![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 26 to 50 of 90. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on October 5, 2004, at 20:43:58
In reply to Interruptions mostly certainly invited » Dinah, posted by partlycloudy on October 5, 2004, at 20:00:22
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2004, at 20:47:04
In reply to Partly Cloudy, posted by Kali Munro on October 5, 2004, at 20:01:45
Friends,
There are some things that I would like to clarify in what has been posted in this discussion about my posting style.
First, there is the posts about the 100 posts. The reason that I wrote that it would take me 100 posts to unveil or unfold what was folded over was and still is because there is a {great deal of folds over what is visible that you may not be able to see untill there is an unfolding.}
You see, the discussion was between me and Dr. Hsiung and others about Jean Jaque Rousseau and the writings by him that appear on the faith board's opening page. There is a great complex overfolding there and I would need 100 posts to reveal why the writings by Jean Rousseau could have the potential to not only arrouse anti christian feelings, but I could show the potential for Jean Rousseau's writings to be reflected in the phylosophys of Hitler, Stalin Mao, Lenin and others. Then, after the 100 posts, what I would want to write could have the potential for others to consider that the writings by Jean Rousseau might not be appropriate to be posted on a mental health forum. I had asked the moderator to delete those posts by Jean Rousseau in order that I not need to post the 100 posts to reveal what the potential for Jean Rousseau's posts on the faith board have the potential to say in relation to arrousing the potential of putting down those of faiths like christians and others. I would need 100 post because that is how complex those writings are in relation to the goals of the board. Is it supportive for that discussion, which was on the administrative board where it belongs, to be limited or restricted in style of posting? Could not the rule be started after that thread was finished? Would not it be better to continue the discussion so that I could give others infomation so that they could have more light on the subject in order for them to make an informitive decision about if the writings by Jean Rousseau wer or were not supportive for a faith board on a mental health forum?
Lou
Posted by Kali Munro on October 5, 2004, at 20:56:35
In reply to Re: Hi, remember me? :), posted by Dinah on October 5, 2004, at 19:42:42
Wow, Dinah, your post about your relationship with your therapist was moving, intense, interesting, and compelling -- it clearly describes a relationship that is working for you on a deep level, even if not always on the surface level.
I guess my response to when do you stay and fight for a relationship is precisely what you said in your post about your therapist -- if it feels right on a deep level to do it then do it.
It can be hard to know sometimes what feels right on a deep level and what feels right because it mirrors some unhealthy relationship from your past. On the other hand, even those relationships can be necessary steps in our process.
I think you do what you likely do already to buffer yourself from the pain -- you take breaks from the group/board, you express what is important to you and let go of the rest, you gravitate to the subjects/people/threads that feel right and good to you, you remind yourself that relationships are not always easy but when they feel right and good it's worth it, you let go of expectations, you focus on what you get from the experience when you can, you see and accept the board/group/person as they are and not as you want them to be which doesn't mean you don't express yourself, disagree, challenge, seek answers, etc.
I suspect you already do these things and can get overwhelmed and exhausted by it all; understandably. I recommend doing things that replenish you physically and emotionally (notice I leave out mentally :)-- physical activity, rest, reading, slow walks, nature, meditation, yoga, etc. -- so you have something that comforts you when people/boards are "making you crazy"!
I think you have a lot of integrity, Dinah. You seek connection while being true to yourself. It can be a tough road to walk but one well worth it.
Take care,
Kali
Posted by Kali Munro on October 5, 2004, at 21:06:52
In reply to Lou offers clarification » Kali Munro, posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2004, at 20:47:04
Hi Lou,
I'm glad you came by. You ask:
>>>Would not it be better to continue the discussion so that I could give others infomation so that they could have more light on the subject in order for them to make an informitive decision about if the writings by Jean Rousseau wer or were not supportive for a faith board on a mental health forum?<<<<
Obviously this is an important issue to you, and you want to be able to share this information. Wouldn't it make more sense to first check whether or not anybody wants to hear what you want to share? That way you're sharing the information with people who want to read it and it could be in its own thread where only interested parties go.
The issue of how long or how many posts it would take to share your information is another issue and that is up to Bob.
Kali
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2004, at 21:11:12
In reply to Lou offers clarification » Kali Munro, posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2004, at 20:47:04
Friends,
The 100 posts were to be all independant of each other. Below are two links about what some of what I would have been writing about in the 100 posts. I would have unfolded about 7 of the 100 posts from some of the statements in the following two links. This is how complex this is.
I submit the following links only for your consideration and make no endorsement of its contents, but only wish to point out that there is an author that does not endorse Jean Rousseau's writings, and the other is a link to different people that had the potential to influence nations of our time.
Lou
http://www.koti.mbnt.fi/neptunia/philosophy/rouss3.htm
http://sepsec.iwarp.com./theory/ori.htm
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2004, at 21:16:14
In reply to Hi Lou (excuse me if I'm butting in), posted by Kali Munro on October 5, 2004, at 21:06:52
> Hi Lou,
>
> I'm glad you came by. You ask:
>
> >>>Would not it be better to continue the discussion so that I could give others infomation so that they could have more light on the subject in order for them to make an informitive decision about if the writings by Jean Rousseau wer or were not supportive for a faith board on a mental health forum?<<<<
>
> Obviously this is an important issue to you, and you want to be able to share this information. Wouldn't it make more sense to first check whether or not anybody wants to hear what you want to share? That way you're sharing the information with people who want to read it and it could be in its own thread where only interested parties go.
>
> The issue of how long or how many posts it would take to share your information is another issue and that is up to Bob.
>
> Kali
>Kali,
You wrote the above and there was a poster that wrote that they, in their own way of saying it, did think that the initial posts about Jean Rousseau before I stopped had merit.
Lou
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2004, at 21:24:24
In reply to Lou's response to, posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2004, at 21:16:14
Kali,
You wrote,[...its own thread....]
I would be glad to be allowed to have my own thread about this, but would the rule still apply still apply? IYO, Could this own thread be exempted from the rule on good anfd just causes?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on October 5, 2004, at 22:09:10
In reply to Hi Dinah, posted by Kali Munro on October 5, 2004, at 20:56:35
> Wow, Dinah, your post about your relationship with your therapist was moving, intense, interesting, and compelling -- it clearly describes a relationship that is working for you on a deep level, even if not always on the surface level.
I really appreciate your saying that. And it also describes my relationship with Babble, I have always thought. Babble has been so good for me in so many ways and helped me grow as a "person in relation with others". I suppose the fact that I can say that answers, for me anyway, whether it's worth it. Or it should.
> I think you do what you likely do already to buffer yourself from the pain -- you take breaks from the group/board, you express what is important to you and let go of the rest, you gravitate to the subjects/people/threads that feel right and good to you, you remind yourself that relationships are not always easy but when they feel right and good it's worth it, you let go of expectations, you focus on what you get from the experience when you can, you see and accept the board/group/person as they are and not as you want them to be which doesn't mean you don't express yourself, disagree, challenge, seek answers, etc.
I try, anyway. :) Maybe what makes it harder to relate to a group than a person is that the group isn't static. With a person you hopefully eventually reach "comfy old shoe" status in your relationship. While maintaining relationship with the board can be exhausting.
>
> I suspect you already do these things and can get overwhelmed and exhausted by it all; understandably. I recommend doing things that replenish you physically and emotionally (notice I leave out mentally :)-- physical activity, rest, reading, slow walks, nature, meditation, yoga, etc. -- so you have something that comforts you when people/boards are "making you crazy"!I could have sworn that the psychologist who did my Rorschach test wasn't named Kali Munro, but she said exactly the same thing! Perhaps Babble is a sort of Rorschach test in itself. ;)
>
> I think you have a lot of integrity, Dinah. You seek connection while being true to yourself. It can be a tough road to walk but one well worth it.Thank you very much. I'm honored.
>
> Take care,
>
> Kali
>
And you as well.
Posted by tabitha on October 6, 2004, at 1:37:49
In reply to Re: Thank you :) » Kali Munro, posted by Dinah on October 5, 2004, at 22:09:10
What's a good way to respond to someone who is wanting support for feelings of upset, when I think their feelings are based on a perception that needs to be challenged? For example, let's say someone takes offense at a post, but I read it differently and don't think any insult was intended. Let's say they get several responses validating their feelings. How can I say anything without seeming to be taking sides against them, or invalidating their perceptions? Is it better to just say nothing if I can't be totally supportive?
Posted by partlycloudy on October 6, 2004, at 7:46:49
In reply to Hi Lou (excuse me if I'm butting in), posted by Kali Munro on October 5, 2004, at 21:06:52
And so it starts.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040927/msgs/399439.html
?? What to do??
partlycloudy and puzzled
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 8:21:01
In reply to Kali - this is exactly what happens, posted by partlycloudy on October 6, 2004, at 7:46:49
> And so it starts.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040927/msgs/399439.html
>
> ?? What to do??
> partlycloudy and puzzled
Friends,
I have requested from the moderator for a determination as to if a statement is acceptable under the guidlines of theforum. It is a request for a determination, because I felt put down when I read the statement in question in the link provided above.
I feel that if a determination is made that it could be a good thing for the discussion to know that because then that type of statement could either be used or not in the future.
The statement in question to me may have a greater impact on me than on others. Looking at one psrt of it,[...whether or not anyone wants to hear...], is a part that when I read the statement, I felt put down.
The administrative board is for hearing issues concerning the operation of the forum. Is my concern dependant on others [...wanting to hear what I have to write?...]. There were posts by others that wrote that it was not the content of what I was writing, but the style of writing that I use. Look at what others have written about me in the thread above. Bobby wrote something like he/she liked reading about the Rider . There are others that wrote that they did not want the 3-post rule.
I read in the thread here about moderators. If I was a moderator, I would not want to stop someone from continuing what they were writing. This is a mental health forum where I feel that all posters have a place to write their concerns about the improvmrnt of the forum.
Lou
Posted by partlycloudy on October 6, 2004, at 8:48:38
In reply to Lou's response to partlycloudy's post, posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 8:21:01
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 9:06:03
In reply to Lou please do not post to me or reply. (nm), posted by partlycloudy on October 6, 2004, at 8:48:38
Dr. Hsiung,
It is my understanding that one can reply to a post by a poster that does not want one to post to them if:
A. they are responding to the post, and not the poster
or if
B. that the poster posts to them.
In my post here, I directed my post to {friends}, not to the poster. And the subject line was my [reply to the post] by the poster, not my reply to the poster.
My concern here is now the poster after bringing me into focus by initiating the issue of my request to you for a determination, now posts that I am not to {reply}.
I feel that this is going beyond the rule by saying that I can not reply. It is my undesdtanding that I can reply as long as my reply is not to the poster and is a reply to the content of the post. Could you clarify this so that I can have a better understanding of this?
Thanks in advance
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 9:13:17
In reply to To Dr. Hsiung, posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 9:06:03
Dr. Hsiung,
Another aspect of this is when a poster (brings up the name}of a poster in some way.
If a poster does not directly post to you, but brings up your name, could that also be the same as posting to you so that if a poster has told you not to post to them that that would be lifted because they brought you into attention?
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 6, 2004, at 9:55:13
In reply to To Dr. Hsiung-2-bun, posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 9:13:17
> It is my undesdtanding that I can reply as long as my reply is not to the poster
Right, you can post a follow-up to that thread as long as it isn't directed to that poster.
> If a poster does not directly post to you, but brings up your name, could that also be the same as posting to you so that if a poster has told you not to post to them that that would be lifted because they brought you into attention?
No, that's different, you still shouldn't post to them. But they still need to be civil.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 6, 2004, at 9:55:39
In reply to Mel, posted by Kali Munro on October 5, 2004, at 20:32:18
> I wonder what would have happened had someone said, "Hey, I'm sure you have some interesting things to say... I'd be far more likely to respond to you if you could write less. Do you think you could try that?"
Some might be willing and able to try, others might not?
> If I were the moderator, I might have wanted to check the pulse of the community and asked the original poster to post less. Likely one difficulty that would have arisen is the poster would have asked for an amount of posts and that it be applied equally to all.
>
> I would have wanted to try to communicate with him that this wasn't a black and white issue, in other words, there may be times that people need to write a number of posts consecutively but it wouldn't be the norm. So, to create a rule because one person is doing it a lot wouldn't be fair to those, including him, who might do it occassionally.IMO, this is where we're at. I've picked a number, and it needs to be applied equally, but this isn't black and white, so there also need to be exceptions...
Thanks for helping out again,
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 10:16:40
In reply to Mel, posted by Kali Munro on October 5, 2004, at 20:32:18
Kali,
You wrote,[...to create a rule....would not be fair to those, {including him}...].
Thank you for making that observation.
You see, the issue here is mainly on (consecutive} pposts, not the entire length of the thread because there are threads that are much longer than the ones in question.
But I sometimes need 7 posts in order for what I am writindg to be seen by others. Could not I be allowed , perhaps, 3 times using 7 posts in let say, a week?
Lou
Posted by AuntieMel on October 6, 2004, at 10:29:25
In reply to Re: Hi, remember me? :), posted by Dinah on October 5, 2004, at 19:42:42
I think fighting for a relationship with a person is much different than fighting for a good feeling with babble.
When you are fighting for a relationship with a person, there is a one on one human interaction. You can relate to the person in real time, have a good chance of understanding the nuances of the points being made and, more important, have enough information about that person's value system to be able to tell if it meshes with your own. If there are enough similar values and goals (and a certain amount of chemistry) the relationship is probably worth fighting for.
On the other hand, babble is much more complicated. We form attachments to how we *perceive* the other members to be, and with the community as a whole.
Because we all have "mental illness" in common, we want to see the others in the best light and assume good motives. When we see evidence to the contrary it comes a shock and the hurt is doubled.
It also follows group dynamics, something most of us haven't really had experience with. In fact, I would guess that for a lot of us, this is the only community that we've ever belonged to. So we are groping, all at our own speeds, with no real examples to follow. Deciding if it is worth it is much tougher - weighing the pains that come with the benefits we get.
It is a decision only we can make for ourselves. And it is a major decision. If things don't work out with one person it can hurt a lot, but one person is only a part of the fabric. If it doesn't work out with a community, it strikes at the core.
I, like you, remember being on the sidelines at the schoolyards. It wasn't fun then, and it isn't fun now.
Melanie
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 10:56:57
In reply to Lou's response to Kali-B-cp » Kali Munro, posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 10:16:40
Kali,
You wrote,[...more likely to respond...if you write less...].
It is my understanding that in this situation that:
A. the issue is in consecutive posts, not the amount of posts because I could write 100 posts as long as after so many consecutive posts were made, there was a post by another poster.
B. the content of the posts is not in question, but only the consecutiveness of the posts.
C. I believe that it is understood that I have an extremely rare neurological condition that brought me to this forum years ago and causes me to post in the style that you see.
D. others can, at any time make a post and no one is requiered to read what I write.
E.Other things that I will try to include in another post.
I sometimes post to state my feelings about something and that I am not seeking others to reply which is to address your statement that [...more likely to respond...]. sometimes I am posting to reveal what I have seen that others may not see. This could take 7 posts. There is a thread recently where I used consecutive posts to unveiel a statement that I felt had the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings. Then I removed the folded over parts and it could be seen by others and the post was attended to. It is the same here. There are statements by Jean Rousseau on the faith board, one of which is,[...christianity preaches only servitude and dependance...true christians are made to be slaves...this short life counts for little in their lives...].
I would like to express myself about this by posting 7 posts about how that statement is IMO unsupportive to faith in God by christians and other faiths. I would like to show what I belive and others have written also,that there could be a connection the to Rousseau's writings to the rise of antisemitism that fostered the Nazi holocaust and totalitarian regimes such as Stalin and others and I do not feel that I can do this in a few posts with my condition. I do not feel that I should be prohibited from using 7 posts to give the light that I feel is requiered by me to show that Jean Rousseau's writngs could have the potential to arrouse antichristian and anti other faiths feelings.
Lou
Posted by AuntieMel on October 6, 2004, at 11:02:44
In reply to Lou's response to Kali-B-wl, posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 10:56:57
Forgive me for butting in here.
I have a lot of the same issues you have about the rule, but:
I brought up this latest rule disagreement as an example only. I am mainly trying here to engage Kali on the *process* of settling this type of situation, not to discuss the rule itself.
As you know, I'll happily discuss the rule 'til the cows come home, but could we put that back on the other thread or start a new one so this one can stay focused on the process instead of the rule?
Please?
Posted by Dinah on October 6, 2004, at 12:05:41
In reply to Re: Is it worth fighting for » Dinah, posted by AuntieMel on October 6, 2004, at 10:29:25
Oh, I totally agree that there are significant differences, particularly in the "how" of having a relationship with a group. That's why I asked for group specific techniques.
It's not just having a relationship with a bunch of individuals. I've seen people here who have great relationships with fellow posters yet who seem to be hurt a lot by the board in general. There is something significantly different about having a relationship with a "group".
But the struggle for a flawed but valuable relationship with a group isn't that different than the struggle for a flawed but valuable relationship with a person (which is just about every worthwhile relationship). It's the *means* of how best to struggle that appear to be different, and perhaps the *type* of struggle as well.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 12:13:20
In reply to Hey Lou! » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on October 6, 2004, at 11:02:44
Aunti Mel,
You wrote,[...I am ...trying......to engage Kali on the processs of settleing tis type of situation...].
I am also interested in Kali's writings here and it is my understanding that this forum is open for all to join in the discussion. I was responding to Kali's post about [...more likely to respond...write less..]. My response was intended to clarify some things so that she/he could have more infomation to respond to me and others concerning the process.
After reading your post to me, I feel that there may be a misunderstanding. I believe that all posters can have equal access to posts by responding to them, in particular when one is connected somehow or has an interest in the post in question that they are responding to.
Lou
Posted by AuntieMel on October 6, 2004, at 13:23:08
In reply to Re: Is it worth fighting for » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on October 6, 2004, at 12:05:41
All true. But I think in some ways it's the degree of difficulty. I think that in lots of ways giving up the group is harder than one individual. Like you say, it's just not as cut-and-dried here.
Posted by AuntieMel on October 6, 2004, at 13:34:08
In reply to Lou's response to Auntie Mel » AuntieMel, posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 12:13:20
I understand that you would like Kali's input. And I agree that all have equal access. I just thought that two threads with Kali might be more productive. One on the "process" - or group dynamics. Another one on how we feel about the rule itself.
I think it might be valuable in this thread, for example, for you to explain *why* you post like you do. That way she'll know that you aren't doing it intentionally to annoy people.
I'm not trying to cause you any troubles. I just know it can sometimes be difficult for you to get your point across and I was trying to help. If I'm bothering you, just let me know and I'll quit.
OK?
Posted by partlycloudy on October 6, 2004, at 14:16:36
In reply to Hi Lou (excuse me if I'm butting in), posted by Kali Munro on October 5, 2004, at 21:06:52
Kali - what do make of this thread? I find it distressing to the extreme, yet I was really looking forward to your visit.
I'm afraid I won't be able to return to this board to enjoy your posts, and that really saddens me.
partlycloudy is very stormy.
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.