![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 63 to 87 of 112. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by BabyToes on April 25, 2010, at 21:16:08
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
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.
Posted by BabyToes on April 25, 2010, at 21:26:47
In reply to Re: double double quotes » BabyToes, posted by Dr. Bob on April 25, 2010, at 9:49:09
Dr. Bob you said this:
> Posters 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?
>
> BobHmm since you asked this of me, I am wondering the same thing about you.
Do you think you may have felt traumatized by someone thinking you may have a personality disorder in the past?
> I think Bob has a personality disorder
Please don't post anything that could lead others (including me) to feel accused or put down.
Posted by PartlyCloudy on April 26, 2010, at 6:33:42
In reply to How can we make Dr. Bob not feel put down?, posted by BabyToes on April 25, 2010, at 21:16:08
> 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.
Maybe this is an issue that Dr. Bob has, and not one that the poster has. That is, it's not about us (or one of us) posters, but about HIS perceptions. XXX is being uncivil - is that true? Is that REALLY true? (that's a page out of the book of Byron Katie, "Loving What Is".
Which reminds me that, yes, BT, Dr. Bob DOES get a cut from the double quote links to Amazon if they lead to a sale. It's a way of funding the cost of running these boards.
The difference between a joke, a comment, something being taken out of context... all of this is a huge challenge in online communication. I think that no emoticon in the world can substitute for face to face discussion.
Or, as Dr. Bob has said, "it's an issue."
pc
Posted by PartlyCloudy on April 26, 2010, at 7:56:51
In reply to Lou's response-yezbudt, posted by Lou Pilder on April 25, 2010, at 20:08:24
> > ...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
>
> PC,
> 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
>Lou,
That is a valid question.
Let's see if Dr. Bob is willing to address it.
Anything that we discuss without his participation is conjecture, IMO.best regards
PartlyCloudy
Posted by BabyToes on April 26, 2010, at 8:51:19
In reply to Re: How can we make Dr. Bob not feel put down?, posted by PartlyCloudy on April 26, 2010, at 6:33:42
> > 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.
>
> Maybe this is an issue that Dr. Bob has, and not one that the poster has. That is, it's not about us (or one of us) posters, but about HIS perceptions. XXX is being uncivil - is that true? Is that REALLY true? (that's a page out of the book of Byron Katie, "Loving What Is".
I agree it may not be the posters, but his perceptions.It is his site, but does that give him the authority to do decide what is considered civil and what isn't? I feel that civility doesn't seem to be working from BOTH direction, which leads to incivility itself. Just what qualifications does he have to decide what is civil and what is not? Just owning this site isn't a qualification. So pushing ones own views onto everyone else may not be considered to be civil to begin with.
> Which reminds me that, yes, BT, Dr. Bob DOES get a cut from the double quote links to Amazon if they lead to a sale. It's a way of funding the cost of running these boards.
I can see why that would be beneficial. But coming from someone who claims to be SO BUSY. It would seem it would be more beneficial to use the time actually answering posters questions about rules, etc. than plugging Amazon. How many plugs have we seen over the weekend. How many poster's questions got answered? How many posters got blocked? It all goes hand in hand.
>
> The difference between a joke, a comment, something being taken out of context... all of this is a huge challenge in online communication. I think that no emoticon in the world can substitute for face to face discussion.
> Or, as Dr. Bob has said, "it's an issue."
I agree, so I feel there should be some leeway without the harsh rules when a post could be in doubt. Especially when a poster is joking.I wonder if Dr. BOb does have an issue from the past that makes him feel triggered when he is joked with, especially about mental health. Is giving out blocks according to HIS standards on HIS site a way to get some "payback" from his past? It does feel very personal.
I mean recently he said something to the effect that learning to be civil is a life skill. But so is learning to take a joke. So is learning that one's own perceptions of what constitutes incivility is not always agreed with by society. Is it right to force one's views about should be THE LAW? It is his site, but that doesn't mean that he can do whatever he wants. That is evident because hundreds have left because they don't agree with his perceptions. It is a valuable life skill to know that one's way is not the "only way." When this skill is not learned and is in the hands of those who use power above other people we can see what has happened in history. But in this case, Dr. Bob's only power is to block as he sees fit. Our power would be to stay or go. But just because someone stays doesn't mean they agree with the way things are run either.
So Twitter, Facebook, and now NY Times articles will not be the goldmine of repairing this site. Changes have to happen from "top to bottom" at this point. Eventually I hope he will be able to see that maybe he had a role in the disappearance of many people. Only he can change that for himself. Many people have tried to reason with him that his rules are too harsh, among other things. This site was NOT his site, but ours together as posters, as you can't have one without the other. So it is up to him whether or not he decided to bend his own perceptions of incivility or at least give others some leeway, instead of everything being so black and white. As in, Dr. BOB's perceptions are always right, and posters are wrong when it comes to discrepancies of what is considered "incivility".
Posted by BabyToes on April 26, 2010, at 9:03:05
In reply to Re: How can we make Dr. Bob not feel put down? » PartlyCloudy, posted by BabyToes on April 26, 2010, at 8:51:19
Our questions will probably not get answered, only blocks. He does have that power to silence people. But he doesn't have the power over me. Just showing his lack of wanting to answer things, especially when he could have been mistaken, shows just how not committed he is to this site and just how much he cares about any poster.
I challenge him to answer my questions, but he won't because he will have to admit that he messed up. So my questions will be ignored. Ignorance is bliss... I guess.
I am done here, I tried , there comes a time when the fight isn't worth it when it is something you no longer care about. I have wasted too much of my time to trying to reason with complete resistance.
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 26, 2010, at 12:33:24
In reply to Lou's response-14th » obsidian, posted by Lou Pilder on April 25, 2010, at 21:11:22
Friends,
If you are considering responding to aspects of this thread or parallel threads, I ask you to consider what could be seen in ther following thread where myswelf and Mr.Hsiung were in dialog concerning my concerns as to wanting there to be due-process here concerning Mr. Hsiung's criteria that he uses to determine if or if not a statement here could lead a person to feel put down or not.
Here is the link to the first post of the thread, but I ask if you could read all the posts in the thraed. If you could , then I think that one could have a better undderstanding of what due-process entails and what is meant by {equal protection } of the rules here. This could involve my requests to Mr. Hsiung that were or were not answerd there.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080313/msgs821127.html
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.