![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 50 to 74 of 255. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 22:37:20
In reply to Re: But I won't succeed, you see. » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 22:26:04
Lets just see how this turns out, shall we???
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 22, 2005, at 23:47:35
In reply to Re: Gabbi, posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 21:53:51
> > I've been well schooled in that, and I do know the semantic difference, but as I said, most people I speak to, except those who've been in therapy, don't interpret the two any differently,long as there is and "I feel" or "I find" in front of it it's assumed it's personal, and not a generalization.
>
> Yeah. The distinction only becomes important when one is very upset, I guess. Or (I would like to maintain in my thesis) when one is delusional...
>
> > Nothing is inevitable though, much of what people find *offensive* in general, and in the civility rules is societally influenced and people would be just as *offended* if society deemed the opposite to be offensive.
>
> Well... I think it is fairly clear when someone is being accused or attacked... Maybe human beings (in general - of all cultures) are similar enough (on some level of abstraction) to be able to talk about 'inevitable human responses'. At least... It would help the notion of 'objective' (read 'inter-subjective') ethics if that was indeed the case...
>
> >That I find to be contradictory to "owning emotions" and that is what bothered me. The statement that somehow if you owned your emotions then this particular thing wouldn't bother you.
>
> Wouldn't bother you AS MUCH. That was the key there. It wouldn't bother you AS MUCH. It still might bother you enough so that you are better off avoiding the poster... But not enough to get really upset about it and risk lashing out at the poster.Oh was there an "as much" in there? Shame on me, it didn't register, and it does make a huge difference.
>
> > I don't think story is a good word.
>
> Ah. I think working out 'intentions' and 'reasons' is a process of narrative construction (aka 'story'). There are different options... Different ways we can construe the 'story'. If you ask 'but what REALLY happened??? What is the TRUE story???' then there isn't really an answer. There isn't really a fact of the matter (the process of interpretation is irreducibly underdetermined - and there is a fundamental indeterminacy). What that means is that (IMO) we are best off to employ the 'principle of charity' to construct the most 'helpful' story. In the sense that you can't change the facts - but there is a lot of leeway in the interpretation of the facts. If consider different interpretations then we find that some of those interpretations lead to us feeling bad - and others lead to us feeling much better about ourselves and others. IMO one is better off picking the interpretation that has the good consequences. It just makes life a whole heap nicer.Definitely, erring on the side of compassion, (if there is an "err")
And yes, I took story to be "telling yourself a story" as in kidding yourself. That makes a big difference too.
>
> > However, there have been other posters who have annoyed me, and no matter what I tried to convince myself I could not believe that they were not being rude. So I don't think it's something everyone can do. You need to believe it, otherwise it's insincere and that's no good to anyone. I think it would be more honorable to just ignore the person.
>
> Yes.
> Maybe it would be helpful to post to a 'buddy' who might be able to help you out there with respect to 'charity'???Oh of course, or to let off steam. Someone may offend me, but honestly usually I don't think what I feel in that regard is that important.
So someone offends me.. I'll deal with it. I don't necessarily try to make myself think positively about it, unless I truly believe they have good intentions. Of course it's not up to me to judge that, but it's been dangerous to me to always override my feelings. That's another reason I dislike C.B.T.When I worked in a group home with violent clients I was forever suppressing the natural urge to get angry. Eventually I accepted abuse in my personal life as well, and became unable to know what I was feeling.
I still haven't recovered from that, and I value my emotional reactions. When I intellectualize them to the point that they are not emotions, It may at times minimize the negative but I automatically negate the good as well, and that in itself is negative.>
> You are welcome, have anotherI do think I will.
(((Alex)))
: )
>
>
>
>
Posted by Minnie-Haha on May 23, 2005, at 11:34:21
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » Minnie-Haha, posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 21:01:57
First, I’d like to apologize to those who are upset by this topic or who are just plain tired of it. Some of you have been here many years and have seen this issue rise and fall over and over. I guess that’s a downside of being an old-timer here, but I do appreciate your feedback. Minnie
;-)
~> > Regardless of whether or not we as a group agree on if the behavior is uncivil, I am so glad some agree that it's not uncivil to bring it up. If it's not uncivil to ask if what others post is uncivil, I don't see how it's uncivil to ask if questioning the civility of what others post is uncivil. That's all. (Boy if someone came into the middle of this with no background on the debate, I think that sentence might make their head explode!)
>
> Actually, that is a very good sentence :-)
> (Have you ever thought of doing philosophy???)Thank you, but no. But I do TRY to be careful about what I write... especially if I know it's a touchy subject.
> You were blocked by saying that the behaviour was due either to
> A the poster not caring that people were upset.
> B the poster not knowing that people were upset (and thereby not stopping the behaviour).
>
> Those are claims about the *person* not the behaviour - and I thought that was why you were blocked.An assumption is made here that I was talking about a particular poster. The paragraph that I got blocked on has 10 sentences. If one focuses on the third and fourth paragraphs (both start with “If”), they might conclude I was talking about a particular poster. However, if you look at the whole paragraph, and consider everything I’d written (or not written) in that thread, I think it’s clear that I am not talking about a particular person, but about two (not all) “intentions” that might be behind the behavior we were discussing. We were in a behavior vs. intention loop, so I was trying to approach the issue from a different angle. It would have been better if I’d written “a poster” (indefinite article) in the 3rd and 4th sentences, but I’m a sucker for continuity and I stuck with “the,” a definite article that can also be used generally.
As I said before, I started the second thread with a disclaimer, I never mentioned anyone in particular, and I never responded to a post where anyone was. I kept my remarks hypothetical, even if others got personal. That’s why I was surprised and hurt for being blocked after being so careful (my intentions were good). Some assumed that I was still making a personal attack, as in my emotional first thread. But if others can be forgiven and move on with discussing a topic, I don't see why I have to keep getting punished for a crime that I served my time for.
FWIW: If I could have been rightly (IMO) blocked anywhere in my second thread, it would have been for what I wrote in the third “option” at the end of the post I got blocked on. I used the words “a certain individual’s behavior.” Although I did not identify anyone, it was a slip-up on my part. I was tired of what felt like jousting windmills and didn’t properly edit my post before I posted it.
> I was just trying to help you understand why you were blocked.
> For the sole purpose of your hopefully not being blocked again in the future.
> Thats all.
> Didn't want to lose you again :-)I appreciate that. But the arguments given for why I was blocked don't fit. If others' intentions are considered when deciding whether or not to block, then my intentions ought to be considered too. To put it another way, if I’m being uncivil by bringing up this subject, and being blocked for it, even though my intentions are good, then it seems like I’m being punished for the very kind of behavior I’m talking about. And if that’s true, should the rule be applied only to me, or others like me, who bring up this topic as civilly as they can? Is this subject off limits? Can we discuss religion, politics, abortion, etc. (carefully), but not discuss this topic without being punished?
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 23, 2005, at 14:24:41
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » alexandra_k, posted by Minnie-Haha on May 23, 2005, at 11:34:21
Often there is another reason.. sorry I forgot to tell you
*OOPS*
Dr. Bob's reasons for blocking people are often unable to be deciphered by any method known to babblers..
This has also has been a source of many heated threads in the past. Actually the post that got me my 9 week block was phrased in a way that someone else wasn't even P.B.C'd for.
I used to say it must be a board game he played with his friends after a few drinks.. "Block the depressives"
"Oh, caught one on a technicality, YES! move ahead 3 spaces" "Oh man, you could have gotten her again.. too late, lose a turn"Sorry Dr. Bob, really I am. I realize now that sometimes I was wrong, and sometimes you just make mistakes..
Posted by Minnie-Haha on May 23, 2005, at 16:22:30
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » Minnie-Haha, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 23, 2005, at 14:24:41
Thanks for the explanation. It makes a bitter pill a little easier to swallow. Not only that, it brought a little humor into an otherwise dead-serious volley. Maybe I can unpucker my anus now.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on May 23, 2005, at 16:23:28
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd?, posted by Minnie-Haha on May 23, 2005, at 16:22:30
Posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 17:58:19
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » Minnie-Haha, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 23, 2005, at 14:24:41
> Dr. Bob's reasons for blocking people are often unable to be deciphered by any method known to babblers..
Thats giving up on an explanation / interpretation...
IMO that should be a last resort strategy...
I'm grateful that I have never had to resort to that.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 18:05:59
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » alexandra_k, posted by Minnie-Haha on May 23, 2005, at 11:34:21
>You were blocked by saying that the behaviour was due either to
> > A the poster not caring that people were upset.
> > B the poster not knowing that people were upset (and thereby not stopping the behaviour).
> > Those are claims about the *person* not the behaviour - and I thought that was why you were blocked.
>
> An assumption is made here that I was talking about a particular poster.Yeah. It was pretty clear that you were from the 'lets try that again' comment on the start of the thread...
>The paragraph that I got blocked on has 10 sentences. If one focuses on the third and fourth paragraphs (both start with “If”), they might conclude I was talking about a particular poster. However, if you look at the whole paragraph, and consider everything I’d written (or not written) in that thread, I think it’s clear that I am not talking about a particular person, but about two (not all) “intentions” that might be behind the behavior we were discussing.
Whos behaviour???
The problem was that both 'intention' hypotheses were uncharitable...
> FWIW: If I could have been rightly (IMO) blocked anywhere in my second thread, it would have been for what I wrote in the third “option” at the end of the post I got blocked on. I used the words “a certain individual’s behavior.” Although I did not identify anyone, it was a slip-up on my part.
And that... By your own admission... Was the problem there. That you DID have the behaviour of a particular individual in mind. And that you were judging the poster to not care about others feelings that you felt he was responsible for.
It isn't so much about 'being careful with what you say' as being careful with what you think in your interpretations. If you are careful with your interpreatations then you should be able to express them without 'being careful'.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 23, 2005, at 18:12:47
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » Gabbi-x-2, posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 17:58:19
> > Dr. Bob's reasons for blocking people are often unable to be deciphered by any method known to babblers..
>
> Thats giving up on an explanation / interpretation...
>What? Humor?
I kind of like it.. I've never thought of it as a last resort.
And you know.. you may call it giving up, I call it acceptance. When I really feel I don't think I can figure someone out, and it really doesn't matter to me all that much I spend my time on something else. You many choose otherwise.. I don't need to hear why what you choose is wiser.
And please, may I post something without being informed how I feel.. or should feel or what my reasoning is, by you? I'd appreciate it. Though *civil* the message in your posts comes through loud and clear.
Posted by gardenergirl on May 23, 2005, at 18:26:06
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » alexandra_k, posted by Minnie-Haha on May 23, 2005, at 11:34:21
Minnie,
I accept that your intentions when posting were not to point out a specific poster, and that you were rather asking about a behavior.I think perhaps that since there really is only one poster who exhibits said behavior (to my knowledge), it appeared fairly obvious, at least to me, who's behavior you were hypothetically referring to. I really don't know any way around that other than perhaps to email Dr. Bob privately or to directly ask the poster to stop.
And even if many or even most posters exhibited the same behavior, the statement you made speculating about intentions behind the behavior (either/or) suggested to me that those were the only two options. I suspect that Dr. Bob viewed the option that a person might not care whether the behavior hurts others as being likely to lead to anyone who exhibits that behavior possibly feeling put down as "uncaring".
Just my interpretation of the situation...
gg
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 23, 2005, at 18:31:36
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » Minnie-Haha, posted by gardenergirl on May 23, 2005, at 18:26:06
> Minnie,
> I accept that your intentions when posting were not to point out a specific poster, and that you were rather asking about a behavior.
>
> I think perhaps that since there really is only one poster who exhibits said behavior (to my knowledge), it appeared fairly obvious, at least to me, who's behavior you were hypothetically referring to. I really don't know any way around that other than perhaps to email Dr. Bob privately or to directly ask the poster to stop.
>
> And even if many or even most posters exhibited the same behavior, the statement you made speculating about intentions behind the behavior (either/or) suggested to me that those were the only two options. I suspect that Dr. Bob viewed the option that a person might not care whether the behavior hurts others as being likely to lead to anyone who exhibits that behavior possibly feeling put down as "uncaring".
I think that part was pretty clear, but Minnie was also wondering why she got a block after only one P.B.C, one which had been on a completely different topic. From what I've seen here that is unusual, usually you get at least 3 p.b.c's before you get blocked.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 23, 2005, at 18:36:53
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » Minnie-Haha, posted by gardenergirl on May 23, 2005, at 18:26:06
I should have said, that what you said, was pretty clear to "me"
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 23, 2005, at 19:37:23
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » Gabbi-x-2, posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 17:58:19
Please don't post to me.
It's not animosity. It's fatigue. I get very tired of feeling I have to prove or explain that there is much thought put behind what I say and do and that I'm not asking for advice. If someone has a way of being that I admire, and qualities I would like to adopt, I take notice.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 21:13:11
In reply to Alex » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 23, 2005, at 19:37:23
...It comes of posting in a hurry because I have 5 minutes to get to class...
I should know better than that by now.
I didn't put that very well at all...
I didn't try to check my understanding of your POV first...
I am really sorryI don't blame people for feeling a bit peeved with me.
Sorry.
Won't happen again...
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 23, 2005, at 22:12:43
In reply to Re: I'm really sorry..., posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 21:13:11
> ...It comes of posting in a hurry because I have 5 minutes to get to class...
>
> I should know better than that by now.
>
> I didn't put that very well at all...
> I didn't try to check my understanding of your POV first...
> I am really sorryI appreciate your apology, but even if you had not understood my post, to say "I'm grateful for never having to resort to that" That's just not a way to have a friendly conversation with someone. In this context, It's not something I would ever say to anyone I had a modicum of respect for.
Imagine my saying to you "I'm so grateful I've never had to resort to referring to philosphy theories when I need to get my point across"
In other words:Thank Heavens I've been saved from ever having to be that way! I'm so much better than that.
Fine, point out that you never tire of figuring out reasons for things, that's conversation.
I just can't fathom that even being busy would make someone say something like that.. unless it's what they really thinking and they were rushed to "make it nice" In which case, why bother responding at all if the post isn't hurting anyone, or directed toward you.
> I don't blame people for feeling a bit peeved with me.
>
> Sorry.
> Won't happen again...
Posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 22:57:38
In reply to Re: I'm really sorry... » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 23, 2005, at 22:12:43
> to say "I'm grateful for never having to resort to that" That's just not a way to have a friendly conversation with someone. In this context, It's not something I would ever say to anyone I had a modicum of respect for.
In the same way that by 'story' I mean 'narrative construction' by 'giving up' I meant it in the Dennetian sense...
Basically... I missed the joke. I didn't get that the post was a joke. I thought it was serious and that you were expressing your frustration.
There simply isn't enough time in the day to go around trying to make sense of everything...
And even if there was one could go crazy trying...
I didn't mean that quite the way it came out.
But I do see that it sounds very appalling indeed.I am sorry.
I don't think I'm better than you or that my way is the only way.
Really.I think I should give up about now.
Just remember...
That I do respect you
And I'm sorry for the way things turned out
When I reread that bit I could see how it would be most likely to be taken
And so I'm not suprised you took it the way you did.I'm sorry.
And minnie too - my last post to you was similarly appalling.
Time to go home and curl up with "In Session" methinks...
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 23, 2005, at 23:15:31
In reply to Re: I'm really sorry..., posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 22:57:38
Actually my entire post was not a joke.. it was lighthearted, and I do get frustrated and often deal with it with humor. Many babblers would agree that there are times the blocking system seems to be unfair, or at least unpredictable this is probably because Dr. Bob himself is *not* a system .
So If I want to give up on figuring it out the minutia of reasoning behind every block feel free to be grateful that you don't have to stoop to that.I would prefer to keep the Do not Post request.
I am sorry, for me too, but it seems we have an ongoing theme of misunderstanding and assumptions here and I find it incredibly draining.
Posted by 10derHeart on May 24, 2005, at 0:36:22
In reply to Re: But I won't succeed, you see. » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 22:15:23
>I wouldn't be so sure about that...
I will help you...
There are lots of other Babblers here too.
Some of them are likely to jump on board and help you too...
{somewhat timidly..) I would help you, Dinah.
I would try to help Alex help you.
I think, from my following along with mostly all the threads, I very much understand your POV on the matter.And I agree down to the bottom of my heart with all you've written on these small boards, if they are implemented.
Don't know how effective I can be with something like this.
Not my strong suite, perhaps, like some things over on Psych feel like they are for me.But I would definitely make an effort to help you.
Please don't block out the possibility there is still hope...not quite yet...?
Posted by Dinah on May 24, 2005, at 1:44:07
In reply to Re: But I won't succeed, you see: for Dinah and » alexandra_k, posted by 10derHeart on May 24, 2005, at 0:36:22
I thank you. :)
But really, hope hurts. I'm not sure Dr. Bob understands that. But I'd rather have no hope than false hope.
And when I'm ready to look on the bright side, which I'm not, I can congratulate myself on my perspicacity in knowing that it was a done deal. I may not be persuasive, but I'm perceptive.
Not quite yet though. Later.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on May 24, 2005, at 14:43:56
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » Minnie-Haha, posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 18:05:59
> > An assumption is made here that I was talking about a particular poster.
>
> Yeah. It was pretty clear that you were from the 'lets try that again' comment on the start of the thread...If some felt offended by a particular poster's behavior, could that set off a discussion about the behavior without necessarily discussing the poster? For instance, one or more posters on this site must have been the first to curse here. If that set off a discussion about cursing, did that mean everyone was talking about those people? Or even necessarily that the offended were talking about those people? And is it possible that "let's try again" means to talk about a behavior (and not a person)?
> >The paragraph that I got blocked on has 10 sentences. If one focuses on the third and fourth paragraphs (both start with “If”), they might conclude I was talking about a particular poster. However, if you look at the whole paragraph, and consider everything I’d written (or not written) in that thread, I think it’s clear that I am not talking about a particular person, but about two (not all) “intentions” that might be behind the behavior we were discussing.
>
> Whos behaviour???I WAS TALKING ABOUT A BEHAVIOR, NOT A PERSON! Interrupting is a behavior. I can talk about it alone as a subject, though it would be hard if others wanted to talk about why a particular person interrupts.
> The problem was that both 'intention' hypotheses were uncharitable...
When may I proceed with this subject without others concluding that I am talking about a person? IMO, insisting that I’m out to persecute someone, even when I’ve declared that I am not, seems uncharitable.
> > FWIW: If I could have been rightly (IMO) blocked anywhere in my second thread, it would have been for what I wrote in the third “option” at the end of the post I got blocked on. I used the words “a certain individual’s behavior.” Although I did not identify anyone, it was a slip-up on my part.
>
> And that... By your own admission... Was the problem there. That you DID have the behaviour of a particular individual in mind. And that you were judging the poster to not care about others feelings that you felt he was responsible for.At the very end of one of my final posts I used the words “a certain individual’s behavior.” But that doesn’t mean I had a particular poster in mind when I started the thread, or when I posed scenarios, or even when I offered a couple of possible reasons – well before I used those four words – for the kind of behavior we were discussing. The only reason I went into intention was because others thought it was important. But even if others were thinking about a particular poster from the start on that thread, I tell you I was not.
> It isn't so much about 'being careful with what you say' as being careful with what you think in your interpretations. If you are careful with your interpreatations then you should be able to express them without 'being careful'.
I thought civility on this site was exactly about being careful with what you say. It would be pretty hard to manage this site if you had to weigh also what people think – unless they say what they think – or you are psychic. (I’d wager we'd be blocked here much more often if Dr. Bob could read minds.)
Posted by Minnie-Haha on May 24, 2005, at 15:30:38
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » Minnie-Haha, posted by gardenergirl on May 23, 2005, at 18:26:06
> I accept that your intentions when posting were not to point out a specific poster, and that you were rather asking about a behavior.
Thank you from the bottom of my twisted little heart.
> I think perhaps that since there really is only one poster who exhibits said behavior (to my knowledge), it appeared fairly obvious, at least to me, who's behavior you were hypothetically referring to. I really don't know any way around that other than perhaps to email Dr. Bob privately or to directly ask the poster to stop.
>
> And even if many or even most posters exhibited the same behavior, the statement you made speculating about intentions behind the behavior (either/or) suggested to me that those were the only two options. I suspect that Dr. Bob viewed the option that a person might not care whether the behavior hurts others as being likely to lead to anyone who exhibits that behavior possibly feeling put down as "uncaring".
>
> Just my interpretation of the situation...I think your arguments are some of the best, but (do I hear eyes rolling?)...
My statement wasn't an either/or. I won't repeat it all, for fear of getting blocked again, but I will quote its form: "That brings us to AT LEAST TWO possibilities. One is... The other is..." I never said that others' suggestions were wrong, or that these were right, or that there couldn't be a host of others. I was trying to make the point that intentions are many (and debatably provable). I shouldn't have waded into the intention debate, but we were getting nowhere with behavior vs. intention.
As for how to handle discussing a behavior that only one person is known to exhibit, I think if no-one has ever brought it up for discussion before, it would be nice to email the doctor or poster privately, but if the behavior has been brought up repeatedly by others -- well, it seems like it's out there: a problem that is going to keep arising and keep getting discussed, unless a civility rule goes up saying you can't question the behavior of someone who is the only one who exhibits that behavior.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 24, 2005, at 16:18:19
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd?, posted by Minnie-Haha on May 24, 2005, at 15:30:38
Sorry to interrupt.. but I wanted to let you know that I do understand what you are saying.
I've seen strings of suicidal posts appear on babble, posted by one individual, and suddenly there will be a request on administration , to have such posts banned, without of course naming names. Still, It's just as obvious then, to whom the person is referring, but I've not seen anyone blocked for it yet.
I do think that it's best for those type of things to be dealt with by babblemail, but I don't think that's the issue here.
(((Minnie)))
Posted by alexandra_k on May 24, 2005, at 16:49:15
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » alexandra_k, posted by Minnie-Haha on May 24, 2005, at 14:43:56
> I thought civility on this site was exactly about being careful with what you say. It would be pretty hard to manage this site if you had to weigh also what people think – unless they say what they think – or you are psychic. (I’d wager we'd be blocked here much more often if Dr. Bob could read minds.)
Yeah.
It is just that for the most part people do indeed use language to express their thoughts.
Sometimes we aren't really aware of just how much so.I hope you got my apology above.
I think I'll leave this thread now.
I just wanted to point out that there are fairly much two routes you can take (though I don't mean to suggest that there are only two)
;-)You can try and justify it.
You can try and understand what was considered unacceptable.My thought was just that going the second route might have you better placed to avoid being blocked in future.
But it is up to you...
Posted by gardenergirl on May 24, 2005, at 16:52:59
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd?, posted by Minnie-Haha on May 24, 2005, at 15:30:38
>
> My statement wasn't an either/or. I won't repeat it all, for fear of getting blocked again, but I will quote its form: "That brings us to AT LEAST TWO possibilities. One is... The other is..."You're right, this statement only suggests two of possibly others. > As for how to handle discussing a behavior that only one person is known to exhibit, I think if no-one has ever brought it up for discussion before, it would be nice to email the doctor or poster privately, but if the behavior has been brought up repeatedly by others -- well, it seems like it's out there: ...
Although since it has been brought up before, and the behavior has not been deemed to fall outside the civility guidelines, I think the answer to your question was evident before the posts (if I understood your question correctly). Of course Dr. Bob is free to change his mind. But I thought this issue had been settled previously. I could be wrong, though. I haven't checked for a post saying so, and my memory has been known to fail me.
Thanks for correcting my assumption regarding your statement about possible intentions.
gg
Posted by Minnie-Haha on May 24, 2005, at 16:58:32
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » gardenergirl, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 23, 2005, at 18:31:36
> ... Minnie was also wondering why she got a block after only one P.B.C, one which had been on a completely different topic. From what I've seen here that is unusual, usually you get at least 3 p.b.c's before you get blocked.
That was my original question here, though the discussion has kinda meandered. (I'd also wanted to know if one block usually follows another -- which is what I experienced -- or whether or not there are usually one or more PBCs between one block and the next.)
Anyway, thanks for noticing.
Minnie
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.