![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 15 to 39 of 90. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on October 5, 2004, at 19:18:17
In reply to Re: Hi, remember me? :), posted by Kali Munro on October 5, 2004, at 9:30:17
Posted by Kali Munro on October 5, 2004, at 19:24:53
In reply to Re: Hi, remember me? :) » Kali Munro, posted by partlycloudy on October 5, 2004, at 11:00:17
> Welcome back, Kali. I got a lot out of your last visit, and know that you are aware of our recent conflict about multiple consequetive posts. I took your advice and kept away from the discussion as I knew it would only upset me and I would not be able to add anything that could resolve the situation, so I thank you very much.
>How wonderful you could give that to yourself! :)
> A question I have for you is whether a deputy or multiple deputies of Dr. Bob might have helped in a situation like this. I don't know if I am reading the thread incorrectly but it looked like it might have escalated while the good doctor had his back turned...
>
> thank you!
> pcI don't know what a deputy is but I'm imagining that they might be members who help out with moderation/facilitation? If that's the case, I would say, yes indeed. Because I don't know their role it's hard to say but if it was within their role to suggest that there be a thread for those individuals who found the consecutive postings upsetting so they could talk it through and be heard and understood, and perhaps one for the poster to share his views about the issue without interrupting the ones who are upset, and perhaps even another for those who were okay with his posting. The idea isn't to set up "sides" as it might sound but to let everyone have a space to be really heard and explore what they're feeling. Often times that process allows things to resolve themselves.
If I've misunderstood the deputies' role, please let me know and I'll answer based on what their role is.
Kali
Posted by partlycloudy on October 5, 2004, at 19:35:13
In reply to Hi partlycloudy (nice name) :), posted by Kali Munro on October 5, 2004, at 19:24:53
Deputies ar meant to interpret the Rules of Psycho-babble whilst Dr. Bob is not able to attend to them. As I understand it, the deputies don't interpret the rules so much as inforce them.
Still, I think the escalating situation with Lou Pilder could have been diffused if closely monitored.
That's the beauty and the beast of babble. We are neither closely monitored for censorship, nor for abuse of policy. Our freedom trips us up every time.
pc.
It rained today but it was MostlySunny.
Posted by Dinah on October 5, 2004, at 19:42:42
In reply to Hi, remember me? :), posted by Kali Munro on October 4, 2004, at 20:54:45
Thank you for making yourself available again. I know you were very helpful last time.
I'm not sure if this question falls into your area of expertise or not, and I apologize if it doesn't.
Long term Babblers seem to have a relationship with the board itself, separate from fellow posters and even Dr. Bob. And unfortunately, as in all relationships, it's all too easy to disengage, emotionally divorce the board, as time after time it hurts emotionally to be here. Mind you, I've always said that that which brings you the greatest joy can also bring you the greatest pain. I see so many of my friends disengage or leave entirely. My own relationship with Babble has been stormy at times.
I recently compared my relationship with Babble to my relationship with my therapist. Naturally one is a person, the other a community, but I see a lot of parallels.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20040218/msgs/315688.html
My question is When is the relationship worth fighting for? And if you find it is, how do you recover from the blows that can be inflicted here on Babble and reingage? It's not exactly like another person because you can't really talk it out in the same way. You can't really have a back and forth until the other person understands the way you can with a person. You can lower expectations and be flexible as you can with a person, I suppose.
But are there some relationship skills that apply to a poster's relationship to the group as a whole that differ from relationship skills between people?
How to decide if it's worth fighting for? And if so, how better to fight for the relationship?
Posted by Kali Munro on October 5, 2004, at 19:46:20
In reply to Ta lots and a question, posted by Fi on October 5, 2004, at 15:23:01
Hi Fi,
I enjoy chatty posts. :)
You wrote:
>>>In more general terms, its maybe not surprising that over the long time I have been on and off the boards, there have regularly been people challenging the boundaries/rules/guidelines that Dr Bob uses in facilitating the boards.<<<<<
Sure, that's human. People have different perspectives about how a board should be moderated, some people feel confined by rules and others do their own thing without thinking about the rules too much. People have had different experiences with being members of groups, families, boards, chat rooms, etc. and may have strong opinions about how things can work here. If it's an important issue to someone, it's healthy to speak up respectfully when you disagree. It may not mean that you get what you want but it still might be important or healing to do.>>>>I suppose that is inevitable (and I admire Dr Bob in persisting with it all so long term!) I expect its just one of those things which is bound to happen, and sometimes go on at length. *Is there a different perspective us posters can use to address this maybe a bit quicker/effectively? Do we leave it to Dr Bob?* <<<<
I'm not sure I know what you mean by "address this more effectively." Address what? The fact that some people don't agree with the rules and express that? If so, is it a problem for you? Does it bother you that people challenge Bob? If that's the case, you could say how you feel about the rule or about the challenge. You might want to look at why it bothers you and express that. For example, some people are uncomfortable with the tension involved and it might help to simply state that. Or, you might agree with the rule and feel the need to state that, which is fine too. You might want to think about what the issue is for you -- sorry I wasn't clear what the issue for you was.
>>>>I hope that he realises that there may well be a silent bunch who dont mind a change, and therefore dont get involved in the discussion.<<<<
I see, you're concerned for Bob? I'm sure he knows that there are many opinions among members, some of which are expressed and some that aren't. But maybe you want to tell him that, as you just did! :)
>>>>I have occassionally pointed out to people that dont like the restrictions that there are lots of other chatrooms/boards etc where people can say exactly what they like, but that never seems to address peoples' concerns.<<<<
No, it wouldn't, because they want to be here and they want to have a say in how things are done. Your comment could sound like you're saying 'if you don't like it, you can go elsewhere' which doesn't get at what they're feeling, thinking, and asking for.>>>>Finishing comment: I think it helps a lot that there is an Admin board. Means its optional if any of us even see the posts here, so we can choose to stay in a more tranquil board and therefore more supportive and focussed on our needs, but also have a context for discussion about the process/boards.
Fi <<<<<
Yes, I agree. It's good to have a place to talk things out and deal with process.Take care,
Kali
Posted by Dinah on October 5, 2004, at 19:50:23
In reply to Thanx!! » Kali Munro, posted by partlycloudy on October 5, 2004, at 19:35:13
I'm not sure how much impact a deputy could have had in this particular situation, as very few PBC's were given, and I don't know what else a deputy could do. Sometimes it's very clear and a deputy could be a lot of help. Sometimes it's less clear. Most people were civil in this debate. I certainly broke the new rule and could have been admonished, I suppose.
I'm thinking that the best way to have more quickly resolved the latest problem would have been more regular involvement by Dr. Bob and more clarity by Dr. Bob. I know that it took several posts by Dr. Bob for me to understand what on earth was going on. A deputy couldn't have clarified that. Only Dr. Bob.
Sometimes I think Dr. Bob needs to have someone read his posts to make sure his very short sentences, which I'm sure make a great deal of sense to him since their context is inside his brain, is equally clear and understandable to others.
Posted by partlycloudy on October 5, 2004, at 20:00:22
In reply to (Sorry, Kali Munro to interrupt) » partlycloudy, posted by Dinah on October 5, 2004, at 19:50:23
you know, I keep having to redefine myselef here - obviously not clear enough!!
My thoughts were that the rules themseleves needed to be more clearly defined (which might have not been able to to this point) so that the deputies could intervene.
Dinah, my most and most sincerely revered Dinah, I do not mean to insult you in any miniscule way,
pc.
Posted by Kali Munro on October 5, 2004, at 20:01:45
In reply to Thanx!! » Kali Munro, posted by partlycloudy on October 5, 2004, at 19:35:13
Had the discussion been closely moderated what would the deputies have done, in your view?
>>>It rained today but it was MostlySunny. <<<It was Totally Sunny today here. :)
Posted by alexandra_k on October 5, 2004, at 20:23:23
In reply to (Sorry, Kali Munro to interrupt) » partlycloudy, posted by Dinah on October 5, 2004, at 19:50:23
I have followed some of the conflict but will admit that I didn't keep up with all of it...
I think that Dr. Bob seems to give a lot of his time to the boards. We should remember that he isn't (?) funded for his time on psychobabble - and he also has a 'real job' to attend to. I too get frustrated (at times) with getting chunks of my own posts back at me with maybe a short ambiguous comment added - but have always found him willing to clarify if requested. I also have sympathy that one could become so enmeshed in babble that it could become a 24/7 job. (I mean in a way that is what I like about babble - when my life falls apart there is something for me to become enmeshed in) And that enmeshment is made all the more likely when there are masses and masses of posts requiring attention to be dealt with. We don't want to burn him out, after all.
When there is conflict on the board I think it is up to us as babblers to try to deal with it in appropriate ways. I don't see why we should 'need' Dr. Bob or a moderator or a deputy or whatever to implement some of Kali's suggestions. Why don't we all try to take some responsibility for attempting to implement them ourselves?
I think that useful points have been raised about people starting threads for the discussion of certain points of view. I think that things can be sorted out on babble in a similar manner to non-virtual interpersonal communication but realise that it is complicated by the time it takes for people to respond. Having a conversation can take several days and can run into weeks. Perhaps it is our opportunity to learn tolerance, and strategies for dealing with the feelings that issues conjure up for us.
Posted by Kali Munro on October 5, 2004, at 20:32:18
In reply to Re: Since you only have 'til thursday... » Kali Munro, posted by AuntieMel on October 5, 2004, at 17:08:05
I read some of the threads but I gave up reading after awhile -- it was too much! :)
One dynamic I see is a tendency to be forceful of one's views on both "sides" of the equation. I think some people felt that the consecutive poster was being "pushy" while being rather forceful themselves. I wonder what would have happened had someone said, "Hey, I'm sure you have some interesting things to say, but when you write so much I can't read it all -- it's too much for me to read! If I don't read everything, I'm not going to know what you're saying and be able to respond to you. I'd be far more likely to respond to you if you could write less. Do you think you could try that?" Naturally, it would carry more authority if Bob said it, but what about a deputy?
Personally, if I were a member, I would have had little patience for reading and responding to many of the poster's posts and would have chosen not to read them after awhile.
If I were the moderator, I might have wanted to check the pulse of the community and asked the original poster to post less. Likely one difficulty that would have arisen is the poster would have asked for an amount of posts and that it be applied equally to all.
I would have wanted to try to communicate with him that this wasn't a black and white issue, in other words, there may be times that people need to write a number of posts consecutively but it wouldn't be the norm. So, to create a rule because one person is doing it a lot wouldn't be fair to those, including him, who might do it occassionally.
I would also want to discuss with him that his tendency to post a lot gets in the way of his being heard and understood and responded to. I likely would have wanted to have addressed the issue with him directly and help him to see the impact on *him* (i.e. many people feeling like they couldn't communicate with him)
I see how intense it all got and another dynamic I see was that assumptions were made without checking them out. For example, rather than saying "are you doing X?" and then proceed to assume someone is doing X, I would want to ask what the person was trying to achieve. I imagine he wanted to be heard and that wasn't likely going to happen if he wrote so many posts. If he wanted Bob to hear him, and some of his posts were directed to Bob, then I would have left that thread to Bob.
That's my thoughts at this moment.
Kali
Posted by Dinah on October 5, 2004, at 20:43:28
In reply to Interruptions mostly certainly invited » Dinah, posted by partlycloudy on October 5, 2004, at 20:00:22
Oh, I wasn't at all insulted. Really. :)
I just had given it some thought at the time. There was only one point in the proceedings where I thought a deputy could have been useful, and since the situation resulting from that didn't escalate (although the entire situation certainly did) I don't think it was a big problem.
Now the last blowup was a perfect deputy situation. I always thought a perfect deputy situation is where there is a clear violation of the civility policy that Dr. Bob would happily take care of when he gets to the boards, but in the meantime posters get all upset about what the poster has said and the fact that there has (as of yet) been no admonishment.
Posted by Dinah on October 5, 2004, at 20:43:58
In reply to Interruptions mostly certainly invited » Dinah, posted by partlycloudy on October 5, 2004, at 20:00:22
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2004, at 20:47:04
In reply to Partly Cloudy, posted by Kali Munro on October 5, 2004, at 20:01:45
Friends,
There are some things that I would like to clarify in what has been posted in this discussion about my posting style.
First, there is the posts about the 100 posts. The reason that I wrote that it would take me 100 posts to unveil or unfold what was folded over was and still is because there is a {great deal of folds over what is visible that you may not be able to see untill there is an unfolding.}
You see, the discussion was between me and Dr. Hsiung and others about Jean Jaque Rousseau and the writings by him that appear on the faith board's opening page. There is a great complex overfolding there and I would need 100 posts to reveal why the writings by Jean Rousseau could have the potential to not only arrouse anti christian feelings, but I could show the potential for Jean Rousseau's writings to be reflected in the phylosophys of Hitler, Stalin Mao, Lenin and others. Then, after the 100 posts, what I would want to write could have the potential for others to consider that the writings by Jean Rousseau might not be appropriate to be posted on a mental health forum. I had asked the moderator to delete those posts by Jean Rousseau in order that I not need to post the 100 posts to reveal what the potential for Jean Rousseau's posts on the faith board have the potential to say in relation to arrousing the potential of putting down those of faiths like christians and others. I would need 100 post because that is how complex those writings are in relation to the goals of the board. Is it supportive for that discussion, which was on the administrative board where it belongs, to be limited or restricted in style of posting? Could not the rule be started after that thread was finished? Would not it be better to continue the discussion so that I could give others infomation so that they could have more light on the subject in order for them to make an informitive decision about if the writings by Jean Rousseau wer or were not supportive for a faith board on a mental health forum?
Lou
Posted by Kali Munro on October 5, 2004, at 20:56:35
In reply to Re: Hi, remember me? :), posted by Dinah on October 5, 2004, at 19:42:42
Wow, Dinah, your post about your relationship with your therapist was moving, intense, interesting, and compelling -- it clearly describes a relationship that is working for you on a deep level, even if not always on the surface level.
I guess my response to when do you stay and fight for a relationship is precisely what you said in your post about your therapist -- if it feels right on a deep level to do it then do it.
It can be hard to know sometimes what feels right on a deep level and what feels right because it mirrors some unhealthy relationship from your past. On the other hand, even those relationships can be necessary steps in our process.
I think you do what you likely do already to buffer yourself from the pain -- you take breaks from the group/board, you express what is important to you and let go of the rest, you gravitate to the subjects/people/threads that feel right and good to you, you remind yourself that relationships are not always easy but when they feel right and good it's worth it, you let go of expectations, you focus on what you get from the experience when you can, you see and accept the board/group/person as they are and not as you want them to be which doesn't mean you don't express yourself, disagree, challenge, seek answers, etc.
I suspect you already do these things and can get overwhelmed and exhausted by it all; understandably. I recommend doing things that replenish you physically and emotionally (notice I leave out mentally :)-- physical activity, rest, reading, slow walks, nature, meditation, yoga, etc. -- so you have something that comforts you when people/boards are "making you crazy"!
I think you have a lot of integrity, Dinah. You seek connection while being true to yourself. It can be a tough road to walk but one well worth it.
Take care,
Kali
Posted by Kali Munro on October 5, 2004, at 21:06:52
In reply to Lou offers clarification » Kali Munro, posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2004, at 20:47:04
Hi Lou,
I'm glad you came by. You ask:
>>>Would not it be better to continue the discussion so that I could give others infomation so that they could have more light on the subject in order for them to make an informitive decision about if the writings by Jean Rousseau wer or were not supportive for a faith board on a mental health forum?<<<<
Obviously this is an important issue to you, and you want to be able to share this information. Wouldn't it make more sense to first check whether or not anybody wants to hear what you want to share? That way you're sharing the information with people who want to read it and it could be in its own thread where only interested parties go.
The issue of how long or how many posts it would take to share your information is another issue and that is up to Bob.
Kali
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2004, at 21:11:12
In reply to Lou offers clarification » Kali Munro, posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2004, at 20:47:04
Friends,
The 100 posts were to be all independant of each other. Below are two links about what some of what I would have been writing about in the 100 posts. I would have unfolded about 7 of the 100 posts from some of the statements in the following two links. This is how complex this is.
I submit the following links only for your consideration and make no endorsement of its contents, but only wish to point out that there is an author that does not endorse Jean Rousseau's writings, and the other is a link to different people that had the potential to influence nations of our time.
Lou
http://www.koti.mbnt.fi/neptunia/philosophy/rouss3.htm
http://sepsec.iwarp.com./theory/ori.htm
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2004, at 21:16:14
In reply to Hi Lou (excuse me if I'm butting in), posted by Kali Munro on October 5, 2004, at 21:06:52
> Hi Lou,
>
> I'm glad you came by. You ask:
>
> >>>Would not it be better to continue the discussion so that I could give others infomation so that they could have more light on the subject in order for them to make an informitive decision about if the writings by Jean Rousseau wer or were not supportive for a faith board on a mental health forum?<<<<
>
> Obviously this is an important issue to you, and you want to be able to share this information. Wouldn't it make more sense to first check whether or not anybody wants to hear what you want to share? That way you're sharing the information with people who want to read it and it could be in its own thread where only interested parties go.
>
> The issue of how long or how many posts it would take to share your information is another issue and that is up to Bob.
>
> Kali
>Kali,
You wrote the above and there was a poster that wrote that they, in their own way of saying it, did think that the initial posts about Jean Rousseau before I stopped had merit.
Lou
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2004, at 21:24:24
In reply to Lou's response to, posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2004, at 21:16:14
Kali,
You wrote,[...its own thread....]
I would be glad to be allowed to have my own thread about this, but would the rule still apply still apply? IYO, Could this own thread be exempted from the rule on good anfd just causes?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on October 5, 2004, at 22:09:10
In reply to Hi Dinah, posted by Kali Munro on October 5, 2004, at 20:56:35
> Wow, Dinah, your post about your relationship with your therapist was moving, intense, interesting, and compelling -- it clearly describes a relationship that is working for you on a deep level, even if not always on the surface level.
I really appreciate your saying that. And it also describes my relationship with Babble, I have always thought. Babble has been so good for me in so many ways and helped me grow as a "person in relation with others". I suppose the fact that I can say that answers, for me anyway, whether it's worth it. Or it should.
> I think you do what you likely do already to buffer yourself from the pain -- you take breaks from the group/board, you express what is important to you and let go of the rest, you gravitate to the subjects/people/threads that feel right and good to you, you remind yourself that relationships are not always easy but when they feel right and good it's worth it, you let go of expectations, you focus on what you get from the experience when you can, you see and accept the board/group/person as they are and not as you want them to be which doesn't mean you don't express yourself, disagree, challenge, seek answers, etc.
I try, anyway. :) Maybe what makes it harder to relate to a group than a person is that the group isn't static. With a person you hopefully eventually reach "comfy old shoe" status in your relationship. While maintaining relationship with the board can be exhausting.
>
> I suspect you already do these things and can get overwhelmed and exhausted by it all; understandably. I recommend doing things that replenish you physically and emotionally (notice I leave out mentally :)-- physical activity, rest, reading, slow walks, nature, meditation, yoga, etc. -- so you have something that comforts you when people/boards are "making you crazy"!I could have sworn that the psychologist who did my Rorschach test wasn't named Kali Munro, but she said exactly the same thing! Perhaps Babble is a sort of Rorschach test in itself. ;)
>
> I think you have a lot of integrity, Dinah. You seek connection while being true to yourself. It can be a tough road to walk but one well worth it.Thank you very much. I'm honored.
>
> Take care,
>
> Kali
>
And you as well.
Posted by tabitha on October 6, 2004, at 1:37:49
In reply to Re: Thank you :) » Kali Munro, posted by Dinah on October 5, 2004, at 22:09:10
What's a good way to respond to someone who is wanting support for feelings of upset, when I think their feelings are based on a perception that needs to be challenged? For example, let's say someone takes offense at a post, but I read it differently and don't think any insult was intended. Let's say they get several responses validating their feelings. How can I say anything without seeming to be taking sides against them, or invalidating their perceptions? Is it better to just say nothing if I can't be totally supportive?
Posted by partlycloudy on October 6, 2004, at 7:46:49
In reply to Hi Lou (excuse me if I'm butting in), posted by Kali Munro on October 5, 2004, at 21:06:52
And so it starts.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040927/msgs/399439.html
?? What to do??
partlycloudy and puzzled
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 8:21:01
In reply to Kali - this is exactly what happens, posted by partlycloudy on October 6, 2004, at 7:46:49
> And so it starts.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040927/msgs/399439.html
>
> ?? What to do??
> partlycloudy and puzzled
Friends,
I have requested from the moderator for a determination as to if a statement is acceptable under the guidlines of theforum. It is a request for a determination, because I felt put down when I read the statement in question in the link provided above.
I feel that if a determination is made that it could be a good thing for the discussion to know that because then that type of statement could either be used or not in the future.
The statement in question to me may have a greater impact on me than on others. Looking at one psrt of it,[...whether or not anyone wants to hear...], is a part that when I read the statement, I felt put down.
The administrative board is for hearing issues concerning the operation of the forum. Is my concern dependant on others [...wanting to hear what I have to write?...]. There were posts by others that wrote that it was not the content of what I was writing, but the style of writing that I use. Look at what others have written about me in the thread above. Bobby wrote something like he/she liked reading about the Rider . There are others that wrote that they did not want the 3-post rule.
I read in the thread here about moderators. If I was a moderator, I would not want to stop someone from continuing what they were writing. This is a mental health forum where I feel that all posters have a place to write their concerns about the improvmrnt of the forum.
Lou
Posted by partlycloudy on October 6, 2004, at 8:48:38
In reply to Lou's response to partlycloudy's post, posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 8:21:01
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 9:06:03
In reply to Lou please do not post to me or reply. (nm), posted by partlycloudy on October 6, 2004, at 8:48:38
Dr. Hsiung,
It is my understanding that one can reply to a post by a poster that does not want one to post to them if:
A. they are responding to the post, and not the poster
or if
B. that the poster posts to them.
In my post here, I directed my post to {friends}, not to the poster. And the subject line was my [reply to the post] by the poster, not my reply to the poster.
My concern here is now the poster after bringing me into focus by initiating the issue of my request to you for a determination, now posts that I am not to {reply}.
I feel that this is going beyond the rule by saying that I can not reply. It is my undesdtanding that I can reply as long as my reply is not to the poster and is a reply to the content of the post. Could you clarify this so that I can have a better understanding of this?
Thanks in advance
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 9:13:17
In reply to To Dr. Hsiung, posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 9:06:03
Dr. Hsiung,
Another aspect of this is when a poster (brings up the name}of a poster in some way.
If a poster does not directly post to you, but brings up your name, could that also be the same as posting to you so that if a poster has told you not to post to them that that would be lifted because they brought you into attention?
Lou
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.