Psycho-Babble Administration | about the operation of this site | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Lou's response-wazkulwhabit Dr. Bob

Posted by Lou Pilder on December 18, 2013, at 16:37:35

In reply to Re: so much distress, posted by Dr. Bob on December 17, 2013, at 17:24:35

> > I notified you. You did nothing. I think you were even clear that you weren't going to do anything.
> >
> > I just as well send messages into space as notify the administrators.
> >
> > You know that I used to be one of Lou's biggest supporters. It's you who played the biggest role in changing that.
>
> > Don't you realize that by saying only Lou can hurt others as much as he wants, but shouldn't be asked to stop, you are creating resentment?
> >
> > Don't you realize that by incrementally allowing Lou to say more and more what is in his heart, you are encouraging him to say things that are in his own best interests to remain unsaid in public?
> >
> > Dinah
>
> Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. If you see someone hurt others, please use the "notify administrators" button:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#help
>
> However, notifying me just means I'll be aware. It doesn't mean I'll necessarily act. I may have a different point of view. I realize that could create frustration and resentment.
>
> I'm thinking about what's in the board's best interests. I can't know what's in Lou's best interests.
>
> Why are you no longer one of Lou's biggest supporters? Because of his posts? Could you support the person even if you don't support the behavior?
>
> > > Dinah has you to protect her, but Lou has no one. So I need to protect him.
> >
> > Dr. Bob, are you saying that you will not enforce the same civility guidelines against Lou as you would against anyone else because Lou has no friends?
> >
> > Dinah
>
> No, when I said I needed to protect him, I didn't mean from enforcement of the civility guidelines.
>
> > What is it that you need to protect Lou from?
> >
> > - Scott
>
> For one thing, from accusations and put-downs.
>
> > As for correcting "misinformation", who is truly qualified to even identify what is misinformation and what is not?
> >
> > Moishe Pipik
>
> > Dr. Bob has openly declared his intent not to administrate against Lou.
> >
> > Dinah
>
> I consider myself qualified to identify that as misinformation. I haven't openly declared my intent not to administrate against Lou.
>
> > I just want the accusations to STOP. Is that so f*ck*ng much to ask?
> >
> > Dinah
>
> Yes, it's too much to ask me to stop Lou from posting. Is it too much to ask you to accept what you cannot change?
>
> > ALL I've been saying to Dr. Bob is how simple this is...yet he refuses to even say - privately or publicly- that what Lou says about deputies past or present IS accusatory at all.
> >
> > 10derheart
>
> From another thread:
>
> > > I see your point of view as:
> > >
> > > 1. Lou's posts are accusations.
> > >
> > > 2. Allowing Lou to keep posting = not caring that you be treated with respect.
> > >
> > > Whereas my point of view is:
> > >
> > > 1. Lou's posts are hypothetical scenarios of low probability.
> > >
> > > 2. Allowing Lou to keep posting = treating him with respect.
> > >
> > > Reasonable people can disagree, right?
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1056318.html
>
> > when you are more polite to me then I will be more polite to you.
> >
> > Dinah
>
> I like that: a politeness for a politeness. Not an eye for an eye. There's a higher standard here, however:
>
> > > Please be sensitive to their feelings even if yours are hurt.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
>
> > I encourage Dr. Bob to help the community understand his present actions and perhaps describe how he would like to see Psycho-Babble operate in the future.
> >
> > - Scott
>
> From another thread:
>
> > > Q: How would I like you to handle the sh*t slinging here?
> > >
> > > A: I'd like posters to choose one or more of the following options:
> > >
> > > 1. not sling it back
> > > 2. shield themselves
> > > 3. help others shield themselves
> > > 4. notify me if they think I should respond
> > > 5. express how they feel
> > > 6. reflect on times they've slung it themselves, or wanted to
> > > 7. support the slinger
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20130930/msgs/1055937.html
>
> --
>
> > I was under the impression that saying something like this was acceptible:
> >
> > 1. "I subscribe to the fundamental tenet of my religion that no one gets to heaven without accepting Jesus as the one and only savior."
> >
> > As opposed to:
> >
> > 2. "You won't get to heaven without accepting Jesus as the one and only savior."
> >
> > If you are reading this Dr. Bob, perhaps you could clarify how you now view the acceptability of statement #1.
> >
> > - Scott
>
> You're right, I see #1 as like:
>
> > > People of my faith have one God and no others before him.
>
> which I consider OK, whereas I see #2 as like:
>
> > > People should have one God and no others before him.
>
> which I don't consider OK:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7889.html
>
> --
>
> > I can't, and wouldn't even want to, grow a thick skin
> >
> > I can and do accept the fact that very few people in the world would actually say they like me.
>
> Acceptance is good, but questioning is, too. Are you sure that's a fact? I like you. I suppose we both could be right, I could be one of very few.
>
> May I ask why you don't want to grow a thick skin?
>
> > I was furious with you for saying that deputies might be killed by Muslims for passing to Dr. Bob rulings that we were unsure how he would have us treat.
> >
> > But my fury with you would have abated had you refrained from making further ... remarks about me personally or about former deputies in general.
> >
> > My fury is now against Dr. Bob.
>
> Thank you for choosing one of the above options (#5) and using I-statements.
>
> > I would accept "Administration" even, in place of Dr. Bob and deputies and former deputies. ... the former deputies understand the situation with Dr. Bob and the faith board, so it wouldn't occur to us that you meant us.
> >
> > So if you use the term "Administration" even if you in your heart mean "former deputies" and "deputies" when you are making accusations, I will let my anger with your previous accusations go
> >
> > Dinah
>
> If you can accept that in his heart he includes former deputies, and in your heart you feel you didn't do anything wrong, why does it matter what terms he uses?
>
> If you feel his statements could arouse perceptions of you that are false and decrease the respect and regard and confidence in which you are held, you and he may have something in common.
>
> Bob

Friends,
There are a lot of psychological tactics being used here that you could be unbeknownst of. And I think that if you are in darkness, that you could be freed and be led into a marvelous light if you knew the truth, for it has been revealed to me that the truth can make one free.
Now it is written here,[...notifying me just means that I will be aware. It doesn't mean that I'll necessarily act...]. Oh yeah? Let us look at this post:
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061018/msgs/699224.html

 

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Administration | Framed

poster:Lou Pilder thread:1055291
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1056498.html