Psycho-Babble Administration | about the operation of this site | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: resorting to blocking again :-(

Posted by Dr. Bob on July 26, 2002, at 4:41:14

In reply to Re: Kid_A's 'anti-semitic' post Lou Pilder , posted by kid_A on July 25, 2002, at 20:34:57

> > it is the people here that are shakeled in their addictions and slaves to their depression that have a right to , at least, hear about the seed so that they can make their decision themselves to either walk away or allow the seed to grow.
> Please explain to me why this is not an example of proselytizing, and if you agree that it is, why it's ok?
> Mair

Well, OK, maybe it is. But if it's considered proselytizing even to post about how your faith has helped you (because that may plant a seed that later grows), then IMO there's not going to be much left to post about there.

But proselytizing per se never made it into the FAQ. Believe it or not, I try to have as few rules as possible, and when it first came up:

I thought the issues were that others might feel put down or pressured. So if someone can "proselytize" in a way to doesn't put others down or pressure them, I consider that OK.


> > What makes you think these rules are just to address the issue of Lou?
> You make think all of the discussions since the origination of the faith board have broader applications and perhaps they do, but in my view they arose because of the unique problems which Lou poses for many posters. The guidelines might have had to have been thrashed out eventually, but it would have been in a different, and probably (albeit speculatively) less hostile climate.
> Mair

I think they came up because of Lou, but have broader implications. And that whenever something has to be thrashed out, there's going to be tension in the climate.


> I have never advocated that anyone's post here be censored except the one's that defame people like one of your posts with CamW and Kid_A that demened Islamic people. In fact, on that post, there was the advocating of genocide.
> Lou

Would you send me the URLs of any posts that defamed Islamic people or advocated genocide? Thanks.


> That statement of yours, then to me, indicates that you did see the anti-Semitic rhetoric on the post
> Lou

Sorry, but I've asked that people not jump to conclusions about others, so I'm going to block you from posting again, for 8 weeks this time since it was for 4 last time.


> You have acted cruelly towards me, Lou. I honestly hope that you are a sincere person, but I must say that it seems at times as if you are not.

Sorry, but I've asked that people not post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, so I'm going to block you from posting again, for 2 weeks this time since it was for 1 last time.

> Lou, you are the problem. I have been asked - is Lou the problem? Yes. Yes, you are. Again, I fear that even without you the board will not be the same, but the downfall is your doing. It is your fault.
> - Krazy Kat

Here are a couple quotes from those group dynamics links:

> > The second basic assumption group is Fight/Flight. When this is operative, there will be some [more basic] issue present which will most likely not be articulated, which the team feels to be threatening. It behaves as if this is a threat to its survival which must be fought or run away from. In the fight mode members may be in an uproar fighting amongst themselves, expressing a lot of anger at the organization... Alternatively, in the flight mode they may spend too much time on side issues, and there may be a lot of lateness or absenteeism.

> > Members of the group project their demands on the leader, who is expected to react with demands of fight or flight, and if he does not, he is ignored. His suggestions about finding out what is going on in the group, is easily hindered by counter-suggestions, which are expressions of hate or aggression. In other words the leader will be ignored unless he opens up the fight-flight theme, so he is ignored when he tries to work on the real task.

Am I succumbing by doing all this blocking now? I see it as setting limits, but...


> I wish, along with you and I'm sure others, that Lou would 'go away' as well
> tina

Sorry, but again, I've asked that people not post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, so I'm going to block you from posting for 1 week.


> Could you clarify for every one reading how you possibly could think that posting your experiences, off & on, over a period of 7 months, picking up & retelling many of the same experiences, posting innumerable complaints over what has been perceived by you as slanderous posts, objecting to the choice of words, or paths others have mentioned, & quibbling about other, mostly minor, details has been supportive or encouraging to all, or for that matter, any one else?
> IsoM

Sorry, but I've also asked that people not be sarcastic, either, so I'm going to block you from posting for 1 week.


> For all intents and purposes you have without question ruined what used to be a welcome community...

Please be civil:

> many people who I have happily made acquaintance with here have left this board because of its entropic nature as of late.

That's my fault, sorry, I think I let this go on too long. Hoping that people could work things out, you know...





Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post

Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.


Start a new thread

Google www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Administration | Framed

poster:Dr. Bob thread:6603