![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 38 to 62 of 74. Go back in thread:
Posted by lil' jimi on October 7, 2003, at 23:31:51
In reply to re: wolves in sheep's clothing dressed by shepherd » lil' jimi, posted by fallsfall on October 7, 2003, at 22:01:44
redirecting ourselves to the task(s) at hand and away from my petty annoyances and belly aching ....
... ... see you at psocial
... ... and, oh yeah ...kara kara kara !
oh, no no no ... don't you dare!thanks,
~ jim
Posted by kara lynne on October 8, 2003, at 0:15:42
In reply to okay » fallsfall, posted by lil' jimi on October 7, 2003, at 23:31:51
...and don't you dare-a
go anywhere-aMuch love from your adoring kara
Posted by lil' jimi on October 8, 2003, at 0:23:47
In reply to re: wolves in sheep's clothing dressed by shepherd » lil' jimi, posted by Dinah on October 7, 2003, at 22:47:56
hi Dinah,
> aaaahhhh, Jim. I am so sorry. Sigh. I know that I was among the least affected.... But I hurt for you, and for the others.
>
> Maybe that's a good step, to move from angry to sad. It's got to hurt to carry around the anger. Or maybe it hurts worse to admit to the sad underneath.
>
> I hate to give Dr. Bob more credit than he deserves, but maybe he was waiting for our anger to give way to sadness before he responded.
>
> If so, I think we should whip our anger back up into a frenzy and blister him with a few carefully chosen words. But that's just me. I hate being "handled".... >... ... there is that certain kind of desolation from knowing it does not matter what i feel ... ... no matter how important it seems to me .. ... .. angry or sad ... ... except that i lose the ability to make sentences or conjugate verbs when i'm mad ... ... so sad's really better ... ... because at least i sound somewhat less (i Hate this word!) stupid ... (and i hate the word 'hate'!) ... and i get no thrill from venting when i'm hacked ... i can't have the presence to savor it ... ... and there's no sport in it ... it's like enjoying a day when it's all bright and sunny ... where's the challenge in that ? ... ... i find that when bringing grief, misery works better than rage ... ... and if we learn anything from other(s) it's that rage burns up too much compassion ...
... besides no one owes me no explanations about nothing ...
dean martin once said, "It's Sinatra's world. The rest of us are just living in it."
this is dr. b's world ... he's letting us live in it.
no one said it had to be easy.i wouldn't really mind if i was being handled that much ... i can appreciate people wanting to be delicate about things ... i try to be ... in my own way ... and i can use any exta time to cool off ... really, my anger is useless ... ... plus the meds for anger can't be any fun ... and i'm better prepared for the depression kind of dope ... ... speaking of which, seems about time to start titrating on up ... these 10 milligrams are getting overloaded ... ... or i'm getting underloaded .... HA!
too dang lazy to carry anything, let alone something as heavy as anger ... ... really tired too ... still, need to go to social and tell fallsfall how much i love her ...
i guess i do feel a _little_ homicidal ... not much ... and no one here anyway ... oh, i could _be_ angry, but i'd rather not, really ... ... too boring
but i could be wrong about any and all of this !
what do you think?
you or anyone else reading this ... ... of course~ jim
Posted by Tabitha on October 8, 2003, at 0:53:21
In reply to re: sheep in shepherd's clothing dressed by wolves » Dinah, posted by lil' jimi on October 8, 2003, at 0:23:47
Dear Jimi-- I don't know all that happened. I'm not sure I understand what you feel. But you're one of the kindest voices here-- I hate to see you hurting. (((((Jimi))))))
Posted by lil' jimi on October 8, 2003, at 1:45:07
In reply to re: sheep in shepherd's clothing dressed by wolves » lil' jimi, posted by Tabitha on October 8, 2003, at 0:53:21
sweet Tabs,
> Dear Jimi-- I don't know all that happened. I'm not sure I understand what you feel. But you're one of the kindest voices here-- I hate to see you hurting. (((((Jimi)))))) >
don't worry about what happened ... it was another lifetime ... i was among those deeply involved ... only jyl and i made it back ... ... well, except around here i guess we never really Know, now do we ?
thank you for your kind words there missy!
i ain't hurting that bad when it can get me the comfort of your beauty and sweetness ....
.. . i can stand this!
thanks !
~ jim
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 10:13:36
In reply to do banned posters get notified by e-mail of posts? » Dinah, posted by lil' jimi on October 7, 2003, at 17:42:03
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 10:18:35
In reply to Re: Another proposal » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on October 7, 2003, at 11:48:16
> So I'll ask you directly. Did you say that it was ok to start over in an encouraging way? Or did you just agree not to rat out the poster, admit that it wasn't against the rules, and suggest that they come clean?
>
> DinahSorry, but I don't think I should get into what I said to her without her permission. In general, I discourage changing names.
> Did you ever consider some kind of permanent block for cases where someone manages to stir up a whole lot of bad feelings among a lot of people, repeatedly, regardless of whether they manage to skirt the civility rules?
>
> TabithaNo blocks are "permanent" now, but people can end up being blocked for a long time if they're repeatedly uncivil...
The new policy would be that people shouldn't stir up bad feelings?
> Have changing names, without good reason and without notice on admin be against the rules. Ask anyone who you discover to have switched names to contact you by email. Find out if it is a safety issue, and if not, have the rules be that you will at least disclose that the fact that they are a new identity will be disclosed on Admin.
>
> DinahWhat reasons would be considered good? The new policy would be based on stated intentions?
Hmm, what about saying that anyone who changes their name -- for any reason -- needs to disclose that they've done that by posting under their new name that they used to post as someone else, but not necessarily giving their old name?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on October 8, 2003, at 10:19:59
In reply to Re: Another proposal, posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 10:18:35
Posted by Dinah on October 8, 2003, at 10:21:17
In reply to Re: Another proposal, posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 10:18:35
So it's all in one place?
Posted by Susan J on October 8, 2003, at 10:26:27
In reply to Re: Another proposal, posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 10:18:35
Dr. Bob wrote: Hmm, what about saying that anyone who changes their name -- for any reason --needs to disclose that they've done that by posting under their new name that they used to post as someone else, but not necessarily giving their old name?
>>What's wrong with requiring disclosure of the old posting name as well? Just wondering...I still think mandatory disclosure of name changes, on an easily accessible list, would be best.
Posted by galkeepinon on October 8, 2003, at 10:58:34
In reply to Re: Another proposal, posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 10:18:35
Glad you posted Bob,
['Dinah' asks]>>>>>>So I'll ask you directly. Did you say that it was ok to start over in an encouraging way? Or did you just agree not to rat out the poster, admit that it wasn't against the rules, and suggest that they come clean?
Dinah
[Bob replies]>>>>>>>Sorry, but I don't think I should get into what I said to her without her permission. In general, I discourage changing names.Bob, thank you for that respect. You have my permission to tell them anything you would like, anything concerning my emails to you, anything that would help the ones who are feeling so very sad, angry, and hurt about all this, to get some clarification, I have no problem with that.
Thanks,
Kristen
Posted by Dinah on October 8, 2003, at 12:14:21
In reply to Required Name Change Disclosure » Dr. Bob, posted by Susan J on October 8, 2003, at 10:26:27
I think the main reason would be that occasionally posters have changed names because someone in their real life found their posting name and was reading the posts. For at least one poster that caused real life problems. I'm fortunate in that I trust the only two people who I would mind reading my posts know my posting name and this site, and have promised not to read. Others aren't so lucky.
Most managed to leave hints in their new posts, or state directly, who they used to be.
But to require that old and new posting names be placed in one place would make it impossible for someone to continue posting under the circumstances I described, since anyone who knew their old name would know their new.
And Dr. Bob logically pointed out that there was no way he could verify someone's purpose in changing names and so would have to rely on their word. So, this solution may not be perfect, but it's better than nothing.
A lot of times if you know someone well enough, no change of posting name will disguise their style. And a lot of people will voluntarily disclose their old name, even if they do it subtly or in posts. And at least we would be aware that we were talking to someone who used to be someone else.
Posted by Susan J on October 8, 2003, at 12:17:45
In reply to Re: Required Name Change Disclosure » Susan J, posted by Dinah on October 8, 2003, at 12:14:21
Dinah,
> I think the main reason would be that occasionally posters have changed names because someone in their real life found their posting name and was reading the posts. For at least one poster that caused real life problems.
<<OK, smack me on the head. This makes perfect sense. I guess my sense of privacy isn't as well developed as it should be.> A lot of times if you know someone well enough, no change of posting name will disguise their style.
<<I'm personally not good at that at all, but perhaps it's because I've only been here a short time.Thanks for clarifying, Dinah. :-)
Susan
Posted by Tabitha on October 8, 2003, at 15:20:32
In reply to Re: Another proposal, posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 10:18:35
> No blocks are "permanent" now, but people can end up being blocked for a long time if they're repeatedly uncivil...
>
> The new policy would be that people shouldn't stir up bad feelings?
I guess I was thinking that you might occasionally make an executive decision that the board would be a safer place if certain posters were banned for good. Based on your subjective judgement, your clinical skills (are you a clinical psychiatrist? I don't even know), and your experience with observing group dynamics over time.It looked to me like what happened recently was that board members took matters into their own hands and tried to run off a poster they saw as a detriment to the group. I've seen it before-- folks either drive someone away, or provoke them til they get blocked. It's an ugly spectacle that makes the whole board unsafe. I'm just thinking of how to prevent that in the future.
I also personally think it would be kindest to remove the person who's getting all the negative attention. It can't be doing them any good to perpetuate a cycle like that.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 17:37:07
In reply to Re: Another proposal » Dr. Bob, posted by Tabitha on October 8, 2003, at 15:20:32
> It looked to me like what happened recently was that board members took matters into their own hands and tried to run off a poster they saw as a detriment to the group. I've seen it before-- folks either drive someone away, or provoke them til they get blocked. It's an ugly spectacle that makes the whole board unsafe. I'm just thinking of how to prevent that in the future.
Ask people to be civil? I know it's not foolproof...
> I also personally think it would be kindest to remove the person who's getting all the negative attention. It can't be doing them any good to perpetuate a cycle like that.
But shouldn't it be up to them to decide what does them good?
Bob
Posted by stjames on October 8, 2003, at 18:17:06
In reply to Re: Another proposal, posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 17:37:07
>
> Ask people to be civil? I know it's not foolproof...
>maybe in the classroom, but this is real life.
Posted by Tabitha on October 8, 2003, at 19:16:39
In reply to Re: Another proposal, posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 17:37:07
I didn't really expect you to change policy. There's just something cold about letting a situation get so out of hand. It's hurting people, scaring people. Yet all we can do is wait for someone to slip up and use a curse word or an insult that's direct enough to get them blocked. Something's missing. I guess I'm wanting some type of intervention where someone looks at the big picture and says Stop, this isn't productive. It can't go on.
Another issue is-- people say Kristen sent abusive and threatening emails. Lots of them. To people who started out supporting her. So here she is again, and people who don't know that history will again support her. It seems you're willing to take a big risk with people's safety by letting her return, regardless of whether she served her block time and says she won't do it again. Again it's up to the posters to try and warn each other, restrained by the civility rules. How can anyone warn of that type of risk without accusing? More likely they'll stay silent or at the most drop hints.
Then I start wondering-- do you know the prior identity of the poster(s) who come back and put up the hateful posts to you and others? Does that person get to return when their block expires? Under the rules-- it seems like they do.
Posted by Dinah on October 8, 2003, at 19:26:10
In reply to Re: Another proposal » Dr. Bob, posted by Tabitha on October 8, 2003, at 19:16:39
But are you in favor of the proposed new poster name switching disclosure rule?
Posted by fallsfall on October 8, 2003, at 19:27:35
In reply to Re: Another proposal, posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 17:37:07
> > It looked to me like what happened recently was that board members took matters into their own hands and tried to run off a poster they saw as a detriment to the group. I've seen it before-- folks either drive someone away, or provoke them til they get blocked. It's an ugly spectacle that makes the whole board unsafe. I'm just thinking of how to prevent that in the future.
>
> Ask people to be civil? I know it's not foolproof...
>Dr. Bob. Are we supposed to ask them to be civil? Or would you like one (or more?) of us to send you an email if it seems that you haven't seen what is happening?
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 20:56:34
In reply to Re: Another proposal » Dr. Bob, posted by Tabitha on October 8, 2003, at 19:16:39
> There's just something cold about letting a situation get so out of hand. It's hurting people, scaring people. Yet all we can do is wait for someone to slip up and use a curse word or an insult that's direct enough to get them blocked. Something's missing. I guess I'm wanting some type of intervention where someone looks at the big picture and says Stop, this isn't productive. It can't go on.
The big picture can be complicated. Responding in an uncivil way can hurt and scare others, too. I know it can be hard just to wait. It's passive.
> Another issue is-- people say Kristen sent abusive and threatening emails. Lots of them. To people who started out supporting her. So here she is again, and people who don't know that history will again support her. It seems you're willing to take a big risk with people's safety by letting her return, regardless of whether she served her block time and says she won't do it again. Again it's up to the posters to try and warn each other, restrained by the civility rules. How can anyone warn of that type of risk without accusing? More likely they'll stay silent or at the most drop hints.
1. If people support her, I think that's great. That's the idea here.
2. People take a big risk with their safety by trusting strangers online. Messages on this site are not guaranteed to be supportive.
3. I can't always keep people from returning, anyway. As should be evident.
4. Warnings could be general and not refer to someone in particular, or could refer to someone in particular but be I-statements...
> do you know the prior identity of the poster(s) who come back and put up the hateful posts to you and others? Does that person get to return when their block expires?
I may or may not know someone's prior identity. Everyone gets to return when their block expires.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 21:00:50
In reply to Re: Another proposal » Dr. Bob, posted by fallsfall on October 8, 2003, at 19:27:35
> > > It looked to me like what happened recently was that board members took matters into their own hands and tried to run off a poster they saw as a detriment to the group. I've seen it before-- folks either drive someone away, or provoke them til they get blocked... I'm just thinking of how to prevent that in the future.
> >
> > Ask people to be civil? I know it's not foolproof...
>
> Dr. Bob. Are we supposed to ask them to be civil? Or would you like one (or more?) of us to send you an email if it seems that you haven't seen what is happening?Sorry, what I meant was, the way I've tried to prevent it is to ask people to be civil.
You're welcome to do that, too, but if you do, please be careful to be civil yourself. And keep in mind that people might not appreciate your attempt to help.
I you don't think I've seen something, it would be great if you would email me. Or post a link here. Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dinah on October 8, 2003, at 21:03:32
In reply to Re: permanent blocks, posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 20:56:34
Thanks for being real and responding in a real way. Every time I get thoroughly fed up with you, you surprise me.
So what about the proposal for name change rules. Will they be implemented? A notification on Admin that they used to post under another name?
Posted by Tabitha on October 8, 2003, at 21:05:57
In reply to Re: permanent blocks, posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 20:56:34
>
> 4. Warnings could be general and not refer to someone in particular, or could refer to someone in particular but be I-statements...
>So for instance, could someone say 'I received many emails from poster X that were offensive and frightening to me.'
Posted by Tabitha on October 8, 2003, at 21:07:37
In reply to Re: Another proposal » Tabitha, posted by Dinah on October 8, 2003, at 19:26:10
Posted by Dinah on October 8, 2003, at 21:16:00
In reply to Re: permanent blocks, posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 20:56:34
> 1. If people support her, I think that's great. That's the idea here.
>
Ok, I know you probably won't answer this. But I'll ask anyway. I wrestled all weekend (including Sunday School) with this question. Is it ethically ok to support someone who has hurt others, where those others, were relatively blameless, and where those others are still hurt and haven't been able to forgive. It's great to be supportive on this board, but sometimes being supportive to one person is counter-supportive to another.> 2. People take a big risk with their safety by trusting strangers online. Messages on this site are not guaranteed to be supportive.
>
We know. That's why we get extra angry with what we see as a failure on your part to protect us. We trust you, Dr. Bob, perhaps more than we should.> 3. I can't always keep people from returning, anyway. As should be evident.
>
True. But when you do know.....> 4. Warnings could be general and not refer to someone in particular, or could refer to someone in particular but be I-statements...
>
I try.> > do you know the prior identity of the poster(s) who come back and put up the hateful posts to you and others? Does that person get to return when their block expires?
>
> I may or may not know someone's prior identity. Everyone gets to return when their block expires.
>
> BobOk, but that poster must be up to years now, right? At a doubling for each posting while blocked and a tripling for ones that are offensive to a fellow poster? I'm figuring at least three or four years.
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.