![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 48 to 72 of 97. Go back in thread:
Posted by stjames on August 6, 2003, at 13:48:25
In reply to Re: Yo Saint--wanna try some I statements?, posted by zenhussy on August 6, 2003, at 13:30:59
I think your correcting my spelling is an insult.
I have a learning disibility and have made it clear in the past this is a touchy subject.
Posted by zenhussy on August 6, 2003, at 14:07:47
In reply to Re: Yo Saint--wanna try some I statements?, posted by stjames on August 6, 2003, at 13:48:25
> I think your correcting my spelling is an insult.
> I have a learning disibility and have made it clear in the past this is a touchy subject.stjames,
If any spelling corrections took place they were surely accidental as I am a horrible speller. I included definitions of a word to bolster my position on a previous post exchange we were having.
My intention was one of constructive challenge to see what or where you were coming from. Not one of derision.
If you felt insulted then I apologize as that was not my intent and I feel badly you feel hurt.
My hope is that you will read this and see that I am coming from a different approach and not one of negativity.
zenhussy
Posted by stjames on August 6, 2003, at 15:05:33
In reply to Re: Yo Saint--wanna try some I statements? » stjames, posted by zenhussy on August 6, 2003, at 14:07:47
> stjames,
>
> If any spelling corrections took place they were surely accidental as I am a horrible speller.How funny !
No I don't think mentioning ego is a put down.
Ego is a natural part of psychology. In any case,
WHY have you fixated on me, Lar made the original statement, so WHY pick on me ?
Posted by zenhussy on August 6, 2003, at 15:19:36
In reply to Re: Yo Saint--wanna try some I statements?, posted by stjames on August 6, 2003, at 15:05:33
> > stjames,
> >
> > If any spelling corrections took place they were surely accidental as I am a horrible speller.
>
> How funny !
>
> No I don't think mentioning ego is a put down.
> Ego is a natural part of psychology. In any case,
> WHY have you fixated on me, Lar made the original statement, so WHY pick on me ?I was trying to engage in a dialogue with you but I shall bow out seeing as this does not seem to be progressing.
take care
zenhussy
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2003, at 19:09:18
In reply to Re: Will do, sorry about that. :-) (nm) » Dr. Bob, posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 6, 2003, at 11:50:28
Posted by Zo on August 8, 2003, at 0:04:32
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry » Ame Sans Vie, posted by Larry Hoover on August 5, 2003, at 23:00:26
Well, Lar, that's one possiblity. The other could be that there is *merit* to Pax's position, and Kid_A's. It could be precisely the case that the way in which the board is increasingly mishandled "drives people away." Do you know what that means? It means, with a heavy heart. Leaving one's friends.
Frankly, I'm at a loss. When I come back here and see the petty backbiting, the time spent hashing out these arguments over Bob. .. and think of the way we all used to matter to each other. It's very sad.
Look at the world around you. Or don't. Perhaps authoritarian suits you. It doesn't suit me, it hasn't suited other mature, intelligent people with an enormous amount to contribute who in time simply leave, discouraged from giving the very support they would like to give.
Find me a single board on the web that blocks contributing, valued posters - never mind for increasing amounts of time. I told Bob the first time I was blocked, this was going to break my ties to the board, and I told him that it really hurt. At the same time, others were posting to the value of my presence. Let me see, one of my offenses was writing that an *unnamed* person on the board had a "so-called" intellect. You could find them all.
Another block was made over a woman's use of the word or. Bob and I corresponded about that one. He argued that her use of a carraige return *proved* her intent to be uncivil. I'm sorry, but that way madness lies.
It's probably a reliable barometer: if you have to search and argue why someone's post was uncivil - let it go! That's what everybody else does! In the interest of having a lively and supportive community, they do *not* nitpick over long-time members posts, nor stonewall any discussion.
What I've posted to Bob and the board about Asperger's is the result of a year of thinking, and none of it has been easy. I had as much affection for Bob as anybody - hell, I'm the person who coined "PBC." And I would *still* be here and on good terms with Bob, except that it became increasingly, painfully clear that the structure was and is inherently unfair. No one person can keep the rules in their head, offer no means of recourse, make arbitrary decisions that affect the lives of others - and expect that to be helpful, or even to work.
Trust me. This board is known far and wide as an oddity. One begins tactfully, Lar. A year or two later, tact is hard to come by. To learn that a neurological condition is very likely the root cause of what have been some very hard times for a number of people comes as a relief.
What I really don't understand is the need to be cruel. If you phrase things just right, it's possible to be immensely cruel and still not have said an uncivil word. It is just as possible to throw some slang around and be a tremendously caring, insightful person.
I would say, unequivocably, most every single person who has been arbitrarily blocked has been someone creative. Who has committed no big offense - by any adult measure.That much is abundantly clear. I don't know - does coloring outside the lines rattle you, too? I mean, I honestly don't know.
Bob has been offered every suggestion under the sun, by lots of folks with lots of good ideas. People who care about him and most of all, about their kin, here. Or perhaps the idea of kin was mistaken. . ..
Zo
Posted by Simcha on August 8, 2003, at 0:34:07
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry, posted by Zo on August 8, 2003, at 0:04:32
People, please remember....
1. Thou shalt not disagree with Dr. Bob
2. If thou shalt disagree with Dr. Bob refer to rule #1
3. If thou dost have a complaint, please read rule #1This board is not a democracy. It's a Machiavellian Grand Duchy. If you don't like it read the rules and remember the temperment of our Leader.
Dearly and With Absolute Love and Civility,
Simcha(Just thought I'd post it again here. And Aspergers? Really? Someone can diagnose that from how someone administers a board? I don't think I could do that...)
Posted by Zo on August 8, 2003, at 0:34:29
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry » Larry Hoover, posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 6, 2003, at 11:53:22
. . pretty well illustrates the difference between those who come from their emotions, in their manner of speech - and those who more closely examine their actual wording.Is it not possible, Larry and Ame, to observe that real offence has been taken, and to consider that the analytical only goes so far, when it comes to people's feelings? It is not the scrupulosity with which you justify your own words that troubles me - and I do not mean to single you out, I merely address you both because you are here - and represent a position, a way of thinking, that contributes to many of the misunderstandings I've seen here.
And even more, it represents Bob's thinking, and the reason for the resultant upheavel.
The moment of difference, I notice, for each of you, is that when you get the response that someone is hurt or angry or offended at what you've posted - Larry, particularly you - you immediately turn to your *own* words.
Instead of turning *towards* your fellow board member who is upset with you, to mend things with them - you turn to your own words, reread them, find nothing wrong - and put the other person, who has told you of their feelings, at an further remove.
Follow me, here. In the world of Aspergers, the rest of us are called NTs. For neurotypical. And it is granted, by all, that NTs feel the general social run of things. Whether one approves or not, we are the norm. Whether it is fair or not - and I didn't invent this stuff - society and psychology are rife with judgement upon those who do not readily, or easily, "connect" to others. OR - and this is an important or - readily "get" the tone of things, that others are getting.
To NTs, turning away from the feelings brought before you - is an offense. It is the equivalent of saying, I do not care about your feelings.
So that when you comb over your post, instead of really listening to the *person* and their complaints, it unfortunately broadcasts a message I'm not sure you intend.
Then, let us say the NT gets further upset at being cold-shouldered, and the analytical type is even more mystified, why the big deal, examines his post even more - and withdraws even more from the person who wanted and needed his presence.
Awareness. That's all. These are different modes of being and of communicating - and they're horribly misread, as in this thread. Two different languages. I've had experience in both camps, and feel for everybody, and would dearly love this to stop.
Ame, Lar, it gives offense to justify yourself when another is hurting. It just does. Pax, Zen, Larry is turning to *his* skill set. Beneath our different tool kits, we all want the same thing - the love and caring of one another. Even if the opposite style from yours - all of you - pisses you off, I don't care. It's all a MISUNDERSTANDING.
And Larry, unfortunate but I'm sure you know, true, the more analytic types are outvoted. Society has already ruled, to listen is to demonstrate caring and respect. That's what is important. Not that your post be impeccable and well-defended. There is much to be said about adjustments from all sides, but for now, the burden is with you. Hey, my Dad was a physicist, he was the same way, I loved my Dad. That is quite apart from the fact *he* had to learn how to go along with common social behaviors. If he wanted to be liked and accepted, which he achieved.
Bob is not "the bad guy" here. He *is* the guy who regularly alienates and has driven away some of the most brilliant minds I've ever known. An unfortunate part of Aspergers is the inability to consider, to really in your heart consider, the other person's position. It's a neurological disability - that can be changed.
Many thoughts. I hope some prove useful.
Zo
Posted by Zo on August 8, 2003, at 0:38:18
In reply to Re: Yo Saint--wanna try some I statements?, posted by stjames on August 6, 2003, at 13:48:25
Hey, come on over to slashdot. Those guys can't spell worth a damn. Geeks, coders. But I've never read anyone funnier.And-that was pretty nice, your being open. Always gives a person a lift, when somebody else is open about their vulnerabilities, especially a guy. Whoo, do you live in a tough world--women have no idea. I'm writing about it.
Zo
Posted by Zo on August 8, 2003, at 1:02:15
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry, posted by Simcha on August 8, 2003, at 0:34:07
Hi, Simcha!
Yeah, you pretty much can. .. if you're 59 years old, a therapist/writer, were been the daughter of and married to an Aspergers male. . and have observed and interacted with someone over time.
Spectrum behavior has certain flags. Ever seen the geek test on Wired? It's pretty great. . .
Zo
Posted by Simcha on August 8, 2003, at 1:19:21
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry, posted by Zo on August 8, 2003, at 1:02:15
Zo,
Wow, I'm just studying for an MA in Counseling Psychology with a Specialization in Transpersonal Counseling, just passed my first year and got the green light to continue on the Counseling Track. This is a big deal in our school. I've also been a Mental Health Counselor for the past year for Middle School kids, fourth and fifth graders, and kidnergartners and first graders. I'm in there and green. I love it. I'm only 33, male. Some of our kids are on the Autistic Spectrum. I'm familiar with that. I know that Aspergers is different.
I hope to be able to have that diagnostic ability some day. That would be cool. Actually our school tries not to pathologize the person so that we continue to hold our clients in unconditional positive regard. It's a Holistic method. It has its pluses and minuses. We still have to be intimitely familiar with DSM IV criteria and diagnosis since that is how you get paid by the government and insurance companies if you deal with them. Next year I begin that series of classes.
I think I took that Wired test once and scored very high on the Geek side. I think I'll try it again.... LOL ;-)
Blessings,
Simcha> Hi, Simcha!
>
> Yeah, you pretty much can. .. if you're 59 years old, a therapist/writer, were been the daughter of and married to an Aspergers male. . and have observed and interacted with someone over time.
>
> Spectrum behavior has certain flags. Ever seen the geek test on Wired? It's pretty great. . .
>
> Zo
>
>
Posted by Simcha on August 8, 2003, at 1:39:18
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry » Zo, posted by Simcha on August 8, 2003, at 1:19:21
Zo,
> Spectrum behavior has certain flags. Ever seen the geek test on Wired? It's pretty great. . .On this test:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/aqtest.html
I scored a 21. That's 5 points higher than average. Hmmm....Simcha
Posted by Zo on August 8, 2003, at 1:54:44
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry » Zo, posted by Simcha on August 8, 2003, at 1:19:21
That is sooo cool. Of course unconditonal regard works - with children. But Aspergers adult males can and do give more than offense, their standards and behaviors are abusive, and the results are the same on their wives, partners, children. It's a dilemma. I'm moderating a group of recovering partners of Aspergers, mostly women. It's hugely pathological, the havoc these guys can wreak on the sanity,health and well-being of those around them, particularly if they are the wage-earner. Without theory of mind, there's pretty much no reason to "share the wages." And the tragic thing, at which you also gotta laugh, is the way they declare the rules, perservate over them, and of course are invariably wrong.Then you come across an AS guy with a big heart - it's all so mysterious. The DSM has got to be the biggest pile of steaming. . ..
I have great faith in the plasticity of the human brain and in the ability of these children to learn to connect and to take pleasure in connecting - you're on the frontline, kid, you go!
Love,
zo
Posted by Dinah on August 8, 2003, at 7:44:34
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry, posted by Zo on August 8, 2003, at 0:04:32
It seems that everyone agrees.
This board, with its style of moderation, admirably suits many posters.
It does not suit other posters.
That would seem to me to be true about anything out there - internet board or not.
Since Dr. Bob is not likely to change his moderation style, and since that style suits many people just fine. And since this is not the only board in the world.
Why don't we all just accept what this board can and cannot be, and use it to the extent that it is useful to us? With gratitude to Dr. Bob for what is useful to us.
So some of us may feel so safe here that we don't wish to post elsewhere. Others of us may only find this board useful for the exchange of medication information. Others of us might find this board profoundly unuseful.
Does there need to be so much anger about what "is" and will continue to be?
Zo, I'm not saying you personally are angry. I see you've come to your own conclusions about the why of this board and why some people find it more helpful than others.
But even if you're right, why does that mean this board or its posters should or must change. You say that the world in general has rejected the mores of Aspies and embraced those of neurotypicals. Even if everything you say is true, why try to change this particular place? It may be a refuge for those who find that atmosphere comforting? And again, I'm not saying you in particular are at this point trying to change this place.
I suppose that what I really really don't understand is the inexorable pull this place seems to have both on those whose needs it meets and those whose needs it doesn't meet. If Dr. Bob suddenly decided to embrace the mores that you believe are associated with neurotypicals, and it became clear that that would not change, I'd leave this place in a heartbeat and not look back. I'd keep up with the friends I met here off board, and look for a place that better suited my style. And if I couldn't find one, I'd be sad, but I wouldn't keep coming back to a place that was bound to distress me. Or at least I hope I wouldn't. It wouldn't seem like a healthy choice for me at all.
I don't think Dr. Bob slips subliminal messages in the pale yellow background of this site? "Come back, no matter how harmful this place is to you." I really doubt he does that.
I just don't understand.
Posted by Dinah on August 8, 2003, at 7:45:00
In reply to Re: I don't really understand.????, posted by Dinah on August 8, 2003, at 7:44:34
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 8, 2003, at 8:49:21
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry, posted by Zo on August 8, 2003, at 0:04:32
> Well, Lar, that's one possiblity. The other could be that there is *merit* to Pax's position, and Kid_A's.
Merit is a value judgment. I've given a differing perspective. One that is inconsistent with theirs.
>It could be precisely the case that the way in which the board is increasingly mishandled "drives people away."
**Do you know what that means?**
I've separated out this statement solely to emphasize that you've done it yourself. That's offensive.
> It means, with a heavy heart. Leaving one's friends.
I reiterate....no one can be driven away from this board. And, even if that was true, there's no reason to sever all ties.
> Frankly, I'm at a loss. When I come back here and see the petty backbiting, the time spent hashing out these arguments over Bob. .. and think of the way we all used to matter to each other. It's very sad.I take offense at your use of petty. Please don't trivialize my feelings. There's nothing at all petty about anything I said.
> Look at the world around you. Or don't. Perhaps authoritarian suits you. It doesn't suit me, it hasn't suited other mature, intelligent people with an enormous amount to contribute who in time simply leave, discouraged from giving the very support they would like to give.Again, are you implying that I am neither mature nor intelligent? It is so easy to do, isn't it?
An analogy will cover my beliefs quite nicely. When one obtains a credit card, there is a statement to this effect, "Use of this card is an acknowledgement of acceptance of the following conditions:", and then you get 14 pages of fine print.
Well, "Use of Psycho-Babble.....
> Find me a single board on the web that blocks contributing, valued posters - never mind for increasing amounts of time. I told Bob the first time I was blocked, this was going to break my ties to the board, and I told him that it really hurt. At the same time, others were posting to the value of my presence. Let me see, one of my offenses was writing that an *unnamed* person on the board had a "so-called" intellect. You could find them all.I can only say that I can see that your ties to this board were not severed, after all.
> Another block was made over a woman's use of the word or. Bob and I corresponded about that one. He argued that her use of a carraige return *proved* her intent to be uncivil. I'm sorry, but that way madness lies.
I'm not saying the system is perfect, or even that it is great. It simply is. Despite the tendency for Bob to be trite, or fail to respond to some issues, I know he's listening. What is lacking in many "posts of protest" is a proposal to improve the site. Saying what's wrong is easy.
Recent ideas to change the penalty structure seem to have been well-received. I don't know what other ideas have been suggested in the past, but I don't think the rules are carved in stone.
> It's probably a reliable barometer: if you have to search and argue why someone's post was uncivil - let it go! That's what everybody else does! In the interest of having a lively and supportive community, they do *not* nitpick over long-time members posts, nor stonewall any discussion.I've seen obvious examples of discretion in this very thread. E.g., despite having been banned in the past, Pax received a PBC.
> What I've posted to Bob and the board about Asperger's is the result of a year of thinking, and none of it has been easy. I had as much affection for Bob as anybody - hell, I'm the person who coined "PBC." And I would *still* be here and on good terms with Bob, except that it became increasingly, painfully clear that the structure was and is inherently unfair. No one person can keep the rules in their head, offer no means of recourse, make arbitrary decisions that affect the lives of others - and expect that to be helpful, or even to work.So, how do you make it work better? And please take into account the limited resources available to Bob.
> Trust me. This board is known far and wide as an oddity. One begins tactfully, Lar. A year or two later, tact is hard to come by. To learn that a neurological condition is very likely the root cause of what have been some very hard times for a number of people comes as a relief.It may be an oddity. It may be unfair. But it beats every other site I've visited, hands down.
> What I really don't understand is the need to be cruel. If you phrase things just right, it's possible to be immensely cruel and still not have said an uncivil word.I'm very aware of that. My own rhetoric can be devastating. Unfortunately, I'm subjective. I don't see that the way others might (at least, right away).
Despite any beliefs people have developed about me as a result of my posting to this thread, I was trying to be very specific about criticizing the effects of behaviours and beliefs, without criticizing the person. You know, love the sinner, hate the sin.
>It is just as possible to throw some slang around and be a tremendously caring, insightful person.
No doubt.
> I would say, unequivocably, most every single person who has been arbitrarily blocked has been someone creative. Who has committed no big offense - by any adult measure.That much is abundantly clear. I don't know - does coloring outside the lines rattle you, too? I mean, I honestly don't know.Well, there's a good example of being civil and insulting at the same time.
> Bob has been offered every suggestion under the sun, by lots of folks with lots of good ideas. People who care about him and most of all, about their kin, here. Or perhaps the idea of kin was mistaken. . ..
>
>
> ZoI'll let Bob speak to that, if he's willing.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 8, 2003, at 9:24:43
In reply to it's interesting, what's going on in this thread » Ame Sans Vie, posted by Zo on August 8, 2003, at 0:34:29
>
> . . pretty well illustrates the difference between those who come from their emotions, in their manner of speech - and those who more closely examine their actual wording.Your dichotomy is arbitrary.
> Is it not possible, Larry and Ame, to observe that real offence has been taken, and to consider that the analytical only goes so far, when it comes to people's feelings?
If my meaning has been miscontsrued, then I'm going to start there. That doesn't mean that's all I'm doing.
>It is not the scrupulosity with which you justify your own words that troubles me - and I do not mean to single you out, I merely address you both because you are here - and represent a position, a way of thinking, that contributes to many of the misunderstandings I've seen here.
I choose my language scrupulously, most of the time. Returning the focus to the language is not a justification. I don't just restate the same thing. I expand, rephrase, provide context.
The issue for me, in this text only environment, is that all the other aspects of typical verbal communication are totally lacking. I cannot use inflection, volume, eye-contact, body language, etc. I cannot instantly respond to my listener, as I might when I observe that I have been misunderstood. All I've got is words.
> And even more, it represents Bob's thinking, and the reason for the resultant upheavel.<spock eyebrow>
> The moment of difference, I notice, for each of you, is that when you get the response that someone is hurt or angry or offended at what you've posted - Larry, particularly you - you immediately turn to your *own* words.I'm going to address misunderstanding first, if it is apparent in any interaction. If I'm clearly understood, then I address the emotive response directly. In other words, I'll gladly be responsible for what I meant, but not for what someone mistakenly thought I meant.
You have a limited data set upon which to base your assumptions about me.
Just because I do not wear my heart on my sleeve, in this environment, does not mean that you can assess my emotive interactions fairly.
> Instead of turning *towards* your fellow board member who is upset with you, to mend things with them - you turn to your own words, reread them,>find nothing wrong -
Excuse me? Don't presume to know what I think. Pointing out what I meant is not equivalent to finding nothing wrong.
>and put the other person, who has told you of their feelings, at an further remove.
Inevitable, in a misunderstanding.
I would hope for reconsideration.
> Follow me, here. In the world of Aspergers, the rest of us are called NTs. For neurotypical. And it is granted, by all, that NTs feel the general social run of things. Whether one approves or not, we are the norm. Whether it is fair or not - and I didn't invent this stuff - society and psychology are rife with judgement upon those who do not readily, or easily, "connect" to others. OR - and this is an important or - readily "get" the tone of things, that others are getting.
>
> To NTs, turning away from the feelings brought before you - is an offense. It is the equivalent of saying, I do not care about your feelings.Ya. So if the feelings are implicit (could you not feel the passion in *my* words?), they deserve no consideration?
> So that when you comb over your post, instead of really listening to the *person* and their complaints, it unfortunately broadcasts a message I'm not sure you intend.You created an artificial and arbitrary dichotomy of Asperger v. neurotypicals. The whole point behind my two posts (the ones very early on in this thread) is that the presumption that silence is equivalent to a lack of emotive response is erroneous. It takes me time, according to rules which make perfect sense to a victim of violence, to approach the emotive content of a dialogue. First, one must make sure one is understood.
Your comments are naive.
> Then, let us say the NT gets further upset at being cold-shouldered, and the analytical type is even more mystified,**why the big deal** (emphasis added)
That's not what's going on at all. Violence is usually projected; it has little or nothing to do with the target. I'm looking for validation of the link between the emotion and my words.
> examines his post even more - and withdraws even more from the person who wanted and needed his presence.
>
> Awareness. That's all. These are different modes of being and of communicating - and they're horribly misread, as in this thread.Absolutely true. And, by you, as well.
>Two different languages.
There are more than two.
>I've had experience in both camps, and feel for everybody, and would dearly love this to stop.
Walk a mile in my shoes.
> Ame, Lar, it gives offense to justify yourself when another is hurting. It just does. Pax, Zen, Larry is turning to *his* skill set. Beneath our different tool kits, we all want the same thing - the love and caring of one another. Even if the opposite style from yours - all of you - pisses you off, I don't care. It's all a MISUNDERSTANDING.My point, from the beginning.
> And Larry, unfortunate but I'm sure you know, true, the more analytic types are outvoted. Society has already ruled, to listen is to demonstrate caring and respect. That's what is important. Not that your post be impeccable and well-defended. There is much to be said about adjustments from all sides, but for now, the burden is with you.It's with everybody.
>Hey, my Dad was a physicist, he was the same way, I loved my Dad. That is quite apart from the fact *he* had to learn how to go along with common social behaviors. If he wanted to be liked and accepted, which he achieved.
You have no idea how much work it has required for me to get this far. It has nothing whatsoever to do with being analytical.
> Bob is not "the bad guy" here. He *is* the guy who regularly alienates and has driven away some of the most brilliant minds I've ever known. An unfortunate part of Aspergers is the inability to consider, to really in your heart consider, the other person's position. It's a neurological disability - that can be changed.As can emotional responses to misunderstandings.
> Many thoughts. I hope some prove useful.
>
>
>
> ZoI hope you give fair consideration to reassessing your assumptions, in light of the new information I've provided.
Lar
Posted by Dinah on August 8, 2003, at 9:36:47
In reply to it's interesting, what's going on in this thread » Ame Sans Vie, posted by Zo on August 8, 2003, at 0:34:29
>
> Follow me, here. In the world of Aspergers, the rest of us are called NTs. For neurotypical. And it is granted, by all, that NTs feel the general social run of things. Whether one approves or not, we are the norm. Whether it is fair or not - and I didn't invent this stuff - society and psychology are rife with judgement upon those who do not readily, or easily, "connect" to others. OR - and this is an important or - readily "get" the tone of things, that others are getting.
>And I'm really trying not to get upset at that paragraph. Perhaps it doesn't mean what it sounds like? I really would like to give you the benefit of the doubt....
Speaking as someone who was tormented all my life by the "normals" of the world. Are you saying that that's ok because we're the odd ones and odd is bad and odd must conform to what the normals say they should be? I'm sure I must be misconstruing your intent. Because if that is what you meant, you wouldn't be bothering to argue with Dr. Bob.
Please forgive my slowness. As a non-neurotypical, perhaps I don't easily get what is obvious to neurotypicals.
Posted by Dinah on August 8, 2003, at 9:44:30
In reply to Re: it's interesting, what's going on in this thread » Zo, posted by Dinah on August 8, 2003, at 9:36:47
Even I don't know what I meant by that last post. Just that that paragraph disturbed me. Just ignore my last post.
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 8, 2003, at 9:57:41
In reply to Re: Oh never mind, posted by Dinah on August 8, 2003, at 9:44:30
> Even I don't know what I meant by that last post. Just that that paragraph disturbed me. Just ignore my last post.
May I make a suggestion? There were assumptions being made about you. It's the same reason why racism, sexism and all other fill-in-the-blank-isms are offensive.
Lar
Posted by NikkiT2 on August 8, 2003, at 10:32:58
In reply to Re: Oh never mind » Dinah, posted by Larry Hoover on August 8, 2003, at 9:57:41
It seems, to me, that people are upset that people have left due to Dr Bobs rules.
What about the people who left because abuse was being directed at them? Or are they considered too sensitive so don't deserve to be here?
I found most of what you were saying about Aspies pretty offensive.. one of my bext friends has AS, and my nephew is seveerly autistic.. and I know my friend would be very upset at how you have portrayed such people. Yes, at times it is tough being close friends with an aspie, as he doesn't understand the consequences of what he says, he forgets about other people emotions, but he is a very loving young man, and very sensitive with it. And he is learning from the mistakes he makes.
I would also be pretty offended to be psycho analysed by someone who is not a psychiatrist or psychologist, and especially when they know absolutaly nothing about the person they are attempting to analyse.
Nikki
Posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 8, 2003, at 12:16:41
In reply to it's interesting, what's going on in this thread » Ame Sans Vie, posted by Zo on August 8, 2003, at 0:34:29
You know, I have to say I wholeheartedly agree with you. I could have surely approached this in a manner that would not have left anyone feeling alienated or ganged up on, but I suppose I was just a bit befuddled at a the time as to what it was in Larry's post that was so offensive.
You are 100% correct though -- if a person is genuinely offended by something, then arguing over semantics or the original poster's intent is rather silly. Thank you for helping me to realize this.
I'm still trying to refine my social skills (I suppose it shows :-)... I mean, I was a housebound agoraphobe/social phobe for two years, so that makes it difficult. But your post was extremely thoughtful, and it's eye-openers like this that will allow me to become a better listener, communicator, and friend (I hope) to many of you. Thank you so much for posting this. :-)
Posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 8, 2003, at 12:39:17
In reply to Re: it's interesting, what's going on in this thread » Zo, posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 8, 2003, at 12:16:41
I do hope you will accept my heartfelt apology. It was unbelievably ignorant of me not to take your feelings into consideration, and I am infinitely sorry for that. Looking back over the posts, I can't believe I reacted to you the way that I did... I would not have wanted to be treated that way, and unfortunately the Golden Rule was sort of pushed aside in favor of logic. I suppose this is because (as I mentioned in the above post) I'm still working on my social skills after all that time housebound, and for a long time, logic was all I needed to rely on.
Once again, I offer my sincerest apologies, though I understand completely if you won't accept them.
~~Michael
Posted by Dinah on August 8, 2003, at 19:30:15
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry, posted by Simcha on August 8, 2003, at 1:39:18
I scored 24 :)
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 9, 2003, at 0:19:01
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry, posted by Zo on August 8, 2003, at 1:54:44
> It is not the scrupulosity with which you justify your own words that troubles me - and I do not mean to single you out, I merely address you both because you are here - and represent a position, a way of thinking, that contributes to many of the misunderstandings I've seen here.
If you don't mean to single someone out, then don't single them out.
> Instead of turning *towards* your fellow board member who is upset with you, to mend things with them - you turn to your own words, reread them, find nothing wrong - and put the other person, who has told you of their feelings, at an further remove.
>
> when you comb over your post, instead of really listening to the *person* and their complaints, it unfortunately broadcasts a message I'm not sure you intend.
>
> the analytical type ... withdraws even more from the person who wanted and needed his presence.
>
> Ame, Lar, it gives offense to justify yourself
>
> to listen is to demonstrate caring and respect. That's what is important. Not that your post be impeccable and well-defended.> Aspergers adult males can and do give more than offense, their standards and behaviors are abusive, and the results are the same on their wives, partners, children.
Please be sensitive to the feelings of others and don't jump to conclusions about them or post anything that could lead them to feel accused or put down. The last time you were blocked, it was for 8 weeks, so this time, it's for 16. Best wishes,
Bob
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.