Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 1021382

Shown: posts 37 to 61 of 70. Go back in thread:

 

Re: If you Can't Say Anything Nice Talk To Me » SLS

Posted by Phillipa on July 14, 2012, at 19:26:26

In reply to Re: If you Can't Say Anything Nice Talk To Me, posted by SLS on July 14, 2012, at 9:49:21

Scott if only you had your babblemail on :( Phillipa

 

Re: If you Can't Say Anything Nice Talk To Me » SLS

Posted by zazenducke on July 14, 2012, at 19:26:27

In reply to Re: If you Can't Say Anything Nice Talk To Me » zazenducke, posted by SLS on July 14, 2012, at 9:47:29

> > > I did not see behaviors of Dinah that would lead me to judge her actions to be bullying.
>
> > I wouldn't expect you to Scott, but not because they weren't as I described. You are very invested in the status quo here and your deference towards authority has always been remarkable.
>
> You are very predictable, if not consistent. I would have expected nothing less of you than to assume suppositions about my attitudes, loyalties, investments, need for stasis, and my complex relationship with authority. Simplistic rhetoric coming from you is disappointing. Actually, I was wondering what took you so long.

I'm sorry you were disappointed. It was a simple statement of my observations and thoughts.

>
> > > Perhaps this thread should be redirected to Administration.
>
> > Please direct your future responses to Administration. Be the change you want to see!!!
>
> I would, except I don't know how. Could you please explain to me how to go about redirecting a thread?
>
> Thanks.

Scott I wasn't suggesting you redirect the thread just your part of it since that is all you have control over and you are the one who wants this change. Just start a new topic on Admin for yourself and cut and paste anything you want to reply to.

>
> As you have an opinion, so have I.
>
> Gotta stir those pots...
>

Good Luck with your culinary endeavors!

 

Re: If you Can't Say Anything Nice Talk To Me » zazenducke

Posted by SLS on July 14, 2012, at 19:26:27

In reply to Re: If you Can't Say Anything Nice Talk To Me » SLS, posted by zazenducke on July 14, 2012, at 10:33:41

> > > > I did not see behaviors of Dinah that would lead me to judge her actions to be bullying.
> >
> > > I wouldn't expect you to Scott, but not because they weren't as I described. You are very invested in the status quo here and your deference towards authority has always been remarkable.
> >
> > You are very predictable, if not consistent. I would have expected nothing less of you than to assume suppositions about my attitudes, loyalties, investments, need for stasis, and my complex relationship with authority. Simplistic rhetoric coming from you is disappointing. Actually, I was wondering what took you so long.

> I'm sorry you were disappointed. It was a simple statement of my observations and thoughts.

Perhaps they would have been better left unsaid in this environment. You must surely have a following on Psycho-Babble that looks forward with excitement to know your next statements that detail your observations and thoughts. I do not.

I don't think you are qualified to identify bullying in others (an irony). According to what I found when using Google, your characterization of Dinah as being a bully is inaccurate.

Here's the Wiki entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying

> > Gotta stir those pots...

> Good Luck with your culinary endeavors!

I don't cook. I thought you might.


- Scott

 

Re: If you Can't Say Anything Nice Talk To Me

Posted by SLS on July 14, 2012, at 19:26:27

In reply to Re: If you Can't Say Anything Nice Talk To Me » zazenducke, posted by SLS on July 14, 2012, at 10:51:50

I'm sorry.

This is getting stupid.


- Scott

 

Re: If you Can't Say Anything Nice Talk To Me

Posted by marylou333 on July 14, 2012, at 19:26:28

In reply to Re: If you Can't Say Anything Nice Talk To Me » zazenducke, posted by SLS on July 14, 2012, at 9:47:29

The plain truth is the mods had the power on Babble at one time, an they did whatever bob or they wanted to do, which was power related ,crushing anyone who go up there nose. Crazy ban,s longer than jail for murder in some case,s ,humiliation to mentaly sick people was the result.I say that being cival is the way you look at a person,not the way they may act under depression.More distess was caused by blocks than any illness they suffered, it was like your shrink had struck you off for just for being ill .It was all for website rateing,s ,block the people who may harm the rateings never mind it may make them even more ill.Thank common sence that now web sites except people rant in illness and are not puppets for a website rateing. People see babble an same people still ill after everyones med advice .You have been posting years with the same illness, why would the want to listen to someone telling them how to treat something they carnt treat for themself. An scott im working class so cut the dictionary talk it not smart its toe curling

 

Re: If you Can't Say Anything Nice Talk To Me

Posted by zazenducke on July 14, 2012, at 19:26:28

In reply to Re: If you Can't Say Anything Nice Talk To Me, posted by marylou333 on July 14, 2012, at 12:57:37

Thanks for the link Scott.I think Mary Lou made my points. It's about power. The power to block did hurt people and it was intentional. The deputies knew people might be blocked for months at a time when they acted. It was their choice. I believe the bullying that took place by Dinah was consistent with social aggression. It's purpose was social exclusion. Shaming labeling coercion etc etc etc. As someone with power she had more responsibility than if she was just a poster. She stood by while others were bullied by Bob and did nothing but enforce the bullying policies. It was her choice. But I'm sure she has other good and useful qualities.
.....................
Bullying is an act of repeated aggressive behavior in order to intentionally hurt another person, physically or mentally. Bullying is characterized by an individual behaving in a certain way to gain power over another person.[16]

Norwegian researcher Dan Olweus defines bullying as when a person is

"exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other persons." He defines negative action as "when a person intentionally inflicts injury or discomfort upon another person, through physical contact, through words or in other ways".[17]

General

Bullying behavior may include name calling, verbal or written abuse, exclusion from activities, exclusion from social situations, physical abuse, or coercion.[13][18] Bullies may behave this way to be perceived as popular or tough or to get attention. They may bully out of jealousy or be acting out because they themselves are bullied.[19]

U.S. National Center for Education Statistics suggests that bullying can be classified into two categories:

Direct bullying, and
indirect bullying (which is also known as social aggression).[1]

Ross states that direct bullying involves a great deal of physical aggression, such as shoving and poking, throwing things, slapping, choking, punching and kicking, beating, stabbing, pulling hair, scratching, biting, scraping, and pinching.[20]

He also suggests that social aggression or indirect bullying is characterized by attempting to socially isolate the victim. This isolation is achieved through a wide variety of techniques, including spreading gossip, refusing to socialize with the victim, bullying other people who wish to socialize with the victim, and criticizing the victim's manner of dress and other socially-significant markers (including the victim's race, religion, disability, sex, or sexual preference, etc.). Ross[20] outlines other forms of indirect bullying which are more subtle and more likely to be verbal, such as name calling, the silent treatment, arguing others into submission, manipulation, gossip/false gossip, lies, rumors/false rumors, staring, giggling, laughing at the victim, saying certain words that trigger a reaction from a past event, and mocking. The UK based children's charity, Act Against Bullying, was set up in 2003 to help children who were victims of this type of bullying by researching and publishing coping skills.

It has been noted that there tend to be differences in how bullying manifests itself between the sexes. Males tend to be more likely to be physically aggressive whereas females tend to favour exclusion and mockery, though it has been noticed that females are becoming more physical in their bullying,[16] whereas conversely, males tend to opt for exclusion and mockery rather than physical aggression when the victim is perceived as too strong, or being physical would otherwise cause problems for the bullies (i.e., cowardice), and/or the bullies see physical aggression as immature (i.e., the bullying is occurring among adults).

 

Re: If you Can't Say Anything Nice Talk To Me » zazenducke

Posted by Dinah on July 14, 2012, at 19:26:28

In reply to Re: If you Can't Say Anything Nice Talk To Me, posted by zazenducke on July 14, 2012, at 13:17:42

Well, clearly you'll think what you want about me. And clearly in today's Babble, you can say what you like about me.

I still think we're more alike than different. I think of you as sort of a deputy in your own way. You just deliver your administrative actions with words, and based on your own interpretations and civility rules. I often admire your defense of others, if not necessarily the way you go about it. I definitely don't agree with the people you think of as worthy of punishment. It seems to me to be based more on your perception of authority than anything else. But I could be wrong. Obviously we don't view civility in the same way.

I agonized over every decision I ever made. Anyone who knows me can verify that. I hope you also give a great deal of thought to your actions. Give thought to your own power. You have just as much as anyone on Babble.

 

Re: If you Can't Say Anything Nice Talk To Me » Emily Elizabeth

Posted by Dinah on July 14, 2012, at 19:26:29

In reply to Re: If you Can't Say Anything Nice Talk To Me, posted by Emily Elizabeth on July 14, 2012, at 9:09:38

Thanks, Emily Elizabeth.

I'll agree with you about Scott. I not only appreciate his generosity in reaching out to others, but admire his ability to smooth troubled waters.

 

Re: If you Can't Say Anything Nice Talk To Me

Posted by marylou333 on July 15, 2012, at 3:31:50

In reply to Re: If you Can't Say Anything Nice Talk To Me » SLS, posted by Phillipa on July 14, 2012, at 19:26:26

Scott does not smooth troubled waters, he turn,s it into a rageing sea of upperclass waffle an one upmanship with any one who challenges his life ruining med combo,s half of which are banned in England as deemed unsafe.The reason we dont get meds combos of many med,s in ENGLAND is cost, you will find that out for yourself when you adopt our system . Plus most shrink.s dont have faith in any MEDS. plus we tend to take less as we prefere sex an weight nutral to fat zombie.your tight little commuity is broken by phillipa who updates, me 2 times a week wether i want to or not.A lady giveing advice an is the main block causer over years with email harassment, jesus her 3 kids have disowned her.Bob never blocked her , instead blocked the people she harrased as she used email to inform bob of any inside rebelion she weasled out of PM posters she got me blocked numourous time an still emails me, an yes i talk to her no grude held, its her illness so i except it.I am mad at the way i was treated as i am just the same on rethink mental health and have many friends for saying it like it is, we have a forum called the kitchen were you say what you like within reason an not get banned, but only inthis kitchen forum, also we have an edit button so people like me can go over an look for dyslexic spelling.you can edit but not deleat.You really carnt survive without interacting with the real world not 20 years ago todays world. an answer all embarrasing questions,like sex something most of you have forgot mabye years ago with combo impotent probs. You carnt survive on just a medication forum but i fear you carnt change, nobody can interact with todays young drug induced mentally ill. An scott im not in a bad place , i take minimum meds 100mg sertraline an 4mg ativan 2mg 6am 2mg9pm its near on part of my DNA .I do have scar,s from earlier on 12mg a day ativan washed down with 1Lt of vodka.I have been hospitalized with pancritis 3 times, gall bladder removed , bile track ruptured. kidney low function strangly not liver.my colesterol is high tyroid all over the place stomach meds dayly for lineing protection.I get by on the least shrink meds i can i live on the edge of med help maybe us brits are made of stronger stuff.Why not just have a babble old days forum AN ALL WOLLOW IN THE GOD THAT IS BOB

 

Smoothing troubled waters? » Dinah

Posted by zazenducke on July 15, 2012, at 6:17:30

In reply to Re: If you Can't Say Anything Nice Talk To Me » Emily Elizabeth, posted by Dinah on July 14, 2012, at 19:26:29

I would disagree with this characterization of Scotts contribution to this thread. Of course with Scott it's always a little difficult to ferret out the meaning of his verbal productions:)so who knows for sure?

 

Go wash the dishes or something

Posted by Emme_V2 on July 15, 2012, at 8:08:19

In reply to Smoothing troubled waters? » Dinah, posted by zazenducke on July 15, 2012, at 6:17:30

Don't people have anything better to do than write vitriol about other people on a board that's supposed to be for mutual support? I just don't get it. There are so many better ways to spend one's energy. There are nice people here. Scott and Dinah are two of them. What's up with the harshness against them? (That was a rhetorical question.) Can the board get back to the mutual support thing?

 

Re: Go wash the dishes or something (nm) » Emme_V2

Posted by zazenducke on July 15, 2012, at 8:30:52

In reply to Go wash the dishes or something, posted by Emme_V2 on July 15, 2012, at 8:08:19

 

Re: Smoothing troubled waters? » zazenducke

Posted by Dinah on July 15, 2012, at 8:52:12

In reply to Smoothing troubled waters? » Dinah, posted by zazenducke on July 15, 2012, at 6:17:30

I was speaking of Scott in general. Many is the time that I've seen him defuse a situation.

I daresay even the most peaceloving of people reach their limit eventually when provoked. Your style of address to Scott is pretty consistent. As it is to me, and to most deputies/ex-deputies, and a few other people you seem to connect with the administration.

Did I see mocking mentioned in that quote you gave? The one that started

"Norwegian researcher Dan Olweus defines bullying as when a person is

"exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other persons.""

You keep mentioning snark and snorts long after their have been any snark or snorts. Why bring up things from years and years ago over and over again long after the events have ended and not been repeated? Out of context and with no provocation? Do you not see that as exposing another person repeatedly and over time to negative actions on the part of another?

Even if you believe that a person enforcing site guidelines because they believe in site guidelines is bullying, do you not see that clever remarks by a clever poster made consistently over time fits the criteria as well? Even under your understanding of it?

I give you the credit of believing that you are railing against perceived power and believe yourself justified. I give you this credit because I see you posting quite kindly to people whom you perceive as having no power. And because I see you intervening in the same sort of situations I wish to intervene in. But do you not see your own use of power? Do you never question whether it's really ok to treat others the way you do because of how you perceive them?

Look in the mirror, zzd. Even your own mirror with your own world view.

If I didn't credit you with decent motives, I wouldn't be trying to say this to you. And it could be that I'm wrong to do that. But I wonder if you try to change your attitude towards those you perceive as misusing power, you might learn to feel differently. I'm reasonably certain that Scott would also be willing to try a reset. I've always expressed my willingness to do so. And for that matter, my experience with you has not been consistently negative. I've quite enjoyed some of our interchanges and many of your positive and helpful interchanges with others.

 

Re: Smoothing troubled waters?

Posted by zazenducke on July 15, 2012, at 9:18:39

In reply to Re: Smoothing troubled waters? » zazenducke, posted by Dinah on July 15, 2012, at 8:52:12

Dinah if I bring up things from years ago it's because I was blocked for years at a time. That's what I remember.

I believe the effects of the bullying on Babble by the deputies will last for a long long time for fragile people.

I will never forget when you blocked Brio after he had survived Katrina. THAT is bullying. And YOU are responsible. It was your choice.

I pointed out this comment because it is typical of the passive aggressive attacks that were made within the limits of civility by deputies ;) for so many years but if you were referring to Scott in general of course you are strictly in the clear! I thought you were complimenting him on his "pot stirring" and sarcasm on this thread.

My mistake.

 

Re: Smoothing troubled waters? » zazenducke

Posted by Dinah on July 15, 2012, at 10:00:43

In reply to Re: Smoothing troubled waters?, posted by zazenducke on July 15, 2012, at 9:18:39

I don't like commenting on particular instances. But had I understood the situation with Brio after Katrina, I wouldn't have followed what I saw as my duty under site guidelines and blocked him. I do think there are instances when breaking site guidelines is understandable and should be overlooked, and Katrina is definitely one of them. I believe I expressed my regret at the time, and I regret it this long time after. Had I been able to undo it once I understood, I would have. I couldn't. Perhaps Katrina contributed to my own slow comprehension of the realities of the situation. I was distraught myself, and in fact stepped down as deputy for a while, if I remember correctly.

But also perhaps when certain things are expected from people, it's too easy to see those things in their behavior. I won't deny that I am human in that regard. And I'm glad that you see it is also possible for you. I have long thought you interpreted some of my posts in a manner I never meant them. I am not really all that clever in my posts. The most earnest and dull interpretation is likely the correct one. I suffer from scrupulousness in the OCD sense. My posts reflect that.

I will concede that the effect of the subconscious can't be discounted. However, yesterday my subconscious was innocent.

Thank you for your apology. I appreciate that.

 

Re: Smoothing troubled waters?

Posted by Dinah on July 15, 2012, at 10:12:13

In reply to Re: Smoothing troubled waters? » zazenducke, posted by Dinah on July 15, 2012, at 10:00:43

Regret is such an inadequate word. Or perhaps it's used in too many circumstances. One regrets declining a kind invitation.

Yet I can also regret causing pain, a pain I could empathize with only too well. Regret can lay like a leaden ball in the belly.

 

Re: Smoothing troubled waters?

Posted by Phillipa on July 15, 2012, at 10:34:14

In reply to Re: Smoothing troubled waters?, posted by Dinah on July 15, 2012, at 10:12:13

I thought the entire thread had disappeared. I'm sorry to see what was meant as a thread to restore harmony and caring to people's responses turn into a in my opinion a horrible thread. Seems doesn't matter the topic it turns and becomes rather nasty at time. Also surprised to see blocked poster poster again. And Dinah you in my opinion are and always have been sweet and kind and fair. I hope you are better today. And here I thought the thread had disappeared. No notifications that threads are being redirected anymore. Also is there a reason that after you click on a post that it no longer changes color so you know where you have read too? Phillipa

 

Re: Smoothing troubled waters? » Phillipa

Posted by Dinah on July 15, 2012, at 10:55:01

In reply to Re: Smoothing troubled waters?, posted by Phillipa on July 15, 2012, at 10:34:14

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20120630/msgs/1021427.html

There was a redirect. When the posts are transferred over, apparently the browser sees them as new posts so don't show as read. I've never been entirely sure of how you access Babble. You've mentioned google, etc. in ways I don't understand. Do you mean that Babble is your homepage?

Thank you for your kind words. I'm ok, Phillipa.

I was worried myself whether you meant me by your initial post. I think posts pointing out bad behavior by unmentioned posters might leave many posters feeling a bit defensive. Posters you never had in mind. But it probably wouldn't be all that helpful to clarify.

Perhaps a supportive statement on the original thread might be the best option? Much like the one you made about me. That way if there is incivility, at least the poster on the receiving end of it won't feel alone and abandoned, or as if everyone on the site agreed. I remember from middle school that that was the worst part of it.

And I'm entirely in favor of complaining about Bob's abandonment.

 

Re: Smoothing troubled waters? » Dinah

Posted by Phillipa on July 15, 2012, at 19:42:53

In reply to Re: Smoothing troubled waters? » Phillipa, posted by Dinah on July 15, 2012, at 10:55:01

Dinah just clicked the redirect post as sometimes don't have time to finish messages. To answer your question I guess technically I don't have a homepage. When I open my computer it goes to mail first. And I scan what is there. I do not have a google bar on there hence I access babble and use the one on bottom of page. Habit and also the way this computer was configurated when bought it. I recall reading some posts that just sounded more accusatory than supportive hence the thread.I do believe the poster in question changed their posting style soon after this thread was posted. Phillipa

 

Re: Smoothing troubled waters?

Posted by Twinleaf on July 16, 2012, at 1:00:14

In reply to Re: Smoothing troubled waters? » Dinah, posted by Phillipa on July 15, 2012, at 19:42:53

It's very distressing to see how many destructive posts there have been here lately. It seems so ironic that, when there were almost incessant civility warnings and blocks, most of them were for very minor things, often so minor that it was not even clear why they were given. Now there are posts clearly aimed to hurt. We really do need monitoring for these destructive posts, although it seems pretty clear that we are not going to get it. This board has been through a lot, but it still has a lot of vital information and available support and understanding to offer. There are very few places like this. However,I see these negative posts as being very damaging to the positive values which still remain here. If they continue, they will make the board unsafe for everyone, but especially for new posters, who will be even less able to take them in stride than the rest of us.

I think it is vital to a mental health forum that it's members treat one another with respect, as this indicates that they respect and care about themselves as they should. Everyone here should, firstly, be a thoughtful and responsible human being. Having an emotional or mental disorder is only a part of who they are. It does not entitle them to disrespect or hurt others.

 

Re: Smoothing troubled waters? » Twinleaf

Posted by zazenducke on July 16, 2012, at 5:10:00

In reply to Re: Smoothing troubled waters?, posted by Twinleaf on July 16, 2012, at 1:00:14

I was worried myself whether you meant me by your initial post. I think posts pointing out bad behavior by unmentioned posters might leave many posters feeling a bit defensive. Posters you never had in mind. But it probably wouldn't be all that helpful to clarify.

Dinah

Maybe Dinah has a point?

Might be more productive to reach out to newcomers with help and advice? I don't know *shrug*

Maryann is a helpful and insightful person who reaches out to others. I noticed she posted a link to some great music for Phil who posted about being suicidal the other day and hasn't been heard from lately. Maybe try something like that?

Just a thought

> It's very distressing to see how many destructive posts there have been here lately. It seems so ironic that, when there were almost incessant civility warnings and blocks, most of them were for very minor things, often so minor that it was not even clear why they were given. Now there are posts clearly aimed to hurt. We really do need monitoring for these destructive posts, although it seems pretty clear that we are not going to get it. This board has been through a lot, but it still has a lot of vital information and available support and understanding to offer. There are very few places like this. However,I see these negative posts as being very damaging to the positive values which still remain here. If they continue, they will make the board unsafe for everyone, but especially for new posters, who will be even less able to take them in stride than the rest of us.
>
> I think it is vital to a mental health forum that it's members treat one another with respect, as this indicates that they respect and care about themselves as they should. Everyone here should, firstly, be a thoughtful and responsible human being. Having an emotional or mental disorder is only a part of who they are. It does not entitle them to disrespect or hurt others.

 

Re: Smoothing troubled waters? » Dinah

Posted by zazenducke on July 16, 2012, at 5:51:28

In reply to Re: Smoothing troubled waters? » zazenducke, posted by Dinah on July 15, 2012, at 8:52:12


Dinah I don't know what you are referring to about my manner of address to
Scott. I tried my best to deflect his sarcasm and unkind implications with good humor and refusal to take offense. I have never thought of Scott as someone in authority or as part of the administration. I do not have any particular manner of address toward him. I have not tried to provoke him intentionally. I have felt a bit harassed by him in the last few months but I try to avoid him for the most part and not engage with him and will renew my efforts. I think you missed the mark there Dinah. But I will take your feedback into consideration.

I'm sorry you feel like I am mocking you. I don't see it that way. Maybe it's your attitude toward me?

Would you feel better if Bob came back and blocked me for two years (because you are a former deputy) and rounded it off to one of course? I'm genuinely curious. You said in the past you thought some people should be blocked permanently did you mean me?

It honestly wouldn't matter to me at this point.

Of course this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you are a good person even if you refuse to change your attitude. I'm honestly pretty unlikely to change mine either.


> I was speaking of Scott in general. Many is the time that I've seen him defuse a situation.
>
> I daresay even the most peaceloving of people reach their limit eventually when provoked. Your style of address to Scott is pretty consistent. As it is to me, and to most deputies/ex-deputies, and a few other people you seem to connect with the administration.
>
> Did I see mocking mentioned in that quote you gave? The one that started
>
> "Norwegian researcher Dan Olweus defines bullying as when a person is
>
> "exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other persons.""
>
> You keep mentioning snark and snorts long after their have been any snark or snorts. Why bring up things from years and years ago over and over again long after the events have ended and not been repeated? Out of context and with no provocation? Do you not see that as exposing another person repeatedly and over time to negative actions on the part of another?
>
> Even if you believe that a person enforcing site guidelines because they believe in site guidelines is bullying, do you not see that clever remarks by a clever poster made consistently over time fits the criteria as well? Even under your understanding of it?
>
> I give you the credit of believing that you are railing against perceived power and believe yourself justified. I give you this credit because I see you posting quite kindly to people whom you perceive as having no power. And because I see you intervening in the same sort of situations I wish to intervene in. But do you not see your own use of power? Do you never question whether it's really ok to treat others the way you do because of how you perceive them?
>
> Look in the mirror, zzd. Even your own mirror with your own world view.
>
> If I didn't credit you with decent motives, I wouldn't be trying to say this to you. And it could be that I'm wrong to do that. But I wonder if you try to change your attitude towards those you perceive as misusing power, you might learn to feel differently. I'm reasonably certain that Scott would also be willing to try a reset. I've always expressed my willingness to do so. And for that matter, my experience with you has not been consistently negative. I've quite enjoyed some of our interchanges and many of your positive and helpful interchanges with others.

 

Re: correction

Posted by zazenducke on July 16, 2012, at 7:25:58

In reply to Re: Smoothing troubled waters? » Twinleaf, posted by zazenducke on July 16, 2012, at 5:10:00

I meant Marylou333 not maryanne of course. Sorry.


> I was worried myself whether you meant me by your initial post. I think posts pointing out bad behavior by unmentioned posters might leave many posters feeling a bit defensive. Posters you never had in mind. But it probably wouldn't be all that helpful to clarify.
>
> Dinah
>
> Maybe Dinah has a point?
>
> Might be more productive to reach out to newcomers with help and advice? I don't know *shrug*
>
> Maryann is a helpful and insightful person who reaches out to others. I noticed she posted a link to some great music for Phil who posted about being suicidal the other day and hasn't been heard from lately. Maybe try something like that?
>
> Just a thought
>
>
>
> > It's very distressing to see how many destructive posts there have been here lately. It seems so ironic that, when there were almost incessant civility warnings and blocks, most of them were for very minor things, often so minor that it was not even clear why they were given. Now there are posts clearly aimed to hurt. We really do need monitoring for these destructive posts, although it seems pretty clear that we are not going to get it. This board has been through a lot, but it still has a lot of vital information and available support and understanding to offer. There are very few places like this. However,I see these negative posts as being very damaging to the positive values which still remain here. If they continue, they will make the board unsafe for everyone, but especially for new posters, who will be even less able to take them in stride than the rest of us.
> >
> > I think it is vital to a mental health forum that it's members treat one another with respect, as this indicates that they respect and care about themselves as they should. Everyone here should, firstly, be a thoughtful and responsible human being. Having an emotional or mental disorder is only a part of who they are. It does not entitle them to disrespect or hurt others.
>
>

 

Re: correction

Posted by ron1953 on July 16, 2012, at 10:23:22

In reply to Re: correction, posted by zazenducke on July 16, 2012, at 7:25:58

A recurring theme that I see here as well as on other online fora, is the apparent inability of some members to simply ignore those posts (or posters) which aren't interesting or aren't liked. Just like in real life, everything that one sees or hears cannot be controlled or filtered, and due to the limitations of the written word (lack of voice inflection, facial expression, body language), misunderstandings are inevitable.

Unlike choosing one's friends or choosing one's therapist, being an active member of an online forum poses the distinct possibility of continually bumping into folks who may not share or even support your particular view. It's the nature of the beast, and all the pissing and moaning about it won't change that fact. And being a "mental health" forum doesn't seem any different from others - I've been a member of guitar forums that are just as (if not more so) volatile. And the subject of moderation on those boards was just as divided.

I know that I have certainly failed on numerous occasions to just ignore some stuff, but I refuse to put the responsibility on others to post in such a way that it won't upset me.

 

Re: Smoothing troubled waters? » zazenducke

Posted by Dinah on July 16, 2012, at 11:34:32

In reply to Re: Smoothing troubled waters? » Dinah, posted by zazenducke on July 16, 2012, at 5:51:28

I don't at all wish for you to be blocked. Even if Dr. Bob were to come to the board, which I very much doubt, my hope is that he wouldn't do a darn thing about anything you've said about me. I've appreciated what I thought was an honest discussion of the conflict between us. I don't feel disrespected by the discussion.

I've never thought you should be permanently blocked. I don't remember thinking that about anyone in recent memory. For the most part, my belief is that a year was far too long, if the poster was willing to live by the site guidelines. And not long enough if the poster was not willing to live by site guidelines. The appropriate length of time for a block should be as long as the poster is unwilling to make an effort to follow Dr. Bob's rules. I was always in favor of a poster being allowed to request a shortening of a block after discussion with Dr. Bob, as long as Dr. Bob made some announcement of the fact. I think Dr. Bob's position has been that repeated violations of civility rules demonstrate better than words a poster's future intentions. I disagree. I think a lot of violations come from not understanding what he wishes, and/or anger at the perception that the poster is not understood by Dr. Bob. Not all, but a lot. Some come from a fundamental disagreement with the idea that speech shouldn't be entirely free. I do think it's reasonable to expect people who choose to post here to also choose to follow site guidelines.

Of course, this is currently a moot point. And even before Bob abandoned us, he seemed to be coming to a different conclusion on the matter. Perhaps because the board is smaller and was less likely to be overwhelming to him? He has never had unlimited time to administrate.

I'm sorry you don't feel like you can change your opinion of me. I know you won't believe this, but you really have little to wish changed in my overall view of you. I've been a little afraid to open your posts since I became a deputy. But my feelings to you have always been largely positive. Even when I see people I like very much feeling hurt over what you've said (whether or not you meant to hurt them), I have maintained a positive view of you. And have expressed that positive view in what I thought was a pretty open manner. Perhaps I didn't convey my opinion clearly enough.

Perhaps some of the problem comes from our differing styles of communication. You have a charmingly playful way of communicating, while I am rather literal and earnest. I can admire your style of posting without necessarily understanding you all the time. So that when you say, for example, that you are confident that I am mentally ill or mention posts that I feel rather sensitive about, I *wish* to take that in the positive sense of understanding that I suffer the same distress as many people on Babble or that you've appreciated my contributions. But I'm always a bit afraid that that's not how you intend it. Perhaps if you see me posting defensively, you could let me know if I'm misinterpreting. And I could ask you if I am afraid I am being mocked, instead of being defensive myself.

If you feel that Scott is being sarcastic towards you, and Scott is perhaps feeling defensive towards how he sees you as posting, perhaps both of you are merely responding defensively. If you start the dance over again, and keep in mind that misunderstandings might be causing defensiveness, maybe you could change the tenor of the relationship.

Even if different communication styles lead to an inability to really be in rapport with one another, perhaps we could at least manage to avoid upsetting each other to the extent possible?

If you see me currently bullying someone, I wouldn't mind if you pointed out that I might be inadvertently being less than supportive. As long as you don't prejudge my motives, I am pretty good at self examination. I do feel a bit defensive when I think someone is judging me unfairly. And I would wish that your perceptions of my past behavior not be brought up unless clearly in context. Is there anything I currently do to you that you might wish I would change?

I have been unhappy, this past many years, to be in conflict with someone I have always liked and enjoyed, if not completely understood. I'd like that to change, even if your underlying feelings about me cannot change.


Go forward in thread:


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] 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.