![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 9 to 33 of 33. Go back in thread:
Posted by baseball55 on March 20, 2014, at 23:06:29
In reply to Re: blocked for week » Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on March 20, 2014, at 12:44:37
It seems no board is free from the administrative vitriol, especially if Dr. Bob comes to visit. I truly don't understand this block. I have seen really nasty and vicious posters ignored and allowed to post insulting and hurtful things.
Yet here comes Dr Bob to the psychology board, injecting himself into a discussion nobody asked him to join and, presto, someone is blocked for a mild and reasonable criticism.
I'm about done with babble. I almost never go on the administration board to avoid these interchanges, yet the administrative board keeps seeping into every crevice of this website
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 20, 2014, at 23:06:30
In reply to Lou's response- -shuddahnoenbedder?, posted by Lou Pilder on March 20, 2014, at 18:15:01
> > Dr. Bob, in my last post I spoke from my mind.
> >
> > Now I'll speak from my heart.
> >
> > Do you realize that you blocked Twinleaf on a post, and series of posts, where she is being fearlessly authentic and trying to tell you of the distress and feelings of rejection she has had in her dealings with you? And that in blocking her, she could see your actions as validating those feelings of rejection?
> >
> > I agree with 10der that I understand why, under the Babble rules I knew, *some* of her words might be considered uncivil. I can understand your feeling frustrated as to the best way to stop the behavior. But couldn't you reach out to the underlying pain and feelings of rejection, the sense that you don't value her, instead of blocking her? Can you understand why someone who sees some people posting what they post to others and get met by amusement and kind words from you, and yet who repeatedly is blocked for far less than calling someone a prick, might be hurt and feel rejected? Do you think blocking someone for words that arise from that sense of hurt is the most productive response? I'd likely just come back feeling even more alienated and unvalued by you. (I hope she knows she's very much valued by fellow posters.) This might well lead to further expressions of feelings in a way you might not like. Might it not be more productive to address the underlying feelings?
> >
> > And, if you actually feel pain from her words, perhaps you could express the fact that her words affect you. Because I often think, and others might think, that you're well enough shielded to not much care what we say.
> >
> > You've been thoughtful enough to sense that my interactions with you, and your restructuring of Babble, have cost me a fair amount of pain, and not inconsiderable feelings of abandonment and loss. I do feel that I'm not particularly welcome here because I really can't embrace your new vision. Had I stayed, I'd have likely ended up being repeatedly blocked myself. I figured you would prefer I left with no fuss or bother. If I feel that bad just from your turning Babble into a place where I can't be, try to imagine how Twinleaf feels.
> >
> > Not that I can speak for Twinleaf. But that's how I'd feel if I were in her position.
>
> Friends,
> It is written here,[...that in blocking her, she could see your actions as validating those feelings of rejections...].
> The {action} by Mr. Hsiung is that he posted a block to the poster for not being in accordance with the rule to not post anything that could lead one to feel put down/accused.
> The question that I want to address here is if or if not that action by Mr. Hsiung {validates}{feelings of rejection} to the poster that posted what is not in accordance with the rule here.
> I say not. For to validate something generally means to make a formal approval of something that {ratifies} what is in question. In the case at hand, what is supposed to be validated is a {feeling of rejection that the poster has}. If you consider that in order for Mr. Hsiung to not be validating the feeling of rejection, would he have to not sanction the poster for the accusation posted toward himself? That could then mean that there could be {extortion} by the poster in that the poster could be saying that unless she is allowed to post what is accusative toward Mr. Hsiung, he could be deemed as validating the poster's feelings of rejection if he did not allow it? Then could not the poster have to be allowed to post whatever they wanted to with impunity or Mr. Hsiung could be faced with the accusation that he is validating her feelings of rejection? Rejection of what?
> She couldah known bedder with a site like this?
> Lou
>
> Friends,
It is written here,[...the sense that you don't value her...].
I never realized a lot of things before. And as I read I see more.
The aspect of if Mr. Hsiung {values} a person based upon sanctioning an accusation could be what a subset of readers could think that the poster is referring to here. If that was the case, then could all parents that chasten their children, not value their child? And does it also mean that all teachers that scold students doing what could be harmful to them also be guilty of devaluing the student? And what about a mechanic that says to a person bringing in a car for repair that says to the person that it was their fault that the motor is ruined because they were negligent in not changing the oil. Does the mechanic devalue the customer?
It is the devaluing that I question as a result of the sanction. I say not. I say to those that want to inflict any guilt upon Mr. Hsiung for sanctioning an accusation, that {gas lighting} could be fostered here. And I think that is a terrible thing to do.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 21, 2014, at 0:25:13
In reply to Re: blocked for week » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on March 20, 2014, at 23:06:29
> I truly don't understand. I thought the new paradigm was that people were supposed to use their shields when met with incivility. You think that vulnerable people who use your mental health site should use their shields when met with incivility because it's good for them, if I understand correctly.
I think all people are better able to protect themselves if they use their shields.
> Do you realize that you blocked Twinleaf on a post, and series of posts, where she is being fearlessly authentic and trying to tell you of the distress and feelings of rejection she has had in her dealings with you? And that in blocking her, she could see your actions as validating those feelings of rejection?
Yes. But feeling rejected doesn't justify incivility. Two wrongs don't make a right.
> Can you understand why someone who sees some people posting what they post to others and get met by amusement and kind words from you, and yet who repeatedly is blocked for far less than calling someone a prick, might be hurt and feel rejected?
Yes. So I asked her if she wanted to join Lou and Adorable's club:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1059467.html
And she said she didn't want there to be clubs:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1059636.html
> couldn't you reach out to the underlying pain and feelings of rejection, the sense that you don't value her, instead of blocking her? ... Might it not be more productive to address the underlying feelings?
I really can't be a therapist to her.
> I often think, and others might think, that you're well enough shielded to not much care what we say.
One reason I'm not showing her leniency is to balance the view of some posters that she's civil.
> I do feel that I'm not particularly welcome here because I really can't embrace your new vision. Had I stayed, I'd have likely ended up being repeatedly blocked myself. I figured you would prefer I left with no fuss or bother.
Different points of view are fine, and in fact encouraged. Those who are repeatedly blocked are welcome back. What I'd prefer is for us to work out a way to coexist despite our differences.
> If I feel that bad just from your turning Babble into a place where I can't be, try to imagine how Twinleaf feels.
>
> Dinah> I see the incivility in each of TL's posts where she has been warned and now blocked. If I knew how to help her see it clearly, I would do that, but I have tried and tried and tried in the past and concluded that my explanations aren't effective for her in some way I can't figure out.
>
> 10derheartI can imagine how she feels. I (maybe like 10der) have a harder time imagining why she keeps being uncivil.
> I honestly don't understand the policies of this site. Even if you have decided to suspend the civility rules towards some posters, for some reason known best to yourself, why not extend that to Twinleaf? ... is it not in your best interests to deal with the fact that people really are having a difficult time figuring out the current policies of this site?
>
> DinahInstead of seeing me as suspending the rules for some posters, could you think of me as making accommodations for them? Does Twinleaf need accommodations? If so, why? Is she having a difficult time figuring out the civility policies? Is that be an acceptable rationale?
Bob
Posted by Partlycloudy on March 21, 2014, at 8:22:24
In reply to Re: the new paradigm, posted by Dr. Bob on March 21, 2014, at 0:25:13
Add that to your list of skills. You win, we collectively lose. Just when we think we have figured your guidelines out, the parameters shift.
Good job!
PC
Posted by Dinah on March 21, 2014, at 9:55:55
In reply to Re: the new paradigm, posted by Dr. Bob on March 21, 2014, at 0:25:13
I'm not asking you to be a therapist. God forbid. I'm asking you to act as a wise and compassionate person might consider worthwhile. And at the same time attempt something that may be more effective than what you are doing. How is repeatedly blocking Twinleaf working for you?
I didn't say that no wise or compassionate person might disagree. Or that cold and unwise persons might not agree.
So you are saying that you will act as administrator if the majority of posters identify and sympathize with a poster. And laugh along with those in who post in a way that others might not find particularly funny?
Interesting philosophy. I wonder who will find this paradigm appealing. Well, I can make a few guesses...
Well, I daresay people might appreciate knowing what to expect at least. It is always better to know what to expect.
Posted by Dinah on March 21, 2014, at 10:04:11
In reply to Re: the new paradigm, posted by Dr. Bob on March 21, 2014, at 0:25:13
Is there some reason you wish to get rid of people who build goodwill through consistently extending themselves to others but are critical of your choices, while being extra welcoming to those who... haven't made the same effort?
If of course I understand you correctly.
I hope you enjoy your sowing. You must adore my absence.
Posted by Dinah on March 21, 2014, at 10:16:41
In reply to Re: the new paradigm, posted by Dr. Bob on March 21, 2014, at 0:25:13
> Yes. So I asked her if she wanted to join Lou and Adorable's club:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1059467.html
>
> And she said she didn't want there to be clubs:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1059636.html> One reason I'm not showing her leniency is to balance the view of some posters that she's civil.
>Twinleaf you asked and have been answered. I hope you see this as I do. But even with Dr Bob complimenting you like this, acknowledging that others don't see what you say as so terribly bad, and that you don't wish to be part of an exclusionary club, I would perfectly understand if you don't find the new paradigm to your taste. It isn't to mine. To each his own, I suppose.
I wonder if Ron has joined the club. I wonder why Dr Bob didn't ask him first while asking you. Another compliment I suspect.
Posted by Dinah on March 21, 2014, at 10:20:56
In reply to Re: the new paradigm, posted by Dr. Bob on March 21, 2014, at 0:25:13
It might be fun. As tempting as it is to have you compliment me, I suspect being part of the club would be more useful.
Pick me!!!! Pick me!!!!!!
Posted by Dinah on March 21, 2014, at 10:22:54
In reply to I would like to be part of the club, posted by Dinah on March 21, 2014, at 10:20:56
It doesn't seem fair that current club membership is so one sided.
Posted by Dinah on March 21, 2014, at 10:26:47
In reply to Re: the new paradigm, posted by Dr. Bob on March 21, 2014, at 0:25:13
I assure you Dr bob. I can't understand what is civil one bit better than that adorable cygnet.
Posted by Dinah on March 21, 2014, at 10:38:24
In reply to I would like to be part of the club, posted by Dinah on March 21, 2014, at 10:20:56
Do please email Dr Bob and join up. I know you don't believe different classes of people should be treated differently. Neither do I.
But imagine the ***possibilities***!!!
Posted by Partlycloudy on March 21, 2014, at 10:40:20
In reply to Club membership, posted by Dinah on March 21, 2014, at 10:26:47
You know me, Dinah. I'm the sore thumb, not a club joiner.
This has become so unpleasantly bizarre. Except we can count on a less than straightforward answer, if history serves. Oh, that's right. The paradigm has shifted. It's a fun house.
Miss you.
PC
Posted by 10derheart on March 21, 2014, at 13:16:47
In reply to I would like to be part of the club, posted by Dinah on March 21, 2014, at 10:20:56
Could you explain the club, and complimenting? I am so lost. I followed Dr. Bob's links and was more lost. I know who Lou is. I know Adorable is zzd, though I can't recall why s/he is being called adorable.
Other than that, this part of the thread is like trying to read Chinese for me :-(
You seem to have grasped some sort of categories right away. I am dense.
PS - I totally understand if you don't feel like it, so don't force yourself. I am amazed you can write here. I think I might be too disabled to think coherently in your position. I hope this means this is a useful distraction at least, as from my own nightmarish experience that was the only thing that helped some to move the days along...
Posted by Phillipa on March 21, 2014, at 17:30:27
In reply to Re: I would like to be part of the club » Dinah, posted by 10derheart on March 21, 2014, at 13:16:47
This one have to figure out. Detective time. Phillipa
Posted by alexandra_k on March 21, 2014, at 17:46:43
In reply to I would like to be part of the club, posted by Dinah on March 21, 2014, at 10:20:56
> It might be fun. As tempting as it is to have you compliment me, I suspect being part of the club would be more useful.
>
> Pick me!!!! Pick me!!!!!!you would like to be one of those posters whom a lot of others seem to ignore? who others are quick to turn against. to pick on. to request they be blocked. one of those posters who gets less support than most others (for whatever reason). one of those posters who nobody much expects to be civil. you would rather have those kinds of relationships with others (on the boards? off the boards?) really?
i was pretty sure bob said something before about how those who are most... respected... valued... for what they do offer... how there can be higher standards for them precisely because others do look up to them and emulate them.
like how we often have higher standards for the appropriate / ethical conduct of... doctors. judges. etc.
Posted by Dinah on March 21, 2014, at 19:22:16
In reply to Re: I would like to be part of the club, posted by alexandra_k on March 21, 2014, at 17:46:43
Did Bob really say that about Lou & Cygnet? My my.
But that can't possibly be his membership requirements since he offered membership to Twinleaf.
Besides, he doesn't have that sort of power. He only has the power to block or not block.
Posted by Dinah on March 21, 2014, at 19:50:07
In reply to Re: I would like to be part of the club » Dinah, posted by 10derheart on March 21, 2014, at 13:16:47
Dr. Bob's compliment was implicit in his blocking her. He said that he blocked her in part because others don't think she's saying anything all that bad. And that he offered her membership in the club of people that include Cygnet, Lou, and apparently Ron. The Unblockables. But that she declined it because she didn't believe there should be a club of Unblockables.
Well, neither do I. But there is one. And I can see the usefulness of belonging to it. I hope Twinleaf does join it. Then she can say whatever she likes to Dr. Bob and he won't block her. But perhaps Twinleaf has more pride than I do. I'd take it in a millisecond, and be sure that I used it in keeping with my personal moral compass.
I do not like that Twinleaf was blocked for saying something mildly uncivil to Bob, while the Unblockables can say whatever they like to the mental health *consumers* on this site. Silly me to think the vulnerable people who post here deserve *more* protection than the site administrator rather than less. Perhaps my values are a bit odd.
I'm splitting off my brain and my emotions. I can sometimes forget my therapist ever existed, and really don't much care. At night, or in moments where my emotions surge up, I'm a wreck. The supremacy of mind over feelings is not very strong. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Who knows. I can manage to keep myself together for periods of time, tho my IBS is acting up enough that I often can't leave the house.
Posted by Dinah on March 22, 2014, at 8:16:28
In reply to Re: I would like to be part of the club » 10derheart, posted by Dinah on March 21, 2014, at 19:50:07
Of course, it's only my own assessment that it was mildly uncivil. Compared to, say, calling him a prick. Perhaps Dr Bob doesn't assess it the same way.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 27, 2014, at 2:05:09
In reply to Re: the new paradigm » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on March 21, 2014, at 10:04:11
> Moving targets.
> Add that to your list of skills. You win, we collectively lose. Just when we think we have figured your guidelines out, the parameters shift.
>
> PCHitting a moving target is a skill, too. I think that was the idea of "Who Moved My Cheese?"
--
> I'm asking you to ... attempt something that may be more effective than what you are doing. How is repeatedly blocking Twinleaf working for you?
I'm attempting something that may be more effective than what I was doing before. So far it's working well enough for me.
> Is there some reason you wish to get rid of people who build goodwill through consistently extending themselves to others but are critical of your choices, while being extra welcoming to those who... haven't made the same effort?
>
> You must adore my absence.
>
> DinahI don't wish to get rid of anyone (including you). I wish us all to coexist despite our differences. Extending oneself doesn't justify incivility. Maybe those who aren't welcomed by others need extra welcoming from me. The net of protection I can provide may be like a homeless shelter.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on March 28, 2014, at 17:36:35
In reply to Re: the new paradigm, posted by Dr. Bob on March 27, 2014, at 2:05:09
> I'm attempting something that may be more effective than what I was doing before. So far it's working well enough for me.
Well, as long as it's working well enough for *you*, that's all that matters.
> I don't wish to get rid of anyone (including you).
Nonsense. I'm sure you'd prefer I go quietly. Didn't you tell me so in your last email?
> Maybe those who aren't welcomed by others need extra welcoming from me. The net of protection I can provide may be like a homeless shelter.
>
> BobAnd yet you've taken away the only place I ever did feel welcome. What makes you the almighty who can decide who is homeless? You think I'm not homeless? You're the one who put me on the streets. And the fact that you're the one who provided someplace where for the first time in my life I felt accepted doesn't make up for the fact that you then kicked me out of it.
I hate you Dr. Bob.
Posted by Twinleaf on March 28, 2014, at 17:50:37
In reply to Re: the new paradigm » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on March 28, 2014, at 17:36:35
That is the saddest, most heartbreaking post I have ever read here. I am so sorry this happened.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 9, 2014, at 1:40:33
In reply to Re: the new paradigm » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on March 28, 2014, at 17:36:35
> > Maybe those who aren't welcomed by others need extra welcoming from me. The net of protection I can provide may be like a homeless shelter.
>
> And yet you've taken away the only place I ever did feel welcome. What makes you the almighty who can decide who is homeless? You think I'm not homeless? You're the one who put me on the streets. And the fact that you're the one who provided someplace where for the first time in my life I felt accepted doesn't make up for the fact that you then kicked me out of it.
>
> I hate you Dr. Bob.My hosting this community makes me almighty here. No, I don't see you as homeless. You're welcomed by others.
I'm moved that you've only ever felt welcome here. Did you feel welcome before because we shared the same values?
Hating me is a fine I-statement. And it's understandable given how unresponsive I am. Can you feel welcome now because I welcome your hate?
Bob
Posted by Beckett on June 11, 2014, at 0:51:09
In reply to Re: the new paradigm, posted by Dr. Bob on April 9, 2014, at 1:40:33
>Can you feel welcome now because I welcome your hate?
I feel uneasy with statements like this.
Posted by 10derheart on June 11, 2014, at 1:30:07
In reply to Re: the new paradigm, posted by Beckett on June 11, 2014, at 0:51:09
Exactly.
Me too. Definitely.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 12, 2014, at 3:43:47
In reply to Re: the new paradigm, posted by Beckett on June 11, 2014, at 0:51:09
i think it is refreshing to not be expected to suck it up and put on a happy face.
This is the end of the 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.