![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 69 to 93 of 142. Go back in thread:
Posted by SLS on December 10, 2013, at 20:13:58
In reply to Re: Please, posted by Dr. Bob on December 10, 2013, at 18:03:49
> Dinah has you to protect her, but Lou has no one. So I need to protect him.
What is it that you need to protect Lou from?
- Scott
Posted by Phillipa on December 10, 2013, at 20:49:22
In reply to Re: Please » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on December 10, 2013, at 20:13:58
Himself?
Posted by Moishe Pipik on December 14, 2013, at 12:06:05
In reply to Re: Please » SLS, posted by Phillipa on December 10, 2013, at 20:49:22
Talk about beating a dead horse! The situation, if there really IS a situation, has been existent for a very long time, yet many members apparently cannot get beyond it. Lou has been repetitively posting pretty much the same thing for YEARS, and I'm rather surprised that so many still haven't decided to simply ignore that which they can do nothing about, except to gripe about it incessantly. Like ALL forums, opposing views are common, with the opposers always convinced that they are on the correct side. Like all forums, there are annoyingly strident posters. And like in life, nobody is going to be talked out of their positions, regardless of evidence or logic.
So, where does this leave us? And where does it lead us? For me, the answer is to (try to) simply ignore posts or posters that are useless to ME. As for correcting "misinformation", who is truly qualified to even identify what is misinformation and what is not? Face it - mental healthcare is is a difficult and much-debated thing, in general. So, why would it be any different here? I don't think it's realistic to expect these boards to be angst-free.
It is sad to see so much distress, distress that I believe is primarily the responsibility of the distressed individual.
For me, I'll try to take the "high road" of live and let live.
It seems that some here espouse a crime-and-punishment model, with the belief that the possibility of PBCs or blocks act as a deterrent to certain behaviors. Looking at our society, it is quite apparent that the model DOES NOT work, but nobody seems to learn from the failures. Sigh.
Posted by Dinah on December 14, 2013, at 12:16:54
In reply to Sorry to see so much distress, posted by Moishe Pipik on December 14, 2013, at 12:06:05
It's been going on a long time. Surely you have learned not to read the discussions if they distress you?
It is not about crime and punishment. If there is no crime, there is no punishment. It is about giving Lou the honor of being treated like everyone else, and giving others the honor of not being treated badly.
It is only fairly recently that Dr. Bob has openly declared his intent not to administrate against Lou. That is a recent disclosure. Before we could only guess. My guess as to his reasons were certainly not that he felt like Lou had no friends so he needed to guarantee Lou having no friends by allowing him to be uncivil to others.
That doesn't make sense to me. I find it insulting both to Lou and to me and to others.
But if you don't understand that, why not follow your own advice? You didn't need to say anything on the earlier thread about zzd asking for a deregister button either. You chose to. Why?
Posted by Moishe Pipik on December 14, 2013, at 12:27:06
In reply to So why are you seeing it? » Moishe Pipik, posted by Dinah on December 14, 2013, at 12:16:54
Dinah, like you, I have opinions, have learned a few things, etc.. So, occasionally, I voice my opinions about some stuff that happens here. Sure, I know it probably won't change anyone's mind or anything, but it's just my opinion, and maybe, just maybe, someone might benefit from it.
And it also gives me the opportunity to continue to improve my written communication skills (assuming I had any in the first place), to see if I can do it better than before.
I AM, however, baffled by your apparent umbridge regarding my post.
Posted by Dinah on December 14, 2013, at 12:30:06
In reply to Re: So why are you seeing it? » Dinah, posted by Moishe Pipik on December 14, 2013, at 12:27:06
It seemed like you were saying we should just ignore what bothered us, since it was ongoing.
Since you seemed to be posting about something that bothered you, it seemed self-contradictory.
And I suppose I often get the sense that you are being ironic at my expense. I could be wrong.
Posted by Moishe Pipik on December 14, 2013, at 12:39:48
In reply to Re: So why are you seeing it? » Moishe Pipik, posted by Dinah on December 14, 2013, at 12:30:06
Sure, I can see how it might be self-contradictory. And it came as no surprise that someone here would quickly point that out. Gee, would that be at my expense?
I keep learning more and more of the value of simply doing nothing about some things, and that's what I was encouraging. Especially about things that probably can't be "fixed".
Posted by Dinah on December 14, 2013, at 12:42:04
In reply to Re: So why are you seeing it? » Dinah, posted by Moishe Pipik on December 14, 2013, at 12:39:48
You asked. I answered.
You didn't ask in the past. I didn't volunteer.
It's not intended to be at your expense. I was being honest in saying that I frequently feel vaguely hurt by what you post. Because you asked why I seemed angry.
Posted by Moishe Pipik on December 14, 2013, at 12:45:29
In reply to Re: So why are you seeing it? » Moishe Pipik, posted by Dinah on December 14, 2013, at 12:42:04
Why would you be "vaguely hurt" by my posts. Why would you give me, or anybody, that power?
Posted by Dinah on December 14, 2013, at 12:51:59
In reply to Re: So why are you seeing it? » Dinah, posted by Moishe Pipik on December 14, 2013, at 12:45:29
Perhaps the fact that I can't, and wouldn't even want to, grow a thick skin, explains much of what you probably find annoying about me.
The only way *I* can do that is to not give a tinker's damn about others. And I don't want to not give a tinker's damn about even someone whose posts often leave me feeling vaguely hurt.
I can and do accept that it appears you don't like me. So it isn't that. I can and do accept the fact that more people than not dislike me. Or if they don't think about me enough to dislike me, at least find me offputting. I can and do accept the fact that very few people in the world would actually say they like me.
If you didn't know before that I felt hurt by your posts, you now know. If you don't care, that's your business.
Posted by Moishe Pipik on December 14, 2013, at 13:29:00
In reply to Re: So why are you seeing it? » Moishe Pipik, posted by Dinah on December 14, 2013, at 12:51:59
The assumption of me "not liking" you is yours. However, I do think you seem to endlessly torture yourself. I sincerely hope you find ways out of some of it. And with that, I'm done.
Posted by SLS on December 14, 2013, at 14:07:40
In reply to Sorry to see so much distress, posted by Moishe Pipik on December 14, 2013, at 12:06:05
Hi Ron.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on December 14, 2013, at 14:11:49
In reply to Re: So why are you seeing it? » Dinah, posted by Moishe Pipik on December 14, 2013, at 12:45:29
Certainly, there must be deeper pools for you to swim for.
- Scott
Posted by alexandra_k on December 14, 2013, at 14:23:57
In reply to Sorry to see so much distress, posted by Moishe Pipik on December 14, 2013, at 12:06:05
Well, your post helped me. I guess I feel similarly.
Don't get me wrong, I do think a great deal of Dinah and others. I am sad that they feel distressed about this. Dinah has helped me a great deal over the years. Most especially by banging on about her different opinion so that eventually... I think I did come to understand her view that little bit more. Like the coral colony idea.
In this particular case... I feel more bad for Lou than for others. I feel bad that I can't be a better friend to him... I simply don't understand him. I'm not sure what it is but I simply can't parse his posts.
> Talk about beating a dead horse! The situation, if there really IS a situation, has been existent for a very long time, yet many members apparently cannot get beyond it. Lou has been repetitively posting pretty much the same thing for YEARS, and I'm rather surprised that so many still haven't decided to simply ignore that which they can do nothing about, except to gripe about it incessantly. Like ALL forums, opposing views are common, with the opposers always convinced that they are on the correct side. Like all forums, there are annoyingly strident posters. And like in life, nobody is going to be talked out of their positions, regardless of evidence or logic.
> So, where does this leave us? And where does it lead us? For me, the answer is to (try to) simply ignore posts or posters that are useless to ME. As for correcting "misinformation", who is truly qualified to even identify what is misinformation and what is not? Face it - mental healthcare is is a difficult and much-debated thing, in general. So, why would it be any different here? I don't think it's realistic to expect these boards to be angst-free.
>
> It is sad to see so much distress, distress that I believe is primarily the responsibility of the distressed individual.
>
> For me, I'll try to take the "high road" of live and let live.
>
> It seems that some here espouse a crime-and-punishment model, with the belief that the possibility of PBCs or blocks act as a deterrent to certain behaviors. Looking at our society, it is quite apparent that the model DOES NOT work, but nobody seems to learn from the failures. Sigh.
Posted by Dinah on December 14, 2013, at 14:26:19
In reply to Re: Sorry to see so much distress » Moishe Pipik, posted by alexandra_k on December 14, 2013, at 14:23:57
> In this particular case... I feel more bad for Lou than for others. I feel bad that I can't be a better friend to him... I simply don't understand him. I'm not sure what it is but I simply can't parse his posts.
Do you think it possible that those two statements might be related?
Posted by Dinah on December 14, 2013, at 14:31:28
In reply to Re: Sorry to see so much distress » Moishe Pipik, posted by alexandra_k on December 14, 2013, at 14:23:57
And you should have been here long enough to know that I would treat Lou well enough should he stop years of accusing former deputies of conspiring with Dr. Bob towards antisemitic acts. I wonder how you'd feel after years and years of accusations? I don't really remember you responding particularly well to accusations.
It hurts me that you feel that way, and it hurts me that Dr. Bob feels that way.
Why does anyone think I want Lou punished, or to be treated badly by anyone. I just want the accusations to STOP. Is that so f*ck*ng much to ask?
Posted by alexandra_k on December 14, 2013, at 14:49:20
In reply to Re: Sorry to see so much distress » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on December 14, 2013, at 14:31:28
i think those statements probably are related. i used to feel baffled and confused a lot reading his posts. i don't feel that way anymore. i've stopped trying to understand them. i feel a bit bad about that (that i can't be supportive to him), but there it is.
what else would he post about? you say that what you post about lou doesn't affect how other people view him - only how they view you. why can't you similarly see that the things that lou posts about bob or you or deputies or administration or god or what ever doesn't affect how other people view those things. it mostly affects how people feel about lou. it mostly seems to have... alienated everyone from him except for bob. and you think that if he is unable to change his posting behaviour to tow your line he should lose even that?
i think... maybe lou can't stop. like how people with tourette's have offensive language outbursts sometimes. lou isn't utilizing his behaviour to muster a group of supporters... his behaviour seems to be alienating most everyone. i don't know how he does off the boards... i don't expect things go very much better.
i think... you are capable of greater trust. to see that the majority of posters or readers... or... the posters / readers whose opinions matter... aren't so fickle as to make negative or hostile judgements about you (deputies, administration, or bob) on the basis of taking considerable time parsing lengthy posts. especially if there fairly persistently are false positives about wolves... most people... learn to ignore the alarm. or... wonder if the alarm is tracking something different.
i don't know. but i'm glad that bob can interact with lou positively. and i'm sad that others won't. because i'm not at all sure that lou can change his behaviour much more than he has already.
Posted by SLS on December 14, 2013, at 20:28:27
In reply to Re: Sorry to see so much distress, posted by alexandra_k on December 14, 2013, at 14:49:20
> it mostly seems to have... alienated everyone from him except for bob.
Cause and effect? Personal responsibility?
Sometimes, I treat Lou Pilder as an adult. I realize that this is magnanimous of me, but I figured someone should. Adults experience negative consequence for some of their behaviors. Often, these consequences include alienation.
> and you think that if he is unable to change his posting behaviour to tow your line he should lose even that?
Are you accusing Dinah of behaviors that would lead others to become antisemitic?
Hasn't Mr. Pilder already done this to all of the former deputies?
In the past, Dinah has acted singularly and with vehemence to advocate for Lou Pilder. I can't speak for her to describe how she feels now, but she does not seem to advocate for him in the same way anymore. But then again, Lou Pilder has changed his posting behavior over the years. He was allowed to. There was no moderation.
I sincerely would like for you to be more vocal about your reactions to Lou Pilder's posts as they are being submitted. Dinah and I and others have been doing this - mostly in a civil manner - for quite a few years. I'm sure you know this. I know that you are under no obligation to do participate, but just in case you wanted to get involved...
What did you think when you read Lou Pilder's admonishing parents not to allow their children to swallow drugs that contained benzene rings in them; that to do so would result in acts of suicide or homicide.
Just curious.
- Scott
Posted by 10derheart on December 14, 2013, at 21:12:02
In reply to Re: Sorry to see so much distress » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on December 14, 2013, at 14:31:28
>>Why does anyone think I want Lou punished, or to be treated badly by anyone. I just want the accusations to STOP. Is that so f*ck*ng much to ask?
Exactly what I also have been asking for all along. It's **why** it's so infuriating for Dr. Bob to divert into rabbit-holes every damn thing said instead of just saying: yes or no - is being called an anti-semite and fosterer of antisemitism uncvil at Babble???????? If so, will it be stopped?
His silence and obfuscation shows the answers to both is apparently "no." Whcih I guess (STUPIDLY) I find so hard t believe of Dr. Bob I actually keep asking....idiot me.
I am perfectly willing to treat Lou like I HAVE ALWAYS TREATED HIM and to protect him from others which I have done TIME AND TIME AGAIN, to include sanctioning and even blocking others because they were rude to Lou[WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ONE (intentionally) UNCIVIL POST BY ME TO LOU IN 10 YEARS].
ALL I've been saying to Dr. Bob is how simple this is...yet he refuses to even say - privately or publicly- that what Lou says about deputies past or present IS accusatory at all.
This is beyond ridiculous. Lou has not always accused in this way, so why should I jump to the conclusion he can't restrain himself now?
Posted by SLS on December 14, 2013, at 23:01:04
In reply to Re: Sorry to see so much distress » Dinah, posted by 10derheart on December 14, 2013, at 21:12:02
> This is beyond ridiculous. Lou has not always accused in this way, so why should I jump to the conclusion he can't restrain himself now?
Lou Pilder can restrain himself, especially when civility is circumscribed and enforced. He has restrained himself in the past, especially when posting blocks loomed as a moderator's sanction. Why should he restrain himself now, though? He has his goals. He pushes the envelope further and further to pursue them. He does not appear to respond to positive reinforcement. So, it is likely that he will continue to blame deputies for allowing for the arousal of antisemitism.
I waffle on this whole thing. I wish to see Dr. Bob enhance the quality of Lou Pilder's life. I also want to see Dr. Bob enhance the quality of experiences in the Psycho-Babble community as a whole. Ideally, the quality of life of the whole can be enhanced by enhancing the life of the individual. But what happens when the behavior of that individual remains problematic?
Today was a good day, I think.
I encourage Lou Pilder to continue his discourse with Dr. Bob until all of his issues are resolved. I encourage Dr. Bob to continue his discourse with Lou Pilder while refining his concept of civility and how best to promote it. It looks to me like this has already been established as the doctor's plan. Of course, I could be wrong. Either way, I encourage Dr. Bob to help the community understand his present actions and perhaps describe how he would like to see Psycho-Babble operate in the future.
I understand that Dr. Bob does not owe anyone an explanation.
- Scott
Posted by Moishe Pipik on December 15, 2013, at 10:47:22
In reply to Re: Sorry to see so much distress, posted by SLS on December 14, 2013, at 23:01:04
TV? Newspapers? Magazines? We all are exposed to endless messages, many of which are unwelcome, unsettling, annoying, shocking, etc..
Our choices in regard to most media (and PB IS media) are our own. If there is content we don't like, our choices are simple: Ignore the "offensive" stuff, or opt out of said media entirely. Would anyone here actually expect a TV or radio station to adjust their content to suit themselves? (I suppose there may well be some who write complaints, or editorials, although to no avail).
There is simply no end to the possibilities of being exposed to things we don't like, so is it reasonable or possible to have those sources custom-tailored in some way that's perfect for everyone? I don't think so. Yet, that is what's often asked in the Admin section.
Are there any other strategies that can allow PB members to remain PB members, yet be able to weather posters and posts that are tiresome, negative, hostile, whatever?
I'll add that I am a Jew, and the assertions of anti-semitism that have been posted are complete and utter nonsense. But the poster can continue until he/she is blue in the face, because it IS nonsense, and I recognize it as such, and do not take it seriously.
Note: If you feel the need to express your thinly-veiled hostility, knock yourself out - I will not respond.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 15, 2013, at 13:47:26
In reply to Would you expect the same of other media?, posted by Moishe Pipik on December 15, 2013, at 10:47:22
> TV? Newspapers? Magazines? We all are exposed to endless messages, many of which are unwelcome, unsettling, annoying, shocking, etc..
>
> Our choices in regard to most media (and PB IS media) are our own. If there is content we don't like, our choices are simple: Ignore the "offensive" stuff, or opt out of said media entirely. Would anyone here actually expect a TV or radio station to adjust their content to suit themselves? (I suppose there may well be some who write complaints, or editorials, although to no avail).
>
> There is simply no end to the possibilities of being exposed to things we don't like, so is it reasonable or possible to have those sources custom-tailored in some way that's perfect for everyone? I don't think so. Yet, that is what's often asked in the Admin section.
>
> Are there any other strategies that can allow PB members to remain PB members, yet be able to weather posters and posts that are tiresome, negative, hostile, whatever?
>
> I'll add that I am a Jew, and the assertions of anti-semitism that have been posted are complete and utter nonsense. But the poster can continue until he/she is blue in the face, because it IS nonsense, and I recognize it as such, and do not take it seriously.
>
> Note: If you feel the need to express your thinly-veiled hostility, knock yourself out - I will not respond.Friends,
It is written here,[...assertions of anti-Semitism that have been posted are complete and utter nonsense...].
That conclusion posted by the member could be determined to be true or not by understanding what constitutes a statement that is anti-Semitic and also what constitutes a {policy} that is anti-Semitic and what constitutes what is known as anti-Judaism and then examining the content here in regards to what is here as being applied to the definitions of generally accepted meanings of what constitutes anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism.
Here is a list of the generally accepted meanings of what constitutes anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism that could be used for readers to make their own determination as to the veracity of the claim by the member here.
Lou
[ admin, 844756 ]
Posted by SLS on December 15, 2013, at 15:08:48
In reply to Would you expect the same of other media?, posted by Moishe Pipik on December 15, 2013, at 10:47:22
> Note: If you feel the need to express your thinly-veiled hostility, knock yourself out - I will not respond.
Whatever it was that I expressed, it was by no means veiled. Besides, the "deeper waters" metaphor is yours, not mine. It is good of you to finally admit the hostility to be found in it. The irony is sad.
It is valuable to society that at least some people read things that upset them. It is a part of the process that leads to change.
Anyway, I hope you have elected to read this post despite your vow not to. I wanted you to know that your posts upset me. This is a good thing, though. It helps me to remember why I like myself so much.
Have a sunny day.
- Scott
Posted by alexandra_k on December 15, 2013, at 16:31:37
In reply to Re: Would you expect the same of other media? » Moishe Pipik, posted by SLS on December 15, 2013, at 15:08:48
> It is valuable to society that at least some people read things that upset them. It is a part of the process that leads to change.
It can do. I went to a talk at conference that was about 'deeply held beliefs' (along with 5 candidates for what sorts of things those might be / how to characterize them). The issue was: How to get people thinking critically about them. And why it was that students scoring over 90% in their final critical reasoning exam (at least in part according to me! ha!) might not think critically when questioned by a philosopher... (Peter Singer's arguments against the habitual eating of factory farmed meat just because we happen to like the taste of its flesh).
Said they didn't want to think on it.
One idea was... That there needs to be a follow up critical thinking course. Maybe with psychology. To give students the tools they need to think critically.
Some things are too hard to look at...
It does seem important that some people look. But it seems more important that those who do look are those who have the tools to take what they have seen and do something constructive with it. For themself (their own conduct) yes. And perhaps to have some impact on the system to lessen harms...
But if one looks...
And becomes seriously distressed onself... To the point where one needs help... Without the skills to productively respond to what has been seen... Well... Better for all concerned if they didn't look. I would have thought. Otherwise it is adding to the problem rather than assisting in a solution.
Posted by SLS on December 15, 2013, at 16:49:20
In reply to Re: Would you expect the same of other media?, posted by alexandra_k on December 15, 2013, at 16:31:37
> And becomes seriously distressed onself... To the point where one needs help... Without the skills to productively respond to what has been seen... Well...
I guess there is a balance in there somewhere. I don't like to see people in distress who have no sense of control.
> Better for all concerned if they didn't look.
Or is it a good thing that people get so upset that it calls others into action?
I keep thinking back on the American Revolution. Would Thomas Paine have written "Common Sense" without having been upset by what he read?
- Scott
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.