![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 38. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by homelycygnet on August 5, 2013, at 18:31:05
.
Posted by HomelyCygnet on August 6, 2013, at 12:18:57
In reply to new name, posted by homelycygnet on August 5, 2013, at 18:31:05
Could you possibly allow our friend Manic to return and start anew? Surely you remember how he tried to keep things lively on the social board during Babble's lean years. It was so sad to see disappearing posts on the boards again. Thanks.
As ever
Homely
Posted by Twinleaf on August 6, 2013, at 16:34:55
In reply to Bob Please Restore Our Friend Manic to Babble, posted by HomelyCygnet on August 6, 2013, at 12:18:57
I support this. Both the year-long bans and the thread removals seem to me to belong to an era of extreme punitive measures from which I hope we are emerging. If Dr.Bob really intends to moderate Babble in a lighter, more flexible way, I think this would be a very good place to start.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2013, at 23:22:49
In reply to Bob Please Restore Our Friend Manic to Babble, posted by HomelyCygnet on August 6, 2013, at 12:18:57
> Could you possibly allow our friend Manic to return and start anew?
Manic has the power to return and start anew. Still, maybe some support would help?
Bob
Posted by Phillipa on August 7, 2013, at 9:46:28
In reply to Re: Restoring Manic to Babble, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2013, at 23:22:49
This was what I had written in reviving babble. Let others start anew. I will write manic and tell him he is now allowed to join babble again. Phillipa
Posted by Phillipa on August 7, 2013, at 12:27:51
In reply to Re: Bob Please Restore Our Friend Manic to Babble, posted by Twinleaf on August 6, 2013, at 16:34:55
Twinleaf could you port this this on the one I started on medication? l0derHeart can't find here. I took this to mean that blocked posters could return if they remained civil? Phillipa
Posted by Twinleaf on August 7, 2013, at 17:24:56
In reply to Re: Bob Please Restore Our Friend Manic to Babble » Twinleaf, posted by Phillipa on August 7, 2013, at 12:27:51
Are you lifting the block for just Manic, or also for any others who may have year-long blocks? I think it would be very helpful if you just posted what your current policy about long blocks is, and whether or not the current ones have been lifted. It would be a great example of respectful communication to the Babble community, and thus much appreciated.
Posted by 10derheart on August 7, 2013, at 21:30:59
In reply to Blocks.... Dr.Bob, posted by Twinleaf on August 7, 2013, at 17:24:56
> Are you lifting the block for just Manic,
Good question. Are you implying by asking it that there is a clearer way to express oneself than:
"Manic has the power to return and start anew. Still, maybe some support would help?"...... ??
...because I surely understood **perfectly** the actual and implied meaning of that **crystal clear* response to a simple question.....NOT.
Jeez Bob, enough already.>>...or also for any others who may have year-long blocks?
Are there any others at the moment? What about 9 month long blocks? 6 months? 3 months?
Did DB really even mean that Manic or any other poster who may or may not be currently blocked (how would we know unless the poster has told someone off board...) are having these blocks summarily canceled? Phillipa has assumed so but I didn't see the administrator saying that at all - not in any use of English I'm familiar with. Maybe he means that, maybe he means the poster isn't currently blocked anyway...
I like facts and clarity, as you may have somehow surmised already :-)
>>I think it would be very helpful if you just posted what your current policy about long blocks is, and whether or not the current ones have been lifted.
Yes, of course, But why in heaven's name did you or anyone have to *ask* for something so obvious? I hate that I think Dr. Bob finds this non-communicative communication funny, but I don't know know what else to think.
>>It would be a great example of respectful communication to the Babble community, and thus much appreciated.TL, you are a better person than I am in this regard, asking and posting so kindly and politely. I've lost the ability or will to cope with the current administration's tone. Hope your efforts aren't met with frustration.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 8, 2013, at 12:02:53
In reply to Re: Blocks.... Dr.Bob » Twinleaf, posted by 10derheart on August 7, 2013, at 21:30:59
> Did DB really even mean that Manic or any other poster who may or may not be currently blocked ... are having these blocks summarily canceled?
No. What I meant was, all he needs to do is let his block expire without trying to get around it by posting as someone else.
Does anybody want to support him in doing that?
Bob
Posted by Twinleaf on August 8, 2013, at 12:31:49
In reply to Re: Restoring Manic to Babble, posted by Dr. Bob on August 8, 2013, at 12:02:53
I definitely support Manic, but I have never supported long blocks for anyone. I was somehow under the impression that you were going to use occasional short blocks, but that you would not double them automatically so that they would quickly reach a year in length as they have in the past? I am under the impression that a vast majority of the community would support a policy of occasional, short blocks. If this is your thought also wouldn't it be fair and reasonable to forgive any long blocks currently operating?
I definitely appreciate your clear and direct answer about Manic, and hope that you will offer an equally direct and respectful clarification about your current blocking policy.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 10, 2013, at 1:32:28
In reply to Re: Restoring Manic to Babble » Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on August 8, 2013, at 12:31:49
> > all he needs to do is let his block expire without trying to get around it by posting as someone else.
> >
> > Does anybody want to support him in doing that?
>
> I definitely support ManicGreat, how would you like to support him in letting his block expire without posting as someone else?
Anybody else want to support Manic?
> I .. hope that you will offer an equally direct and respectful clarification about your current blocking policy.
My blocking policy hasn't changed. At least not yet.
Bob
Posted by Twinleaf on August 10, 2013, at 9:38:30
In reply to Re: Restoring Manic to Babble, posted by Dr. Bob on August 10, 2013, at 1:32:28
I appreciate the clear, direct answer about your blocking policies. I think many of us were unsure what they actually were, as you have only given a couple of week-long ones recently, and you have not escalated them. Perhaps there is a bit of hope that you will consider changing them to a more moderate, flexible form sometime in the future.
.As you know, I have never supported year-long blocks, so I can't support Manic's block. I would of course support him in other ways.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 10, 2013, at 19:02:09
In reply to Re: Restoring Manic to Babble, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2013, at 23:22:49
> > Could you possibly allow our friend Manic to return and start anew?
> Manic has the power to return and start anew. Still, maybe some support would help?I feel uncomfortable reading this thread.
I see how Phillipa interpreted it the way she did. I've made similar misinterpretations of similar statements about blocks. Repeatedly, even.
It is extremely frustrating. Especially when you think 'oh, that means the block is up' then you go to post, and find yourself blocked all over again.
I was reading something the other day... Can't remember where... But it said that the biblical 'an eye for an eye' wasn't intended as promotion of retaliation. Rather, it was intended as promotion of moderation. The idea being that rather than taking (as we would otherwise have a tendency to do) a life or a head or two eyes for an eye, we only get to take the one. It is an instruction to moderate the punishment to the extremity of the offense. Not entirely why I thought of it now.
There are a bunch of different reasons for punishment... I mean... Different people have different views on what all that is about. Some people think that prisons are about retaliation. Retribution. An eye for an eye in the commonly understood sense (and you get people requesting the death penalty for the offense of murder, and so on). Other people think that prisons are (or should be) about prevention of re-offending. Either because the relevant individual is physically restrained from opportunity or because the fact that the individual is restrained serves as a deterrent to others who might feel inclined to offend. Other people think that prisons are (or should be) about... Something like treatment. Acute treatment for anti-social behavior / behavioral dyscontrol. Or maybe nobody actually thinks that, but it is a position in logical space and I'm actually fairly tempted.
I think Bob sees blocks differently from most members of the community. Which is why the above misunderstanding has a tendency to reccur...
Posted by alexandra_k on August 10, 2013, at 19:11:49
In reply to Re: Restoring Manic to Babble, posted by alexandra_k on August 10, 2013, at 19:02:09
e.g., I think Bob feels that he is being restrained in blocking people for only one year (which, while it may be an eon in internet years) is restrained. Compared to the alternative of a life ban.
so... (compared to a life ban) people do have the power to return. to start anew.
but RIGHT F*CK*NG NOW (which is of course all there is) one doesn't have the power to return. because every time one hits 'submit' one gets slapped in the face with a blocked message. so one f*ck*ng does not.
because one is still entangled i suppose. and i suppose that is the point of blocks.
i wonder how many people who got blocked for a year... i wonder how many of them (any of them?) actually kept up reading the boards over that period of time? or whether... gradually... over months (weeks actually wouldn't have been enough) enough time and space (ahahaha) enough distance... so that the memory of whatever entanglement resulted in...
...whatever the f*ck that was...
receeds...
so that one might be in the position to return. to the point of the boards. the support and education thing.
?
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 11, 2013, at 2:06:55
In reply to Re: Restoring Manic to Babble » Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on August 10, 2013, at 9:38:30
> As you know, I have never supported year-long blocks, so I can't support Manic's block. I would of course support him in other ways.
I'm not clear in what ways you'd like to support him.
Would you like to support him emotionally? Expressing the desire that I summarily cancel his block could do that.
Would you like to support restoring him to Babble? Helping him let his block expire without posting as someone else could do that.
Or maybe you, or others, have other ideas.
Bob
Posted by Twinleaf on August 11, 2013, at 10:05:38
In reply to Re: Restoring Manic to Babble, posted by Dr. Bob on August 11, 2013, at 2:06:55
As I said, I can't support Manic adhering to a blocking policy which I think is wrongly conceived. I don't expect that you would do things my way, of course, but I have expected that you would acknowledge and respect my point of view. I realize now that I have been completely wrong in having this expectation. There is only one point of view here: yours, and every communication is twisted and altered to support that. I am feeling a lot like Larry Hoover - progressively detached and indifferent - and for exactly the same reasons. And I think you know that I have supported Babble and given it every chance up until now
Posted by Willful on August 11, 2013, at 15:41:06
In reply to Re: Restoring Manic to Babble, posted by Twinleaf on August 11, 2013, at 10:05:38
One thing that's kind of vexing here is that Bob never explained his blocking ideas. At least not while I've been here. I don't understand any more than anyone else why the blocks escalate by doubling each time any offense, no matter how minor, takes place. I don't understand why certain things are blockable offenses, rather than just something one doesn't like, or find unsavory, like using certain words.
I'm left to infer Bob's intentions and theories, but this is always unsatisfactory, especially in the face of blocks that seem very unfair.
And of course there is Bob's insistence on a certain cleverness rather than substantiveness in his answers.
Something that I think must be a question of cultural attitudes or a tin ear for the resonances of language, is that Bob doesn't seem to understand the nails-on-blackboard effect of his little question, "would anyone like to help support X in avoiding a block?"
We all cringe when we hear this, which in this culture is so infantilizing, and sounds like a parody of the 2nd or third grade prattling teacher's question, "are you all being good little girls and boys?" I don't think Bob understands how that question sounds to the ear of those of us who are entirely adapted to the culture of late 20th and early 21st century America- otherwise there is no way that he could keep repeating it--
And then sometimes I begin to wonder if it doesn't represent his attitude toward us, that we are somehow mentally backward, nonpeers, and not to be respected and addressed as such.
Of course none of us is going to volunteer to "help" Manic be a good little boy. And none of us appreciates Bob's attempts to be gnomic, or delphic, or somehow more subtle than we are. We could play wordgames too if we had nothing at stake... if we were the one in control. We could come away from every exchange pleased at our epigrammatic form, and without the sense that the other person is slip-sliding away from every attempt to start a serious and mutually respectful dialogue.
But I imagine Bob doesn't mean any harm by it. And he does care about Babble-- and about us. He simply doesn't see how short shrift he truly gives us, and how palapably he displays this in his posts.
Posted by Phillipa on August 11, 2013, at 20:29:37
In reply to Re: Restoring Manic to Babble, posted by Willful on August 11, 2013, at 15:41:06
Ever wonder why the wording feel but not think is civil. I both feel & think. Do you also? If so why is feel okay and the word think blockable? Phillipa
Posted by alexandra_k on August 11, 2013, at 22:28:55
In reply to Re: Restoring Manic to Babble, posted by Willful on August 11, 2013, at 15:41:06
> Bob doesn't seem to understand the nails-on-blackboard effect of his little question, "would anyone like to help support X in avoiding a block?"
> We all cringe when we hear this, which in this culture is so infantilizing, and sounds like a parody of the 2nd or third grade prattling teacher's question, "are you all being good little girls and boys?" I don't think Bob understands how that question sounds to the ear of those of us who are entirely adapted to the culture of late 20th and early 21st century America- otherwise there is no way that he could keep repeating it--
> And then sometimes I begin to wonder if it doesn't represent his attitude toward us, that we are somehow mentally backward, nonpeers, and not to be respected and addressed as such.> Of course none of us is going to volunteer to "help" Manic be a good little boy.
Yes. I feel like this in response to some of the things he says on threads about blocked individuals, too.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 12, 2013, at 2:28:18
In reply to Re: Restoring Manic to Babble, posted by Willful on August 11, 2013, at 15:41:06
> I can't support Manic adhering to a blocking policy which I think is wrongly conceived. I don't expect that you would do things my way, of course, but I have expected that you would acknowledge and respect my point of view. ... There is only one point of view here: yours, and every communication is twisted and altered to support that.
>
> TwinleafI acknowledge and respect your view that my policy is wrong and that it would be unconscionable to support adhering to it.
I'm definitely aware that there's more than just my view. I keep butting my head against others and getting a sore head. :-)
> this ... sounds like a parody of the 2nd or third grade prattling teacher's question
>
> I begin to wonder if it doesn't represent his attitude toward us, that we are somehow mentally backward, nonpeers, and not to be respected and addressed as such.I remind Dinah of a middle school teacher. I guess you see another side of me. :-)
I do believe there's something I could teach, and posters could learn. But I might be wrong. I certainly wish I were a more effective teacher. Let me try again:
> Of course none of us is going to volunteer to "help" Manic be a good little boy.
I think opposition to me, or to blocks, may be getting in the way of support for Manic.
Maybe think of it this way: He's on the other side of a minefield. The mines expire after a year, but he isn't willing or able to wait. He keeps trying to make it back on his own and keeps getting blown up.
> I don't think Bob understands how that question sounds to the ear of those of us who are entirely adapted to the culture of late 20th and early 21st century America
>
> WillfulIn early 21st century America posters might support mandatory sentencing.
In early 21st century America posters might not concern themselves with someone who needs help.
In early 21st century America posters might occupy Babble/protest.
In early 21st century Tibet posters might consider Manic a martyr. Or martyr themselves.
I wonder if in early 21st century Babble any posters might want to help Manic avoid the mines (which isn't inconsistent with opposition/protest). (How to do that is another issue.)
Bob
Posted by Twinleaf on August 12, 2013, at 7:10:28
In reply to Re: Restoring Manic to Babble, posted by Dr. Bob on August 12, 2013, at 2:28:18
Your statement, " I acknowledge and respect your view that my policy is wrong and that it would be unconscionable to support adhering to it," does NOT reflect my views at all. It would be much closer to what I hope for here to say something like, " I acknowledge and respect your views, and recognize that there are legitimate different ways of looking at things." You have assumed a level of judgement and condemnation of your views which I do not have. I don't think anything is unconscionable. There can be mutually respectful disagreement without it becoming a battle. To disagree with you is not at all equivalent to condemning either you or your views.
Posted by SLS on August 12, 2013, at 7:45:29
In reply to Re: Restoring Manic to Babble » Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on August 12, 2013, at 7:10:28
> Your statement, " I acknowledge and respect your view that my policy is wrong and that it would be unconscionable to support adhering to it," does NOT reflect my views at all. It would be much closer to what I hope for here to say something like, " I acknowledge and respect your views, and recognize that there are legitimate different ways of looking at things." You have assumed a level of judgement and condemnation of your views which I do not have. I don't think anything is unconscionable. There can be mutually respectful disagreement without it becoming a battle. To disagree with you is not at all equivalent to condemning either you or your views.
Twinleaf, I admire you. Don't ask me why. I don't have the time to create such a long list.
- Scott
Posted by Phillipa on August 12, 2013, at 21:07:33
In reply to Re: Restoring Manic to Babble » Twinleaf, posted by SLS on August 12, 2013, at 7:45:29
I feel it's a challenge to him to get through the walls. Shows how easy it is to post when blocked. Phillipa
Posted by Twinleaf on August 13, 2013, at 7:57:03
In reply to Re: Restoring Manic to Babble » Twinleaf, posted by SLS on August 12, 2013, at 7:45:29
That was lovely of you, Scott. I don't really feel that I deserve it, but the support and understanding, coming from you, means a great deal. The communication gap on administration is beginning to feel too wide, though.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 13, 2013, at 17:12:54
In reply to Re: Restoring Manic to Babble » Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on August 12, 2013, at 7:10:28
> Your statement, " I acknowledge and respect your view that my policy is wrong and that it would be unconscionable to support adhering to it," does NOT reflect my views at all. ... You have assumed a level of judgement and condemnation of your views which I do not have. I don't think anything is unconscionable.
OK, I guess I misunderstood. Maybe that feeling of judgment and condemnation comes from somewhere else. Let me try again:
I acknowledge and respect your view that my policy is wrongly conceived and that you cannot support adhering to it.
How about that?
Bob
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.