![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 68 to 92 of 98. Go back in thread:
Posted by HomelyCygnet on January 24, 2014, at 16:26:01
In reply to Dr Bob Please please please don't ever block me!, posted by HomelyCygnet on January 24, 2014, at 15:53:07
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_psychology
Must set a good example for Bob re proper attribution.
Posted by Twinleaf on January 24, 2014, at 19:04:33
In reply to Dr Bob Please please please don't ever block me!, posted by HomelyCygnet on January 24, 2014, at 15:53:07
It might be too late for me to try that maneuver, but it does seem to have worked in the past!
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 24, 2014, at 23:30:07
In reply to Re: please rephrase that, posted by Twinleaf on January 23, 2014, at 12:24:34
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2014, at 0:26:56
In reply to Re: Another ramble. » SLS, posted by Twinleaf on January 24, 2014, at 10:46:39
> I was startled that you seemed to think that I wanted to replicate my therapeutic relationship in discussions with you - that seemed to me to be a very inappropriate comment, and is not evenly remotely the case.
>
> TwinleafI didn't know, so I asked. Thanks for clarifying.
--
> I perhaps have not paid enough attention to what the civility guidelines here actually are.
>
> Twinleaf> Perhaps the best way to prevent being blocked from posting is to beg Dr. Bob to be blocked and write grossly uncivil things.
>
> - ScottYou're welcome to try reverse psychology, but I see it as relatively straightforward. Pay attention to the guidelines!
I do realize that's easier said than done.
--
> The only thing that is truly unacceptable to me is that the civility rules are not applied equally. While I am punished for every little thing, others are able to say things ... and nothing happens.
>
> Twinleaf1. I wouldn't say nothing happens.
2. Are you saying you'd like to join Lou and Adorable's club?
> You are just about the most reasonable, sober, deliberative, generous, and civil poster here
>
> - ScottThat's actually one reason I'm not showing her leniency. Her posts are uncivil (IMO) more often than most posters'.
--
> I was hoping that Dr. Bob could function as a shield to protect everyone equally. I don't know.
>
> - Scott> Learning to "wear a shield" against abuse is of course something we must all do occasionally in our daily lives; it seems like a strange goal to have in a board devoted to mental health. A reasonable degree of moderation would allow a much better goal: the increasing development of mutual trust, understanding and compromise - a goal that leads to better mental health. The present goal seems to me to lead to excessive anxiety, watchfulness and suppressed anger - signs of persons who are coping with trauma. Why would one visit a mental health site for that?
>
> TwinleafI see having a refuge and being out in the world both as valuable goals. Even for persons coping with trauma. The focus at Babble has shifted from the former (when I functioned as a shield to protect everyone equally) to the latter.
Also, there isn't much sustained interest in a refuge now.
This has been a nice discussion, I hope I don't derail it by chiming in.
Bob
Posted by SLS on January 25, 2014, at 3:13:32
In reply to Re: strange goal, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2014, at 0:26:56
Dear Dr. Bob,
I've been watching.
I am missing something, though.
Perhaps you can clarify for me how to interpret the FAQ guidelines now - you know, with the racist whores and parasitic bitches and all? Are you perhaps more forgiving of the foibles of the mentally ill? Yay! Twinleaf is not mentally ill! (Not that there's anything wrong with that...). So, what you are indicating is that those who are most capable of meticulously interpreting and following your guidelines of civility shall be judged by a different standard than those who you deem to be less capable. As a psychiatrist, you would, of course, recognize psychopathology. Wouldn't it be of value to at least guide the less capable so that they become more capable of civil communication instead of presenting as if nothing had happened? At the very least, you would be guiding everyone else, even if the old nag won't drink the water.
- Scott
Posted by Ronnjee on January 25, 2014, at 9:48:57
In reply to Re: strange goal, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2014, at 0:26:56
>
> I see having a refuge and being out in the world both as valuable goals. Even for persons coping with trauma. The focus at Babble has shifted from the former (when I functioned as a shield to protect everyone equally) to the latter.
>
> BobMakes sense, Bob! Kudos
Posted by Twinleaf on January 25, 2014, at 9:53:01
In reply to Re: strange goal, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2014, at 0:26:56
Babble has become so strange! A place where certain posters can say extremely destructive, harmful things, and the recipients of this abuse are apparently given a wonderful opportunity to "grow a shield". I think this is unfair to everyone, but particularly to the ones who are saying these destructive things. It's as if you were affirming that they were too impaired to be able to improve their behavior - a horrible message! Negative and traumatic for everyone.
I, on the other hand, am considered more competent, and so, almost alone of the people posting here, I am blocked, not for being uncivil to other posters, but for speaking honestly to Bob when I feel he has made a mistake that is harmful either to another poster (Dinah) or to the functioning of the site (objecting to the civility rules being applied unequally). I am not subscribing properly to the implicit principle that Babble is basically a dictatorship! I do this because I do not believe that dictatorships are compatible with good mental health - not for the dictator, and not for those under his control.
Scott is right. The old nag will never be able to make herself drink the water, because she believes it is contaminated.
Posted by jane d on January 25, 2014, at 22:13:05
In reply to Re: strange goal, posted by Twinleaf on January 25, 2014, at 9:53:01
I think you are confusing two separate issues and therefore coming to an incorrect conclusion. First there's the issue of what is or should be allowed and the relative severity or equivalence of different violations of the rules. I doubt anyone agrees about all of that. I know I don't agree with every call on that. I never have.
I don't think your interpretation of why certain recent posts were ignored is the only one. I personally found it impossible to take them seriously. I have no clue what Bob's reasoning was. I do think he should explain it. I don't expect it.
The second issue is whether you are treated more harshly for the same violations and I think you are wrong about that. If I said to you all the things you have said to Bob, particularly if I said them over and over and over again I have no doubt I would get blocked for it. Whether or not I thought those things were true or I thought you, or Babble, would be better off for my saying them. There are certain things you just can't say about other people here.* Try substituting my name and yours into the posts you got blocked for and see if they still sound the same to you.
*I'm not sure whether I think it's good or bad that you can't say those things here. I tend to think the rules are too strict but I'm less sure of that than I once was.
Posted by sleepygirl2 on January 26, 2014, at 0:26:00
In reply to Re: strange goal » Twinleaf, posted by jane d on January 25, 2014, at 22:13:05
Hi jane,
I agree with everything you said.
Happy New Year :-)
-sid
Posted by jane d on January 26, 2014, at 1:58:39
In reply to Re: strange goal » jane d, posted by sleepygirl2 on January 26, 2014, at 0:26:00
> Happy New Year :-)
> -sidAnd a happy new year to you too!
Posted by SLS on January 26, 2014, at 6:02:55
In reply to Re: strange goal » Twinleaf, posted by jane d on January 25, 2014, at 22:13:05
You make some good points. However, there is something about about "Equal treatment under the law" that has always appealed to me. Unfortunately, I see selective enforcement occurring here.
Do you see any phrasing by posters other than Twinleaf that refers to Dr. Bob in a clearly uncivil manner and that has not been sanctioned, despite repeat offenses?
If not, then we have nowhere to go.
I understand that this is not a republic democracy.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on January 26, 2014, at 6:28:44
In reply to Re: strange goal » jane d, posted by sleepygirl2 on January 26, 2014, at 0:26:00
> Hi jane,
> I agree with everything you said.
> Happy New Year :-)
> -sid
I see that Jane has made some technically valid observations.It is interesting how two people can view a third person in very different ways.
I have a bias towards Twinleaf because I like her, and I consider her to be a valuable poster on Psycho-Babble. Because I see kindness, generosity, careful deliberation, knowledge, and intelligent reasoning in her, I get upset when I see her blocked. So, when I see others saying uncivil things on a regular basis who are not being blocked, I look for justice and see none.
I like moderation in moderation.
- Scott
Posted by HomelyCygnet on January 26, 2014, at 12:10:16
In reply to Re: strange goal, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2014, at 0:26:56
Bob a club is a voluntary association. Being put in a subcategory of posters by you for administrative purposes is not a club. Please be more precise in the future.As always
> 2. Are you saying you'd like to join Lou and Adorable's club?
>
Posted by alexandra_k on January 26, 2014, at 16:32:39
In reply to Re: strange goal, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2014, at 0:26:56
> > You are just about the most reasonable, sober, deliberative, generous, and civil poster here
> >
> > - Scott
>
> That's actually one reason I'm not showing her leniency. Her posts are uncivil (IMO) more often than most posters'.can you explain more?
Posted by HomelyCygnet on January 27, 2014, at 7:22:08
In reply to Re: puhlease, posted by alexandra_k on January 23, 2014, at 15:24:58
nothing you say is interesting or useful to me......no it isn't
not at all
Posted by Twinleaf on January 27, 2014, at 7:46:45
In reply to Re: strange goal, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2014, at 0:26:56
There was no reason for you to think a comment I made to Alex about therapy was directed at you. I should not be expected to "clarify" something which is already completely clear.
There was also no reason to ask me whether I wanted to join a "club" consisting of Lou and Adorable. I have been requesting for months that there be no clubs - that everyone be treated equally.
Please be more careful in your statements to me.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 28, 2014, at 14:02:56
In reply to Re: strange goal » Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on January 27, 2014, at 7:46:45
> There was no reason for you to think a comment I made to Alex about therapy was directed at you. I should not be expected to "clarify" something which is already completely clear.
>
> There was also no reason to ask me whether I wanted to join a "club" consisting of Lou and Adorable. I have been requesting for months that there be no clubs - that everyone be treated equally.
>
> Please be more careful in your statements to me.it astounds me that you think the phrases you were blocked for were ever tolerated as part of the rules here.
have you shown dinah the things you have been saying in your attempt to support her? what does she think? does she think the things you have been saying about (the way you have been saying things about) Bob is civil?
?
Posted by 10derheart on January 28, 2014, at 17:26:05
In reply to Re: strange goal, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2014, at 0:26:56
>....but I see it as relatively straightforward. Pay attention to the guidelines!
You mean TL has to and others have to (though I don't know who they are or when they have to) BUT HC and Lou do not have to....nor do I (sometimes), nor does SLS (sometimes)....nor does alex (sometimes) blah.... blah blah
And this is straightforward?
What guidelines? Not "could lead others to feel accused or put down" - obviously. Posts with language doing that litter the boards.
Could you find me a poster who understands what guidelines you are talking about? If so, maybe they could explain to me as I haven't understood your explanations for weeks/months.... (years?)
yowza.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2014, at 17:29:11
In reply to Re: strange goal » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on January 26, 2014, at 16:32:39
> I have a bias towards Twinleaf because I like her, and I consider her to be a valuable poster on Psycho-Babble. ... I see kindness, generosity, careful deliberation, knowledge, and intelligent reasoning in her
>
> - Scott> > > You are just about the most reasonable, sober, deliberative, generous, and civil poster here
> >
> > That's actually one reason I'm not showing her leniency. Her posts are uncivil (IMO) more often than most posters'.
>
> can you explain more?
>
> alexandra_kOne reason I'm not showing her leniency is to balance the bias that posters like Scott have. I see her as having lots of great qualities, but not as being just about the most civil poster here.
--
> The old nag will never be able to make herself drink the water, because she believes it is contaminated.
>
> TwinleafWhat does she believe would happen if she drank it?
--
> there is something about about "Equal treatment under the law" that has always appealed to me. Unfortunately, I see selective enforcement occurring here.
> I look for justice and see none.
>
> I like moderation in moderation.
>
> - ScottThe goal here is support, not justice.
One man's selectivity is another's moderation.
Bob
Posted by Twinleaf on January 28, 2014, at 19:55:13
In reply to Re: strange goal, posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2014, at 17:29:11
The reason she won't drink the water is that she thinks the civility rules are biased excessively against reasonable freedom of speech as well as reasonable standards of communication. The moderator can decide that anything he does not wish to hear constitutes a civility violation; he may also misunderstand or misinterpret what has been said. None of that ever matters; the community member is invariably punished even though he/she may honestly not understand what is wrong. To object to the fairness or reasonableness of a PBC means incurring progressively severe punishments.
This type of arbitrary punishment, unmodified by anything resembling a clarifying discussion, is very similiar to what people who have been traumatized have already experienced in their past lives. Part of becoming healthier in therapy is learning what is and is not compatible with good mental health, as well as learning what behaviors ( one's own and others') are to be avoided. I feel that acceding, without speaking up, to arbitrary, dictatorial punishments which one does not always understand or feel to be appropriate does not meet the standards one needs for healthy self-confidence and self- esteem.
The fact that these civility standards are now purposely and arbitrarily applied differently to each person is a separate distressing issue.
Almost everyone who felt as I do has left Babble by now; the few who remain appear to subscribe to the civility guidelines as they understand them.
The old nag will probably get so thirsty that she will have to go elsewhere in search of safe, clear water.
Posted by SLS on January 28, 2014, at 20:12:32
In reply to Re: strange goal » Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on January 28, 2014, at 19:55:13
Drop me a line if you are so inclined via Babblemail.
I won't take it personally if you decline.
:-)
http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/settings.pl
- Scott
Posted by Twinleaf on January 28, 2014, at 20:38:12
In reply to Re: strange goal » Twinleaf, posted by SLS on January 28, 2014, at 20:12:32
I always love talking to you, Scott, but I have purposely not used Babblemail, because I feel, perhaps wrongly, that my job security will be at risk even more than it already is with Babble on Facebook and Twitter.
Can you discuss it here in a careful fashion?
Posted by SLS on January 28, 2014, at 21:17:53
In reply to Re: strange goal » SLS, posted by Twinleaf on January 28, 2014, at 20:38:12
> I always love talking to you, Scott, but I have purposely not used Babblemail, because I feel, perhaps wrongly, that my job security will be at risk even more than it already is with Babble on Facebook and Twitter.
>
> Can you discuss it here in a careful fashion?I didn't have anything in particular to discuss with you right now.
:-)
You know, I am reluctant to share any aspects of my personal life on Psycho-Babble anymore. Certain people are quick to use all of the biographical information that they have collected about me over the years to launch personal attacks.
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2014, at 3:46:52
In reply to Re: strange goal » Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on January 28, 2014, at 19:55:13
> The reason she won't drink the water is that she thinks the civility rules are biased excessively against reasonable freedom of speech as well as reasonable standards of communication. The moderator can decide that anything he does not wish to hear constitutes a civility violation; he may also misunderstand or misinterpret what has been said. None of that ever matters; the community member is invariably punished even though he/she may honestly not understand what is wrong. To object to the fairness or reasonableness of a PBC means incurring progressively severe punishments.
>
> This type of arbitrary punishment, unmodified by anything resembling a clarifying discussion, is very similiar to what people who have been traumatized have already experienced in their past lives. Part of becoming healthier in therapy is learning what is and is not compatible with good mental health, as well as learning what behaviors ( one's own and others') are to be avoided. I feel that acceding, without speaking up, to arbitrary, dictatorial punishments which one does not always understand or feel to be appropriate does not meet the standards one needs for healthy self-confidence and self- esteem.
>
> The old nag will probably get so thirsty that she will have to go elsewhere in search of safe, clear water.Of course reasonableness is in the eye of the beholder and misunderstandings and misinterpretations are always possible. I think the old nag's reasoning is sound, but she's starting from extreme premises:
1. The moderator can decide that anything constitutes a civility violation. Punishment is arbitrary.
2. The community member is punished even if she does not understand what is wrong.
3. To object means incurring progressively severe punishments.
4. Nothing resembles a clarifying discussion.
I agree, that sounds like a recipe for trauma. People who have been traumatized may be hypervigilant. Part of becoming healthier is learning what does and does not need to be avoided, what's poisoned and what's safe.
Hmm, the old nag may already be in a club with Lou and Ahab.
Bob
Posted by HomelyCygnet on January 30, 2014, at 7:47:03
In reply to Re: people who have been traumatized, posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2014, at 3:46:52
Why are you calling posters names?
> Hmm, the old nag may already be in a club with ... and Ahab.
>
> Bob
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.