![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 28. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by rosmarin on June 7, 2004, at 15:10:18
Bob has responsibility for the wellbeing and safety of the people who are taking part in this forum, which is also a research project. The disclaimers to the contrary which appear on registration are unlikely to have legal effect in most English-speaking jurisdictions. In the case of personal injury, these jurisdictions will apply their own legal rules irrespective of disclaimers.
If Bob caused harm to any vulnerable person through any inappropriate treatment, which might include unfairness through arbitrary and inconsistent application of the published rules, then the aggrieved person might be entitled to bring a claim in damages.
The more interaction or involvement Bob has with a vulnerable person, the more likely a court will find that there has been a voluntary assumption of responsibility for that person.
In Bob's position it would be wise to ensure that enough, appropriately skilled resource is available to ensure the effective running of the site.
My guess as to what a court might say: a lay person would perhaps be an acceptable delegate for administrative duties: so much the better if any suitable professional can be found. Caring for a person who might be in crisis could be a different matter. Asking another member of the forum (in effect, another experimental subject) to undertake this responsibility could be seen as inappropriate care for both the person in crisis and the person's whose help is being enlisted.
The demands on Bob to make good judgments about how to care for people who come here are no doubt very considerable and there is a risk that mistakes could be made under pressure. Some form of effective professional supervision might assist Bob to employ the best judgment that can reasonably be expected. A voluntary assumption by Bob of more responsibility and workload than he can deal with effectively might expose him to legal difficulties.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 8, 2004, at 2:08:42
In reply to Duty of care, posted by rosmarin on June 7, 2004, at 15:10:18
> Bob has responsibility for the wellbeing and safety of the people who are taking part in this forum, which is also a research project.
The idea here is mutual support and education, not support and education by me. This site is not currently considered research.
> Asking another member of the forum ... to undertake [caring for a person who might be in crisis] could be seen as inappropriate care for both the person in crisis and the person's whose help is being enlisted.
It may be hard to deal with issues that come up. No one is under any obligation to support anyone else -- or even to participate at all.
Are you worried about the wellbeing and safety of people here?
Bob
Posted by rosmarin on June 8, 2004, at 18:34:41
In reply to Re: Duty of care, posted by Dr. Bob on June 8, 2004, at 2:08:42
> > Bob has responsibility for the wellbeing and safety of the people who are taking part in this forum, which is also a research project.
>
> The idea here is mutual support and education, not support and education by me. This site is not currently considered research.
>
Legal liability would be as likely to arise in the provision of a mutual support service as for a research project.> > Asking another member of the forum ... to undertake [caring for a person who might be in crisis] could be seen as inappropriate care for both the person in crisis and the person's whose help is being enlisted.
>
> It may be hard to deal with issues that come up. No one is under any obligation to support anyone else -- or even to participate at all.
>
You may in fact be under such a legal obligation - this would arise independently of any intention on your part. You may not be able to oblige people to undertake such responsibilities, but encouraging or facilitating list members to attempt to care for those in crisis could give rise to legal liability on your part.The following post provides an illustration of a situation where such issues could arise:
"However, there's also the fact that one of the best things about Babble is that we posters have no real responsibility for helping other posters because we really don't have the means to help them. Is it fair to even ask someone to assume that responsibility? Even asking is opening the door for Emmy to feel responsible. I don't know that that is very kind of you, Dr. Bob."
(Re: Question about SandyWeb Dinah 5/29/04)
> Are you worried about the wellbeing and safety of people here?
>
Some participants have expressed concerns in recent posts about their own wellbeing or safety or that of others.Other participants have suggested that additional resources, perhaps including appropriately skilled external professional assistance or supervision, may enable improved administration of the site. Still others have set out their views as to why this would be a compassionate course to take.
I am sure that compassionate considerations will be uppermost in your mind in any case, but the potential legal and financial consequences of mistakes that might be made in the running of the site provide a further argument for taking all reasonable steps to avoid any risk of them arising.
Posted by TofuEmmy on June 9, 2004, at 8:39:06
In reply to Re: Duty of care, posted by rosmarin on June 8, 2004, at 18:34:41
Since you posted, rather than emailed Dr. Bob directly, you must want to convey information to the Babble community. So what is it that you want us, the community to know?
I'm trying to think of reasons a lawyer might post here. Were you hired? Handing out business cards ;-) ? Or are you the loving spouse of a Babbler? Or are you, a seemingly unknown person, trying to personally "fix" Babble? So you want Dr. Bob to hire an assistant, who is a professional with licensure and malpractice insurance? Sounds really expensive to me. Who would pay for that? Dr. Bob personally, or the posters??
Truely, I don't have anything against you or your post. Dr. Bob can attest to the fact that I'm not a huge fan of Babble policies. But, I'm just a reealllly curious person. It gets me in trouble on a daily basis. And sometimes gets me PBC'd.
Thanks Em
Posted by AuntieMel on June 9, 2004, at 10:12:24
In reply to Duty of care, posted by rosmarin on June 7, 2004, at 15:10:18
> The disclaimers to the contrary which appear on registration are unlikely to have legal effect in most English-speaking jurisdictions. In the case of personal injury, these jurisdictions will apply their own legal rules irrespective of disclaimers.
***********************************
Maybe yes, maybe no. But I would venture a guess that no regular poster here would even consider lodging a legal complaint. We do have mental and emotional difficulties, but I, for one, remember that this is an illness and would refuse another chance to play victim. I get enough of those chances already. Last thing I need is getting a lawyer involved.
*************************************************>
> If Bob caused harm to any vulnerable person through any inappropriate treatment, which might include unfairness through arbitrary and inconsistent application of the published rules, then the aggrieved person might be entitled to bring a claim in damages.**********************************************
Or, as we are mostly adults here, we could just decide not to play anymore. Sure it's difficult, but it does give us a chance to develope skills needed in real life. Anonymously.It isn't perfect, but it's the best most of have. If someone were to threaten it through legal action I would guess you would see all babblers ganging together to protect it.
********************************************
>
>
> The demands on Bob to make good judgments about how to care for people who come here are no doubt very considerable and there is a risk that mistakes could be made under pressure. Some form of effective professional supervision might assist Bob to employ the best judgment that can reasonably be expected.*********************************************
BUT - the biggest complaint is the disparity (percieved or real) of the verdicts. I'm afraid that bringing more into administration could just add to the un-evenness. To avoid that, there would need to be a very, very strict set of rules that all 'administrators' would have to adhere to.What I see folks here to desire is a switching of priorities in enforcement. A little (lot?) less concern with form (swear words, etc) and a lot more emphasis on content. Possibly even a temporary detention area for the argumentative types to be put into for the duration of that argument.
And to save the blocks for those most folks would consider to be just plain mean.
**************************************************
Posted by karen_kay on June 9, 2004, at 13:11:50
In reply to Re: Duty of care, posted by rosmarin on June 8, 2004, at 18:34:41
am i alone in being scared that this lawyer talk may eventually drive mr bob to close shop? perhaps i worry too much, but if the rewards aren't worth as much as the effort, wouldn't anyone quit? i think i just worry too much. not that i see anything wrong with discussing things. but, i wouldn't want to play divorce court. just thinking out loud. excuse me for being paranoid, but i think it's a symptom of my disease.
Posted by NikkiT2 on June 9, 2004, at 16:48:59
In reply to Re: Duty of care, posted by karen_kay on June 9, 2004, at 13:11:50
I worry about that constantly.. We've all heard these threats here along the lines of "I'm going to hire a lawyer", and as far as I know, nothinh has come of it.
But thats one of the reasons I am so defensive of the heavy critisism of Dr Bob.. I would hate ofr him to just finally get totally fed up with the hassle, and shut up shop. I so badly don't want that to happen. maybe I'm just selfish!!
So you're not alone!!
Nikki x
Posted by rosmarin on June 9, 2004, at 17:34:24
In reply to Curiousity » rosmarin, posted by TofuEmmy on June 9, 2004, at 8:39:06
> Since you posted, rather than emailed Dr. Bob directly, you must want to convey information to the Babble community. So what is it that you want us, the community to know?
>The information I've conveyed is that online activities are in most countries subject to the same legal frameworks as are the corresponding activities done in the conventional manner.
> I'm trying to think of reasons a lawyer might post here. Were you hired? Handing out business cards ;-) ? Or are you the loving spouse of a Babbler? Or are you, a seemingly unknown person, trying to personally "fix" Babble?
I think I'm pointing out another aspect of the debate about the administration of the site. It would be nice if this could fix Babble, but that does not seem likely.
>So you want Dr. Bob to hire an assistant, who is a professional with licensure and malpractice insurance? Sounds really expensive to me. Who would pay for that? Dr. Bob personally, or the posters??
>
Some posters have suggested that volunteer help might be available. Dr Bob would be financially liable for any damages award whether or not he had insurance.
I certainly empathise with curiosity, but I'm going to maintain my privacy!
Posted by karen_kay on June 9, 2004, at 19:14:06
In reply to Re: Duty of care » karen_kay, posted by NikkiT2 on June 9, 2004, at 16:48:59
glad i'm not scared AND alone. again, i see nothing wrong with discussing matters in the least. but, when lawyers and law come into play, i tend to become a bit scared. perhaps we can worry together? currently there is a 'worry triangle' going on in babble about other issues. want to join? :)
Posted by partlycloudy on June 9, 2004, at 20:58:14
In reply to thank you dear » NikkiT2, posted by karen_kay on June 9, 2004, at 19:14:06
I'm with you guys. I don't like all this liability and responsibility questions being directed at babble. It's amply evident that we are all here of our free will and are not getting professional advice in any sense - there are disclaimers at the top of each board.
I just don't think the legal aspects require any further attention.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 10, 2004, at 3:19:54
In reply to Re: Duty of care » rosmarin, posted by AuntieMel on June 9, 2004, at 10:12:24
> > However, there's also the fact that one of the best things about Babble is that we posters have no real responsibility for helping other posters because we really don't have the means to help them...
I responded to that when it was originally posted:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040527/msgs/351845.html
> Other participants have suggested that additional resources, perhaps including appropriately skilled external professional assistance or supervision, may enable improved administration of the site.
>
> rosmarinIt's hard to argue against assistance, but I wonder if another issue here is that I may seem to do whatever I want, while posters are subject to my "supervision". If I had to report to someone, too, then it might feel more fair or something?
--
> Possibly even a temporary detention area for the argumentative types to be put into for the duration of that argument.
>
> AuntieMelThat's been proposed before, but it's never made sense to me, since there are already plenty of areas online to argue.
But I do know a therapist who has a separate board for "ranting". Expressing irritation, but not dumping on others. Letting off steam, kind of like punching pillows.
I think there are potential problems with that, but I thought I'd mention it...
Bob
Posted by spoc on June 10, 2004, at 5:39:34
In reply to Re: supervision and detention area, posted by Dr. Bob on June 10, 2004, at 3:19:54
> > Other participants have suggested that additional resources, perhaps including appropriately skilled external professional assistance or supervision, may enable improved administration of the site.
> >
> > rosmarin
>
> It's hard to argue against assistance, but I wonder if another issue here is that I may seem to do whatever I want, while posters are subject to my "supervision". If I had to report to someone, too, then it might feel more fair or something?<<<<< My feeling isn't that people just lament someone having too much freedom. I think it is *only* about doing right by people, not a freestanding desire for its own sake to see everyone else supervised just because they are.
Still, it could of course be true that some may see more fairness in you having "supervision" too. But I don't think anyone has expressed that they'd like to see you "answer" to someone else -- it is your board after all! I think it's only been said that qualified volunteer(s) could serve the purposes of offsetting the role time shortages are reported to play in fairness; in assisting objectivity by providing other opinions and pointing out any developing patterns that look like favoritism or the opposite; that kind of thing. Maybe a person or persons who fill you in on things you may have missed due to lack of time, that create the appearance of any inequity; and in general, present angles on things you hadn't thought of. Just like the important support people who work for any owner/boss of an entity, who at some point can't do it all himself or conceive of all valid issues himself.
I really do think we are like a small, isolated village far far away from the rest of civilization, which has come to think of things as impossible to achieve or change that are in reality fully (and efficiently/economically) achievable. Our vision may get limited and our acceptance of things too quick and broad, due to rarely looking outside the boundaries of the village anymore.
If none of us had ever heard of Babble or some other large entity with one person (part-time?) to manage it; and we were asked survey questions about whether the point is valid that there is *no way* assistance or logical means of improvement could possibly be implemented by this one person who is trying to do it all, I'd think many of us would answer Oh come on, delegate. Oh come on, it's not sound reasoning that nothing can be done/nothing is available to you. But we are far removed from and hypnotized away from that objectivity now.
Thanks for clarifying in a thread above that you do indeed welcome discussion, including those of natures going on in the vicinity now. I feel bad at the thought of people being afraid that it is all a hassle that could lead to throwing in of the towel. In life in general, some find it easier to defer/demur blanketly, others only feel comfortable if they see that deference "earned" consistently, and inclusive of seemingly crucial basic principles, even if they arise infrequently on the whole. None of us should ever rise above that, or expect to, and when it does happen it has its own known potential for problems.
Bottom line, it is equally upsetting for some to remain silent over what they see as humanitarian issues, as it is for others to witness debates and worry about their possible outcomes. But we are all following our hearts and minds, and hopefully will respect each other for that, even when the other view/approach makes us uneasy. :- )
Posted by spoc on June 10, 2004, at 5:44:21
In reply to Re: supervision and detention area » Dr. Bob, posted by spoc on June 10, 2004, at 5:39:34
Posted by shadows721 on June 10, 2004, at 11:31:10
In reply to Duty of care, posted by rosmarin on June 7, 2004, at 15:10:18
I feel that Dr. Bob is not responsible for the well being and safety of people in this forum. To my understanding, this is an open e-mail forum that is moderated on some guidelines. We are anonymous to others. We don't sign contracts of confidentiality or any other agreements of care. We are anonymous people e-mailing one another for support. I feel that doesn't constitute a rally for legal legislation. I feel that legal legislation would disrupt the freedom and the spirit of the support group.
There are many e-mail support groups on-line run by people who aren't doctors. They aren't responsible for the posters wellbeing. Therefore, I fail to see how this forum should be dictated in a different manner. It is a post at your own risk. You may get a warning about civility rules, get blocked, not get a response from others, not have anyone agree with you, and/or get a totally uncivil reply. Any of those situations can occur from one post. That's all that can happen. How one reacts to any of these situations is their own choice. No one is forcing anyone to participate in this forum for medical research either. The fact you are here is an act of your own free will.
Posted by spoc on June 10, 2004, at 12:34:59
In reply to Re: Your Own Free Will, posted by shadows721 on June 10, 2004, at 11:31:10
Absolutely *no doubt* and no problem with any of that. I think this subject has veered to include things that are not on the whole being said or in dispute (you may be adding in a thread appearing elsewhere now?). I just want to keep my part and what I see as the main theme of others here clear:
I am not asking for or expecting anything from mental health care to executive protection (or any protection for that matter) to legal recourse. I am only discussing the principle of why all people in any type of community should be treated fairly, and reasonable attempts towards that made. Unless the person at issue has done something that screams out for treatment of a different type. I am just discussing basic humanitarian principles and the relative ease of observing them better, because there is intrinsic value in discussing that.
Everyone should have and expect *some* checks and balances on them when many others are involved and affected. This is just the same, and we should all welcome legitimate constructive criticism and honesty in our lives. Even when our audience or friends or family or whoever are free to go elsewhere. We get nowhere by sticking our heads in the sand. People are welcome to believe there is no issue here but the evidence that there is one and the desire to help correct it shouldn't be discounted/disregarded either.
Please see that there is a vast difference between all that and what is sometimes being assumed to be asked for in this matter. Few of us would endorse standing idly by in life when they genuinely feel some are being treated unfairly, or similarly, are hooked into a favoritism network. Those are things we don't find trivial or unreasonable in real life. I don't know why it seems to look so different to some in this venue.
Posted by spoc on June 10, 2004, at 12:39:25
In reply to Re: Your Own Free Will » shadows721, posted by spoc on June 10, 2004, at 12:34:59
Good grief, I thought I *was* on the other thread, the Larry Hoover thread!! I got the email notification from Admin Babble, read the post, and responded without realizing I was instead here. So that affected my calculations -- I thought the opinion that too much was being asked/expected had been posted to the Hoover thread and its participants. That context does make a difference, sorry Shadows!! :- )
Posted by shadows721 on June 10, 2004, at 16:08:35
In reply to Re: Oops, where am I?? Sorry!, posted by spoc on June 10, 2004, at 12:39:25
(((Spoc)))
You write so beautifully. I was quite impressed.
Missed seeing you around. Hope your doing okay:-)
Posted by spoc on June 10, 2004, at 16:24:19
In reply to Re: Oops, where am I?? Sorry!, posted by shadows721 on June 10, 2004, at 16:08:35
Thanks so much ((Shadows))! :- )
I missed you too and felt for you when you were gone! I had wanted to tell you that. I have been trying really hard to let up on all my Internet use because it genuinely is a problem and avoidance tactic in my life. I have been only moderately successful, but any absences are and will be due to that! Look forward to seeing you around whenever possible! Thanks for saying hi!
Posted by All Done on June 11, 2004, at 18:27:28
In reply to Re: Duty of care, posted by karen_kay on June 9, 2004, at 13:11:50
As I am a constant worrier, I'm with all of you in wondering if Dr. Bob will just get tired of it all at some point. But since I noticed in the Babble birthday thread above that Dr. Bob is thinking about a party next year for Babble, I can at least breath a little sigh of relief by inferring from that that he has no immediate plans to close shop. I hope I'm not wrong.
Posted by shar on June 12, 2004, at 3:29:24
In reply to Curiousity » rosmarin, posted by TofuEmmy on June 9, 2004, at 8:39:06
Thank, you.
I'm not too much online these days due to computer problems, plus, Bob seems to be always on the verge of being shut down...and, I don't think that would be a good thing.
Certainly, there a flaws here. As in me. I appreciate you trying to keep alive what has helped many of us so much.
Shar
Posted by spoc on June 12, 2004, at 15:07:15
In reply to Re: Curiousity--Exactly what I would ask » TofuEmmy, posted by shar on June 12, 2004, at 3:29:24
I don't know if this is seen as related to the other thread here on Admin, but maybe due to timing that's likely. And in my archive reading I haven't seen a lot of actual legalities cited so I think maybe the larger issue of objecting in general is being tied in here too. So just in case, I wanted to comment on the fears of shut-down being expressed here, but I am referring only to the broad subject of complaints and how they may or may not feel to Dr. Bob, not legalities. (Written prior to Hoover verdict, if that has any relevance.)
I give Dr. Bob more credit than to close down just because people sometimes ask about things he isn't denying do happen, and has apologized for to some extent (leading us simply to respond with "Ok, so will you do something about it?"). And that even if he hadn't admitted, would still be hard to show as groundless allegations. Regardless of any of that, he knows many people need and love this place and I'm sure he gets a lot out of it too on probably several levels. So I see him as big enough of a person to tolerate and balance the fact that a minority will always be willing to speak out.
Even if it does *feel* unpleasant, as do many things we each have to face in our lives, I give him more credit than to take the fact that many aren't bothered by these things and are content across the board; combine it with the fact that the "conscientious objectors" do have a point (or don't, for that matter); and then determine that what he needs to do is shut down over the inconvenience of occasional isolated debates.
I just hope we are all using self-awareness as to what drives our assessments, to avoid resenting each other's positions when it isn’t necessary or logical. It actually doesn't bother me for someone to say "Ok, maybe that part *is* wrong but I need this place so I just don't focus on it, or even the right or wrong of choosing not to focus on it;" or "Right or wrong, it just doesn't bother me." Or, if the reality is that they have enough stress to deal with already without looking into things that might bring them down further, then that too is completely understandable!
But there's a difference in what is being addressed or seen as the subject there. I see less detailed counter-analysis of what actually happened in the types of situations being discussed at these times than I do broad responses about objecting in itself or stating that it's good to implement limits. But those are neither the issues at hand nor the generally accepted way of adjudicating specific matters (and the usefulness of having limits is rarely what's in dispute).
The point is, we should be aware of what actually drives us, keep our own reactions separated from our feelings about each other. It's long been factored into PBC issues that it is ok to feel differently about things, but not to tell others that their position is wrong or doesn't exist. (Those disliking objections shouldn't feel like that party, as they can take a lot of support in the fact that most here are not participating. And if they ever want to discuss something specific to figure it all out, that is always available.)
There are a lot of things in my own life and in the world that are probably worth protesting/caring about, but I just don't. Things that * I* am able to completely tune out, right or wrong, because they just don't bother me. Some would surely be irritated if they knew what those things were. But we don't choose how those things feel to us, and we can’t be impassioned by or act on *every* cause anyway. I merely like for people to examine what is going into their position or lack of one... when the reality might be that they just personally aren't bothered by a particular problem or are afraid of how it might impact something that is more important to them; not that the cause itself is invalid or that those who participate are doing wrong.
If we could know the full range of each other's subjective passionate beliefs the shoe would often and easily end up on the other foot regarding what is ok to overlook or not overlook. But we all deserve our opinions and processes. It would feel like the Twilight Zone if objectors themselves were resented, because of the fact that few of us do advocate or turn a blind eye to people being treated unfairly in 3-D life. At least in our hearts we don't, even when we don't have it in us to act. It would be sad if this kind of thing changes people's feelings about each other, when underneath it all I'm wagering we share so many of the same principles of right and wrong. Something here is just keeping us from being able to see it.
If someone came to Babble lamenting a situation in their environment where some were being treated unfairly, they would be totally supported. And if they were talking about standing up for others -- and therefore risking alienation themselves -- when the thing wasn't even happening to them, they would be applauded. If they posited that maybe they should just be able to not care because it wasn’t happening to them or didn’t happen often or to most, it would be said vehemently that the fact that they *do* care says wonderful things about them. Or, even if they were advised to try to let it go for their own sake, it would never be said that they had shown a bad quality or done a bad thing.
Also, much of what it feels like to be one who is driven from the heart to object sometimes must parallel how almost everyone who comes here feels about how "normal" people in their lives may seem to be looking at them and wishing they'd "just" relax and flow with things. I'm guessing we all feel bad at those times. What wouldn't most of us give to be *able* to just let things roll off our backs like everyone else seems to be doing?
It's not quite the same here, when speaking out on pretty established principles is involved instead. It just points out something people may not have thought of -- that being on this end when hassles serious enough to lead to shut-down are proposed can be really upsetting too. As can the board being seen as infiltrated by 'hostility' when any number of other kinds of clashes arise, irrespective of what's actually being said. Even when what's being said is meant to defend and *support* the community. I imagine time makes it much easier to tune out, but that's not necessarily a good thing. That's why "fresh blood" is always invaluable to causes.
So couldn't a balance be struck in how the objecting itself is viewed, which clarifies that some fear they could lose this place because of it; but not that it means what others are feeling or doing is wrong? And btw, if I knew or thought that to be a risk -- if that was really what it came down to -- I *would* indeed put those interests ahead of whatever my own were. But it's not the same as having been out of line, and that's an important difference.
I think Dr. Bob has largely always held the key to the impressions of whether objecting is acceptable. If he was the type, or thought it workable, for him to interact more and demonstrate when he at least realizes that an issue is credible (and here -- which speaks in nature to other times -- it does seem he believes that), the confusion and/or outrage at recurring criticism of him would most likely give way to applauding him for admitting or being open to facing mistakes. In his silence, it may be assumed he's upset, but that may very well not be true. Like in the Hoover thread, he finally said that what was appearing on the thread *was* what he had had in mind. We had all thought that his sitting back and just watching was making a statement in itself, but he's saying that wasn't the case.
Anyway, I know nothing about the legalities here but as far as other recurring objections, I think people can relax. That this is only a matter of whether Dr. Bob would ever be comfortable delegating or amending policies, not that it's any kind of deal breaker. How could he be likely to disregard the great overall comfort, joy and education people (probably including himself) get out of this place and just pull the plug. He even knows full well that he doesn't *have* to change, there will always be a good size population here that will largely thank and richly reward him.
I can't imagine that this is the stuff of shut downs. Such hastiness in the face of a ton of love yet occasional, small, legitimate uprisings would be immature and almost punitive; so if you believe in him as a person, you will likely conclude that he is above that.
Posted by karen_kay on June 12, 2004, at 15:43:18
In reply to Re: Conscientious objections and fears of loss, posted by spoc on June 12, 2004, at 15:07:15
personally, i don't really have too many fears of a 'shut-down' when things are being discussed (such as blocks, ect). but, when legality and responsiblility come into play, i start to get that little voice in my head that says 'will he or won't he?' again, it's not the regular admin discussions that raise the paranoia, (and i think they are very much needed in some cases. just because i opt to stay out of them, doesn't mean i disagree. i'm more partial to sticking with what i know best and policy is not one of my finer points) it's the law jargon that makes me want to bury my head and hide.
Posted by spoc on June 12, 2004, at 16:12:10
In reply to Re: Conscientious objections and fears of loss » spoc, posted by karen_kay on June 12, 2004, at 15:43:18
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 13, 2004, at 19:27:46
In reply to Re: Conscientious objections and fears of loss, posted by spoc on June 12, 2004, at 15:07:15
> Bottom line, it is ... upsetting for some to remain silent over what they see as humanitarian issues
I know. I didn't fully appreciate it at first, but people here taught me that.
> Also, much of what it feels like to be one who is driven from the heart to object sometimes must parallel how almost everyone who comes here feels about how "normal" people in their lives may seem to be looking at them and wishing they'd "just" relax and flow with things. I'm guessing we all feel bad at those times. What wouldn't most of us give to be *able* to just let things roll off our backs like everyone else seems to be doing?
But that's another perspective I don't think I've heard before, thanks.
Bob
Posted by spoc on June 14, 2004, at 7:30:09
In reply to Re: Conscientious objections, posted by Dr. Bob on June 13, 2004, at 19:27:46
...and thank YOU -- it's appreciated! :-)
> > Bottom line, it is ... upsetting for some to remain silent over what they see as humanitarian issues
>
> I know. I didn't fully appreciate it at first, but people here taught me that.
>
> > Also, much of what it feels like to be one who is driven from the heart to object sometimes must parallel how almost everyone who comes here feels about how "normal" people in their lives may seem to be looking at them and wishing they'd "just" relax and flow with things. I'm guessing we all feel bad at those times. What wouldn't most of us give to be *able* to just let things roll off our backs like everyone else seems to be doing?
>
> But that's another perspective I don't think I've heard before, thanks.
>
> Bob
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.