![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 26 to 50 of 57. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 14:23:40
In reply to Re: Lou's reply yo NIkkiT2, posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 13:59:55
Ss,
You wrote,[...both... should be equally protected from hurting...].
I agree. I am not saying that it is NikkiT2's intentions to hurt me, for I can not know someone's intentions. And it is also not my intention to hurt anyone, including NikkiT2
But it is my great hope that understanding here could see that I am only wanting a determination made by Dr. Hsiung as to the acceptability or not of these two posts directed to me by NikkiT2. NikkiT2 says that as long as there is not a PBC to the post, then she considers it to be acceptable. Well, if you look at the two posts in question, there are no PCBs associated directly with the posts and how would a reader here know by looking at the posts that they were not acceptable ?If Dr. Hsiung could make that very clear, so that there is no doubt that those two posts in question are not acceptable, or even to be acceptable, then I believe that we could stop all of this paricular discussion and go on.
Lou
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on November 5, 2004, at 14:25:09
In reply to Dr-Bob... Is this a good idea?, posted by 64bowtie on November 5, 2004, at 7:52:09
Whatever happened to Rod's original question? It seems pretty important to me.
Posted by AuntieMel on November 5, 2004, at 14:51:02
In reply to Lou's reply yo NIkkiT2 » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 13:53:22
I'm sorry to butt in here, but it seems to me that Nikki has extended an olive branch here and I think it would be wonderful!! for both of you - and the entire board - if the two of you could kiss and make up.
I'm writing as a friend, but one that is sad about the entire misunderstanding.
I understand fully the hurt you feel and the images you see. When I was in Poland the first time, the only thing I really, really wanted to do was visit Auschwitz/Birknau. I felt it was a duty of mine to witness it. Nothing can truly explain the impact that had on me, but the closest I can come to it is to say I felt a pure murderous rage.
But is it really important for Dr. Bob to make a determination on it? Nikki has already said she posted what she did out of anger and (I believe) apologized. Dr. Bob doesn't usually even get involved when that happens.
So, I guess what's left is for you to understand what it is that hurt her about the first post? I can understand that. She was very upset when she wrote it, was talking as if she had no life to live, revealing her true emotions to the world, and the next thing she knows there is a request for the post to be examined for civility. I think if I were in the same position I would be hurt, too, and I don't hurt easily. If not hurt, I would certainly be thinking there was always someone looking over my shoulder.
But still, the olive branch.
Mel <speaking as a friend>
ps to Nikki: If I am correct (good chance I'm not - I seem to be missing the mark lately) the part he was noticing was the use of the word 'b*st*rd' and 'h*ll.' So, if that is true, and if Lou really wanted to know if that was acceptable in the context that it was used, could you think of a way to word it that wouldn't be hurtful??
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 14:52:40
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2 » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on November 5, 2004, at 13:34:48
NikkiT2,
You wrote that you posted in anger. I do not consider that posts could be determined as acceptable , if they are not acceptable, because someone posted it in anger. My request for a determination was made as to what could be seen, not what the feelings of the poster was behind the writing of the post.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 14:55:27
In reply to Re: Lou's reply yo NIkkiT2, posted by NikkiT2 on November 5, 2004, at 14:12:36
Niki T2,
The posts in question here are the ones you posted directly to me. The post that you are referring to was not posted diectly to me and was determined to another poster, pegasus, that the post was acceptable.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 15:05:27
In reply to Re: Hey Lou » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on November 5, 2004, at 14:51:02
AM,
I appreciate your post to me. I think that you see things here that I also see.
But the aspect of this discussion that you point outin relation to a dtermination, I feel is warrented because when someone reads the post in and of itself, one could have the potential to think that the forum endorses it becaus ether is no notation from Dr. Hsiung spaciffically abou the post as to whether it is acceptable or not in relation to the guidlines of the forum. If there was a determination that others could know, not having to go into another thread to find it out,or wonder what Dt. Hsing means by writing that anither post is uncivil, then it could be clear to others. That is what I am asking for. Do you think that that is too much to ask here?
Lou
Lou
Posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 15:29:39
In reply to Lou's reply to Sad sara » Sad Sara, posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 14:23:40
> Ss,
> You wrote,[...both... should be equally protected from hurting...].
> I agree. I am not saying that it is NikkiT2's intentions to hurt me, for I can not know someone's intentions. And it is also not my intention to hurt anyone, including NikkiT2
> But it is my great hope that understanding here could see that I am only wanting a determination made by Dr. Hsiung as to the acceptability or not of these two posts directed to me by NikkiT2. NikkiT2 says that as long as there is not a PBC to the post, then she considers it to be acceptable. Well, if you look at the two posts in question, there are no PCBs associated directly with the posts and how would a reader here know by looking at the posts that they were not acceptable ?If Dr. Hsiung could make that very clear, so that there is no doubt that those two posts in question are not acceptable, or even to be acceptable, then I believe that we could stop all of this paricular discussion and go on.
> Lou
>
>Dear you
I have understood what you are trying tosay, it's just that to me it seems like you and Nikki are talking about two different things, both of them equally important. While Nikki is trying to point out why she felt hurt, you are more trying to point out what you did and why you did it... am I wrong? But this is not my discussion so I will leave it at that. I believe Nikki to be perfectly capable of explaining herself and I have been intruding way too much already. Sorry.
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 15:38:50
In reply to Re: Hey Lou » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on November 5, 2004, at 14:51:02
AM,
You wrote that you belive that NikkiT2 [...has posted to me out of anger and (I believe) aplogised ...]. Could you point out the URL of what you believe to be an apology from NikkiT2 to me about writing the post in anger? There are so many postts that I have not fully read up with yet and if there is one that writes that, I would be appreciative if you could direct that to me.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on November 5, 2004, at 15:40:48
In reply to Re: Lou's reply yo NIkkiT2 » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 14:55:27
Are you refusing to answer why you were hurt by the original post?? I am asking you whether you understand why I was so hurt by your posting that particular post for clarification, and thus why I posted to you in anger?
Thankyou
Posted by AuntieMel on November 5, 2004, at 15:53:40
In reply to Lou's reply to Auntie Mel » AuntieMel, posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 15:38:50
I don't know for sure there was a formal apology and I don't have time to go looking for it right now (I'm working on a hot project at work), but in my mind (for what *that* is worth) just stating that it was in anger is an implied apology.
At least I would take it that way if someone said it to me. :)
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 16:02:13
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Sad sara, posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 15:29:39
You wrote,[...am I wrong?...].
If we look at what is happening here, perhaps you can make your own decision about that.
There are several posts in question by NikkiT2 that I have requested for a determination. One is not directly posted to me and that has been posted by Dr. Hsiung to another poster to be acceptable here. The others in question are posts by NikkiT2 directed to me.
I have asked Dr. Hsiung to clarify his most recent reply to me as to if his reply to me means that the posts directed to me by NikkiT2 are or are not acceptable here. NikkiT2 writes that if there is not a PBC for the post, then she thinks that the absence of the PBC constitutes the post being acceptable. It is my concern here that if she thinks that the absence of a PCB could mean that the posts are acceptable, then I believe that the potential is there for others to also think that the posts are acceptable.
Dr. Hsiung in his reply to me concerning my requests about the two posts by NikkiT2 that are directed to me has been asnswered by him to me in a way that one person could think that the posts in question are acceptable and another person could think that he is saying that they are not acceptable. All of this discussion has the potential to be settled by me and NikkiT2 if Dr. Hsiung could write to me that the two posts are either acceptable or not, or if there is a split in the two. When I know that, then this discussion could probably end.
I have pointed out that since she states about her hurt that a discussion between us could contain about my hurt equally. I feel that it is only fair for both of us in a discussion to have equality. I do not think that we are talking about two different things, but are in the innitial attempt at reconcilliation . The innitial attempt could be such that clarifications need to be given and I am always amicable to clarify. If there something that I missed in my resply to you here and if so, I would be amical to answere any things about what you would like to know.
Lou
Posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 16:03:15
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2 » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 14:52:40
"You wrote that you posted in anger. I do not consider that posts could be determined as acceptable , if they are not acceptable, because someone posted it in anger. My request for a determination was made as to what could be seen, not what the feelings of the poster was behind the writing of the post."
That is true, but isn't it also important to distinguish, at least to a certain degree, the difference between hurting someone out of intention of being mean and the hurting of someone as a result of anger (also because that anger was a result from feeling that you put her down when refering to her post as possibly not acceptable)?
Yes, it is important not to hurt each other, but it should also be possible to do mistakes without it getting a big thing out of it. It looks to me that this whole discussion about whos right and whos wrong in this case is brought fairly out of proportions considering the subject, but thats my personal opinion. People are different, we have different personalities and we behave differently accordinlgy. Some people get eaily hurt, some people hurt easily others, some people work very hard not to hurt others.
But is it really possible to NEVER hurt anyone with what you write/say? Is it possible, considering that human beings are not perfect creatures, and that we all are so different? I think it is dangerous if we allow ourself to get hurt, without even considering the intention behind what was said, simply because I do think intention makes a difference, and that situational factors matter.
Situational factors is actually proved to be more valid than personalities, meaning that in certain situations some people might hurt someone in a burst of anger, or a moment of thoughtlessness, which they normally wouldn't do. I think it is important for social beings to be able to distinguish between intentions, and try to adjust their own feelings accordingly, simply because thats a lot easier than teaching everyone to behave in such a way that they will never step on someones feelings. If you manage to sort out your own feelings based on the intention of the poster, you would be a lot less vulnerable to the "diversities" in human that is not are not always a good thing in all situations, but that are making the world more varied and interesting (well, at least I think that it/s good that we are all so different, but some would maybe feel it safer with less varety in the world).
I don't know if anything I have said is in any way refering to how this is for you, I'm just trying to figure out this from a general idea.
I think that if you exclude intentions and situational factors when following rules, you leave little left for common sense and individuality, and the danger is that you might get a place where people don't dare opening up and tell about their emotions and experiences... people with mental problems are not always reasonable and logical simply because they are in a very tough situation and may not think straight. Feelings might take over the control, or misunderstandings might happen more often.... but I think the intention behind is to protect yourself, and not to be mean.... just as you want to protect yourself against the terrible thoughts that comes for you concerning holocaust.
By making intentions making a difference for whether you feel hurt or not, you are getting more control over protecting yourself. Variations in expressing yourself, individuality and a certain "hight under the roof" of what can be accepted and not will then exist... so that people are allowed to make small mistakes WITHOUT necessarily hurting someone else might be important on a board where people have mental problems and might be in need of posting their emotions freely. Maybe ESPESCIALLY on a board that is such a good and supportive place for people with mental problems. Yes, it is possible to post freely without hurting someone else, but what I try to say i sthat accidents can happen, and maybe intentions then should be considered? Otherwise it seems to become a witch hunt for details, in one way or the other...
I am a bit afraid that if we start picking on every little detail that might possibly be a violation againts rules, that might become more important than what people are actually writing in their posts (about their mental problems, for example). And what would then be the point of a board like this? Training in social behavious? Yes, many people need training in social behaviour, but maybe this just isn't the best place (in general, I do NOT have anyone special in mind, please notice that)?
Just some of my thoughts.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 5, 2004, at 16:58:08
In reply to Re: Hey Lou » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on November 5, 2004, at 14:51:02
> Isn't it just possible to say that you both have hurt each other and agree on that that isn't acceptable?
>
> Sad Sara> I think it would be wonderful!! for both of you - and the entire board - if the two of you could kiss and make up.
>
> I'm writing as a friend, but one that is sad about the entire misunderstanding.
>
> Mel <speaking as a friend>I agree, might it be possible to let go of the past and focus on moving forward? Acknowledge that the other feels hurt, apologize for having played a role, and try not to repeat the past? Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Gabbix2 on November 5, 2004, at 17:37:33
In reply to Re: moving forward » Lou Pilder » NikkiT2, posted by Dr. Bob on November 5, 2004, at 16:58:08
And of course it's up to NIkkiT2
There is quite a bit of history here,
and ignoring and moving on hasn't worked for her in the past. I think by working through this with Lou she's doing an admirable honourable thing, more than I could do for sure, and In my opinion it's the only way to try and prevent this painful situation from happening again.
I don't think she should be pushed to forgive and forget unless that's the decision she's come to herself.
I don't want to lose Nikki and I'm afraid that's what would happen if history repeats itself, and I couldn't say that I would blame her.
Posted by Gabbix2 on November 5, 2004, at 18:30:39
In reply to Just my obligatory, contrary 2 cents » Dr. Bob, posted by Gabbix2 on November 5, 2004, at 17:37:33
I'm sorry if it sounded like I was speaking for you, I know I don't know you that well, so I didn't mean for it to come across that way if it did. I admire what you are doing, I know if I were in your situation I don't think I could.
Posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 18:52:10
In reply to Re: Dr-Bob... Is this a good idea?, posted by Miss Honeychurch on November 5, 2004, at 14:25:09
> Whatever happened to Rod's original question? It seems pretty important to me.
Maybe, since dr. Bob doesn't answer this one, he would like Rod to explain what he thinks is a bad idea about it? I do see why it can be a bad idea though, but I also think that Nikki is a grown up person that can judge for herself whether she wants to respond or not... and if the offer is sincere and well meant (I can't see that it's not) maybe Nikki would appreciate getting it even if she choose not to answer?
Posted by verne on November 5, 2004, at 19:10:19
In reply to Re: moving forward » Lou Pilder » NikkiT2, posted by Dr. Bob on November 5, 2004, at 16:58:08
> > Isn't it just possible to say that you both have hurt each other and agree on that that isn't acceptable?
> >
> > Sad Sara
>
> > I think it would be wonderful!! for both of you - and the entire board - if the two of you could kiss and make up.
> >
> > I'm writing as a friend, but one that is sad about the entire misunderstanding.
> >
> > Mel <speaking as a friend>
>
> I agree, might it be possible to let go of the past and focus on moving forward? Acknowledge that the other feels hurt, apologize for having played a role, and try not to repeat the past? Thanks,
>
> BobThis is just a polite way of telling Nikki to "get over it" - a kind of peace at ANY cost that disregards her welfare and leaves unanswered the simple question: why her original post was singled out in the first place.
This is also "pressuring" her - another thing I thought wasn't allowed.
Civility sure changes depending on the viewpoint. Mary Bowers where are you?
verne
Posted by Gabbix2 on November 5, 2004, at 19:18:56
In reply to Re: moving forward » Dr. Bob, posted by verne on November 5, 2004, at 19:10:19
> > > Isn't it just possible to say that you both have hurt each other and agree on that that isn't acceptable?
> > >
> > > Sad Sara
> >
> > > I think it would be wonderful!! for both of you - and the entire board - if the two of you could kiss and make up.
> > >
> > > I'm writing as a friend, but one that is sad about the entire misunderstanding.
> > >
> > > Mel <speaking as a friend>
> >
> > I agree, might it be possible to let go of the past and focus on moving forward? Acknowledge that the other feels hurt, apologize for having played a role, and try not to repeat the past? Thanks,
> >
> > Bob
>
> This is just a polite way of telling Nikki to "get over it" - a kind of peace at ANY cost that disregards her welfare and leaves unanswered the simple question: why her original post was singled out in the first place.
>
That's how I would feel, for sure.
Posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 19:19:43
In reply to Re: moving forward » Dr. Bob, posted by verne on November 5, 2004, at 19:10:19
> > > Isn't it just possible to say that you both have hurt each other and agree on that that isn't acceptable?
> > >
> > > Sad Sara
> >
>>>
> This is just a polite way of telling Nikki to "get over it" - a kind of peace at ANY cost that disregards her welfare and leaves unanswered the simple question: why her original post was singled out in the first place.
>
> This is also "pressuring" her - another thing I thought wasn't allowed.
>
> Civility sure changes depending on the viewpoint. Mary Bowers where are you?
>
> verne
>
>Please do not put meaning into my words that is not there, my words were to Lou, and not to Nikki in this case.
Dr. Bob: please do not quote me without bringing in everything I said to prevent my words to seem different than I meant them.
I agree that it seems like civility seems to change according to viewpoint on this board.
Posted by gardenergirl on November 6, 2004, at 1:31:56
In reply to Re: moving forward, posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 19:19:43
Perhaps I didn't read it carefully, but I took Dr. Bob to be addressing his words to both Nikkit2 and Lou.
gg
Posted by 64bowtie on November 6, 2004, at 2:00:33
In reply to Re: Dr-Bob... Is this a good idea?, posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 18:52:10
All,
What ever happened to the answer to my question?
Rod
Posted by gardenergirl on November 6, 2004, at 2:07:31
In reply to Yeah!, posted by 64bowtie on November 6, 2004, at 2:00:33
Rod, yes, your question did get lost in the shuffle, sorry. But it also was confusing to me. I really couldn't tell what you were asking.
Is it the re-posting onto the 2000 board? or someone posting their email address? I'm confused.
gg
Posted by NikkiT2 on November 6, 2004, at 3:05:25
In reply to NikkT2 » Gabbix2, posted by Gabbix2 on November 5, 2004, at 18:30:39
I'm off to visit my mum for the weekend.. my neices 13th birthday!!
So I shall post on my return.. no time right now as I must try and sort out my hair *l*
Nikki
Posted by NikkiT2 on November 6, 2004, at 3:09:02
In reply to Yeah!, posted by 64bowtie on November 6, 2004, at 2:00:33
Sorry, I did mean to post to you.
Theres no need to worry, as much s I appreciated someone caring enough to offer me the support, I wouldn't take up a total stranger's offer, over email, for "therapy".. though I don't think thats what he was offering.
Thanks for caring though
Nikki
Posted by fayeroe on November 6, 2004, at 5:26:41
In reply to Re: Yeah! » 64bowtie, posted by NikkiT2 on November 6, 2004, at 3:09:02
Hi.....having been in contact with Charlie, she wants you to know that she's not offering therapy in e.mail. That was never her intention. She was offering friendship, nothing more. There was a misunderstanding concerning that post. Thanks, Pat
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.