![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 211 to 235 of 348. Go back in thread:
Posted by ron1953 on November 7, 2010, at 12:31:27
In reply to And one more thing....., posted by ron1953 on November 7, 2010, at 12:29:27
block my IP address, that I may never view this shite ever again.
Posted by ron1953 on November 7, 2010, at 13:14:07
In reply to Don't just block me, posted by ron1953 on November 7, 2010, at 12:31:27
Why is there so little activity here?
Because most people easily see through the nonsense, and particularly the incivility of Bob and his few minions, and have no desire to be a prt of it.
Also, Bob's civility rules can easily be distilled down to one sentence:
If you can't blow sunshine up somebody's rectum, SHUT THE PHUCK UP (or we'll do it for you).
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 7, 2010, at 15:19:38
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb, posted by ron1953 on November 3, 2010, at 18:41:37
> It's more like a teeny weeny clique.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person, and I'm sorry if this hurts you.
I do hope that you choose to remain a member of this community and that members of this community help you, if needed, to avoid future blocks.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express yourself, including a link to a nice post by Dinah on I-statements, are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceYou might want to consider asking another poster to be your "civility buddy" and to preview your posts before you submit them.
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
PS: According to the formula:
duration of previous block: 6 weeks
period of time since previous block: 8 weeks
severity: 2 (default) + 1 (uncivil toward particular group) = 3
block length = 15.52 rounded = 15 weeks
Posted by ed_uk2010 on November 7, 2010, at 15:58:07
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by Dr. Bob on November 7, 2010, at 11:32:46
>I'd be open to redirecting Health to Social, what do others think?
I think it's a good idea.
Posted by Phillipa on November 7, 2010, at 18:02:05
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » Dr. Bob, posted by ed_uk2010 on November 7, 2010, at 15:58:07
I feel it's a good idea also!!!!Phillipa
Posted by 10derheart on November 7, 2010, at 18:10:45
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by Dinah on November 7, 2010, at 11:35:38
Posted by Willful on November 7, 2010, at 19:23:25
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by Dinah on November 7, 2010, at 11:35:38
I understand the problem of underpopulated boards, and threads that die after being redirected. But I am against moving health to social. For me, health can often be upsetting and I see social as a lighter, more friendly place, where more general matters are discussed. The mood of social is overall more relaxed-- even if people tell problems and issues of everyday or stresses of emotional things. Health can often be about very disturbing problems of another order entirely.
I can see grouping certain boards together, like maybe health, alternative and neurotransmitters, or , more narrowly, if it would be visited enough, a uniting of health and alternative, which seem closely related. However, I really would hope that health and social would be kept apart from one another.
Willful
Posted by alexandra_k on November 7, 2010, at 20:16:10
In reply to Re: another block )) Dr Bob, posted by ron1953 on November 7, 2010, at 12:20:17
> Bob, I'll use the Merriam-Webster dictionary, one of your cited sources inthe civility rules:
>
> Their definition of clique is:
>
> "A narrow, exclusive circle or group of persons; especially: one held together by common interests, views or purposes."
>
> Also, the dictionary does not characterize the word as derogatory.
>
> I simply stated how *I* saw things. My intent was not to flame, nor insult, nor upset. It is simply my personal point of view. I do not see that as uncivil. Apparently, uncivil can be found wherever the looker wants to see it.
>
> As always, I remain baffled.
>
>Here is my way of showing support for Ron:
It is baffling to me, too, that the above is thought to be uncivil. Babble is exclusive in the sense that those who are blocked are excluded. I think that Bob has said before that exclusion isn't necessarily a bad thing. He doesn't seem to have trouble with excluding people from here for a time, anyways.
I respect your decision to move along from here because of how baffling the PBC / blocking thing is. I wish you well. Take care.
Posted by Maxime on November 7, 2010, at 21:30:37
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » Maxime, posted by ed_uk2010 on November 7, 2010, at 3:18:57
> > Dr. Bob, I think redirects are necessary to keep the medication board on track. What is the point of having the other boards if everything gets dicussed on the med board where it doesn't belong? If I am visiting PB for information on meds, I don't want to have to wade through all the threads that shouldn't be there to begin with.
>
> I think the problem here is that threads sometimes get redirected to boards which get very little traffic. Personally, I think there are too many boards. Faith, Health and Politics could all be merged with social ie. to create a general non-psych-med discussion board.
>
>
>
>I agree Ed. There needs to be a non-psych med discussion board, but the psychology board should remain as is.
Posted by Maxime on November 8, 2010, at 0:16:55
In reply to Re: Food for thought » ron1953, posted by SLS on November 6, 2010, at 9:26:10
I have no trouble following your thinking Scott. I hope you will keep on posting.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 8, 2010, at 4:21:11
In reply to So Bob, posted by muffled on November 7, 2010, at 11:47:58
> I really don't like it when you say things like the above. It sounds to me like you are putting the sole responsibility for blocks on those who are in danger of being blocked and the community rather than facing up to the substantial role that you play
>
> alexandra_k> I still maintain that PsychoBabble is therapeutic, in a funny, laid-back kind of way, and it is this that distinguishes it from other sites, and what brings blocked posters back after even very long blocks.
>
> vwoolf> The members of the group grew stronger and closer by going THROUGH stuff, not by avoiding it. ... Most of all, there was love - unconditional love.
>
> I'm talking about REAL safety where members would (and did) bend over backwards to help another member.
>
> ron1953> This is not 'OUR' site as posters, but FULLY and completely BOB's site.
> I feel UTTERLY POWERLESS on this site.
> All he seems to care about is *numbers*, not us as individuals. ... He did not care that MANY very capeable long term posters left. He just didn't care.
>
> muffled> I don't think I've ever been in a group of people where so many people who have chosen not to remain part of the group, still remain a part of the group for purposes of telling people how they no longer wish to be part of the group.
>
> I have, in the past, proposed that Dr. Bob reserve participation on the Administrative board to those who are actively posting, on topic, on other boards. But he has rejected that idea, and prefers to allow things as they are. He apparently feels that criticisms of Babble, even if unaccompanied by other posting, are supportive to the community.
>
> Dinah> I often feel ... drained by the undercurrent of what seems to me to be self-destructive negativity on the site.
>
> vwoolf> So, I have scars on my leg to show the punishment I took for being 'bad'. Cuz I must have been bad to get banished like that.
> I liken that block to me as a kid playfully saying f*rt to a parent and them backslapping me into a wall and then telling me I could not speak to my main support friends for a week. NO DISCUSSION.
> WAY OVERKILL.
> its just not safe here. Its just not.> Are you willing to admit you were wrong bout some what you did?
>
> muffledI feel criticisms aren't necessarily "supportive", but can sometimes help us understand what's going on and be valuable in that way. Pondering the above clues, I imagine a hypothetical poster X:
X sees themselves as a powerless victim and me as an uncaring persecutor. Of course I do have power. I do play a "substantial role" in blocks. But I'm not the only one with power. X has the power to bend over backward to help other posters. X also has the power to get themselves blocked. X uses the latter power, repeatedly, which seems self-destructive.
What brings X back after even a very long block? Maybe my unconditional love (blocked posters are always welcome back). But it's not completely unconditional. That would be safe for them, but would require me to give up my power to choose whom to love.
Does that scenario resonate with any of you? It reminds me again of shame and guilt:
> Shame ... comes to you as a feeling so deep and so incapable of your getting a grasp on it that it seems there is nothing you can do.
>
> guilt is one of the great inventions of nature. For mature guilt lets you know what is unacceptable, and offers you opportunity to do something about it. ... worth can be defined by realistic possibilities, not by the un-focused and "hidden" demands of shame-making expectations.http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100714/msgs/958778.html
I've been wrong (for example, about the original Facebook/Twitter buttons) and used my power to do something about it (make them opt-out). Some blocks may be overkill, but I've never left a scar on anyone's leg. X isn't safe anywhere as long as they carry shame around inside them.
Unconditional love from me: unrealistic. 9 realistic possibilities:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/968845.html
I hope X -- with the help of others -- chooses wisely.
Bob
Posted by SLS on November 8, 2010, at 6:45:49
In reply to Re: Food for thought » SLS, posted by Maxime on November 8, 2010, at 0:16:55
> I have no trouble following your thinking Scott. I hope you will keep on posting.
Thanks, Maxime.
:-)
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on November 8, 2010, at 9:47:13
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Dr. Bob on November 8, 2010, at 4:21:11
> What brings X back after even a very long block? Maybe my unconditional love (blocked posters are always welcome back). But it's not completely unconditional. That would be safe for them, but would require me to give up my power to choose whom to love.
Do you really choose whom to love on Babble? I recognize that you don't mean love in the sense in which it is commonly used. But still, in saying that you choose whom to love seems a bit more expansive than I see your actions as being.
First of all, I suppose I don't see you loving anyone, but that may be a difference in definition of love.
But second, I don't see you as choosing to love some posters and choosing not to love others. I see you as choosing to approve of some behaviors and disapprove of others. Wouldn't you say that you would just as easily choose to love the same posters you chose to unlove, if they made different choices? And vice versa? That's been my experience of you. If so is it the posters you are choosing to love, or the behaviors?
I think a lot of people do see your blocks as rejection of them, and not limits about behaviors. I suppose I'd feel that way myself.
In that case, might I suggest that you not use phrases like "choose whom to love", no matter how that is meant in a therapeutic sense? And instead say that you wish to maintain your power to choose what behaviors to tolerate?
To put it bluntly, do you really choose to love some posters and choose not to love others? Or do you not love or not love the posters so much as you approve or disapprove of behaviors?
No one wants to be unloved. And I think perhaps it's not wise for anyone to seek your love. Your approval perhaps, but not your love.
Posted by Dinah on November 8, 2010, at 9:56:22
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Dr. Bob on November 8, 2010, at 4:21:11
Whoops. Sorry for focusing on the negative, Dr. Bob.
I suppose I found the mention of "love" a bit distressing, even in an abstract sense. There are a lot of implications, from the purely practical to the theological, in my understanding of love and the choice to love.
That doesn't mean I don't appreciate the rest of your post. I do.
Posted by PartlyCloudy on November 8, 2010, at 10:54:00
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on November 8, 2010, at 9:56:22
> Whoops. Sorry for focusing on the negative, Dr. Bob.
>
> I suppose I found the mention of "love" a bit distressing, even in an abstract sense. There are a lot of implications, from the purely practical to the theological, in my understanding of love and the choice to love.
>
> That doesn't mean I don't appreciate the rest of your post. I do.It certainly stopped me in my tracks, I must say. An unexpected PDA from the BA.
pc
Posted by Dinah on November 8, 2010, at 10:57:12
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Dinah, posted by PartlyCloudy on November 8, 2010, at 10:54:00
I'm still dreadful at acronyms. :)
Posted by 10derheart on November 8, 2010, at 11:00:52
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » PartlyCloudy, posted by Dinah on November 8, 2010, at 10:57:12
perhaps public display of affection and board administrator??
Posted by Dinah on November 8, 2010, at 11:04:50
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Dinah, posted by 10derheart on November 8, 2010, at 11:00:52
Oooh.
Thank you. :)
I was thinking personal digital assistant, and it just didn't fit in context.
I'm such an idiot sometimes.
Posted by Dinah on November 8, 2010, at 11:07:54
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Dinah, posted by PartlyCloudy on November 8, 2010, at 10:54:00
Yes, it was unexpected to me as well. :) He really put a lot of thought into his post didn't he? I appreciated that.
Posted by PartlyCloudy on November 8, 2010, at 12:10:22
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Dinah, posted by 10derheart on November 8, 2010, at 11:00:52
> perhaps public display of affection and board administrator??
Yes
Posted by PartlyCloudy on November 8, 2010, at 12:11:53
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » PartlyCloudy, posted by Dinah on November 8, 2010, at 11:07:54
> Yes, it was unexpected to me as well. :) He really put a lot of thought into his post didn't he? I appreciated that.
Me too.
Posted by Solstice on November 8, 2010, at 12:35:51
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on November 8, 2010, at 9:47:13
> > What brings X back after even a very long block? Maybe my unconditional love (blocked posters are always welcome back). But it's not completely unconditional. That would be safe for them, but would require me to give up my power to choose whom to love.
>I thought he might be referring to how Babblers might interpret the conditional or unconditional factor. You rightly pointed out that Dr. Bob's rejection of certain behaviors are often felt as personal rejections. But.. you can't block the behavior without actually rejecting the person for a period of time - even though they are welcomed back. He has the power to choose whom to 'love' regardless, but each Babbler has the choice of whether to "need" his 'love' in the first place (whether or not such a love exists).
When I read that post, though, the "would require me to give up my power to choose whom to love" - I wondered why he would choose that potent of a way to put it, when things were seeming to steady? I thought "well, that's likely to provoke some turmoil.."
Solstice
Posted by Dinah on November 8, 2010, at 12:49:54
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Dinah, posted by Solstice on November 8, 2010, at 12:35:51
It was a loaded phrase. And I suppose I've been trying to lower the turmoil level. :) It wasn't the concept I minded, just the phrasing.
As a mom, I can say without any shadow of doubt that it's possible to block a behavior without rejecting a person. But as a person, I'd say it was very very hard to experience the blocking of a behavior and not feel rejected as a person. Heck, I feel rejected if my therapist gets a chance to say "It's time to stop today." No matter how he says it.
I guess I'm just saying that it helps me to realize that my perception of the message is not necessarily the message sent by the other person. I feel rejected, but my therapist is not actually rejecting me.
Posted by 10derheart on November 8, 2010, at 13:57:44
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Dinah, posted by Solstice on November 8, 2010, at 12:35:51
When I read it, it did seem odd for a second, but they I assumed he did it simply because ron used "love" and the phrase "unconditional love" in his post describing an IRL group he was in....and Dr. Bob adopted the phrasing to make his point.
He's done this before more than once. For me, when Dr. Bob sort of "borrows" a poster's example, analogy, or way of expressing something, the actual words used, even a potentially loaded one like love (which does often make me a little crazy) it ceases to be much about him at that moment. I get a level of detachment from the word because Dr. Bob didn't originate it.
So even though I was surprised at how he chose to continue on with that, I didn't get as much serious meaning out of loving/not loving posters out of it as others did, I don't think. It was drained of it's emotional content re: Dr. Bob and Babblers **because** it was actually ron's choice of words being build upon.
If that makes any sense at all!
Posted by Solstice on November 8, 2010, at 14:12:34
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Solstice, posted by Dinah on November 8, 2010, at 12:49:54
> It was a loaded phrase.
You're not kidding! I thought I saw some good dialogue goin' on... and was really encouraged when I saw his post with descriptions of 'realistic possibilities' that I thought included more expansive flexibility on his part. But that phrase - soon as a saw it I was like "Pop!" (and ok, I confess... I went so far as to wonder "WHAT was he thinking?!" Nothing at all wrong with the phrasing and its use of 'love' to represent something else... but I'm not sure I understand the wisdom of it here, in the context of a topic (blocking) that carries deep wounds for many members of this 'family.' Kinda like going to visit a family member recovering from 3rd degree burns in the burn unit, and believing your mild pat on their burned shoulder is going to be interpreted like you meant it. (Dramatic, I know, but I'm trying to make a point :) And I DON'T see a point in triggering deeply felt sensitivities unnecessarily, especially in a message that includes promising ideas.
> And I suppose I've been trying to lower the turmoil level. :)
I know....
> It wasn't the concept I minded, just the phrasing.I don't 'get' the choice of phrasing...
> As a mom, I can say without any shadow of doubt that it's possible to block a behavior without rejecting a person.
I think it's easier to do that in real life than forum life. You can do things to block your son's behavior that don't include cutting him out of your life and isolating him from family support for grossly extended periods of time. Here though, Dr. Bob can genuinely *not* dislike a person - but in extended blocks for every level of infraction in the context of this forum - there's just no way to get around it feeling like a rejection of the person - regardless of how it's characterized. I don't know how someone who is off their game enough to step off the straight and narrow in the first place and get blocked, can get banished from their (sometimes only) source of support and then have the internal resources to tell themselves "well, it's just my behavior that's being rejected - not me." I proposed an idea about setting up a Mediator system where members threatened with a block can voluntarily opt for Mediator assistance to get themselves back on track (or, they could opt to face the current Block system). I hope there's something in what I proposed (it's earlier in the thread under "Thoughts from a Newcomer") that might be helpful.
> Heck, I feel rejected if my therapist gets a chance to say "It's time to stop today." No matter how he says it.
:) Precisely. No need go around here patting on burned shoulders. Will frequently be interpreted as a threat - and justifiably so.
In my own therapy, I was 'desensitized' first by a total absence of exposure, then an incredibly attuned therapist who noticed each and every single time something happened that triggered me. Didn't matter how unreasonable (or irrational) my reaction was to the trigger. It was always met with care. Something about the compassionate response to my irrational reaction is what gave me space to heal, and gradually built my ability to incorporate more rational interpretations. Punishing or rejecting my irrational interpretations would not have led to my current state of balance.
So I would like to see more intentional administrative sensitivity to administrative input that tends to trigger forum disruption.
Solstice
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.