![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 113 to 137 of 225. Go back in thread:
Posted by Twinleaf on July 17, 2013, at 10:01:37
In reply to Re: a refuge, posted by Dr. Bob on July 16, 2013, at 23:00:32
It is extremely painful and distressing to read these exchanges. In my view, you are doing two things which are enraging and infuriating everyone. The first is that you do not acknowledge everyone's concerns over Lou's breaking of the civility rules. The second is that you do not appear to respect and understand what posters are trying to communicate to you. You almost invariably change the meaning into something else - something that suits your own purposes but which ruins any attempts at real communication. This is especially striking with your former deputies; they are very understandably frustrated and enraged by your doing this to them repeatedly.
No-one is saying that you have to agree with a particular view , just that there are posters still trying to communicate honestly with you, and I do not see in your replies any respect or acknowledgement of their views. It's as if you were "wiping them out" as human beings every time. Your answers to them make ME furious even though I am not part of all the exchanges.
We do expect an administrator with good communication skills - one who can understand a wide range of views and who can treat the members of the community with respect and understanding. The most painful aspect of all this is that we are finding out that we may not have an administrator who possesses those understandings or skills. If you could demonstrate them to us, it would go a long way towards easing the anger and stress we have now.
Posted by Moishe Pipik on July 18, 2013, at 16:01:50
In reply to Re: a refuge(e) board, posted by Dr. Bob on July 4, 2013, at 18:09:15
LMFAO
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 20, 2013, at 3:17:51
In reply to Re: a refuge » Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on July 17, 2013, at 10:01:37
> It is extremely painful and distressing to read these exchanges. In my view, you are doing two things which are enraging and infuriating everyone. The first is that you do not acknowledge everyone's concerns over Lou's breaking of the civility rules. The second is that you do not appear to respect and understand what posters are trying to communicate to you.
What I hear some posters saying is that:
1a. Lou isn't being civil.
1b. Which is driving posters away from Babble, and from treatment, both of which might help them.
2. So I should enforce the civility rules.
I value civility and agree that both Babble and treatment can help people.
How was that?
Bob
Posted by Twinleaf on July 20, 2013, at 6:40:21
In reply to Re: a refuge, posted by Dr. Bob on July 20, 2013, at 3:17:51
That seems just fine. You are respectfully acknowledging our views. As to the further step of giving Lou PBCs or even a short block, I can support you doing that intermittently, as the volume and repetitiveness of doing it every time would be overwhelming.
Just be thing further - could you use that simple, respectful acknowledgement in your communications on other topics, especially with your former deputies?
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 23, 2013, at 20:38:00
In reply to Re: a refuge » Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on July 20, 2013, at 6:40:21
> could you use that simple, respectful acknowledgement in your communications on other topics, especially with your former deputies?
I try to be open to suggestions. I'm glad you were able to be clear and direct about what you wanted.
Bob
Posted by 10derheart on July 24, 2013, at 1:12:06
In reply to Re: a refuge, posted by Dr. Bob on July 23, 2013, at 20:38:00
Translation: No.
Thanks, Twinleaf, for your efforts. But sometimes spit and wind and brick walls are reality...
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 3, 2013, at 8:25:24
In reply to Re: a refuge, posted by Dr. Bob on July 16, 2013, at 12:54:04
> > If Lou can compare your statements in a post to those outrageous, horrible things and instead of being reminded this is (**was** now, obviously) a civil place, you engage in more philosophizing and other ^&%$%, just imagine what Lou will feel free to say to me and other ordinary posters.
> >
> > Pressure? Is it pressure when I ask the police to ticket people driving fast down a densely populated cul-de-sac where many children play, because they may hit someone? Harm, maim, or worse?
> >
> > It is not okay, for me, that you elect abdication.
> >
> > 10derheart
>
> You're not a child. You could elect not to be hit. If you feel hurt reading what someone writes, you could stop reading what they write. What if you and Phillipa tried to help each other do that?
>
> --
>
> > > You see, the argument that it {will be} good for the community as a whole is the same argument to justify infanticide...
> >
> > Is it your accusation that because your notifications to the administrator of this tiny website are to be left outstanding, infanticide, genocide, slavery, segregation, and discrimination will result?
> >
> > - Scott
>
> That's a good point. Is there evidence of infanticide, genocide, slavery, segregation, discrimination -- or maiming -- here now? Or anxiety that there will be in the future?
>
> --
>
> > You say you are willing to moderate. But not really. Not really.
> >
> > 10derheart
>
> > Respectfully, Dr.Bob, if you say you are going to moderate, then our community does expect you to do so, in whatever way currently seems best to you.
> >
> > Twinleaf
>
> I'm moderating in the sense of "presiding over". When I'm notified of posts, I'm enforcing existing rules and responding either on the board or to the posters who notified me. One exception is that I think right now it may be good for this community as a whole, and for me, to leave some of Lou's notifications outstanding.
>
> I'm also moderating in the sense of "lessening the intensity or extremeness of".
>
> --
>
> > Where's the retweet button? I would so retweet this. :)
> >
> > gardenergirl
>
> I'm glad you brought that up. :-)
>
> 3/4 of the posters on this thread have elected to disable the Facebook and Twitter buttons. I see that as voting to limit the visibility of Babble. Maybe I understand that better now. If Babble is a tiny cul-de-sac, then it may be more like a refuge.
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
In reading what you have posted here, I see:
A.[...is there evidence of discrimination...?]
This is in the line that starts with,[That's a good point]
B.[...When I am notified of posts I'm enforcing existing rules and responding either on the board or to the posters that notified me...]
C. [... One exception is that I think right now it may be good for this community as a whole, and for me, to leave some of Lou's notifications outstanding...].
This brings up the following concerns that I have in regards to what you have posted here about me. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly. In a previous post by you in this thread, you stated that discrimination along with genocide and such is an {abuse of power}.
A. If by you leaving some of my notifications outstanding, does that or does that not constitute discrimination by you in your moderation here? If not, why not?
B. If the leaving of any of my notifications outstanding is discrimination by you here, is that then an abuse of power by you?
C. If you claim that you are doing what will be good for this community as a whole and for yourself to leave some of my notification outstanding, then does that in your thinking override an {abuse of power}, if you agree that by you doing that discrimination results?
D. Then if you agree that you can discriminate, if you agree that by leaving some of my notifications outstanding constitutes discrimination, which you state is an abuse of power, on the basis that the discrimination will be good for this community as a whole and for you, then in your thinking could not a state commit genocide if they claim that by doing so their state will be better, or good for their state as a whole, or even for the leader? And would that also go for infanticide, slavery, segregation and such in your thinking?
E. What "good" will come to this community or to you by you leaving some of my notifications outstanding?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2013, at 10:09:21
In reply to Lou's request to Mr Hsiung-discrim » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on August 3, 2013, at 8:25:24
> > > If Lou can compare your statements in a post to those outrageous, horrible things and instead of being reminded this is (**was** now, obviously) a civil place, you engage in more philosophizing and other ^&%$%, just imagine what Lou will feel free to say to me and other ordinary posters.
> > >
> > > Pressure? Is it pressure when I ask the police to ticket people driving fast down a densely populated cul-de-sac where many children play, because they may hit someone? Harm, maim, or worse?
> > >
> > > It is not okay, for me, that you elect abdication.
> > >
> > > 10derheart
> >
> > You're not a child. You could elect not to be hit. If you feel hurt reading what someone writes, you could stop reading what they write. What if you and Phillipa tried to help each other do that?
> >
> > --
> >
> > > > You see, the argument that it {will be} good for the community as a whole is the same argument to justify infanticide...
> > >
> > > Is it your accusation that because your notifications to the administrator of this tiny website are to be left outstanding, infanticide, genocide, slavery, segregation, and discrimination will result?
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> > That's a good point. Is there evidence of infanticide, genocide, slavery, segregation, discrimination -- or maiming -- here now? Or anxiety that there will be in the future?
> >
> > --
> >
> > > You say you are willing to moderate. But not really. Not really.
> > >
> > > 10derheart
> >
> > > Respectfully, Dr.Bob, if you say you are going to moderate, then our community does expect you to do so, in whatever way currently seems best to you.
> > >
> > > Twinleaf
> >
> > I'm moderating in the sense of "presiding over". When I'm notified of posts, I'm enforcing existing rules and responding either on the board or to the posters who notified me. One exception is that I think right now it may be good for this community as a whole, and for me, to leave some of Lou's notifications outstanding.
> >
> > I'm also moderating in the sense of "lessening the intensity or extremeness of".
> >
> > --
> >
> > > Where's the retweet button? I would so retweet this. :)
> > >
> > > gardenergirl
> >
> > I'm glad you brought that up. :-)
> >
> > 3/4 of the posters on this thread have elected to disable the Facebook and Twitter buttons. I see that as voting to limit the visibility of Babble. Maybe I understand that better now. If Babble is a tiny cul-de-sac, then it may be more like a refuge.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr Hsiung,
> In reading what you have posted here, I see:
> A.[...is there evidence of discrimination...?]
> This is in the line that starts with,[That's a good point]
> B.[...When I am notified of posts I'm enforcing existing rules and responding either on the board or to the posters that notified me...]
> C. [... One exception is that I think right now it may be good for this community as a whole, and for me, to leave some of Lou's notifications outstanding...].
> This brings up the following concerns that I have in regards to what you have posted here about me. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly. In a previous post by you in this thread, you stated that discrimination along with genocide and such is an {abuse of power}.
> A. If by you leaving some of my notifications outstanding, does that or does that not constitute discrimination by you in your moderation here? If not, why not?
> B. If the leaving of any of my notifications outstanding is discrimination by you here, is that then an abuse of power by you?
> C. If you claim that you are doing what will be good for this community as a whole and for yourself to leave some of my notification outstanding, then does that in your thinking override an {abuse of power}, if you agree that by you doing that discrimination results?
> D. Then if you agree that you can discriminate, if you agree that by leaving some of my notifications outstanding constitutes discrimination, which you state is an abuse of power, on the basis that the discrimination will be good for this community as a whole and for you, then in your thinking could not a state commit genocide if they claim that by doing so their state will be better, or good for their state as a whole, or even for the leader? And would that also go for infanticide, slavery, segregation and such in your thinking?
> E. What "good" will come to this community or to you by you leaving some of my notifications outstanding?
> Lou PilderMr Hsiung,
Now you say that you will have a community that has a procedure for members to follow that alerts you to what a member using the notification procedure could consider a harmful statement and you say that you will attend to those according to your terms of service here. But then you stipulate that there could be alerts to you by me and that you have the option of attending to those alerts by me to you or not, which members here do not have what type of alerts that you are saying that you have the option to attend to them or not. You agree that this has historical parallels including slavery, genocide, discrimination, segregation, infanticide and such being an abuse of power and resulting in millions of deaths.
My overriding concern here now is that I am awaiting your reply to requests by me in this thread that could clarify what your thinking here is about your "exception" in relation to you giving yourself the option of attending to my notifications to you or not, which I consider to be included in the generally accepted meaning of discrimination. This option that you give yourself, IMHHHHHO, could cause the deaths of members and readers here. This is all because I have already told you that hate could be promulgated here if it is thought to be supportive and readers could think that what is allowed to stand is supportive by the nature that you state that support takes precedence and one match could start a forest fire. The fire of hate could spread way beyond this forum and I agree with you that the fire should not be given any time to spread and be acted on without waiting, and you do say that you do not wait.
The ability of members to see through what you are doing here, by you giving yourself the option of treating my notifications differently than other members here, varies in a wide range of individual differences. Some may think that you are justified in treating my notifications differently on the basis that they trust you in that it will be good for you and/or the community as a whole for you to do so. But if deaths happen as a result of your policy to treat my notifications differently, how could that be good for you or this community as a whole, if the phrase, "will be good for this community as a whole" is not understood by some members as to the historical parallels that have shown that discrimination, if you agree that what you are allowing yourself to do in relation to my notifications constitutes discrimination, was not good for communities as a whole?
And could not I become a victim of violence if you treat my notifications differently and leave (redacted by respondent) to me to stand so that there could be some readers swayed to think that you are doing what will be good for you and/or the community as a whole, and that overrides what is wrong to be right? You see, when you use the ancient thinking that there is no right or wrong, but only what will be good for the community as a whole, then that type of ancient thinking justified in the minds of those that committed infanticide, genocide, slavery, discrimination and such to be allowed, for they made the people think that had their children murdered that they were doing good by allowing their child to have their life taken by the state. But what if later the state was conquered and then what happened to those that claimed that they were doing good? The parents now see that the deaths of their child did not pay off, as the leader claimed. They gambled with the lives of the the children and lost. I do not want you to gamble with my life, my friend. I do not want you to have the option to treat my notifications to you differently than other members here. I do not want to be a victim of violence and hate that has the potential, IMHHHHO, to be promulgated here by you by you making the provision in your terms of service for you to discriminate against me here by not responding to my notifications to you as you say you will do to the other members here. I do not want to be stigmatized by you as IMHHHHHHHHO stigmatization could occur to me as a result of having a what I consider to be a discriminatory policy that the effects from such a policy could IMO extend way beyond this forum. I do not want others to think that I am being used as a scapegoat by you or anyone else for their real or imagined concerns, for your policy that allows you the option to not respond to notifications by me to you could have the potential IMO for some readers to see that, for another poster here posted to that concern.
Be advised that by members seeing years of outstanding notifications/requests from me to you remain outstanding, that they could have the potential to see what is the content that you are meaning to be allowed to stand by the nature that those are the ones that you could be choosing to stand by not responding to my notifications to you. And that could lead to IMO the justifying of hate in the minds of some readers here, for you state that there are even readers that are less-confident people and so could there not be readers that have minds that could be swayed to entertain hatred toward me, and hatred toward the Jews by the nature that statements that promote hatred toward the Jews are allowed to stand here by you? If not, why not?
You prevent me from educating readers here about how hate historically has been promulgated by the state. That prohibition, IMHHHHHHHHO, could lead to the readers here thinking that they can justify hate if it will be good for them, for you say that by you not responding to some of m notifications it could be good for you. I say that as I see the historical record, it shows otherwise.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2013, at 14:15:33
In reply to Re: a refuge(e) board » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on July 5, 2013, at 14:45:15
> > > ahaha. can you pinpoint more specifically when-ish in the past you were thinking of moderating it like?
> >
> > Sorry, I can't. I think the idea is more to create an environment that posters would feel was safe(r) than to go back to a specific point in time.
> >
> > Bob
>
>
> It is ironic, but during your period of close moderation, people had very few fears of being hurt except for by the rigid sanctions administered by you. People felt safe otherwise. Safety was even provided for Lou Pilder, who posted in a civil manner at that time. There was a great deal more exchange of ideas, information, and support during this time. I can't imagine why you would not be able to exercise sanctions again, albeit to a more moderate degree. I don't think that a black-or-white or all-or-nothing approach towards establishing the level of moderation to be exercised is at all useful. I can't believe you would open a new board dedicated to protect people from a single person who behaves in a way that you have so often deemed to be uncivil. Were it not for the unfettered posting of uncivil content by this singular poster, we would not be having this discussion.
>
> Question: What kind of posting behavior would cause you to exercise a posting block?
>
>
> - Scott
>
Scott,
You wrote,[...I can't believe that you would open a new board dedicated to protect people from a single person who behaves in a way that you have so often deemed to be uncivil. Were it not for the unfettered posting of uncivil content by this singular person, we would not be having this discussion...].
The subject person in your post could be thought to be me.
This then has the potential to put me in a false light, for I am following the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung as humanly possible. I may make a mistake after the fact, and post an apology or correction. What is the {uncivil content} in your post here that people could think is in my postings, is not specified here. This could mean that any and all of my posts have the potential for readers to think contain uncivil content. This could then include my posts that come from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me.
But it is much more than that. For in your post here there is the potential for readers to see me in a false light that can decreas the respect, regard or confidence in which I am held and could induce hostile or disagreeable opinions or feelings against me.
Readers, if you want to know more about this ongoing situation, and how hate can be promulgated toward me here, I ask that you read the following.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1049210.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2013, at 14:46:59
In reply to Re: a refuge(e) board » sleepygirl2, posted by 10derheart on July 5, 2013, at 22:26:22
> I know, but I think....with the low traffic here (except for Meds) that another board for any reason doesn't sound wise. Psych is nearly dead, Social on life support...etc. People are creatures of habit. Of course they/we can change, but change for the sake of change usually makes little sense to me. A new board because he can't place the same limits that have essentially been here for years on one poster? Why is Lou allowed to say that I (and DB) am a promoter of hate and an anti-Semite? Why is he exempt, and therefore posts nearly anything he wants, at any time, to anyone?
>
> Wouldn't Lou just avoid that new board? And how would that address the issue? I care a lot more about what he says to others than what he says to me, although it hurts more than you can imagine to be compared to murderers and racists.
>
> I am so lost and all DB does is keep changing the subject or making inaccurate assertions, like that posters don't want Lou here - something only perhaps one person ever said recently (block Lou immediately, etc.) and that I entirely reject. Lou can be here like anyone if he follows the same rules. I want Lou here. I want civility here. Lou can be civil - I have seen it.
>
> I meant...that to me the idea he would create a special place instead of moderating all the existing boards reasonably, according to guidelines already in place and workable makes me feel....like I'm being shuffled off to some padded room for annoying people because his incomprehensible experiments here are more important than allowing all posters to freely read and post on any board they want, knowing certain lines are drawn.
>
> Asking for *all* posters to be restrained from accusing, gross exaggerations and jumping to conclusions seems like hardly a request at all.
>
> My head hurts.10,
Now you say,[...Why is Lou allowed to say I am a promoter of hate and an anti-Semite...].
You did not cite the URL that contains what you say that I posted here. Because of that, there is the potential for some readers to see me in a false light. This could induce hostile or disagreeable feelings toward me and decrease the respect, regard or confidence in which I am held. I am asking that you post such URLs, if they exist, that you used to make such a claim. Then I could post my response to you and show the readers the context in which whatever you say about the post is in. Then readers can make their own determination as to if or if not what you claim about me here is true or not.
There are many definitions of what anti-Semitism is. The generally accepted definition here is if the statement has the potential to put down/accuse Jews, then it is an anti-Semitic statement. As to if one is an anti-Semite, that is determined by another method. Hostility toward a Jew could be included in the assessment of if a person is or is not an anti-Semite. And if one advances hate, could they be thought to be a promoter of hate? And if one has the opportunity to denounce hate, and the hate flourishes because the hate is not denounced,
does that mean that the one that had the opportunity to denounce the hate and did not, have the potential to lead others to think that they are actually promoting the hate?
Lou
Friends,
If you are interested in this ongoing situation that I find myself in here, I am asking that you read the following.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1049210.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2013, at 15:40:56
In reply to Re: a refuge(e) board » Toph, posted by SLS on July 6, 2013, at 8:57:45
> > > Thanks for going through the trouble to research and opine on some of the issues we are discussing here. Your post makes me sad and subdued.
> > >
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> >
> > Jeez, I think you have a lot to be proud of over the years for your supportive contributions to this site Scott.
>
> Just in case there is any misunderstanding, I was sincere in my sentiments, Toph. I am always interested to know your perspecitives and respect your intellect and insights, even when we disagree.
>
> When I first started posting here in 1999, there was no active moderation - no warnings or posting blocks. Many people look back at this time with a nostalgic fondness as Psycho-Babble's golden age. There were occasional uncivil comments and vitriolic arguments. Peer pressure usually helped to moderate this, though. I remember feeling constrained and stifled by the Psycho-Babble guidelines of civil communication when they first appeared. I was very much against their institution. However, it wasn't very long before I saw the advantages of moderation such that everyone had the opportunity to feel safe and protected from overbearing personalities like mine. I then came to see the emergence of a moderation protocol that managed to crush any feelings of nurturing that Psycho-Babble had provided for. The moderation style created a situation wherein the Administration board became the main attraction of the website and a source of perpetual drama. Interestingly, when active moderation ceased, there was an inertia of sorts that facilitated a continued awareness of civility that helped the community to maintain civil communication. There was some degree of self-moderation of the website forums that persisted for a few years. Unfortunately, in this environment, it only takes one person to post material with impunity that challenges the health of the website. Such a situation can be rectified quite easily though. Since laisez-faire allows for, and effectively promotes, incivility in such people, it seems to me that active moderation is desirable, albeit to a lesser degree than was exercised previously.
>
>
> - Scott
>
> Scott,
you wrote,[...Unfortunately, in this environment, it only takes on person to post material with impunity that challenges the health of the website...].
What you have posted about me here, and I could be thought to be the subject person here, could not only put me in a false light, but since that posts that you claim by me that {challenge the health of the website}, if there are any, I do not have the opportunity to post from my perspective to show the context of any post that you use to substantiate such a claim here.
This could IMHO damage me and Jews throughout the world. For since the URLs used by you to make the claims here about me are not specified, they could, at least, be the ones from me concerning those from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me, or the one's from me asking over and over for posts that have statements that could arouse hatred toward the Jews to (redacted by respondent) . You see, your use of the ancient false charge against the Jews of harming the health of other people in a community, called {poisoning the well}, that Jew-haters used in the 1300s to persecute Jews and kill Jews saying that they brought the Black Plague to Europe that killed 50% of mankind there in a few years, saying the Jews poisoned the wells. That was impossible, for the Black Death was from a flea that dwelled in a rat that bit the people.
It is also impossible for me to damage the health of this community, for I am following the prohibitions to me here by Mr Hsiung as other human beings could do. That does not challenge the health of this community, as for if it did, then all members posting here could have the potential to damage the health of the community. The damage to the health of the community is not a result of me posting as a member here under the same terms and conditions of others. What could damage the health of the community IMHO is the creation of two standards here, which is known as discrimination, that is agreed by Mr Hsiung to be an abuse of power by the leader of a community in the same camp as slavery, infanticide, genocide and segregation. All those things sponsored by a community can IMHHHHO lead to the challenge of the health of a community as history records. You write these things about me here that could induce hostile, disagreeable feeling or opinions toward me and decrease the respect, regard or confidence in which I am held. This could challenge my health and I would like readers to read the following post in the link concerning this situation that I find myself in so that you could have a better understanding of what is being tried here by members that could induce scapegoating and now, that I am challenging the health of the community. I say to you that are in concert with those here to (redacted by respondent) me, that you will (redacted by respondent), for even if you are swayed by those here to think of me as challenging the health of this community, remember the rat flea. This post will not go unchallenged to the world, for it stands as it is, it is what it is, it says what it says, it can be seen and is plainly visible.
Lou
> Here is the link to the post that I would like for you to read:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1049210.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2013, at 16:43:43
In reply to Re: a refuge(e) board, posted by baseball55 on July 7, 2013, at 20:50:36
> The last thing this forum needs is yet another board to split up posts and posters. Also, on reading this, it's pretty clear that the main (perhaps the only) problem on people's mind is Lou. I deal with Lou by never opening his posts and never opening any replies to his posts. I've done that since I first came here a few years ago. I realize new posters may get scared away, but anyone with experience on the internet knows there's always going to be someone with an ax to grind.
bb55,
You wrote,
[...the main... problem on people's mind is Lou...new posters may be scared away...there's always going to be someone with an ax to grind...].
What you have posted here about me could put me in a false light and decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile or disagreeable feelings and opinions against me. Since you have not specified any post that you use to write your claim here against me, I do not have the opportunity to post a response to show the context of whatever it is that you use to make the claim.
I post here from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me that I believe could save lives, prevent life-ruining conditions and addictions. I am prevented from posting what I need to show others how they could be freed from the shackles of depression and addiction. What I am prevented from posting here could eliminate one from being scared of the drugs that they take as to them being killed by the drugs or getting a life-ruining condition from them due to the prohibitions to me by Mr. Hsiung. They could also be led out of the captivity of addiction if they were allowed to hear me. This is supportive in any community unless the community wants (redacted by respondent).
I say to you that I do not have an ax to grind. I have a desire to see people freed from the shackles of depression and addiction. I recognize that there are those that will go on the road of human achievement to find a way out of depression and addiction. And many will go that way. But I have come here to seek the lost sheep that want to live in a new realm that does not have depression or addiction. This realm is not by human achievement, but by divine accomplishment. And these lost sheep could be called to sing a new song. Called to the peace that goes beyond understanding. Called to an everlasting love. Called to come out from hate. Called to come out from death. Called by The Prince of Peace. Called by The Comforter. Called by The Rider on the white horse.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2013, at 17:12:34
In reply to Re: the big picture » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on July 9, 2013, at 16:34:05
> People are asking you for action, and you're giving them a process group. Imagine if a sports referee did that in response to questions about rules or complaints about a participant's actions. How could play continue?
>
> I don't recall anyone asking you to help them process their feelings about the behavior in question. You seem to be trying to get folks to change the way they react. As Dinah pointed out, you haven't answered the main question. You're saying this is exhausting, but good lord, you're making it so much bigger than is asked of you.
>
> My unsolicited suggestion is to keep it simple. Address the specific issue one way or another, or say directly that you are declining to. Boom, question answered.
>
> Then, if folks ASK you to help them process it, feel free. But frankly, assuming that's what is really being asked or perhaps that's what you feel is needed feels patronizing and a little insulting, at least to me.gg,
You wrote,[...their feelings about {the behavior in question}...].
Without knowing what posts you are referring to, I could be put in a false light so that readers could have hostile or disagreeable feelings induced against me and decrease the respect in which I am held. The behavior can be deduced to be what I as the subject person could be thought to be my posts here. My posts come from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me and I am following the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr Hsiung. You say that there are feelings about that behavior that people have. I would like for you to post some URLs to explain what you mean by that so that I could post my response to you.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2013, at 17:28:18
In reply to Re: the big picture » sleepygirl2, posted by sleepygirl2 on July 10, 2013, at 21:16:33
> As far as the processing thing....
> Sometimes, it really goes nowhere, so I don't engage in it.
>
> If I can't solve a problem, I just accept it, and make a decision in my best interest.... Hopefully
> Like for instance,
> Not reading Lou's posts
> Not because I care all that much, I do, a little, but there's not a damn thing I can do about it.
> There doesn't seem to be anything anyone can do about it, except Lou, of course.
>
> sg,
You wrote the above.
Now I don't claim to be an A student, but the statement that you use, {there's not a damn thing I can do about it}, could induce hostile and disagreeable feelings toward me and decrease the respect that I am held. This is all because readers have a wide variety of thinking processes that some IMHO could think that there is something about me that needs to be done and that there is not a damn thing one can do. This could stigmatize me and unless you post some URLs to exemplify your statement about me, I do not have the opportunity to present my side of what you have posted to protect myself from any violence that could be induced against me as a result of people reading what you wrote about me and being led to think of me in hostile terms. You see, I do not think that posting from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me has to have something done about it, which by what you wrote about me, IMO, some people could think.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2013, at 17:54:31
In reply to Re: a refuge, posted by Dr. Bob on July 20, 2013, at 3:17:51
> > It is extremely painful and distressing to read these exchanges. In my view, you are doing two things which are enraging and infuriating everyone. The first is that you do not acknowledge everyone's concerns over Lou's breaking of the civility rules. The second is that you do not appear to respect and understand what posters are trying to communicate to you.
>
> What I hear some posters saying is that:
>
> 1a. Lou isn't being civil.
>
> 1b. Which is driving posters away from Babble, and from treatment, both of which might help them.
>
> 2. So I should enforce the civility rules.
>
> I value civility and agree that both Babble and treatment can help people.
>
> How was that?
>
> Bobtl,
Now you say,[...everyone's concerns of Lou breaking the civility rules...].
Be advised that what you have said about me here could decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile feelings toward me. Since there are no URLs here to support your claim about me, I do not have the opportunity to show that I am abiding by the prohibitions to me by Mr. Hsiung and the rules as other members also abide by in the human condition. If *everyone* is concerned about what I post here, could they also be concerned about what others post here? And I post from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me. And how are they to know what rules you say are being broken if posts by me are not able to be known so that I could show the context that the posts are in? Do you think that I could be made into a scapegoat for people's real or imagined things here that could lead to hatred toward me being promulgated toward me here? And do you think that I could be stigmatized by what you have posted here about me? Could not violence be perpetrated against me by what you have said about me here?
I am asking readers to read the post in the following link.
Lou
http:/www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1049210.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2013, at 17:59:43
In reply to Lou's response- » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2013, at 17:54:31
> > > It is extremely painful and distressing to read these exchanges. In my view, you are doing two things which are enraging and infuriating everyone. The first is that you do not acknowledge everyone's concerns over Lou's breaking of the civility rules. The second is that you do not appear to respect and understand what posters are trying to communicate to you.
> >
> > What I hear some posters saying is that:
> >
> > 1a. Lou isn't being civil.
> >
> > 1b. Which is driving posters away from Babble, and from treatment, both of which might help them.
> >
> > 2. So I should enforce the civility rules.
> >
> > I value civility and agree that both Babble and treatment can help people.
> >
> > How was that?
> >
> > Bob
>
> tl,
> Now you say,[...everyone's concerns of Lou breaking the civility rules...].
> Be advised that what you have said about me here could decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile feelings toward me. Since there are no URLs here to support your claim about me, I do not have the opportunity to show that I am abiding by the prohibitions to me by Mr. Hsiung and the rules as other members also abide by in the human condition. If *everyone* is concerned about what I post here, could they also be concerned about what others post here? And I post from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me. And how are they to know what rules you say are being broken if posts by me are not able to be known so that I could show the context that the posts are in? Do you think that I could be made into a scapegoat for people's real or imagined things here that could lead to hatred toward me being promulgated toward me here? And do you think that I could be stigmatized by what you have posted here about me? Could not violence be perpetrated against me by what you have said about me here?
> I am asking readers to read the post in the following link.
> Lou
> http:/www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1049210.html
>Friends, the correction is that the above post was intended to be a response to what twinleaf posted about me here. And the URL is:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1049210.html
Posted by Phillipa on August 17, 2013, at 20:10:25
In reply to correction: Lou's response-, posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2013, at 17:59:43
The rule of three but l0?
Posted by 10derheart on August 18, 2013, at 0:21:26
In reply to Lou's response-promo » 10derheart, posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2013, at 14:46:59
Piss off.
Posted by 10derheart on August 18, 2013, at 0:24:40
In reply to Re: correction: Lou's response- » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on August 17, 2013, at 20:10:25
Replies to each individual poster do not count toward the rule.
Oh yes, Mr. Pilder knows the rules and how to follow the ones he *wants* to follow.
Posted by Phillipa on August 18, 2013, at 20:33:06
In reply to Re: correction: Lou's response- » Phillipa, posted by 10derheart on August 18, 2013, at 0:24:40
I see does it count as a form of manipulation of the rules? Phillipa ps I didn't know this about each separate person posted to or if I did been so long since it applied to me. Forgot
Posted by 10derheart on August 18, 2013, at 22:15:49
In reply to Re: correction: Lou's response- » 10derheart, posted by Phillipa on August 18, 2013, at 20:33:06
> I see does it count as a form of manipulation of the rules?
No, I think Lou is correctly following one of the listed exceptions to the general rule. I see no manipulation.
==============================================
FAQ:Can I post as much as I want?
Please share this site with others by not starting more than 3 consecutive threads on the same board or posting more than 3 consecutive follow-ups in the same thread. More than that may discourage less confident posters from joining in. Giving them more of a chance makes it easier for them also to help -- and to feel good about doing so.
There are exceptions to every rule, and those to this one may include:
****Responding to earlier posts one at a time****.
Playing around with others at Psycho-Babble Social.
During meltdowns, clarifying posts many times.
Keeping a diary.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 20, 2013, at 9:53:33
In reply to Re: Lou's response-promo » Lou Pilder, posted by 10derheart on August 18, 2013, at 0:21:26
> Piss off.
Could you rephrase that, or apologize?
Bob
Posted by 10derheart on August 20, 2013, at 13:26:47
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » 10derheart, posted by Dr. Bob on August 20, 2013, at 9:53:33
No way.
Posted by Willful on August 20, 2013, at 16:30:05
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on August 20, 2013, at 13:26:47
This may seem irrelevant here-- but: --while I wouldn't want to ban someone, undeservedly, even for a week (or whatever Lou's ban for the moment would be), I would have to reflect a bit on what could occasion this sort of bitterness in someone who had been a trusted aide, or deputy. Of course, even trusted aides and deputies have irrational responses, and vulnerabilities that can't be charged to the account of the person who provokes the response. But then how do you account for all the community's ongoing distress at what Lou's repeatedly said and done?
It's easy to dismiss our wish to get rid of Lou as scapegoating, or as our collective attempt to banish our own anxiety or discouragement, fear of drugs, or of emotion of this or that-- and to weigh on the scale our seemingly emotional pleas, against some notion of neutral or distanced fairness to Lou who has irrationally become the locus of all dreads. It's easy to be blind Justice with a scale, and to believe that if you weigh fairness on one side, and our objections on the other, that the scales swing back and forth and that our feelings are not sufficiently heavy to weigh the scale down beyond reasonable doubt to the level of action.
And this seems to be the belief under which you defer any sanction-- and the image you have of yourself, as fair to a fairtheewell-- as just beyond all expectation of justice. Is there pressure? then refusing to bow to pressure seems the wise course. Except if the pressure is not just pressure-- but a message to you-- a sign of some truth that there you don't perceive.
Yes-- ironically, without Lou, psychobabble would for a while be a very dormant and possibly fatally wounded place. Because at least there is a flurry of passion and focus whenever a new poster appears whom Lou and "we" see as a target of opportunity. Lou, for his propaganda--or holy mission-- us for a new voice, a compatriot, who is the sign of future life.
I don't believe that Lou is to blame for the failure of this community to sustain itelf-- or that Bob's combined actions and absences in the last phase of activity here, way back when (although this is closer to the mark)-- or his long-term blocking algorithm, however ill-advised-- or the antiqueness of the board set-up-- or the recent dominance of social media-- or any these factors alone is the cause of our current dilemma.
But all that is really irrelevant. There is a false equivalence between the community and fairness to Lou-- that is easy to fall into-- and perhaps fits your temperament Bob--. If I were you, though, I would wonder about 10der's rage, and the disappointment and confusion that lies under the silence here.
Is it all irrational-- all about our own private struggles--- or is there some actual social wrong that needs to be righted? Well, we know what you'll say. Because you said it again and again. But I'd like to ask, is it really worth just blocking 10der, or is there something you don't perceive. Something that's strangled this place slowly but surely?
People don't become so pained for no reason-- and maybe you ought to ask, is there something that you need to do differently?
Willful
Posted by Twinleaf on August 20, 2013, at 20:24:43
In reply to Re: Not again, posted by Willful on August 20, 2013, at 16:30:05
Very thoughtful and insightful post, as yours so often are.
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.