![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 10 to 34 of 53. Go back in thread:
Posted by mist on September 12, 2002, at 10:39:07
In reply to Re: please be civil » kid a, posted by Dr. Bob on September 12, 2002, at 8:03:12
>Safety is important here.
Safety or civility?
There are some sites that are designated "safe" for people who get triggered by certain topics of conversation or words (including the content of creative works, I presume). Those sites are very restricted for that reason and are clearly labeled as such. Is this one of those sites? If it is, that—and the restrictions imposed because of it—should be openly explained here. So members can know what they're getting into when they post. Because the issue of 'safety' goes beyond issues of civility. For example, if someone has a phobia about dogs, say, because they were bitten by one as a kid, is it uncivil for others to mention dogs in their posts here?
Posted by IsoM on September 12, 2002, at 14:01:04
In reply to Re: please be civil » kid a, posted by Dr. Bob on September 12, 2002, at 8:03:12
You keep telling us "Also, please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down." Yet your PCBs to those of us who haven't said anything wrong (except in your eyes) make US feel put down & accused.
Doesn't it clue in to you that in your fevered attempts to keep this board civil, that you've overdone it in a major way & end up putting the majority of us down instead? Those of us whose main purpose is to help & support others are instead told that we're putting people down. That just makes us feel great, & supported by you, doesn't it?
And no matter who asks you a question or desires to understand something better, you answer them with brief, ambiguous statements, often in return questions (& often cryptic themselves) that never clear anything up or claifies the questions asked. Most are left as confused as when they first asked. Is it your aim to be purposefully vague & cyrptic? And if you ask 'how?' (as I expect you too), I can't see how we can make it any clearer without spelling it out letter by letter for you & only to have it ignored anyway.
Frustrated? Yes, we're all VERY frustrated. Can't you possibly see that?
Posted by kid a on September 12, 2002, at 15:35:46
In reply to Re: please be civil Dr. Bob yourself, posted by IsoM on September 12, 2002, at 14:01:04
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 12, 2002, at 16:40:29
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by mist on September 12, 2002, at 10:39:07
> >Safety is important here.
>
> Safety or civility?Both. If it's civil here, that makes it more safe.
> There are some sites that are designated "safe" for people who get triggered by certain topics of conversation or words (including the content of creative works, I presume). Those sites are very restricted for that reason and are clearly labeled as such. Is this one of those sites? If it is, that—and the restrictions imposed because of it—should be openly explained here. So members can know what they're getting into when they post. Because the issue of 'safety' goes beyond issues of civility. For example, if someone has a phobia about dogs, say, because they were bitten by one as a kid, is it uncivil for others to mention dogs in their posts here?
This site has a general audience, so the civility guidelines are general, too. If someone needs to be sure dogs won't be mentioned, they'd need to find a site with more specific safety guidelines.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 12, 2002, at 17:09:56
In reply to Re: please be civil Dr. Bob yourself, posted by IsoM on September 12, 2002, at 14:01:04
> You keep telling us "Also, please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down." Yet your PCBs to those of us who haven't said anything wrong (except in your eyes) make US feel put down & accused.
Sorry about that, but as I've mentioned before:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6529.html
there's inevitably some tension between administration and support, and my role here is more administrative.
> Frustrated? Yes, we're all VERY frustrated. Can't you possibly see that?
I see that. Please try to accept the things you cannot change.
If there are other questions about posting quotes, I'd be glad to try to answer them, otherwise, I'd like to consider this issue clarified (though I know not everyone agrees with me) and to get back to our primary goals, support and education...
Bob
Posted by IsoM on September 12, 2002, at 17:41:56
In reply to Re: administration and support, posted by Dr. Bob on September 12, 2002, at 17:09:56
You're right, of course, you *always* are -
"Please try to accept the things you cannot change."I'd get a better response out of a rock. Your quote of the other message meant little. I think I'll go bang my head against a tree trunk - at least, I'll be benefitting from the *fresh* air instead of the same stale rhetoric we continue to hear.
>>>Do as I say, not as I do<<<
.........BE SUPPORTIVE.........
.........BE SUPPORTIVE.........
.........BE SUPPORTIVE.........
>>>>Because I won't be<<<<<
>>>>I'm administrative!<<<<<Hello, rock - would you like to hear how I feel today? Sorry, tree, if I bruised your bark at all.
Posted by ShelliR on September 12, 2002, at 20:11:23
In reply to Re: administration and support, posted by Dr. Bob on September 12, 2002, at 17:09:56
> > Frustrated? Yes, we're all VERY frustrated. Can't you possibly see that?
> I see that. Please try to accept the things you cannot change.
Dr. Bob, I thought that I had already reached the point that nothing you do now surprises me, or could disappoint me further. Then you say or do something else that increases the depth of my disappointment and further diminishes my respect for your administrative abilities.
> I see that. Please try to accept the things you cannot change. <
Okay, that would seem at this point like a reasonable thing to say and way to go if we're still talking about something like the added boards. They have already been decided upon after lots of discussion re pros and cons. Not that the discussion had anything to do with the results, but yes, a decision has been made and I agree that it would be a waste of time and energy to continue to address the issue.
On the other hand, each time you warn or censor a poster, a different decision has to be made. No two posts are alike; so each must be analyzed individually.
So I truly do not get your advise to "try to accept things that you cannot change" in this context, finding it incredibly demeaning and disturbing that any negative feedback distresses you so. It reveals a determination to be totally closed-minded.
Re my disappointment: I already have learned that you lack the humility to admit EVER that you had made an error in a warning or censor. I didn't realize, however, that you were not even processing and analyzing the actions you take that produce a myriad of complaints. For example, the title line fiasco, (when Sandra Dee was censored because she innocently forgot to change a title line, while the creator of the title line didn't even receive a warning). This was a time when not one poster agreed or supported you in a post, yet you continue to repeat your familiar adage: "please try to accept the things you can not change."
I would just like to modify that line to include the whole serenity prayer: "grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.So I am waiting, perhaps very foolishly, for you to develop both courage and wisdom--the totality of serenity. At this point, I believe the majority of posters are light years ahead of you in having both courage and wisdom, as well as acceptance. And I don't understand how a man compassionate enough to set up a board to support people with depression, can lack such simple courtesy as to tell people basically to "shut up" regarding decisions they think you have handled badly. I also find it sort of tackless than when someone praises you for your administrative skills or your generousity, you write a thank you post back to them. I find it offensive because, and only because, you so discourage negative feedback and yet you shamelessly acknowledge positive feedback only.
I feel so foolish that I once volunteered to set up a pledge drive to raise money for this site, in light of the increasing totalitarianism. I certainly believe the LEAST you can do is pay for the site out of pocket.
Shelli
Posted by oracle on September 12, 2002, at 22:58:16
In reply to BOB PBC: Mistah Kurtz, He Dead. pls Read., posted by kid a on September 11, 2002, at 19:26:46
> "We must kill them. We must incinerate them. Pig after pig, cow after cow, village after village, army after army..."
((Sorry, but I don't think I can consider quotes suggesting that others be harmed to be civil, let alone supportive, so please refrain from posting them. --Bob))
Even without the referance to rivets I knew this was "Heart of Darkness" as it was required reading in HS. Saying that one should indicate
who is being quoted seems to me to indicate Dr Bob
felt it was OK if this was added. Since this is the first time this seems to have come up it would of been nicer to ask first before judgement
was cast.Personally I think the quotes are enough. It is clear to me what quotes mean.
Posted by BeardedLady on September 13, 2002, at 8:23:54
In reply to Re: administration and support » Dr. Bob, posted by ShelliR on September 12, 2002, at 20:11:23
Thanks for saying what so many of us are thinking, Librans and otherwise.
Cheers.
Beardy
Posted by Phil on September 13, 2002, at 10:46:09
In reply to Re: administration and support » Dr. Bob, posted by ShelliR on September 12, 2002, at 20:11:23
Posted by kid a on September 13, 2002, at 12:06:37
In reply to Re: BOB PBC: Mistah Kurtz, He Dead. pls Read., posted by oracle on September 12, 2002, at 22:58:16
> Even without the referance to rivets I knew this was "Heart of Darkness" as it was required reading in HS. Saying that one should indicate
who is being quoted seems to me to indicate Dr Bob
felt it was OK if this was added.You see this is where I am a little confused about the policy. Does providing a source for the material immediately explain it? I would say for some people no, so you haven't gained anything... In some cases I leave this out because one, Id like people to take a chance on a guess, and I as well don't want them necisarily distracted by the source, I want the words to take precedence.
So, if you have no idea what Apocalypse Now, or Heart of Darkness is, you are no better off then when you started.
Chinua Achebe, a great writer himself, refered to Condrad's work as racist in a very famous essay. If you are familiar with that, maybe you'll take offense to Conrad in the first place, remember he did write The Nigger of the Narcissus, whose title might make some people reel regardeless if they have ever even read it; but generally thats how it works, people ignorant of the work will have a knee jerk reaction. As far as Achebe is concerned, that was just one person's opinion, granted a very important person's opinion, but it wasnt without it's detractors.
I've been accused of an anti-semite, and posting anti-semitic links, I've been accused (by the same person) of being anti-islamic, I angered someone in the same thread who incorectly stated that Afghanistan fought OUR war for us against the Soviets, when the exact opposite is true, and this is very easy to find out if you read any accurate history whatsoever...
I personally don't see how I'm going to explain every single thing I post, and I admit, I do post things that may be obtuse, but thats why I post them... Thats who I am... And I dont think adding a source reference does much of anything if you aren't even familiar with the source.
oh well, la de da... I am Dog, son of man...
Posted by kid a on September 13, 2002, at 14:32:40
In reply to Re: BOB PBC: Mistah Kurtz, He Dead. pls Read. » oracle, posted by kid a on September 13, 2002, at 12:06:37
the only thing i could come up with is that it gives the reader the chance to further research the text if they so choose, however likely that is... so in that case i can see the use...
i most always cite poetry since i write it, and i dont want anyone to mistakingly think that it is mine... but i dont cite my own work no matter it is i write, i suppose i dont even know if people read it to begin with...
since i feel im probably just talking to myself on this one, ill wrap it up by saying that Shirley Jackson's short story "The Lottery" caused such a furor when it was published in the New Yorker because it completely horrified people...
it is, an expertly crafted and yes, horrifying work of literature that should be read by everyone who has a taste for sublte and omninous, yet somehow nameless untouchable dread... it stays with you long after the reading... maybe i'm just trying to relate some of that, how it echoes my life, probably many peoples lives here, the horror, the horror.
Posted by Tabitha Ðòñë ƒ£îþþëÐ on September 13, 2002, at 15:16:24
In reply to one case for citing the written word..., posted by kid a on September 13, 2002, at 14:32:40
Kid A,
First let me say I enjoy your posts, even without sources, since they're always beautifully written excerpts of whatever they are. Dark subjects don't disturb me personally. I can see though how having a source might make them less potentially disturbing to others, even if someone is not familiar with the source. For instance, if you post the words of a psychotic murderous character, some people might think the words are your own, and that there's a psychotic murderous Babbler in our midst. With a source though, it's obviously a quote from something.
Posted by oracle on September 13, 2002, at 18:16:38
In reply to Re: BOB PBC: Mistah Kurtz, He Dead. pls Read. » oracle, posted by kid a on September 13, 2002, at 12:06:37
Thats who I am... And I dont think adding a source reference does much of anything if you aren't even familiar with the source.
If people do not know what quotes mean they missed
something in school.Conrad lived in another time, I cannot judge him with present day morals.
Posted by kid a on September 13, 2002, at 19:44:42
In reply to Re: one case for citing the written word... » kid a, posted by Tabitha Ðòñë ƒ£îþþëÐ on September 13, 2002, at 15:16:24
>For instance, if you post the words of a psychotic murderous character, some people might think the words are your own, and that there's a psychotic murderous Babbler in our midst.
i do thank you for reading, but perhaps you've shown me as who i am... maybe thats the disease in me... i think im bad, so i want these bad things to be associated with me... something in me wants to horrify, to be punished.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 13, 2002, at 20:12:20
In reply to Re: BOB PBC: Mistah Kurtz, He Dead. pls Read. » oracle, posted by kid a on September 13, 2002, at 12:06:37
> I truly do not get your advise to "try to accept things that you cannot change" in this context, finding it incredibly demeaning and disturbing that any negative feedback distresses you so. It reveals a determination to be totally closed-minded.
I apologize (especially to IsoM), I did put that too strongly. Sorry if I disappointed.
> I don't understand how a man compassionate enough to set up a board to support people with depression, can lack such simple courtesy as to tell people basically to "shut up" regarding decisions they think you have handled badly. I also find it sort of tackless than when someone praises you for your administrative skills or your generousity, you write a thank you post back to them. I find it offensive because, and only because, you so discourage negative feedback and yet you shamelessly acknowledge positive feedback only.
>
> ShelliI don't mean to discourage all negative feedback. I do, however, think that repeated negative feedback from the same people about the same issues not only takes us away from the primary goals of this site, but, realistically, is unlikely to change my mind (of stone :-).
----
> Does providing a source for the material immediately explain it? I would say for some people no...
>
> Dog, son of manI agree; that's why I also snuck in "or an exegesis". :-)
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020725/msgs/7373.html
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 13, 2002, at 20:16:47
In reply to BOB PBC: Mistah Kurtz, He Dead. pls Read., posted by kid a on September 11, 2002, at 19:26:46
> [Posted by BeardedLady on September 11, 2002, at 12:00:46
>
> In reply to http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20020908/msgs/30134.html]
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 13, 2002, at 20:17:38
In reply to you are quite unbelieveable. » Dr. Bob « BL, posted by Dr. Bob on September 13, 2002, at 20:16:47
> [Posted by ~Alii~ on September 11, 2002, at 16:58:47]
>
> > ...seems like this slippery slope continues to get more and more nonsensical in what is considered civil.
> >
> > BeardedLady,
> >
> > I hear your words loud and clear and await kid_A's return from his trip for him to see how his post has been targeted far after the original posting date.
> >
> > Do you think that archieved posts are the next to be gleaned through for incivility?!
> >
> > ~~alii with incredulity as the days tick by
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 13, 2002, at 20:18:44
In reply to What will be targeted next? Dark poetry? « ~Alii~, posted by Dr. Bob on September 13, 2002, at 20:17:38
> [Posted by BeardedLady on September 11, 2002, at 17:35:02]
>
> > I think that Kid's post was chosen because Dr. Bob still does not, after all this time, know us. Dinah wouldn't have thought to PBC that post, as nothing about it was uncivil. We all know that KidA frequently posts quotes--interesting quotes, at that—to remind us of poignient things. That happened to be a FAMOUS line from Apocolypse Now, not a line about killing anyone. But Dr. Bob has not shown us to be as thoughtful about issuing PBCs as we are about remaining civil.
> >
> > It is, once again, time to discontinue posting here. The rules are interpreted to broadly and without attention to the intention of the posters. I'm tired of it.
> >
> > beardy
Posted by Tabitha Ðòñë ƒ£îþþëÐ on September 13, 2002, at 23:59:13
In reply to Re: one case for citing the written word..., posted by kid a on September 13, 2002, at 19:44:42
Naw, you're not bad or horrifying, you're just an art-loving kid trying to make sense of himself.
Posted by oracle on September 14, 2002, at 3:58:48
In reply to Re: quotes (and apology » IsoM), posted by Dr. Bob on September 13, 2002, at 20:12:20
I do, however, think that repeated negative feedback from the same people about the same issues not only takes us away from the primary goals of this site, but, realistically, is unlikely to change my mind (of stone :-).
It is a 2 way street. We see it as having valid points that you (Dr. Bob) will not acknowledge.
Posted by BeardedLady on September 14, 2002, at 11:40:31
In reply to Re: quotes (and apology, posted by oracle on September 14, 2002, at 3:58:48
Don't put people down. Folks posting in protest of blocks or PBCs are not giving negative feedback; they're giving POSITIVE feedback—in support of those who were UNFAIRLY blocked.
As oracle says, it IS a two-way street, and we could just as easily say there's a negative administration here, always looking for the bad in people and ASSUMING it before assuming the good.
When in doubt about what someone means, ASK. Don't just jump to a conclusion about someone (which is against site rules anyhow) that he means us all to kill pigs or men because he quoted a famous movie or work of literature.
Dr. Bob assumed the bad when he blocked Colin for a pun, and he assumed the bad when he gave a PBC to KidA for a quote that he didn't understand.
And it matters not who gives feedback in protest. It has been Dinah. It has been Shar. It has been Mair. And it has been Iso, Wendy, Oracle, KidA, Alii, Beardy, and almost everyone on the board--heck, even Greg! And only sometimes it's the same people. In Colin's case, it was EVERYONE.
We already know that nothing is likely to change your "mind of stone," and putting smiley faces next to a statement like that doesn't make that sad fact cute or funny or even palatable.
I guess what so many of us want to know is WHY? Why do you have a mind of stone? Why can't you EVER change your decision, especially when it's wrong?
This is supposed to be a mental health education and support site. Why shouldn't its moderator exhibit the healthy ability to correct his mistakes and admit his humanity?
beardy
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 14, 2002, at 16:51:55
In reply to DR. BOB—NEGATIVE FEEDBACK? PBC., posted by BeardedLady on September 14, 2002, at 11:40:31
> It is a 2 way street. We see it as having valid points that you (Dr. Bob) will not acknowledge.
>
> oracleSorry, I don't meant to imply that your points aren't valid. I think we both have valid points, but sometimes a decision needs to be made one way or the other.
----
> Folks posting in protest of blocks or PBCs are not giving negative feedback; they're giving POSITIVE feedback—in support of those who were UNFAIRLY blocked.
>
> beardyI know, but sometimes I forget. Sorry, I'll try harder to remember. Carry on...
Bob
Posted by mashogr8 on September 14, 2002, at 18:37:24
In reply to Re: valid points, posted by Dr. Bob on September 14, 2002, at 16:51:55
I am probably as well read as some of you, but one of the banes of my existence is an inability to identify or even remember famous quotes (unless they are from Nathan Hale, Patrick Henry and Abraham Lincoln). I think that most of you identify your personal works. I'd appreciate an acknowledgement of the sources of the quotes you use. I'm probably the one person in the whole universe and outer galaxy who for some reason or another has never seen "Apocalypse Now" I have seen Deep Throat and lalughed so hard I would never remember any of that dialogue either. Oh well, that's just me.
If I know the source of a quote and that it is a quote I might check it out. Thanks.
MA
Posted by BeardedLady on September 14, 2002, at 19:14:20
In reply to Quotes, posted by mashogr8 on September 14, 2002, at 18:37:24
I don't think it makes any difference. If KidA had put the source of his quote following the quote, it would have had the same civility as the quote without the source. Adding a source doesn't make it civil; it merely makes it accessible.
If you really want to know what someone is talking about and what the source of the quote is, ASK! Or do a google search. If you don't care, that's great, too! Not every post is going to appeal to every poster.
Lots of people post hellos to each other or talk about things that others may not have followed. Should they be required to explain, for those who may have decided to peek at the post, all the events leading up to their post?
I like the posts without the source. It's like a quiz. It tests my memory and my knowledge. And if I don't know it, I can look it up.
beardy
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.