![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 134 to 158 of 225. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 21, 2013, at 7:54:55
In reply to Re: Not again, posted by Willful on August 20, 2013, at 16:30:05
> 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
>
> W,
You wrote,[...the person who provokes the response...the communities ongoing distress at what Lou's repeatedly said and done...Lou for his propaganda...people don't become so painful for no reason...].
What you have written about me here could induce disparaging, hostile or disagreeable feelings against me and decrease the regard, respect and confidence in which I am held. By you posting these things about me here without citations of posts by me to substantiate your claims about me, I do not have the opportunity to post my responses to your claims about me in their context. And further, since the claims are not specified from what I have posted here, then readers could not be sure what it is that you are using to post such claims about me. This then could mean that any of what I post here could be the subject of your claims about me.
> In,[...the communities ongoing distress at what Lou's repeatedly said and done...], along with [...what provokes the response...] could be my postings concerning the foundation of Judaism as revealed to me. This then as to what yu have posted about me could IMO arouse anti-Semitic feelings toward me as me being the cause of the [...all the community's ongoing distress...]
> Now I don't claim to be able to see the future, but what I see is IMHHHO the potential for anti-Semitism to be fostered here UNLESS THE POSTS BY ME THAT YOU USE TO WRITE SUCH CLAIMS ABOUT ME ARE CITED HERE SO THAT I HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT OUT ANY FIRE OF HATE THAT COULD BE SPREASD FROM HERE BY PEOPLE READING WHAT YOU HAVE POSTED ABOUT ME.
Now I have posted about the false charge aginst the Jews of {poisoning he well} charged against the Jews in the 1300s that they brought the bubonic plague to Europe that killed 50% of the people in a short time. The Jews were accused falsely of poisoning the wells. But that charge was impossible to happen because unbeknownst to those charging the Jews, the plague was caused by a flea in a rat that spread the disease of the plague. Now I want all readers to know here that the historical hatred against the Jews in any of its forms could cause people who entertain such, to harbor a false hatred that could turn inward to cause the one harboring this false hatred to kill themselves and or others as psychologists have written about. And Mr Hsiung does not disagree with me in a discussion we had here concerning that.
The fire of hate, when still burning could spread very fast and consume even those that start the fire, for the fire could reverse its course and reduce the starters of the fire to ashes. Remember the rat flea.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 21, 2013, at 9:32:18
In reply to Re: Not again » Willful, posted by Twinleaf on August 20, 2013, at 20:24:43
> Very thoughtful and insightful post, as yours so often are.
tl,
You wrote that Willful's post that has statements about me is thoughtful and insightful. But I do not have the opportunity to respond to whatever it is that you say is thoughtful and insightful, for the citations of posts by me and the citation of what is contained in the post by Willful that you are referring to, are not seen here in your post for me to post my response to you. Because of that, then as it is seen in your post, it could induce hostile and disagreeable feelings against me and decrease the respect and confidence in which I am held because since there is not revealed what it is that you are claiming to be thoughtful and insightful, then anything about me, since I am the subject person, could be thought by readers here.
But I ask readers, do you know where this comes from? I would like for you to take the time to look at the post from here in the following link. Now there are prohibitions to me here from Mr Hsiung that I am following in relation to posting links here. This could cause some readers to not take the time to find what I am asking them to read here. But if you do want to take the time to see this, here is how you could do so.
First go to the bottom this page to the search box. Then type in:
[babble,1046247] but be advised that when you do so, many posts will come up. To see the one in question, look for the 1046247 in the colored strip which is the URL, not in the subject line. Then there is another post that I want you to see inside that post where you have to do the same process to see a video. I would like for you to view the video and then I am going to post a follow up to that video with another video.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2013, at 0:51:07
In reply to Re: Lou's response-promo » Lou Pilder, posted by 10derheart on August 18, 2013, at 0:21:26
> Piss off.
Please be sensitive to the feelings of others.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express yourself, including a link to a nice post by Dinah on I-statements, are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on August 22, 2013, at 0:58:34
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on August 20, 2013, at 13:26:47
I'm sorry you got blocked. Even if it is what you wanted... I'm sorry that you wanted / needed for that to happen...
I hope you come back and Babble with me. I have been trying not to take it personally that you have been ignoring me.
Sniff.
((((((10))))))
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2013, at 1:19:40
In reply to Re: Not again, posted by Willful on August 20, 2013, at 16:30:05
> 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.
>
> It's easy ... 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.
>
> maybe you ought to ask, is there something that you need to do differently?I'm doing things differently now. I think some posters may actually prefer how I did things before.
Posters could also ask if there's something they could do differently. If they didn't feel powerless.
I did wonder what occasioned 10der's post. What she said was:
> > the fact you won't block me tells me what I wondered about and wanted to know, so thanks for that.
I thought what occasioned it was wondering if I was still enforcing the rules, which I'd been saying I still was. What do you think occasioned her post?
That's an interesting image: a scale with fairness to Lou on one side and other posters' feelings on the other. That would seem to imply:
1. If I didn't block Lou it would be because those posters didn't feel strongly enough, or I wasn't taking their feelings seriously enough.
2. If they did feel strongly enough, or I took their feelings seriously enough, I'd be unfair to Lou.
I also wonder about Lou's posts. What do you think occasions them?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on August 22, 2013, at 4:12:03
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on August 20, 2013, at 13:26:47
Posted by Dinah on August 22, 2013, at 4:15:59
In reply to Re: Not again, posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2013, at 1:19:40
> I also wonder about Lou's posts. What do you think occasions them?
>
> BobIf I were Lou, I think I'd prefer that you lay down rules and follow them rather than encourage discussions about him. On the one hand, I'm a big fan of understanding others. But on the other hand, that sort of discussion can often lead to hurt feelings.
There's been a lot of discussion about incivility from Lou. But under the new way of doing things, there has also been far more incivility towards Lou than would previously have been accepted.
I feel uncomfortable about such an atmosphere, on both sides.
Posted by Partlycloudy on August 22, 2013, at 7:29:43
In reply to ((( 10der ))) (nm), posted by Dinah on August 22, 2013, at 4:12:03
Posted by homelycygnet on August 22, 2013, at 8:15:03
In reply to Re: Not again, posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2013, at 1:19:40
Posted by Phillipa on August 22, 2013, at 20:37:47
In reply to Re: Not again, posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2013, at 1:19:40
Since I have occasionally also emailed with him he sounds rational in his emails but irrational almost psychotic here. Sometimes I wonder if he's some sort of lawyer? Or an experiment? I don't know all guesses
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 22, 2013, at 21:16:44
In reply to Re: Not again » Dr. Bob, posted by Phillipa on August 22, 2013, at 20:37:47
> Since I have occasionally also emailed with him he sounds rational in his emails but irrational almost psychotic here. Sometimes I wonder if he's some sort of lawyer? Or an experiment? I don't know all guesses
P,
You wrote,[...him...irrational almost psychotic here...].
I could be thought to be the subject person in your post. What you have written about me could reduce the regard and respect and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile opinions or feelings against me. The fact that you have not cited any URL of a post to substantiate your claim against me prevents me from showing the context of any post that you could be using, and prevents me from posting my response to you concerning your claims here about me.
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on August 23, 2013, at 18:23:56
In reply to Lou's response-earratnul » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on August 22, 2013, at 21:16:44
I guess you will be unable to then. Phillipa
Posted by HomelyCygnet on August 25, 2013, at 15:24:47
In reply to Re: Not again » Dr. Bob, posted by Phillipa on August 22, 2013, at 20:37:47
Since you are inviting us to speculate about the motives of others..........And I thought it was against your rules to bring off board emails onto the board. I am tired of your obvious discrimination against Lou and your game playing and your general jackassery. And even though I thought their willingness to carry out your nastiness was despicable, I think your disloyalty to your former deputy girls is despicable too.
Bye :)
> Since I have occasionally also emailed with him he sounds rational in his emails but irrational almost psychotic here. Sometimes I wonder if he's some sort of lawyer? Or an experiment? I don't know all guesses
Posted by HomelyCygnet on August 25, 2013, at 16:48:35
In reply to Bob, civil to mention Phillipa sounds paranoid?, posted by HomelyCygnet on August 25, 2013, at 15:24:47
Go ahead and start the discussion without me. I have to go out and buy some more asterisks.
Posted by 10derheart on August 29, 2013, at 20:19:16
In reply to Re: blocked for week » 10derheart, posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2013, at 0:51:07
That was quite refreshing.
Posted by 10derheart on August 29, 2013, at 20:22:21
In reply to Bob, civil to mention Phillipa sounds paranoid?, posted by HomelyCygnet on August 25, 2013, at 15:24:47
>>And even though I thought their willingness to carry out your nastiness was despicable,
oh, thank you, dahling, you are always so very, very kind and complimentary. At least some things are consistent.
- NastyDespicableHeart
whoo hoo!!
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 30, 2013, at 22:12:03
In reply to Bob, civil to mention Phillipa sounds paranoid?, posted by HomelyCygnet on August 25, 2013, at 15:24:47
> their willingness to carry out your nastiness was despicable
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express yourself, including a link to a nice post by Dinah on I-statements, are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
PS: This block is the result of one action, but its length is the result of a pattern of actions. The block length formula:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
takes into account how long the previous block was, how long it's been since the previous block, and how uncivil the current post is:
duration of previous block = 1 week
period of time since previous block = 2 weeks
severity = 2 (default) + 1 (uncivil toward particular individual or group) + 1 (uncivil in multiple posts at same time) = 4
block length = 3.84 rounded = 4 weeks
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 30, 2013, at 22:12:50
In reply to thanks » Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on August 29, 2013, at 20:19:16
Posted by Twinleaf on September 2, 2013, at 19:01:07
In reply to Re: blocked for 4 weeks, posted by Dr. Bob on August 30, 2013, at 22:12:03
I am disappointed to see the same formula for calculating blocks. It leads so rapidly to unconstructive months-long blocks for very minor issues. In the years that we have been discussing this, I don't believe I ever saw any poster support for this way of blocking. Almost everyone who has voiced an opinion has been in favor of short, occasional blocks. I have a terrible feeling that we are just wasting our time asking for any constructive changes. I feel that you are just toying with us.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 3, 2013, at 12:37:37
In reply to Re: blocked for 4 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on September 2, 2013, at 19:01:07
> I am disappointed to see the same formula for calculating blocks. It leads so rapidly to unconstructive months-long blocks for very minor issues. In the years that we have been discussing this, I don't believe I ever saw any poster support for this way of blocking. Almost everyone who has voiced an opinion has been in favor of short, occasional blocks. I have a terrible feeling that we are just wasting our time asking for any constructive changes. I feel that you are just toying with us.
I acknowledge and respect that you (and others) have different opinions about the formula. Reasonable people can disagree.
Regarding just this specific case, it wasn't a months-long block. Did you consider the issue very minor?
Bob
Posted by Twinleaf on September 3, 2013, at 14:22:59
In reply to Re: the formula, posted by Dr. Bob on September 3, 2013, at 12:37:37
No, I think a block was appropriate. I am just discouraged to see the old formula in operation, despite the extensive negative reaction towards it in this forum. It's true that this was not a months-long block, but, if you follow your formula, the next one will be. I think the most distressing part of this, for me, is that, despite years of negative opinion about your blocking policy, you suddenly start using exactly the same one again. Why not try out a more flexible, updated policy - one that has the support of at least some forum members?
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.