that is what Mr Hsiung wants, could they not?.
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on May 8, 2013, at 16:14:27
In reply to Notifications - as I recall. » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on May 8, 2013, at 12:30:54
Don't forget about the notifications "rule of three". I'm quite certain that applies and would be at least a partial explanation for ignored notifications, assuming it is still in effect.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080204/msgs/817448.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 8, 2013, at 17:10:11
In reply to Re: Notifications - as I recall., posted by gardenergirl on May 8, 2013, at 16:14:27
> Don't forget about the notifications "rule of three". I'm quite certain that applies and would be at least a partial explanation for ignored notifications, assuming it is still in effect.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080204/msgs/817448.html
>
> Friends,
It is written here that [... it could be good for the community to see that posts by you, (Lou), do not have to be responded to...].
The 3 rule involves that Mr Hsiung post that he considers what is in question to be acceptable. That part of the rule has not been used since the notification system started and the TOS can be seen in fact as gg says here that if the notification is more than 3 it will not be responded to, but I have not seen where Mr Hsiung posted that he thinks it is acceptable to my notifications because I post reminders.
Scott brings up another issue. There was a thread where myself and Mr Hsiung had dialog over the outstanding notifications. He stated for me to ask someone first. I told him that I would not be subject to additional terms and conditions here and that I wanted to know if he was making that a requirement to me in order to get the notifications responded to. His reply was that it is not a requirement but a suggestion.
So for those that are interested in why there are outstanding notifications/requests from me to Mr Hsiung going back years, it can be seen in this thread from Mr Hsiung that[..it may be good for the community to see posts by you (Lou), do not have to be responded to...].
Now readers here, if you would like to post why you think that it may be good for this community to see the outstanding requests from me to Mr Hsiung remain outstanding, I would like for you to post those reasons, if any, so that I could respond to whatever reason you post to me here.
Lou
Posted by SLS on May 8, 2013, at 17:48:56
In reply to Lou's response-your reasons for it to be good, posted by Lou Pilder on May 8, 2013, at 17:10:11
Do you think that Dr. Bob has singled you out to be treated differently from all other posters?
- Scott
Posted by SLS on May 9, 2013, at 5:23:54
In reply to Lou's reply-Gehybreelll » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on May 8, 2013, at 12:51:01
Lou Pilder:
I think it possible that Dr. Bob was involved in life outside of Psycho-Babble for an extended period of time. During such a time, no notifications would be attended to, regardless of their volume and degree of repetition. Over the past few years, none of the few notifications I submitted elicited a written reply nor an action on the board. I was very disappointed, as you might imagine. I didn't take it personally, though. I certainly didn't take Dr. Bob's silence and inaction to my notifications as a promotion of hate towards a group of people based upon my affiliation with that group. I don't see antisemitism in his behavior. I don't see antisemitism in the posts that have been directed at you or about you. Perhaps I am blind to it, but, as a Jew, I have a vested interest in being aware of antisemitism.
Do you see antisemitism in the behavior of the moderator towards you or anyone else?
Do you have evidence that antisemitism has been the result of administrative silence, or is this simply conjecture on your part?
Hate does not equate to antisemitism, even though antisemitism equates to hate.
If I were to hate you, would you conclude that this hate would be the result of my knowing that you were Jewish? Can no one hate you for other reasons?
Over the years, lots of people have hated me. Lots. Most of them never knew that I was Jewish. Of course, all of them were riddled with character flaws.
For what it is worth, I do not hate you. Nor do I see hate in the words of most other posters towards you on Psycho-Babble.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 9, 2013, at 6:46:49
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-Gehybreelll » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on May 9, 2013, at 5:23:54
> Lou Pilder:
>
> I think it possible that Dr. Bob was involved in life outside of Psycho-Babble for an extended period of time. During such a time, no notifications would be attended to, regardless of their volume and degree of repetition. Over the past few years, none of the few notifications I submitted elicited a written reply nor an action on the board. I was very disappointed, as you might imagine. I didn't take it personally, though. I certainly didn't take Dr. Bob's silence and inaction to my notifications as a promotion of hate towards a group of people based upon my affiliation with that group. I don't see antisemitism in his behavior. I don't see antisemitism in the posts that have been directed at you or about you. Perhaps I am blind to it, but, as a Jew, I have a vested interest in being aware of antisemitism.
>
> Do you see antisemitism in the behavior of the moderator towards you or anyone else?
>
> Do you have evidence that antisemitism has been the result of administrative silence, or is this simply conjecture on your part?
>
> Hate does not equate to antisemitism, even though antisemitism equates to hate.
>
> If I were to hate you, would you conclude that this hate would be the result of my knowing that you were Jewish? Can no one hate you for other reasons?
>
> Over the years, lots of people have hated me. Lots. Most of them never knew that I was Jewish. Of course, all of them were riddled with character flaws.
>
> For what it is worth, I do not hate you. Nor do I see hate in the words of most other posters towards you on Psycho-Babble.
>
>
> - ScottScott,
You wrote,[...nor do I see hate in the words of most other posters toward you on Psycho-Babble..].
The question here is how Mr Hsiung can influence the members here and establish what is supportive. He and his deputy now and the previous deputies cold control the thinking because of many ways. One way is that Mr Hsiung states n his TOS here that he would like people to trust him in what he does here for he does what in his thinking will be good for this community as a whole. And he states also that he would appreciate that people try to trust him in what he does here. That could lead some to accommodate his thinking here because he says that he would appreciate it to trust him, so members could think that if they accommodate his wishes, that appreciation he will have for that. There I much more to this concept that I am prevented from posting the historical parallels to Mr Hsiung's statement to the membership here.
So be it as it may be, let us look at the following post here by Mr Hsiung about me. I would like for anyone that is interested in posting in this thread to read the following to have more understanding if you are going to post a response to what Scott or myself have posted here and what could some others think when they read he post byMr Hsiung directed about me here?
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1043225.html
Posted by SLS on May 9, 2013, at 9:48:01
In reply to Lou's reply- » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on May 9, 2013, at 6:46:49
> So be it as it may be, let us look at the following post here by Mr Hsiung about me. I would like for anyone that is interested in posting in this thread to read the following to have more understanding if you are going to post a response to what Scott or myself have posted here and what could some others think when they read he post byMr Hsiung directed about me here?
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1043225.htmlAlthough not explicitly referring to you, it was an unfortunate choice of words.
What would you like for Dr. Bob to do about your concerns?
- Scott
Posted by SLS on May 9, 2013, at 17:08:09
In reply to Re: Lou's reply- » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on May 9, 2013, at 9:48:01
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1043225.html
> Although not explicitly referring to you, it was an unfortunate choice of words.Lou, I really am sorry that you were subject to such words. When you're are right, you're right. I must say, though, that I believe Dr. Bob has been civil and fair with you all of these years, despite many calls by others for you to be blocked from posting.
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 9, 2013, at 21:46:30
In reply to Re: Lou's reply- » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on May 9, 2013, at 9:48:01
> > So be it as it may be, let us look at the following post here by Mr Hsiung about me.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1043225.html
> >
> > Lou
>
> Although not explicitly referring to you, it was an unfortunate choice of words.
>
> - ScottI was referring to depression, not to Lou. And "The Wizard of Babble" was referring to, of all things, feeling powerless (while being seen as powerful).
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 9, 2013, at 23:13:56
In reply to Re: Lou's warning-death and diabetes » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on May 8, 2013, at 8:14:03
> Lou may express what some posters fear. What would reassure those posters who feel afraid?
>
> A reassuring statement could be developed and reused, for example:
>
> > Almost any drug will cause death if not managed properly. It is true that drugs in general can cause death. Psychiatric drugs are not unique in this regard.
> >
> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16294364And:
> I don't [have doubts about whether medication saves lives]. I was hospitalized five times in ten years with manic or suicidal episodes until I commited to taking lithium. I was hospitalized once in the subsequent thirty years and that when I watched my mother die. Lithium saved my life.
> I totally agree that the right medications save lives - and also make lives worth living. And I think any risk to patients can be offset with a decent psychiatrist keeping an eye on possible bad reactions.
And I thought these were nice (civil) examples of balancing one point of view with another:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1043379.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1043387.htmlhttp://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1043381.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1043388.htmlOther ways to reassure posters might include a list of Frequently Felt Worries, analogous to a FAQ, and highlighting posts with success stories or other reasons to feel hopeful.
Note that the focus here is other posters (and lurkers), not Lou. Trying to change Lou (like trying to change me) can lead to frustration.
--
> Perhaps you can see how, to people struggling to find a way out of hopelessness, despair, flatness, intense anxiety or agitation, that it could be incredibly distressing to see extreme negativity over and over and over again.
>
> DinahAs individuals may struggle with feelings of hopelessness, groups may struggle with individuals who express hopelessness. Blocking expressions of hopelessness may seem to solve the problem for groups, but how can individuals block feelings of hopelessness?
Does anybody here have any tips on how to deal with feelings of hopelessness? Can those approaches be applied here?
--
> Frustration, it's frustration that resonates with me Bob, not powerlessness. ... Lou is undoubtedly intelligent and clever. We know that because of his frustrating comunication style when there's evidence that he can communicate perfectly normally. And how in God's name does he get away with using veiled accusations ... ? It's infuriating and manipulative and uncivil. ... I'm tired of being accused of being an anti-semite ... F*ck you Lou, I'm frustrated.
>
> TophOK, frustration, not powerlessness. "I'm frustrated" is of course a more civil way of expressing frustration than "f*ck you".
I'm not saying Lou isn't intelligent and clever, but inconsistent doesn't necessarily mean intentional.
Something that's unacceptable when unveiled can be acceptable when veiled.
Posts can be infuriating without being uncivil.
It sounds like you felt infuriated because you felt accused. Would you feel infuriated if you were accused of being from Mars?
--
> > 3. In a way, it may be good for this community to see that posts by you don't have to be responded to.
>
> True or False
> A. If it may be good, then it also may be bad for this community to see posts by you, Lou, don't have to be responded toTrue
> C. By leaving your requests to me outstanding, Lou, then readers could think that the ones that contain statements that you think could arouse anti-Semitic feelings could be thought by some to be supportive and will be god for this community as a whole
> D. By leaving your requests outstanding, Lou, others could break my own rules here.
> F. By leaving your requests outstanding, Lou, then Jews and Islamic people and others could have their faiths insulted and that will be good for this community as a whole.
> G. By leaving your requests outstanding, Lou, that could encourage others to have hatred toward the Jews, and that will be good for this community as a whole.
> H. By leaving all of the posts outstanding in this link, Lou, I can make it good for this community to think that (redacted by respondent)
>
> Lou PilderI wonder if you feel frustrated by me. If so, you and Toph may have something in common.
And I may have something in common with medication. Taking medication could potentially lead to a life-ruining condition, and in an extreme case, death. And my not responding to requests could potentially lead to being hated, which could also be a life-ruining condition, and in an extreme case, death.
--
> Still, it takes repeated investments of time and energy to reassure other posters. I can see how that could get old. It takes repeated investments of time and energy to moderate Babble.
Let's make a deal. If I invest time and energy to moderate Babble, will you all invest time and energy to reassure other posters?
Bob
Posted by SLS on May 9, 2013, at 23:56:59
In reply to Re: the Prince of Death, posted by Dr. Bob on May 9, 2013, at 21:46:30
Thank you, Doctor, for clarifying the intended meaning of your words. I was taken back when I first read them, thinking that they referred to Lou Pilder. It would have been out of character for you to write them. It would have been the ONLY uncivil thing that you would have written in 14 years. That is quite a feat.
> > > So be it as it may be, let us look at the following post here by Mr Hsiung about me.
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1043225.html
> > >
> > > Lou> > Although not explicitly referring to you, it was an unfortunate choice of words.
> >
> > - Scott
> I was referring to depression, not to Lou. And "The Wizard of Babble" was referring to, of all things, feeling powerless (while being seen as powerful).
>
> BobI hope that it is your plan to continue interacting with the Psycho-Babble community. You form a matrix that helps to establish connections between people and to effect more civil and effective communication despite the emergence of very emotionally charged issues.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on May 10, 2013, at 0:01:34
In reply to Bias? » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on May 8, 2013, at 17:48:56
Hi Lou.
> Do you think that Dr. Bob has singled you out to be treated differently from all other posters?
- Scott
Posted by SLS on May 10, 2013, at 0:06:57
In reply to Lou's reply- » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on May 9, 2013, at 6:46:49
Hi Lou.
> Do you think that Dr. Bob has singled you out to be treated differently from all other posters?
- Scott
Posted by Willful on May 10, 2013, at 0:55:03
In reply to Re: the Prince of Death, posted by Dr. Bob on May 9, 2013, at 21:46:30
Thank for finally clarifying this!
The phrase seemed to be used metaphorically, although it was hard to argue for any particular clear interpretation, and there was much misunderstanding of what was meant by it. -- It's a relief to have an explanation for something that has concerned many posters here.
Willful
Posted by Twinleaf on May 10, 2013, at 7:05:02
In reply to Re: feeling empowered, posted by Dr. Bob on May 9, 2013, at 23:13:56
Many of these posts are touching on the best ways to express differing points of view. I personally don't wish to change anyone here. It would help a lot, in my dealings with Dr.Bob, if he acknowledged my point of view, while not agreeing or acceding to it. Acknowledgement and recognition of others' differing views can be very powerful. I would like to see it done much more frequently by all posters when they are dealing with contention issues. Dr. Bob, your setting such an example could have a wonderful influence!
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 10, 2013, at 9:54:15
In reply to Re: feeling empowered, posted by Twinleaf on May 10, 2013, at 7:05:02
> Many of these posts are touching on the best ways to express differing points of view. I personally don't wish to change anyone here. It would help a lot, in my dealings with Dr.Bob, if he acknowledged my point of view, while not agreeing or acceding to it. Acknowledgement and recognition of others' differing views can be very powerful. I would like to see it done much more frequently by all posters when they are dealing with contention issues. Dr. Bob, your setting such an example could have a wonderful influence!
I agree. I'd like different points of view to be respected and try to respect different points of view myself. Did you feel I didn't acknowledge your point of view?
Bob
Posted by Twinleaf on May 10, 2013, at 10:40:47
In reply to Re: feeling empowered, posted by Dr. Bob on May 10, 2013, at 9:54:15
Although I don't think you meant it to be the main meaning of your post, I did feel misunderstood and somewhat threatened when you said, "be careful what you wish for..", rather than, " I hear what you wish for." I would like to feel respected and safe when I express reasonable wishes on this forum.
I would love to have heard something along the lines of, " I hear that it's very important to you to feel that everyone is treated equally where pbc's are concerned. However, there are other considerations which are at times more important to me as moderator, such as..."
If respectfully acknowledging one another's differing views is important for the smooth running of Babble, it might make it more difficult if differing views are separated into different threads. It might offer even less opportunity for constructive dialogue.
Posted by Toph on May 10, 2013, at 12:22:35
In reply to Re: feeling empowered, posted by Dr. Bob on May 9, 2013, at 23:13:56
> Let's make a deal. If I invest time and energy to moderate Babble, will you all invest time and energy to reassure other posters?
>
> BobBeing civil has never been a deliberate intention of my posts. I think I have learned, mostly from you, certain ways of speaking that are acceptible. I also think being honest and direct are important ways of communicating.
Another consideration is the effect of feeling invested in the group. I was wreckless recently, I think, in part because I am less connected as before. That does not excuse my rant.
I am curious if Lou has ever congratulated anyone on Babble for finding a medication that helped them manage their illness. That would be supportive, and likely to improve his standing with some posters. I know I have never recieved any kind of support of this sort from him regarding what I have repeatedly discussed as a clear benefit to me from taking lithium. Of course, he has no obligation to do anything considerate here.
If you, Bob, are condidering moderating Babble again, does this mean that the hands laissez faire approach of the recent past was a failure, in your opnion?
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 10, 2013, at 16:52:02
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-Gehybreelll » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on May 9, 2013, at 5:23:54
> Lou Pilder:
>
> I think it possible that Dr. Bob was involved in life outside of Psycho-Babble for an extended period of time. During such a time, no notifications would be attended to, regardless of their volume and degree of repetition. Over the past few years, none of the few notifications I submitted elicited a written reply nor an action on the board. I was very disappointed, as you might imagine. I didn't take it personally, though. I certainly didn't take Dr. Bob's silence and inaction to my notifications as a promotion of hate towards a group of people based upon my affiliation with that group. I don't see antisemitism in his behavior. I don't see antisemitism in the posts that have been directed at you or about you. Perhaps I am blind to it, but, as a Jew, I have a vested interest in being aware of antisemitism.
>
> Do you see antisemitism in the behavior of the moderator towards you or anyone else?
>
> Do you have evidence that antisemitism has been the result of administrative silence, or is this simply conjecture on your part?
>
> Hate does not equate to antisemitism, even though antisemitism equates to hate.
>
> If I were to hate you, would you conclude that this hate would be the result of my knowing that you were Jewish? Can no one hate you for other reasons?
>
> Over the years, lots of people have hated me. Lots. Most of them never knew that I was Jewish. Of course, all of them were riddled with character flaws.
>
> For what it is worth, I do not hate you. Nor do I see hate in the words of most other posters towards you on Psycho-Babble.
>
>
> - ScottScott,
I am unsure as to how you arrived at some of the conclusions that you have posted here above. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A. If it is possible that Mr Hsiung had a life outside of here for an extended period of time, what criteria do you use, if any, to make the claim that,[...During that time, no notification would be attended to, regardless of their volume or repetition....].
B. If it is possible for that to be the case, could it also not be possible that that is the case?
C. If harm during that time period could come to people as a result of that there are numerous outstanding requests /notifications from me, would it be supportive for Mr Hsiung to leave the requests/notifications from me outstanding?
D. Now that these requests/notifications still remain outstanding, could harm to some others still be a result of those being outstanding?
E. In the outstanding requests from me to Mr Hsiung here, in the ones that have the potential to arouse anti-Semitic feelings or lead a Jew to feel put down/accused, could those posts in question have the potential to induce hatred toward the Jews on the grounds that there could be a sub set of readers here that could think that the hate is supportive because Mr Hsiung states that support takes precedence and that he does not wait?
lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 10, 2013, at 17:51:05
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-Gehybreelll » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on May 10, 2013, at 16:52:02
> > Lou Pilder:
> >
> > I think it possible that Dr. Bob was involved in life outside of Psycho-Babble for an extended period of time. During such a time, no notifications would be attended to, regardless of their volume and degree of repetition. Over the past few years, none of the few notifications I submitted elicited a written reply nor an action on the board. I was very disappointed, as you might imagine. I didn't take it personally, though. I certainly didn't take Dr. Bob's silence and inaction to my notifications as a promotion of hate towards a group of people based upon my affiliation with that group. I don't see antisemitism in his behavior. I don't see antisemitism in the posts that have been directed at you or about you. Perhaps I am blind to it, but, as a Jew, I have a vested interest in being aware of antisemitism.
> >
> > Do you see antisemitism in the behavior of the moderator towards you or anyone else?
> >
> > Do you have evidence that antisemitism has been the result of administrative silence, or is this simply conjecture on your part?
> >
> > Hate does not equate to antisemitism, even though antisemitism equates to hate.
> >
> > If I were to hate you, would you conclude that this hate would be the result of my knowing that you were Jewish? Can no one hate you for other reasons?
> >
> > Over the years, lots of people have hated me. Lots. Most of them never knew that I was Jewish. Of course, all of them were riddled with character flaws.
> >
> > For what it is worth, I do not hate you. Nor do I see hate in the words of most other posters towards you on Psycho-Babble.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Scott,
> I am unsure as to how you arrived at some of the conclusions that you have posted here above. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> A. If it is possible that Mr Hsiung had a life outside of here for an extended period of time, what criteria do you use, if any, to make the claim that,[...During that time, no notification would be attended to, regardless of their volume or repetition....].
> B. If it is possible for that to be the case, could it also not be possible that that is the case?
> C. If harm during that time period could come to people as a result of that there are numerous outstanding requests /notifications from me, would it be supportive for Mr Hsiung to leave the requests/notifications from me outstanding?
> D. Now that these requests/notifications still remain outstanding, could harm to some others still be a result of those being outstanding?
> E. In the outstanding requests from me to Mr Hsiung here, in the ones that have the potential to arouse anti-Semitic feelings or lead a Jew to feel put down/accused, could those posts in question have the potential to induce hatred toward the Jews on the grounds that there could be a sub set of readers here that could think that the hate is supportive because Mr Hsiung states that support takes precedence and that he does not wait?
> louScott and other members
To continue this discussion, I would like for you to examine the posts in the following link and post in any of those posts from your perspective.
Lou
To see this link;
a. go to the bottom of this page to the search box and type in;
[admin,1042501] and then there are directions to see each post in each part.
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on May 10, 2013, at 20:49:31
In reply to Lou's request to Scott--continued, posted by Lou Pilder on May 10, 2013, at 17:51:05
Hi Lou do you feel that some people need medications to improve their lives? Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 10, 2013, at 21:24:11
In reply to Re: the Prince of Death, posted by Dr. Bob on May 9, 2013, at 21:46:30
> > > So be it as it may be, let us look at the following post here by Mr Hsiung about me.
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1043225.html
> > >
> > > Lou
> >
> > Although not explicitly referring to you, it was an unfortunate choice of words.
> >
> > - Scott
>
> I was referring to depression, not to Lou. And "The Wizard of Babble" was referring to, of all things, feeling powerless (while being seen as powerful).
>
> BobFriends,
It is written here,[...I was referring to depression...]
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 10, 2013, at 23:20:29
In reply to Re: feeling empowered » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on May 10, 2013, at 12:22:35
> Although I don't think you meant it to be the main meaning of your post, I did feel misunderstood and somewhat threatened when you said, "be careful what you wish for..", rather than, " I hear what you wish for." I would like to feel respected and safe when I express reasonable wishes on this forum.
>
> I would love to have heard something along the lines of, " I hear that it's very important to you to feel that everyone is treated equally where pbc's are concerned. However, there are other considerations which are at times more important to me as moderator, such as..."I didn't intend to threaten you. I did intend to alert or warn you that I thought (correctly, as it turned out) that you were heading toward a PBC yourself. You weren't in fact safe, because what you were expressing wasn't civil.
I could, however, have phrased that differently, for example: "I hear that it's very important to you to feel that everyone is treated equally where pbc's are concerned. That's important to me, too. And that means that if others get more pbc's, you may, too." Would you have preferred that?
> If respectfully acknowledging one another's differing views is important for the smooth running of Babble, it might make it more difficult if differing views are separated into different threads. It might offer even less opportunity for constructive dialogue.
>
> TwinleafDialogue is great, but I've been thinking lately that if two sides are too far apart, there's more likely to be conflict than dialogue.
--
> Being civil has never been a deliberate intention of my posts. I think I have learned, mostly from you, certain ways of speaking that are acceptible. I also think being honest and direct are important ways of communicating.
Honest and direct is good, but sometimes there can be too much of a good thing. If a message is honest and direct, but uncivil, it may be less likely to be heard and to be an effective communication.
> Another consideration is the effect of feeling invested in the group. I was wreckless recently, I think, in part because I am less connected as before. That does not excuse my rant.
That's a great point. And, the more members that are invested in a group, the more members that group will attract.
> I am curious if Lou has ever congratulated anyone on Babble for finding a medication that helped them manage their illness. That would be supportive, and likely to improve his standing with some posters. I know I have never recieved any kind of support of this sort from him regarding what I have repeatedly discussed as a clear benefit to me from taking lithium. Of course, he has no obligation to do anything considerate here.
Lou may express the fears of posters. Fear "wants" to make you feel afraid. Fear wants to make you feel powerless. Fear isn't going to congratulate you. Fear isn't going to be considerate.
In theory, Lou might be more supportive if he felt more supported. I don't know. Hoping for Lou to change, like hoping for me to change, can lead to frustration.
> > Let's make a deal. If I invest time and energy to moderate Babble, will you all invest time and energy to reassure other posters?
>
> If you, Bob, are condidering moderating Babble again, does this mean that the hands laissez faire approach of the recent past was a failure, in your opnion?I think it would be neat if Babble could be self-sufficient. But I wonder if my not investing more time and energy, and being more connected, led posters to invest less time and energy, and to feel less connected.
Bob
Posted by Twinleaf on May 11, 2013, at 6:31:42
In reply to Re: feeling empowered, posted by Dr. Bob on May 10, 2013, at 23:20:29
I do not understand how wishing that pbc's would be applied equally to everyone would be considered uncivil on my part. I am very disappointed that you have come to that conclusion. I believe the part of my post which may have been considered uncivil by you was my statement that some of Lou's posts could be considered harmful, especially to newcomers. Even in this instance, it's very damaging and limiting to any attempt at correcting problems here if members' honest opinions about the problems are threatened with pbc's and possible eventual blocks.
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 11, 2013, at 8:21:25
In reply to Lou's response- -Mr Hsiung's reference » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on May 10, 2013, at 21:24:11
> > > > So be it as it may be, let us look at the following post here by Mr Hsiung about me.
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1043225.html
> > > >
> > > > Lou
> > >
> > > Although not explicitly referring to you, it was an unfortunate choice of words.
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> > I was referring to depression, not to Lou. And "The Wizard of Babble" was referring to, of all things, feeling powerless (while being seen as powerful).
> >
> > Bob
>
> Friends,
> It is written here,[...I was referring to depression...]
Let us first understand that the crfiteria for what can be known by what is contained in a post here is something like:
[...Not until I see it can I know it...]
This means that the stetament could be thought to mean that if it can be seen, others can know it. It cold also be construed to mean IMHO that:
IF IT CAN'T BE SEEN, THAT ONE CAN NOT KNOW IT (caps mine)
so let us look at gardenergirl's post which could bring out what I think is of great importance here, for what gardenergirl saw, she posted this:
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20120228/msgs/1031964.html
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.