![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 56 to 80 of 112. Go back in thread:
Posted by Deneb on April 24, 2010, at 18:38:07
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, a question, posted by Dinah on April 24, 2010, at 14:08:40
Thanks Dinah. At first I didn't think so either, but then everyone kept saying it was so I got confused.
Posted by PartlyCloudy on April 25, 2010, at 7:06:12
In reply to Re: what might have happened, posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2010, at 12:59:29
Please look at this piece that appeared in the New York Times on April 21st - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/fashion/22life.html
I bring it to the attention of the board, and to you, Dr Bob, for several reasons. The internet is utterly unlike face to face communication. The anonymity it affords has lent itself to escalated emotional outbursts from its very inception; "flame wars", which you have attempted to control with the evolution of the civility guidelines.
One important aspect to remember about the nature of this forum, though, is that some of the members here react to trigger situations (such as mysterious messages in their long inactive Facebook accounts) in ways that are not consistent with the general population of society. In short, we are already traumatized by past events, and so are reliving, in a very immediate sense, those past events when they are re-triggered by seemingly benign new events. Our (that is, MY) reactions are knee-jerk, not always properly thought out, and in my personal experience, out of proportion to the situation, even at that very moment when I'm madly typing and hitting that Submit button.
It's happened to me here on the boards. I've reacted poorly and regretted my actions, yet at the time, it's really and truly been out of my hands because it's been a trauma reaction. There is no stopping a trauma reaction, whether it's abundant tears, shouting and screaming at our most loved ones, or posting in reaction to a perceived threat on the boards. This has been explained to me by my therapist and pdoc, and part of my recovery process has been to avoid the environment here. It's helped me a great deal. It's only now, that my recovery has progressed to a degree that I feel secure in my reactions to many trigger situations, that I felt I was able to speak out here on the boards.
I do think that by blocking Fayeroe when you did - before she had an opportunity to enter into an open discussion with *you*, whom she seem to have offended, was unfortunate. Perhaps it might have been prejudicial and based on previous behavior. I think it was a lost chance for growth here.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 25, 2010, at 9:49:09
In reply to Re: I don't think anyone is a bully here, posted by BabyToes on April 24, 2010, at 11:56:53
> All this kinda reminds me being a character in the movie Changeling.
I'd just like to plug the double double quotes feature at this site:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#amazon
The first time anyone refers to a book, a movie, or music without using this option, I post this to try to make sure he or she at least knows about it. It's just an option, though.
Thanks!
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on April 25, 2010, at 11:19:31
In reply to My perspective » Dr. Bob, posted by PartlyCloudy on April 25, 2010, at 7:06:12
Thanks for sharing it.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 25, 2010, at 11:46:37
In reply to My perspective » Dr. Bob, posted by PartlyCloudy on April 25, 2010, at 7:06:12
> I agree it seems some (like me) are VERY affected by the blocks.
> To me blocks feel punitive becuase of their length. They are not just a time out to get control, the are a punishment. And IMHO sometimes the punishment FAR outweighs the crime.
> This is not a safe place to get to know other people cuz I come to care about people here, and then I get very angry at the punishments that occur. It is very upsetting to me.
> No chance to talk things out, just banishment.
> There is no democracy here. whatsoever.
> I can't feel safe here.
> M> Please look at this piece that appeared in the New York Times on April 21st - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/fashion/22life.html
>
> I bring it to the attention of the board, and to you, Dr Bob, for several reasons. The internet is utterly unlike face to face communication. The anonymity it affords has lent itself to escalated emotional outbursts from its very inception; "flame wars", which you have attempted to control with the evolution of the civility guidelines.
>
> some of the members ... are already traumatized by past events, and so are reliving, in a very immediate sense, those past events when they are re-triggered by seemingly benign new events.
>
> at the time, it's really and truly been out of my hands because it's been a trauma reaction. ... It's only now, that my recovery has progressed to a degree that I feel secure in my reactions to many trigger situations, that I felt I was able to speak out here on the boards.
>
> I do think that by blocking Fayeroe when you did - before she had an opportunity to enter into an open discussion with *you*, whom she seem to have offended, was unfortunate. ... I think it was a lost chance for growth here.
>
> PartlyCloudyFrom that piece:
> What confounds me is why online commenters are so gratuitously nasty; why, when given the opportunity to have an educated disagreement with an author or other readers, they use the space allotted to spew venom instead of presenting a well-reasoned argument.
>
> Kathleen Taylor, the author of "Cruelty: Human Evil and the Human Brain," has a theory. Were evolved to be face-to-face creatures, she said in a recent interview. We developed to have constant feedback from others, telling us if it was O.K. to be saying what were saying. On the Internet, you get nothing, no body language, no gesture.
>
> knowing the pouncing quality of many commenters really does silence me.
>
> several news media outlets, including this one and The Washington Post, are rethinking their approach to anonymous reader comments. The idea is to hold users more accountable and to prevent some of the user-generated vitriol that takes place online.I agree with muffled, people can be upset by blocks. Both when they're blocked themselves and when they see others blocked. For them, this may be an unsafe place.
No, blocks aren't just a time out. They're also in part to punish, as in:
> 1 a : to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation
Blocks (and the requests to be civil before them) could be seen as the feedback and holding posters accountable that are missing on other sites. I regret that anyone's been traumatized, but nastiness, venom, vitriol, and the resulting fear of being pounced on -- "a face full of cat", seldomseen said once -- aren't conducive to support and education.
A block may seem to outweigh a particular incivility, but remember that I also take into account the poster's "record". A third strike is different than a second.
Sometimes there's a chance to talk things out. There was this time. But a trauma reaction may also lead someone to miss a chance to grow. But fayeroe will have more opportunities here when her block is up. And hopefully she has opportunities elsewhere in the meantime.
PC, I'm glad your recovery's progressing and you're back.
There's some democracy here. The block was my decision, but before that, those who saw her post and my follow-up had the opportunity to "vote" -- by trying to show her how she might rephrase or encouraging her to apologize. One poster did that.
> I feel like Kristine Collins fighting for what is right, but yet I get blocked ... to silence me when I question decisions of those in authority.
>
> BabyToesPosters don't get blocked for questioning my decisions. Posters get blocked for being uncivil. Do you think you may have felt traumatized by decisions made by those in authority in the past?
Bob
Posted by BabyToes on April 25, 2010, at 12:11:17
In reply to Re: double double quotes » BabyToes, posted by Dr. Bob on April 25, 2010, at 9:49:09
Pardon me, but this isn't hardly the first time I have ever quoted books or movies on this site. Do you get some kind of financial rewards for doing this or something? Then to do it twice in the same thread? Really?
> > All this kinda reminds me being a character in the movie Changeling.
>
> I'd just like to plug the double double quotes feature at this site:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#amazon
>
> The first time anyone refers to a book, a movie, or music without using this option, I post this to try to make sure he or she at least knows about it. It's just an option, though.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Bob
Posted by BabyToes on April 25, 2010, at 12:30:47
In reply to Re: My perspective, posted by Dr. Bob on April 25, 2010, at 11:46:37
Dr. Bob,
No, I haven't been traumatized by decisions made in authority. Thanks for asking though.
So when are you going to actually answer my questions on two separate posts on this thread? I posted the links and the posts here again for your convenience.http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/944693.html
> > I think Bob has a personality disorder
>
> Please don't post anything that could lead others (including me) to feel accused or put down.
Just wondering about the rules, trying to still get it, Dr. Bob.If Duck said "I think Bob has a cold (a physical condition) ," would that be considered a post that would make someone feel accused or put down? Would that lead to a block?
What I am wondering is if you block someone for saying that they think you have a personality disorder (which according to you) is considered to be a put down, than isn't it also saying something about how YOU perceive people who do have personality disorders- as being a negative thing to have? Is having a personality disorder such a bad thing that if someone thinks you have one and you don't, it is very offensive if they tell you that they think you have one?
I am just trying to figure out why it is such a put down to you. Are people with personality disorders something that means something really bad to you?
I am just trying to follow the logic and waiting for your response to this as I am confused...
http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/babble.pl
All this kinda reminds me being a character in the movie Changeling. I feel like Kristine Collins fighting for what is right, but yet I get blocked (or sent to a mental institution as in the movie) to silence me when I question decisions of those in authority.It is easy to notice that my questions have not been addressed. I am trying to understand the rules here because they just don't make sense to me. I keep getting blocked and warned, and I don't understand the rules. I have asked for clarifications from Dr. Bob and I am still waiting for a reply.
I would like to know why Dr. Bob thinks it was a put down for DUcky to say he had a personality disorder, especially since he is a psychiatrist.
If I had a personality disorder I would probably be feeling rather put down (especially by a psychiatrist) saying a personality disorder was something that he considered a put down when it was associated with him as having one. It just seems to go against his own rules, so I am confused.
Link to the movie could be triggering to some.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKRHWIh_K3E
Posted by Dinah on April 25, 2010, at 13:26:43
In reply to So are you refusing to answer my questions DR BOB? » Dr. Bob, posted by BabyToes on April 25, 2010, at 12:30:47
I think Dr. Bob should have left out the (including me) in his block. As it was, he wasn't limiting it to himself.
Because, given the circumstances, those with personality disorders might also have felt accused or put down.
That's the whole point. There was context in these posts, and while sometimes Dr. Bob doesn't consider context as much as we might like him to, I don't think there's anything wrong with considering context.
Posted by BabyToes on April 25, 2010, at 14:46:20
In reply to Re: So are you refusing to answer my questions DR BOB? » BabyToes, posted by Dinah on April 25, 2010, at 13:26:43
> I think Dr. Bob should have left out the (including me) in his block. As it was, he wasn't limiting it to himself.
(not sure what happened to that last post)
The thing is, is that he ADDED the (including me) to his speal, and that in itself gives it a very personal tone or statement.
> Because, given the circumstances, those with personality disorders might also have felt accused or put down.
>
If they didn't then, they might be now. A psychiatrist words do have more power here than an average poster, even if he is just the owner/ moderator. Plus he hasn't answered my question about it.I am doing my job as asking questions about the rules because I don't understand them, but yet my questions are not answered, but instead I am asked if I ever been traumatized by decisions of authority. (which is odd coming from someone who says he isn't here to give support) But yet, my questions are not answered. I am just looking for clarification to my questions, I would like to be taken seriously.
If I were to say anything in any context that he did about personality disorders, I would have been blocked or warned about incivility. So that is why I am confused.
Why is it okay for him to block someone for a YEAR because they said something (to him) judged (by him)to be considered a put down. Why are personality disordered considered to be a put down by him? (or at least that is what his words say, I haven't heard anything else to think any differently yet. Something just don't seem right or seems logical to me. That is why I am asking Dr. Bob and only he can answer this questions since it was his actions and beliefs.> That's the whole point. There was context in these posts, and while sometimes Dr. Bob doesn't consider context as much as we might like him to, I don't think there's anything wrong with considering context.
Posted by BabyToes on April 25, 2010, at 14:53:44
In reply to Re: So are you refusing to answer my questions DR BOB? » Dinah, posted by BabyToes on April 25, 2010, at 14:46:20
I feel Dr. BOb should at least apologize for those he may have offended by his statement and if there was another moderator around, he should be given a "please be civil" if he were to be judged like everyone else statements and words written here. (According to HIS rules never the less)
Duck wasn't given the benefit of the doubt that he was joking , why should Dr. Bob be given the benefit of doubt by what he wrote?
Posted by PartlyCloudy on April 25, 2010, at 19:37:11
In reply to Re: My perspective, posted by Dr. Bob on April 25, 2010, at 11:46:37
...and I might be extrapolating here, but I think that the poster who was blocked was really looking for an explanation for what had happened (with the Facebook message in her long inactive account) in the midst of her upset which offended you - and the block effectively stopped any possibility of that discussion taking place.
Just as YOU had been offended by the poster's way of communicating her upset at what had happened (and I wonder whether that upset was actually directed at you, or at the event? Is that a possibility, Dr. Bob?), might I propose that you were triggered by the post? This does not suggest that you suffer from a mental health issue - people can be triggered by many innocuous events that can build up over time, or they may have less tolerance for them; or it may be that the civility guidelines towards the administrator has actually evolved over time, which seems to have happened here. I seem to recall many vitriolic words directed towards you in the past that never resulted in blocks - or am I misremembering?
Let's try to continue this discussion.
So, to clarify (for me): the rules of civility towards the administration are more strict now than they were previously - is this correct?
If this is the case, then it would be problematic for a poster who frequents the boards only now and then and is unaware of these changes in policy.
Many thanks,
PartlyCloudy, treading lightly and with caution
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 25, 2010, at 20:08:24
In reply to Yes, but.... » Dr. Bob, posted by PartlyCloudy on April 25, 2010, at 19:37:11
> ...and I might be extrapolating here, but I think that the poster who was blocked was really looking for an explanation for what had happened (with the Facebook message in her long inactive account) in the midst of her upset which offended you - and the block effectively stopped any possibility of that discussion taking place.
>
> Just as YOU had been offended by the poster's way of communicating her upset at what had happened (and I wonder whether that upset was actually directed at you, or at the event? Is that a possibility, Dr. Bob?), might I propose that you were triggered by the post? This does not suggest that you suffer from a mental health issue - people can be triggered by many innocuous events that can build up over time, or they may have less tolerance for them; or it may be that the civility guidelines towards the administrator has actually evolved over time, which seems to have happened here. I seem to recall many vitriolic words directed towards you in the past that never resulted in blocks - or am I misremembering?
>
> Let's try to continue this discussion.
>
> So, to clarify (for me): the rules of civility towards the administration are more strict now than they were previously - is this correct?
>
> If this is the case, then it would be problematic for a poster who frequents the boards only now and then and is unaware of these changes in policy.
>
> Many thanks,
> PartlyCloudy, treading lightly and with cautionPC,
You wrote,[...in the past...the rules are more strict..problematic for a poster...unaware...].
You have posted a good point in relation to if or if not the poster knew of the change, if there was one.
Well, me and Mr. Hsiung have been in dialog concerning what is known as the aspect of {two standards} in relation to administrative actions. And in those discusssions, I remember what you said here concerning that comments directed to Mr. Hsiung were not acted on in the same way as if those same comments were directed to a poster.
But then I remmeber that there was a change and Mr. Hsiung cited the concept of {two standards} and comments directed toward him then were acted on as the same if they were directed to a member.
Your point, and it is a very valid point IMHO, is how could a member have known of the change?
You see, there is another aspect of administration that me and Mr. Hsiung have also been in discussion about here. This is the aspect of what is known as {due-process}. The question I have here is did the member in question, as you have brought up, have due-process? And if not, is the adminstrative action valid or not, and if not, could the action be dismissed and the member be reinstated? In my opinion, a denial of due-process could be an unsound mental-health practice.
Lou
Posted by obsidian on April 25, 2010, at 20:21:51
In reply to Re: So are you refusing to answer my questions DR BOB? » Dinah, posted by BabyToes on April 25, 2010, at 14:46:20
the particular things that Dr. Bob cited which resulted in fayeroe's block did not say anything about personality disorder
Posted by BabyToes on April 25, 2010, at 20:34:04
In reply to Re: So are you refusing to answer my questions DR BOB?, posted by BabyToes on April 25, 2010, at 14:53:44
So maybe the plan is to let babytoes get frusterated... so she will say something to get herself blocked, so her questions don't have to be answered.
So by allowing her questions to swelter... by no response... it is almost an egging her on to become totally uncivil...
But no, I won't do that- at least no intentionally because I want my questions answered.
Posted by muffled on April 25, 2010, at 20:34:26
In reply to Re: So are you refusing to answer my questions DR BOB? » BabyToes, posted by obsidian on April 25, 2010, at 20:21:51
Posted by BabyToes on April 25, 2010, at 20:37:02
In reply to Re: So are you refusing to answer my questions DR BOB? » BabyToes, posted by obsidian on April 25, 2010, at 20:21:51
> the particular things that Dr. Bob cited which resulted in fayeroe's block did not say anything about personality disorder
>I am talking about zazenducke's block in this thread.
Posted by obsidian on April 25, 2010, at 20:41:17
In reply to Re: So are you refusing to answer my questions DR BOB? » obsidian, posted by BabyToes on April 25, 2010, at 20:37:02
sorry, just realized it
the thing is though...that zazenducke knows he/she is going to get blocked...eventually
I do wonder if other people are more upset about zazenducke being blocked than he/she is
why?
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 25, 2010, at 20:46:54
In reply to Re: So are you refusing to answer my questions DR BOB? » BabyToes, posted by obsidian on April 25, 2010, at 20:21:51
> the particular things that Dr. Bob cited which resulted in fayeroe's block did not say anything about personality disorder
>
> obsidian,
You wrote,[...things..cited...].
Eveb though what was cited is different from what Mr. Hsiung cited, the aaspect as I see it here is that there was something directed toward Mr. Hsiung that in the past was not acted on in the same manner as if it was directed to a member. The member here cited something else, but the concept in question, as to if the poster knew or not of the change, is what I see as the importance of PC's post. And I see it as being important also to the whole community, for is not the whole equal to the sum of it's parts?
Lou
Posted by BabyToes on April 25, 2010, at 20:48:12
In reply to hmmm., posted by BabyToes on April 25, 2010, at 20:34:04
I emailed my T this thread to see what she thinks of all of this...
She will probably be upset with me for being on this site but I am interested in what a professional thinks about this.
Posted by muffled on April 25, 2010, at 20:50:55
In reply to Re: So are you refusing to answer my questions DR BOB? » obsidian, posted by BabyToes on April 25, 2010, at 20:37:02
It says
Psyco-babble Administration BY Dr. Bob.
Not by us.
But by Bob.
Its HIS site.
He can and DOES do what he wants.
This has been proven over and over and over over the years.
He is who he is, this is his site.
If you don't like it, then get out.
MANY have left despite having very good friends here.
We post very sporadically.
This is no longer my home, its too dangerous, I just visit.
Just telling you this so you don't waste your time thinking THIS time Bob will 'get' it.
I used to think that too.
Over and over I tried.
Was a freaking waste of time.
So I finally clued in and left.
Good luck.
Best wishes to you
Posted by BabyToes on April 25, 2010, at 21:04:29
In reply to Re: So are you refusing to answer my questions DR BOB? » BabyToes, posted by obsidian on April 25, 2010, at 20:41:17
> sorry, just realized it
>That is okay OB. I am not upset about ducke getting blocked (maybe the length though) I am upset my questions have not been answered when I am trying to understand the rules here. I just don't know why it was considered to be a "put down" for ducke to say that Dr. BOb has a personality disorder. Is having a personality disorder something that bad that a person being accused of having one would feel like it was a putdown, especially a psychiatrist? If someone said that to me I would laugh it off because I know it isn't true. I wouldn't see it as a putdown because I think if someone has a personality disorder there is not much one can do to prevent it anymore than someone getting a cold. So why should it be considered a put down?
If I said Dr. Bob has a headache (another physical condition like a personality disorder) is that uncivil too?
I would like to see Dr. Bob unblock ducke and maybe educated himself on how not to take everything so seriously or personally.
Anyone have ideas that maybe could help Dr. BOb not feel put down when someone jokes with him, that would lead him not to block people? I feel he could have a chance to grow and learn. This site is about education, and everyone has the ability to learn and grow.
> the thing is though...that zazenducke knows he/she is going to get blocked...eventually
>
> I do wonder if other people are more upset about zazenducke being blocked than he/she is
>
> why?
>
>
Posted by obsidian on April 25, 2010, at 21:06:31
In reply to Re: So are you refusing to answer my questions DR BOB? » BabyToes, posted by obsidian on April 25, 2010, at 20:41:17
why do we make this so complicated?
it is what it is....
each person has to make their own decisions within the confines of what this site will allowWhy is it not ok for some people to be made accountable for their behavior?
and no, I don't mean everyone, and no, it's not a perfect system.
Posted by obsidian on April 25, 2010, at 21:09:12
In reply to Re: So are you refusing to answer my questions DR BOB? » obsidian, posted by BabyToes on April 25, 2010, at 21:04:29
I can understand your point about the personality disorder thing, but I think some people might be able to appreciate a certain provocative quality to posts, which seem to just skirt along the line of civility...that of course is open to interpretation
Posted by BabyToes on April 25, 2010, at 21:09:45
In reply to scroll to the top of the page, posted by muffled on April 25, 2010, at 20:50:55
> It says
> Psyco-babble Administration BY Dr. Bob.
> Not by us.
> But by Bob.
> Its HIS site.
> He can and DOES do what he wants.
>
Well I want the best for Dr. BOb, I think he CAN learn other ways to run this site. Why not hope for the best? Maybe people might stay if things change. My T never gives up on me. I never give up on my children.
I am hoping it will finally click in.
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 25, 2010, at 21:11:22
In reply to Re: So are you refusing to answer my questions DR BOB? » BabyToes, posted by obsidian on April 25, 2010, at 20:41:17
> sorry, just realized it
>
> the thing is though...that zazenducke knows he/she is going to get blocked...eventually
>
> I do wonder if other people are more upset about zazenducke being blocked than he/she is
>
> why?obsidian,
You wrote,[...other people being upset...zazenducke...why?...]
The concept of due-process is a safeguard. That concept was placed in the U.S. Constitution to insure that the majority rules, but that they can not deny one from having fair and equitable treatment in order to enjoy their lives in being entitled to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. Without such, the state could take away a person's life, liberty or property at their will without any reason or for the person to defend themselves against injustice done to them.
Lou
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.