![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 53 to 77 of 78. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 25, 2007, at 15:45:54
In reply to Blocked for one week » Jeff Smith, posted by Racer on March 21, 2007, at 22:36:41
> Your babblemail to me included material which is not allowed under the civility guidelines, and I'm afraid I'm going to have to block you for a week.
>
> Dr Bob has final authority here and may choose to override any deputy decision.I'm glad Racer was keeping an eye on civility, those guidelines do apply to babblemail:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#babblemail
OTOH, I don't think you'd been reminded about that specifically, so I'm going to consider the above to have done that and unblock you.
Bob
Posted by Jeff Smith on March 25, 2007, at 18:27:22
In reply to Re: unblocked » Jeff Smith, posted by Dr. Bob on March 25, 2007, at 15:45:54
> > Your babblemail to me included material which is not allowed under the civility guidelines, and I'm afraid I'm going to have to block you for a week.
> >
> > Dr Bob has final authority here and may choose to override any deputy decision.
>
> I'm glad Racer was keeping an eye on civility, those guidelines do apply to babblemail:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#babblemail
>
> OTOH, I don't think you'd been reminded about that specifically, so I'm going to consider the above to have done that and unblock you.
>
> BobThanks for the unblock.
When Racer posted "Please don't post anything which could lead others to feel accused or put down, and please don't report another poster's communication on the board. If you've received a babblemail you feel is uncivil, please forward that, with headers, to Dr Bob and the deputies. Your babblemail to me included material which is not allowed under the civility guidelines, and I'm afraid I'm going to have to block you for a week.This isn't personal, and doesn't mean I don't like you or sympathize with you. Dr Bob has final authority here and may choose to override any deputy decision. Until he has a chance to review this decision, however, I am going to block you.
Any discussion of this action should take place on the Admin board, or through the notification button below. And that discussion should, of course, be civil.
Racer, acting as deputy for Dr Bob"
I just sort of skimmed through it and didnt click the link to the guidlines she provided, and therefore didnt realize that saying things in babblemail would be considered uncivil...
But that was my overlook so thanks for unblocking me despite it.AND RACER IF YOURE READING:
NO!!!!! I dont at all blame you, hold you responsible, or are angry with you for the blockage: I know you didnt make the rules and are just enforcing them.Plus when you wrote the "It doesnt mean I dont like you..." speach you also added "or sympathize with you" which I had not seen written in one of those speaches before (not that Ive seen many of them) but none the less... it was nice of you to say and really made me feel as if you understood my position.
So regardless if thats true or not it was still nice to write.As for you others who posted after my block... thank you and:
More to come later: Watching Simpsons and cant talk now. : )
Posted by gardenergirl on March 25, 2007, at 20:56:23
In reply to Thanks Bob (And to others) » Dr. Bob, posted by Jeff Smith on March 25, 2007, at 18:27:22
Posted by Racer on March 25, 2007, at 21:36:01
In reply to Thanks Bob (And to others) » Dr. Bob, posted by Jeff Smith on March 25, 2007, at 18:27:22
Posted by Jeff Smith on March 26, 2007, at 14:34:11
In reply to Jeff Smith, posted by one woman cine on March 22, 2007, at 7:57:14
> Jeff, if you are going post private babblemails - (and only excerpts!) - I wish you had also posted yours to which I was only responding to. I would like you consider how you might feel if I were to do that.<
Hi Cine,
The reason I posted only those particular excerpts from your babble mails to me was just because they were the specific quotes which illustrated that particular lesson I was discussing.
I felt that posting any excerpts from my babble mails to you was not necessary for any reason at that time: If you feel it was unfair (or insert your feeling here) for me to just post those excerpts and none of my own and youd like for anyone to see the our conversations in their entirety then I would be glad to send them to whoever would be interested.I dont know if it would be considered uncivil to send them by babble mail, but perhaps it would not be uncivil for someone to babblemail me their email address in order to send them there if they were interested in doing so. I dont know though.
You said in your above post: "I wish you had also posted YOURS TO WHICH I WAS ONLY RESPONDING TO." : )
I understand that you may wish I had also posted my bmails but the above (bold lettered) statement is not actually factual: See, you were not "only responding to" my babblemail. The actual fact is that you initiated the very first of your two babblemails to me and I was the one who was "only responding to" yours. : )
Allow me to prove it just so theres no confusion.
In this earlier post here http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20070309/msgs/742525.html
I had asked you "Why did you not reply to my last post to you or answer any of the questions in it, and instead come up with this question apparently in response to that quote from me to gazo? Are you for some reason angry or insulted or offended?".
I had asked you that since you had been publicly posting messages to me, but yet when I would then publicly reply to what you had said to/regarding me and had asked me you did not do the same in return (just meaning that you didnt publicly reply to any of the replies Id made to your questions/statements and you didnt answer any of the questions I had asked you) which was confusing to me.
Anyway so after I asked you those last questions publicly on 3/20 (that I just quoted above) you then replied to me by babblemail on 3/21 with what it was you had to say. (#1)
I then replied to you (by Bmail).... (#2)
You then replied back to me (by Bmail).... (#3)
I then replied to you again (by bmail) which was the last of our babblemail "conversations". (#4)
I just figured Id clear that up just simply for the sake of being accurate and factual since Im a "bit" obsessive about organization.
Now just to answer your request that "I would like you consider how you might feel if I were to do that."Im going to assume that you mean how would I feel if you had posted only excerpts of the private babblemails I sent to you in response to your initial and then follow up bmail to me, and yet you did not post your own babblemails you had sent to me(?).
Well I suppose it would depend on exactly what point you were attempting to make from it in order for me to determine how Id feel about you, but ultimately Id have no problem with only my excerpts being posted and you omitting yours.
I said nothing in my babblemails to you that I would ever object to having publicly posted here so if you had posted only certain excerpts from my bmails then I wouldve simply posted the entire sentence or paragraph from that excerpt (had it not been considered uncivil to do so) if I felt that particular excerpt was misleading and/or being used out of context.
Id really feel fine with it: In that situation Id say please feel free to post whatever and however youd want and Id reply accordingly.
Again, I just wanted to clear that up and to answer your request.I also hope nothing in this post is considered uncivil for any reason: If it is and Im blocked/banned then, unfortunately for me, I might have to accept the fact that I may not be able to conform to psycho babbles rules.
And if Im able to then Id like to reply to some other posts here later. Too tired now though. : )
Posted by one woman cine on March 27, 2007, at 8:05:52
In reply to To Cine, posted by Jeff Smith on March 26, 2007, at 14:34:11
Jeff, you are entitled to your own perception of what happened and how it happened. We don't need to agree.
Posted by one woman cine on March 27, 2007, at 8:09:25
In reply to To Cine, posted by Jeff Smith on March 26, 2007, at 14:34:11
>>>>>I dont know if it would be considered uncivil to send them by babble mail, but perhaps it would not be uncivil for someone to babblemail me their email address in order to send them there if they were interested in doing so. I dont know though.
& although it's probably already a done deal, I would prefer you did not share my babblemails with anyone else - it was private communication between 2 people. I'm not going to get into a "who said what" trying to rally people to my point of view. I just wished I saved all the babblemails. Live and learn.
Posted by Jeff Smith on March 27, 2007, at 11:22:23
In reply to Re: To Cine, posted by one woman cine on March 27, 2007, at 8:09:25
> >>>>>I dont know if it would be considered uncivil to send them by babble mail, but perhaps it would not be uncivil for someone to babblemail me their email address in order to send them there if they were interested in doing so. I dont know though.
>
> & although it's probably already a done deal, I would prefer you did not share my babblemails with anyone else - it was private communication between 2 people. I'm not going to get into a "who said what" trying to rally people to my point of view. I just wished I saved all the babblemails. Live and learn.
>
>
Hi Cine,-Well, no its not already a done deal.
-I realize it was private "communication" between two people. But Im offering to share it privately, not publicly. Im sorry if you would prefer that I didnt share them with anyone, but I simply cant understand why you'd feel that way. Could you please explain why so I could understand? Just out of curiosity.-I too am not going to get into "who said what": I know exactly who said exactly what and can prove it very easily. Just being factual is all.
-Are you accusing me of "trying to rally people to my point of view"? If so I find that offensive.
Im not trying to rally people to my point of view: Im simply offering to share the truthful facts with people and then they can decide for themselves how they feel about it. I dont see anything wrong or immoral about telling the truth and not hiding things and Im sure you'd agree with that. Or no?-I cant possibly understand why you'd wish you had saved all four of our babblemails:
But I did save them. : ) In their intirety. And in the exact order in which they began.
Im obsessively organized like that.-Live and learn exactly what? To save babblemails or learn to not say certain things? Im unclear as to what you mean.
Posted by Jeff Smith on March 27, 2007, at 11:31:57
In reply to Re: To Cine, posted by one woman cine on March 27, 2007, at 8:05:52
> Jeff, you are entitled to your own perception of what happened and how it happened. We don't need to agree.
Hi again Cine,
-Yes, I know Im "entitled" to my own perception of what happened and how it happened. I do, after all, come across as "entitled".
-No, we dont have to agree.
-So I say let the facts speak for themselves. Facts provided upon request as previously offered.
Posted by one woman cine on March 27, 2007, at 12:05:38
In reply to Re: To Cine » one woman cine, posted by Jeff Smith on March 27, 2007, at 11:22:23
>
> Hi Cine,
>
> -Well, no its not already a done deal.No, really? Is this another fact? Because I have information that states otherwise. But either way, this thing will just turn into a bigger "who said what". Involving other people just exponentially increases the equation.
>>>>> -I realize it was private "communication" between two people. But Im offering to share it privately, not publicly. Im sorry if you would prefer that I didnt share them with anyone, but I simply cant understand why you'd feel that way. Could you please explain why so I could understand? Just out of curiosity.Because if it were OK, everyone could post babbelmails on public boards, but that's prohibited. It's not OK to share private communications. & you are only telling your side, your version.
>>>> -I too am not going to get into "who said what": I know exactly who said exactly what and can prove it very easily. Just being factual is all.They are your perceptions, not facts.
>>>>> -Are you accusing me of "trying to rally people to my point of view"? If so I find that offensive.
I said "I", no where did I say "you". I was speaking about myself. I have no need to have an open invitation to discuss a private matter, between 2 people who have very different ideas about what happened.
You stated you know the "truth" - have I accused you of calling me a liar? No. I have stated & will continue to state - that is your version of events. Fine. It is in no way my version of events and saying your truth is THE truth feels unfair to me.
>>>> Im not trying to rally people to my point of view: Im simply offering to share the truthful facts with people and then they can decide for themselves how they feel about it. I dont see anything wrong or immoral about telling the truth and not hiding things and Im sure you'd agree with that. Or no?Telling your truth is fine, but your truth is not my truth. & btw, - if it's OK to post private things, why not just post who you are IRL, where you live, etc etc. Why not, Jeff?
Why didn't you include your personal info in the original post? If it's OK to do, then why not post it now?
You posted other peoples personal info, including names etc. I wonder how they felt about that.
Everyone has different comfort levels. I am asking you to respect mine. If you don't, you don't. I bear all this in mind when posting in the future.
I would also ask you to please stop posting the smiley faces when writing to me. It's a confusing mixed message. Thanks.
Posted by one woman cine on March 27, 2007, at 12:09:00
In reply to Re: To Cine, posted by one woman cine on March 27, 2007, at 12:05:38
& it was more than 4 babblemails, Jeff.
I wish you would find the other ones, including the original.
Posted by Jeff Smith on March 27, 2007, at 12:52:52
In reply to Re: Blocked for one week, posted by Honore on March 23, 2007, at 3:11:40
> I think we were a little hard on Jeff Smith. It's pretty tough to be depressed and disappointed and seeking some sort of affirmation of one's okayness-- as he was-- and to be hit with a lot of rebuffs about realities of the world.
>
> We could, in many instances, have been sympathetic and supportive (more overtly) rather than coming out of the stance that he needed to look at his "own actions"-- and that he was, to an extent that he maybe isn't aware of-- expecting more personal concern that you're just likely to get in the world, problems or not.
>
> We may, to be honest, have just as easily said that it is hurtful to be turned away, and not given the help you need-- all because you don't have the money, and maybe are angry at the lack of appropriate response. I feel fairly sure that Jeff didn't get very much help-- and that he has a right to be disappointed and angry.
>
> I've certainly been there-- and would have expected more kind and sympathetic responses. I'm not saying that, in the long run, what we said wasn't valid-- but just that there was an awful lot of it, and that he seemed to take it in pretty good humor-- It's easy to forget that there are a lot of not very good Ts out there-- and especially if you don't have money, you tend to run into them, and not have the resources to go elsewhere.
>
> So if he is a newbie, I wish it hadn't seemed necessary to block him, and I hope he comes back.
>
> He didn't really seem entitled to me-- any more than any of us is-- just in a less fortunate position, in a more economically stressful time. Being angry is certainly a big part of being depressed, for some people, and it didn't really bother me.
>
> I for one was struck by a sense that it would be hard for him to get really high quality professional help, and to overcome years of depression. So it was hard to think about his struggle. Maybe I, for one, could have been given him a bit more clear compassion, rather than a lecture on things I , after many years of therapy, am only finally ready to see about how I interact.
>
> It's hard to know how to be helpful, when someone really is in a tough situation. So I do hope it hasn't ended in his not wanting to keep coming here.
>
> Honore
Honore,
Thank you. For everything you said. I was somewhat overwhelmed by how understanding and sympathetic you were. Aside from my great friend of 17 years you/what you just said was the closest anyones ever come to understanding me and what Im experiencing and looking for and need and dont/didnt need.
You said: "I think we were a little hard on Jeff Smith. It's pretty tough to be depressed and disappointed and seeking some sort of affirmation of one's okayness-- as he was-- and to be hit with a lot of rebuffs about realities of the world.
We could, in many instances, have been sympathetic and supportive (more overtly) rather than coming out of the stance that he needed to look at his "own actions"-- and that he was, to an extent that he maybe isn't aware of-- expecting more personal concern that you're just likely to get in the world, problems or not.
We may, to be honest, have just as easily said that it is hurtful to be turned away, and not given the help you need-- all because you don't have the money, and maybe are angry at the lack of appropriate response. I feel fairly sure that Jeff didn't get very much help-- and that he has a right to be disappointed and angry."
I have to agree Honore. I think some people were too hard on me and couldve been more sympathetic. Dont get me wrong, as I do believe everyone (minus one person) are, Im sure, great people and had very good intentions to help me and I do greatly appreciate any advice or suggestions that shows someone was thinking about me.
Im not a person who looks for sympathy or attention from other people by complaining about my problems yet I must admit that I wouldve liked it if people were a bit more sympathetic:
None of the therapist I called or wrote to show any sympathy or empathy or normal human response... and thats including my own Nurse Practitioner who I saw recently and told her all Im going through and that I cant take it all and plan to kill myself when it gets bad enough... which I never tell her.
No, its really not just me imagining it all and Im not causing people to be the way they are do to my anger or the supposed "chip" on my shoulder: When I approach my therapist or any therapist I call (or anyone I may happen to ever come in contact with) Im really a genuinely nice and decent guy (unless theyre not that way to me). I may express my anger about others/my situation but Im still very nice to them and all I wish is the same in return yet I keep running into these cold, clinical detached people.I feel as if Im on fire in the middle of a busy street and not only will nobody put me out but they also dont seem to care that Ill burn to death if none of them do. "Oh, youre burning to death? So sorry about that, but gotta go". or like "Oh, youre burning to death? Sorry, we dont take medicare so we cant put you out but go to this place... they have a puddle outside you can roll around in." Obviously thats a bit dramatic but the idea is the same (except they never actually even say "sorry").
You said: "I feel fairly sure that Jeff didn't get very much help-- and that he has a right to be disappointed and angry."
Thank you, again. : ) It feels excellent to be validated and understood by another. As Ive said, in the past I definitely have not been helped and as for currently maybe Ill make another post with all the details but in the meantime please trust me when I say that Ive been calling many places and continue to get rejected since they dont take the Medicare:
Yes, even including the NY Pres. Hospital which seemed like a mentally ill persons dream come true due to all the info on their web page.
It may seem hard to believe to some that I keep getting rejected but Im not exaggerating... I spoke to [XXXXX] who heard my whole story but said that in that Hospital I would get no psychiatric/mental help with Medicare.
[XXXXX] suggested I call [XXXXX] and that she would be able to refer me to one of their supposed options for help. I call [XXXXX], leave a message and she doesnt call back. The next day I call her but once again her voice mail picked up which had instructions to call [XXXXX].
I call [XXXXX] and she proceeds to tell me that [XXXXX] only run the Borderline Personality Disorder program/area/whatever its called or was and are not at all involved with outpatient anything else.
She did however refer my to [XXXXX] (spelling could be wrong) where I managed to get an appointment for an intake interview (whatever its called) in 6-8 weeks.
You said: "I've certainly been there-- and would have expected more kind and sympathetic responses. I'm not saying that, in the long run, what we said wasn't valid-- but just that there was an awful lot of it, and that he seemed to take it in pretty good humor-- It's easy to forget that there are a lot of not very good Ts out there-- and especially if you don't have money, you tend to run into them, and not have the resources to go elsewhere."
Thank you again for understanding.
You said: "So if he is a newbie, I wish it hadn't seemed necessary to block him, and I hope he comes back."
Well I was here briefly a few months ago so Im not sure if Im a newbie. As for the blocking: I do think its ridiculous to block someone for something they write in a babblemail (although I dont at all blame the Mod). And for that matter I find the whole blocking business to be more harmful than helpful... and I dont even see how blocking someone is helpful to anyone but Im sure there are reasons.
Anyway, Im back!! : ) (for now?)
You said: "He didn't really seem entitled to me-- any more than any of us is-- just in a less fortunate position, in a more economically stressful time. Being angry is certainly a big part of being depressed, for some people, and it didn't really bother me."
Once again thank you. I certainly dont think Im entitled to anything and I find it extremely offensive to be wrongly judged as such.
If a hypothetical person from anywhere was to say to me (just hypothetically speaking in my own words):
"[XXXXX]".
I guess Id most likely reply with:
"And how is it that I come across as "[XXXXX]"? In reality I never once claimed or intimated that Im entitled to anything. Wanting to get qualified mental help doesnt mean I think Im entitled to it... and complaining about the fact that I wish I could find one qualified therapist who actually cared more about helping me so I can avoid killing myself than they do about the fact that they cant fill that 50 minutes with lots of $$$ doesnt mean I think Im entitled to them: Ive explained enough times why I think they should show more compassion etc. to the people they claim to help."
If any hypothetical person were to then only say to that, I dont know, but something hypothetically like:
"[XXXXX]"
Id have to think about it, but I think my reply would be:
"And again you accuse me of [XXXXX] yet again you provide not even one valid (or even nonsensible for that matter) reason as to why you claim this. You show no quotes from anything Ive said which would prove I come across as "[XXXXX]". Its really a very simple thing to show since all of what Ive written is available for you to link me to. Why do you keep saying things that you cant back up with any valid reason that makes sense?"
After that I probably would not be interested in hearing any further criticism from any hypothetical person like that if they were to say those things and other things as well that were equally as judgemental and obnoxious. Hypothetically speaking.
You said: " Being angry is certainly a big part of being depressed, for some people, and it didn't really bother me."
TY Honore. : ) Its fuuny that people dont really have any problem suggesting to people experiencing major mental issues that they should stifle their anger. Nobody would ever suggest that someone else try to come across as less sad or less anxiety filled or less schizophrenic or whatnot in order to appease potential therapists.
When Pat wrote to me here: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20070309/msgs/742425.html
"Jeff, i'd open up a bit to what is available to you and try just a teeny bit to get that chip off of your shoulder."
and "if you could work on acceptance, on your own, and mellow out (without the pot), i think you'll find that people will be much more receptive to trying to find you some help.I replied with:
"Hey Pat,
Do you really think Ive had a "chip on my shoulder"? I mean obviously Im angry but its due to being "mentally ill" to begin with and then frustrated (with great reason) and etc, etc. and not just some bad or mean or confrontational attitude/ chip on my shoulder.
I do realize that anger turns people off but Im sure its understandable why Id be angry and Id hope that any therapist who heard my reasons for being angry would especially understand it, even if the therapist thought my reasons were invalid. Aside from this NYPGroup Ive not even expressed any anger to anyone who was in a position to try to find me help... and I didnt start out angry towards them, I only got angry after their reply.
Honestly Im not capable of working on (or more specifically achieving) acceptance (if you mean self acceptance) on my own or mellowing out. Ive gotten nowhere in 37 years and I believe I need help for these things. Im very mentally weak."
AND IF PAT YOURE READING THIS: then please realize that I absolutely realize that you were only helping me... but to tell someone (who's obviously already angry) to "get that chip off your shoulder" is only going to illicit more anger.
And finally you said: "I for one was struck by a sense that it would be hard for him to get really high quality professional help, and to overcome years of depression. So it was hard to think about his struggle. Maybe I, for one, could have been given him a bit more clear compassion, rather than a lecture on things I , after many years of therapy, am only finally ready to see about how I interact.
It's hard to know how to be helpful, when someone really is in a tough situation. So I do hope it hasn't ended in his not wanting to keep coming here.
Honore"
No, I just re-read your posts and you were fine.Thanks Honore, you really helped me feel better.
Posted by Jeff Smith on March 27, 2007, at 14:01:59
In reply to Re: To Cine, posted by one woman cine on March 27, 2007, at 12:05:38
>
> >
> > Hi Cine,
> >
> > -Well, no its not already a done deal.
>
> No, really? Is this another fact? Because I have information that states otherwise. But either way, this thing will just turn into a bigger "who said what". Involving other people just exponentially increases the equation.Hi Cine : )
Yes. Really. This is another fact. So far nobody has requested I send them what Ive offered to so I havent.
After Racer posted the "Please Be Civil" post to me in reply to my post "Learning Lessons From Cine" I replied to her by babble mail and explained exactly why it was that I wrote that post and in my own brief synopsis (with curse words added regarding you) told her about our babblemail conversations.
If she is the reason you say "Because I have information that states otherwise." then youd be partially correct... but only partially correct since I didnt send her our exact bmails... just my brief synopsis.
If she is not the source of your "information that states otherwise" then you would have absolutely no possible way on earth to receive such information.AND: I hereby formally request (and grant permission to) any human being on earth (or elsewhere) to come forth and claim and or show that I ever provided any such information.
> >>>>> -I realize it was private "communication" between two people. But Im offering to share it privately, not publicly. Im sorry if you would prefer that I didnt share them with anyone, but I simply cant understand why you'd feel that way. Could you please explain why so I could understand? Just out of curiosity.
>
> Because if it were OK, everyone could post babbelmails on public boards, but that's prohibited. It's not OK to share private communications. & you are only telling your side, your version.Im not suggesting anyone post babblemails on public boards because I now know thats prohibited:
I am suggesting that if anyone were to babblemail me with their email addy that I will send them what I previously said I would. I dont believe anyone has any juristiction over my email account, therefore I can send whatever I wish to whoever is interested.
But I still dont understand why youd object to anyone reading what you wrote to me. Its OK though, I guess I dont need to understand.I will make a deal with you: If anyone takes me up on that offer Ill let you know (if they give their permission) and you could then tell your side all you'd like. Youre also welcome to tell your side here: Go right ahead.
> >>>> -I too am not going to get into "who said what": I know exactly who said exactly what and can prove it very easily. Just being factual is all.
>
> They are your perceptions, not facts.Well, no. Theyre just the facts plain and simple.
-I have the bmails that were written: Fact.
-I know exactly who said exactly what: Fact.
-I can very easily prove it: Fact.Not only do I have our bmails but I also noticed that each one come with a "fingerprint". Im a pretty computer stupid but I am assuming that these "fingerprints" would be accessable by Dr. Bob if he wished to access them and prove what Im saying is true.
Dr. Bob, are you willing to do this?
> >>>>> -Are you accusing me of "trying to rally people to my point of view"? If so I find that offensive.
>
> I said "I", no where did I say "you". I was speaking about myself. I have no need to have an open invitation to discuss a private matter, between 2 people who have very different ideas about what happened.Oh, OK. Just askin.
> You stated you know the "truth" - have I accused you of calling me a liar? No. I have stated & will continue to state - that is your version of events. Fine. It is in no way my version of events and saying your truth is THE truth feels unfair to me.OK.
> >>>> Im not trying to rally people to my point of view: Im simply offering to share the truthful facts with people and then they can decide for themselves how they feel about it. I dont see anything wrong or immoral about telling the truth and not hiding things and Im sure you'd agree with that. Or no?
>
> Telling your truth is fine, but your truth is not my truth. & btw, - if it's OK to post private things, why not just post who you are IRL, where you live, etc etc. Why not, Jeff?
> Why didn't you include your personal info in the original post? If it's OK to do, then why not post it now?Well thats why I asked for people to read for themselves: To determine the truth for themselves.
And posting who I am IRL (same person I am here minus the last name) my address, etc etc would serve no purpose and then I might get stalked or something weird like that. Same reason nobody posts their real full names, addresses, etc, etc.
Thats "why not", Cine.
> You posted other peoples personal info, including names etc. I wonder how they felt about that.I did? Link please. I assume youre referring to the personal info regarding any shrinks Ive posted about here? If so you could always call them just to ask how they felt about that if youre wondering.
> Everyone has different comfort levels. I am asking you to respect mine. If you don't, you don't. I bear all this in mind when posting in the future.OK. (to the last sentence).
> I would also ask you to please stop posting the smiley faces when writing to me. It's a confusing mixed message. Thanks.Oh, that confuses you? Let me completely clarify. When I post a smilie its just an expression of a smile or bit of happiness, thats all.
Youre welcome : )
ALSO: From your other post to me...
>& it was more than 4 babblemails, Jeff.
>I wish you would find the other ones, including the original.No. It was EXACTLY four babblemails, Cine.
You may wish whatever you'd like, but I do have the original, the subsequent three and there are no "other ones".
Posted by madeline on March 27, 2007, at 14:21:21
In reply to Re: To Cine, posted by one woman cine on March 27, 2007, at 8:09:25
I mean, maybe we can't post them, but they are subject to the civility rules and can be read by Dr.Bob & the deputies.
Besides, in my opinion, nothing on the internet is private.
Posted by one woman cine on March 27, 2007, at 14:22:18
In reply to Re: To Cine » one woman cine, posted by Jeff Smith on March 27, 2007, at 14:01:59
Jeff, more than 4 babblemails were sent - I only have the last one.
It is not my version - that 4 were sent -
that's your version.
But, we can agree to disagree.
Dr. Bob has removed content of the babblemails & you have posted them yet again.
>>>>" Everyone has different comfort levels. I am asking you to respect mine. If you don't, you don't. I bear all this in mind when posting in the future.
OK. (to the last sentence)."
So you are saying you will not respect my request and continue to post private babblemails and solicit people to e-mail you, providing private communications?That's all I need to know.
If you cannot honor that request I am going to ask you not to post to me by name, or "hypothetically" - however you previously phrased it, or refer to me or our communications in any way.
Posted by one woman cine on March 27, 2007, at 14:29:32
In reply to I don't think Babblemails are private., posted by madeline on March 27, 2007, at 14:21:21
Soliciting people on the internet basically to read a private communication that the other participant has expressly asked you not to is unfair. I would not do that to anyone and I do not want anyone to do it to me.
& plus, it's not the whole story.
& true nothing on the internet is private.
But I'd like you to consider the things you have posted, (pictures on babble etc., communications with your therapist) - & how that would feel to have that information misused and misconstrued.
How would anyone reading this like their therapist to read what they wrote? Or whomever?
Venting about your husband/boyfriend/breakup/boss - hmm they could find out.Stuff on babble is very private and everyone wants their privacy respected.
I don't think anyone would want their privacy violated.
I sure don't.
Posted by gardenergirl on March 27, 2007, at 14:46:47
In reply to Re: Blocked for one week » Honore, posted by Jeff Smith on March 27, 2007, at 12:52:52
> ... that were equally as judgemental and obnoxious. Hypothetically speaking.
Please don't post anything that could lead another to feel accused or put down. In this case, given the quotations and context, I do not agree that this is a hypothetical example.
> If a hypothetical person from anywhere was to say to me (just hypothetically speaking in my own words): [XXXXX]
Also, though Dr. Bob unblocked you, he did affirm the content of Racer's warning about disclosing without permission private communications from another poster. So I am blocking you from posting for a week. Follow-ups regarding these issues should of course be civil. As you are aware, Dr. Bob has oversight over deputy decisions. Thus, you can always appeal this decision to him, and he may choose a different action.
Namaste
gg acting as deputy
Posted by gardenergirl on March 27, 2007, at 15:10:26
In reply to I don't think Babblemails are private., posted by madeline on March 27, 2007, at 14:21:21
> I mean, maybe we can't post them, but they are subject to the civility rules and can be read by Dr.Bob & the deputies.
Just to clarify, deputies cannot read babblemails or learn anything about them at all unless the deputy actually receives the babblemail directly or as forwarded. Dr. Bob can get sender information from the fingerprint, though I don't think he can get the content of the message from that. I could be wrong on that.
So there is some degree of privacy, but you are correct, anyone could forward any emails to anyone at any time.
>
> Besides, in my opinion, nothing on the internet is private.That too...
namaste
gg
Posted by Iwillsurvive on March 27, 2007, at 15:41:01
In reply to Re: I don't think Babblemails are private. » madeline, posted by gardenergirl on March 27, 2007, at 15:10:26
> > I mean, maybe we can't post them, but they are subject to the civility rules and can be read by Dr.Bob & the deputies.
>
> Just to clarify, deputies cannot read babblemails or learn anything about them at all unless the deputy actually receives the babblemail directly or as forwarded. Dr. Bob can get sender information from the fingerprint, though I don't think he can get the content of the message from that. I could be wrong on that.
>
> So there is some degree of privacy, but you are correct, anyone could forward any emails to anyone at any time.
> >
*So it is not uncivil to forward a seemingly private b-mail to another??? WTF.
Babble is f*cked.
Yes they *can* physically send them, but if I could prove that someone was maliciously forwarding, or THREATENING to forward my b-mails, despite my asking them expressly NOT to, and this all takes place on the boards...this behaviour is NOT uncivil?????
And when someone specifically asks another poster NOT to do something, and that poster does it again anyways, is that civil?
This whole thread is full of incivilities.
If I was involved I bee so damn pissed I'd be blocked FOR SURE. Cuz I not so clever w/words apoparently to be able to be civil while still accusatory. Aaaargh, I will never get this NEVER.
I wish I never found this place, I wish I never had babble friends, I wish I could understand, but I got too much crazyiness in my head right now and complaing and confusion and I wish I HAD THE WORDS to say what I want, cuz something here is WRONG. I KNOW it. I just can't figger it.
DAMN.
Posted by madeline on March 27, 2007, at 17:01:02
In reply to Re: I don't think Babblemails are private. » madeline, posted by one woman cine on March 27, 2007, at 14:29:32
It wasn't personal, cine, I simply meant that they could be forwarded to deputies to be read and a civiility determination made.
It wasn't about me, or anything that I've posted or you've posted.
Maddie
Posted by pegasus on March 28, 2007, at 8:56:01
In reply to Re: I don't think Babblemails are private., posted by Iwillsurvive on March 27, 2007, at 15:41:01
Hey, iws, I know it's tough. I agree that I find it disturbing to read parts of this thread. I have to agree with you that a lot of what has happened in this thread seems incivil (uncivil?) to me. I'm glad that some of that has been commented on by the deputies and Dr. Bob. But, still, it's confusing, especially with the complication of babble mail involved.
But, hey, iws, please don't leave. Yeah, it can be confusing, and it's hard for some of us when people argue on here. Some of us feel unsafe when that happens.
But . . . you're a special person here who really contributes a lot. You're a real sweetie, and clever in your own way with words. And I'd hate to see you go. Maybe it would be a good idea to stop reading this thread?
safe cyber hugs to you
peg
Posted by one woman cine on March 28, 2007, at 9:11:11
In reply to Re: Blocked for one week » Honore, posted by Jeff Smith on March 27, 2007, at 12:52:52
Jeff smith, Please do not post to me anymore (including referring to me hypothetically, or tangentially in any way). This includes sending babblemails or e-mails. This DNP also stands in the event you change your posting name.
Posted by Honore on March 28, 2007, at 10:41:52
In reply to Blocked for one week » Jeff Smith, posted by gardenergirl on March 27, 2007, at 14:46:47
Hi,gg. Could you point me to the post where JeffSmith used the phrase that led to the block?
Sorry to inconvenience you, but I was trying to understand the sequence of posts that led to it.
thanks, Honore
Posted by 10derHeart on March 28, 2007, at 15:48:30
In reply to Re: Blocked for one week » gardenergirl, posted by Honore on March 28, 2007, at 10:41:52
If I can help clarify.....
gg pulled out two problematic phrases in her blocking post, and they come from the post she is responding to when issuing the block. It is a post by Jeff in response to one of yours. (You can open gg's post and click on the link after 'In reply to..' at the top and that post will open)
If that's not what you are asking, I'll leave it to gg......
Posted by Honore on March 31, 2007, at 16:42:10
In reply to Re: phrases » Honore, posted by 10derHeart on March 28, 2007, at 15:48:30
Thanks 10derHeart. I guess it's a confusing situation.
I had a hard time following the post with the xxx's, but I'm sure that whatever gg did was entirely reasonable. I just kind of wondered what had been written and where.
I see where, although I can't follow what's being said. I take it the xxx's were names and things said, perhaps in a babblemail?
Hope whatever bad feelings resulted from the exchange can be overcome.
Honore
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Psychology | 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.