![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 24 of 24. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by topcatclr on August 30, 2010, at 0:08:27
Just wondering. He got me banned last time.
Posted by Dinah on August 30, 2010, at 0:08:30
In reply to Where is Lou?, posted by topcatclr on August 28, 2010, at 11:37:41
> Just wondering. He got me banned last time.
My mother used to repeat *endlessly* to me the lines from the poem "Invictus" by William Ernest Henley.
"I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul."You have the power to decide whether to follow the guidelines and continue to post at Babble or not. Don't give that power away to others. To me, the essence of boundaries is this. What others do is what others do. What you do is what you do.
You can choose what to read or not to read. You can choose how to respond, and you can choose not to respond.
The power is yours.
Posted by Maxime on August 30, 2010, at 0:08:30
In reply to Re: Where is Lou? » topcatclr, posted by Dinah on August 28, 2010, at 15:39:38
Dinah, I was going to say something but you said it much more poetically than I ever could. You are spot on.
Posted by Dinah on August 30, 2010, at 0:08:30
In reply to Re: Where is Lou? » Dinah, posted by Maxime on August 28, 2010, at 15:54:00
My mother would be pleased to know that her years of hammering it into my head made it stick. :)
Posted by violette on August 30, 2010, at 0:08:31
In reply to Re: Where is Lou? » topcatclr, posted by Dinah on August 28, 2010, at 15:39:38
"My mother used to repeat *endlessly* to me the lines from the poem "Invictus" by William Ernest Henley."
"I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul."Dinah,
This has nothing to do with the context of the intitial post..just wondering...do you think this might have something to do with the 'magical thinking' you've described here from time to time?
No one has complete control over fate. Simply the fact that we cannot control other peoples' actions...such as when you need a job, you can't force someone to hire you as much as you can do to get there...good resume, take interview classes, etc., your fate in terms of employment is largely the other person's decision....no matter how much experience, education, and interviewing skills you have.
I'm curious, as this was something you said had disturbed you from time to time.
Posted by Dinah on August 30, 2010, at 0:08:31
In reply to magical thinking?, posted by violette on August 28, 2010, at 21:14:53
No, she was talking about my own reactions.
The poem actually talks about some pretty rotten realities. But that how you react to those realities is up to you. It doesn't talk about controlling the reactions of others.
Posted by violette on August 30, 2010, at 0:08:31
In reply to Re: magical thinking? » violette, posted by Dinah on August 28, 2010, at 21:24:26
Oh, i see...but those 2 lines said alot! I mean you can't totally control your fate-you'd have to avoid riding/driving a car, for example, to avoid someone crashing into you by accident...
"But that how you react to those realities is up to you. It doesn't talk about controlling the reactions of others."
With a healthy sense of self, there are no worries or controlled thought processes of your reactions to others...It becomes natural, and in many ways, irrelevant. Good topic. :)
Posted by Dinah on August 30, 2010, at 0:08:32
In reply to Re: magical thinking?, posted by violette on August 28, 2010, at 22:38:06
> With a healthy sense of self, there are no worries or controlled thought processes of your reactions to others...It becomes natural, and in many ways, irrelevant. Good topic. :)
I don't think I'd want to give up thinking about my reactions. Nor would I ever wish it to be irrelevant. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.
At any rate, as far as Babble fate is concerned, I think it is relevant.
Posted by violette on August 30, 2010, at 0:08:32
In reply to Re: magical thinking? » violette, posted by Dinah on August 28, 2010, at 23:10:21
"I don't think I'd want to give up thinking about my reactions. Nor would I ever wish it to be irrelevant. Maybe I'm misunderstanding."
With a healthy sense of self, your reactions are not as much as an issue. It's not so much about 'giving up' thinking about reactions as it so much worrying about it. In terms of other's reactions, if you acted according to your values-and were empathetic and had best intentions in mind, another's reaction would be more irrelevant since you did the best you could from your heart and can do nothing about it. And since you cannot control another's reaction despite your best intentions, you just accept it rather than think about it so much-which is an element of neuroticism. You don't have a need to continually question yourself-'think' about your reactions...another element of neuroticism. Instead, you are confident that your own reactions parallel the circustances, are attuned with the reality of the situation. "Thinking of reactions", to some extent, is neurotic.
"At any rate, as far as Babble fate is concerned, I think it is relevant."
I can't comment on the relevance of this in terms of my life personally as I am not particularly concerned about Babble fate as it's not an important element of my life. i think those who attribute more importance to this site will either cope with whatever happens that is out of their control, and at the same time, do whatever they can in terms of what is in their own control. As you are doing. And if it does't match expectations, adjust reactions accordingly, as you said is important to do.
Hope i explained that ok. Regardless, I understand if your ideals don't match what I've learned and stated here.
Sorry to get off topic. The magical thinking concept interested me.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 30, 2010, at 0:12:45
In reply to Where is Lou?, posted by topcatclr on August 30, 2010, at 0:08:27
> He got me banned last time.
And will he get you blocked this time, too? Keeping in mind that the idea here is not to post anything that could lead others to feel accused, could you please rephrase that? Thanks,
Bob
Posted by 64Bowtie on August 31, 2010, at 6:31:43
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » topcatclr, posted by Dr. Bob on August 30, 2010, at 0:12:45
(((Dinah))) I'm asking for clarity.....
Did it sound to you like "topcatclr" fealt Lou had targetted them by complaining about a post they made here, thus making them solely responsible for Dr-Bob's ban??? Did I get it right??? And isn't your response in effect pointing out that such ascription of power to anyone other than Dr-Bob is an incorrect analog of the rules and process (that Dr-Bob does such a good job with)??? Lou doesn't strike me as power hungry, so ascribing such power to Lou is mind numbing for my "pea-sized" brain, and ignoring the reality that we are, first of all, responsible for ourselves and our own performance herein... Am I close???
Rod
Posted by Dinah on August 31, 2010, at 7:13:56
In reply to (((Dinah))) I'm asking for clarity....., posted by 64Bowtie on August 31, 2010, at 6:31:43
> ...we are, first of all, responsible for ourselves and our own performance herein... Am I close???
>
> RodThe above statement is more or less what I was saying. Dr. Bob does indeed have some bearing on the fate of posting on Babble, because he sets the rules. But how we respond to those rules, and how we respond to each other, rests on our own choices.
Posted by 64Bowtie on September 1, 2010, at 1:52:20
In reply to Re: (((Dinah))) I'm asking for clarity..... » 64Bowtie, posted by Dinah on August 31, 2010, at 7:13:56
(((Dinah))),
I've liked the way you express your thinking processes for at least 6 of the last 7 years... Before that, I wasn't smart enough to appreciate how special you are...
Rod
Posted by Dinah on September 1, 2010, at 8:54:49
In reply to Re: Re: (((Dinah))), posted by 64Bowtie on September 1, 2010, at 1:52:20
If you want to post about it, I'd be interested to hear how things are going with your dad. I know what a difficult situation it is.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 1, 2010, at 20:30:49
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » topcatclr, posted by Dr. Bob on August 30, 2010, at 0:12:45
Mr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...please rephrase that...]
Now to {rephrase} generally means to write it over so that it is {clearer}.
I can not understand why you have asked for the member here to do that. If you could post your rationale for that here, then I could have the opportuniity to respond accordingly.
Now if you have a different definition of {rephrase} so that what is what it is then is not, then what is seen is what is seen and we got what we got or not.
Now if it says what it says, and you are asking the poster to rewrite the statement so that it then can not be seen, then would not the statement in toto have to be redacted? If not, how could what is seen be not seen?
If the statement has to be rewritten so that what it is is not, then could not the request from you be changed to ,{please redact that}? But could not the statement be deleted then before any request to the poster then and there could be {redacted by the owner/operator) posted by you?
This then INHO leads me to think that the member asked to rephrase be exempted from the request, for I see any rephrasing as a redaction. Instead, I think (redacted by respondent) because what you got you got.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 1, 2010, at 20:57:54
In reply to Lou's request-izwhatihtiz » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 1, 2010, at 20:30:49
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote,[...please rephrase that...]
> Now to {rephrase} generally means to write it over so that it is {clearer}.
> I can not understand why you have asked for the member here to do that. If you could post your rationale for that here, then I could have the opportuniity to respond accordingly.
> Now if you have a different definition of {rephrase} so that what is what it is then is not, then what is seen is what is seen and we got what we got or not.
> Now if it says what it says, and you are asking the poster to rewrite the statement so that it then can not be seen, then would not the statement in toto have to be redacted? If not, how could what is seen be not seen?
> If the statement has to be rewritten so that what it is is not, then could not the request from you be changed to ,{please redact that}? But could not the statement be deleted then before any request to the poster then and there could be {redacted by the owner/operator) posted by you?
> This then INHO leads me to think that the member asked to rephrase be exempted from the request, for I see any rephrasing as a redaction. Instead, I think (redacted by respondent) because what you got you got.
> Lou Pilder
>
> Friends,
I wrote,[..I think {redacted by respondent}because you got what you got...]
What my postion would be if I was the owner/operator here, would be to leave the statement in toto. The statement has IMHO great value for discusssion here and I would want to leave it as it's original for discussional purposes.
I would redirect the post to the psychology board for discussion, with the discusson related to exploring more of what can be seen in the statement in question so that understanding and learning about the aspects in question could serve as edification and encourement to reveal the underlying or hidden , if any, aspects of the statment in question. You see, there is much more to this IMHO that I would like to post here from my perspective.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 4, 2010, at 11:22:50
In reply to Where is Lou?, posted by topcatclr on August 30, 2010, at 0:08:27
> He got me banned last time.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person, and I'm sorry if this hurts you.
I do hope that you choose to remain a member of this community and that members of this community help you, if needed, to avoid future blocks. Thanks, 64Bowtie and Dinah, for trying to help this time.
It's up to you to decide whom you interact with. Sometimes interacting with others may be frustrating, staying civil may be a challenge, and new skills may be required. If you're open to developing new skills (which I realize may not be why you came in the first place), that's another way in which you may be supported by other posters.
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#enforceLou, I'm also sorry if you felt hurt.
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
PS: According to the formula:
duration of previous block: 2 weeks
period of time since previous block: 2 weeks
severity: 2 (default) + 1 (uncivil toward particular individual) = 3
block length = 5.73 rounded = 6 weeks
Posted by Dinah on September 4, 2010, at 17:41:25
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » topcatclr, posted by Dr. Bob on September 4, 2010, at 11:22:50
Dr. Bob,
It was some time since the original post was made, with no further uncivil posts. Might it be possible to put a lower block length if the original poster effectively ceased and desisted after an intervention? Like a week or two weeks?
Just an idea...
Posted by muffled on September 5, 2010, at 14:34:25
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on September 4, 2010, at 17:41:25
> Dr. Bob,
>
> It was some time since the original post was made, with no further uncivil posts. Might it be possible to put a lower block length if the original poster effectively ceased and desisted after an intervention? Like a week or two weeks?
>
> Just an idea...Dinah-you are a wonderful person :)
I agree...
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 5, 2010, at 19:39:51
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks, posted by muffled on September 5, 2010, at 14:34:25
> It was some time since the original post was made, with no further uncivil posts. Might it be possible to put a lower block length if the original poster effectively ceased and desisted after an intervention?
>
> Dinah> I agree...
>
> muffledWould you have preferred a shorter block? Or no block at all?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on September 5, 2010, at 20:04:23
In reply to Re: lower block length, posted by Dr. Bob on September 5, 2010, at 19:39:51
If there is a block, I think shorter might reflect the difference between continuing and ceasing.
If you want to discuss whether there should be a block at all, I suppose that unless it's a recurring behavior, I'd be ok with no block.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 5, 2010, at 20:09:19
In reply to Re: lower block length, posted by Dr. Bob on September 5, 2010, at 19:39:51
> > It was some time since the original post was made, with no further uncivil posts. Might it be possible to put a lower block length if the original poster effectively ceased and desisted after an intervention?
> >
> > Dinah
>
> > I agree...
> >
> > muffled
>
> Would you have preferred a shorter block? Or no block at all?
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
My view is that there are issues here that have me lean to a {no block} at all here. The reasons are that I am the person that the post in question was about and that the poster asked where I was. That part of the post was satified because I am who I am and I'm here where I'm at. So there is no harm in that part of the post.
The other aspect here is that the poster was directed to rephrase the other part. I posted that to rephrase means to rewrite the statement in question to be clearer. I can not understand how the statement in question could be any clearer, for it was what it was, so IMHO the poster could have been left with no remedy to comply to rephrase for it is what it is.
Not being able to comply IMO is analogous to having to be two places at the same time. Thearfore, I think that a dismissal of this is the logical remedy.
But then there is the issue of that I am the person as the subject. After reviewing the facts, I now lean to that the statement is not so much an accusation, but something else that belongs on the psychology board for discussion.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20100706/msgs/954593.html
Posted by muffled on September 6, 2010, at 12:18:24
In reply to Re: lower block length, posted by Dr. Bob on September 5, 2010, at 19:39:51
> > It was some time since the original post was made, with no further uncivil posts. Might it be possible to put a lower block length if the original poster effectively ceased and desisted after an intervention?
> >
> > Dinah
>
> > I agree...
> >
> > muffled
>
> Would you have preferred a shorter bloc? Or no block at all?
>
> BobNo block at all would be my preferance. Just let it go.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 1, 2010, at 20:56:31
In reply to Re: lower block length, posted by muffled on September 6, 2010, at 12:18:24
> I suppose that unless it's a recurring behavior, I'd be ok with no block.
>
> Dinah> My view is that there are issues here that have me lean to a {no block} at all here.
>
> Lou> No block at all would be my preferance. Just let it go.
>
> muffledI let a couple go when I was out of town and couldn't keep up. FYI, the guideline in the FAQ is:
> If I missed the post and it's already been archived, I may just let it go.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
Bob
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | 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.