![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 54 to 78 of 90. Go back in thread:
Posted by AuntieMel on October 6, 2004, at 16:04:46
In reply to Lou's reply to Auntie Mel » AuntieMel, posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 15:31:12
You managed to describe it very well in one paragraph. I know that was hard.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 16:11:06
In reply to Re: That was good » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on October 6, 2004, at 16:04:46
Auntie mel,
you wrote,[... you described well...]. I have only explained a very small aspect of this, but if this is satisfactory, then good.
Thank you for complimenting me. Someone said it,[...the evil that men do live after them, the good is oft interred in their bones...].
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 16:28:36
In reply to Re: Kali - this is exactly what happens, posted by verne on October 6, 2004, at 15:38:27
Friends,
My requests to the admin. are just that, requests for a determination. I am not asking for the poster to have some admin. action taken against them for the post, but to only make a determination as to its acceptibility or not.
I feel that if this is done, then it could be a good thing, for after the determination is made, others can choose or not choose to write similar statements under review. I have seen many posters also use the admin. board for review of aspects of the board.
Please accept my apology to anyone that I may have offended in asking for a determination, for I believe that it is good to do so, for if the determination comes durring the discussion, then the discussion IMO could be more fruitfull.
Lou
Posted by Toph on October 6, 2004, at 16:48:39
In reply to Lou's explanation of administrative review, posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 16:28:36
Hi Lou, welcome back. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Bob (or his surrogate) review every post? Is it redundant to ask for an administrative review if all posts are reviewed eventually? -Toph
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 6, 2004, at 17:12:17
In reply to Lou's response to Kali-B-wl, posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 10:56:57
> There are statements by Jean Rousseau on the faith board, one of which is,[...christianity preaches only servitude and dependance...true christians are made to be slaves...this short life counts for little in their lives...].
Just for the record, that statement isn't there...
Bob
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 6, 2004, at 17:32:07
In reply to Lou's explanation of administrative review, posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 16:28:36
YOU know what Lou.. I am too scated to post eher right now. I'm in quite a delicate state, which I know an awful lot of us are, and an awful lot are an awful lot worse off than I am.
But, the fear of what ever I say being misinterprested and posted here, asking for a determination of whether I was being civil is more than I can handle.
All I can cope with is the books board, where I hope, by reccomending books and discussing them, I couldn't possibly offend anyone.
Just another point of view for you. I need support I am now unable to get, as I may say something that would then be copied onto here for discussion. Thats not something I am able toc ope with.
Sorry
Nikki
Posted by Dinah on October 6, 2004, at 19:03:49
In reply to Re: Lou's explanation of administrative review » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on October 6, 2004, at 17:32:07
Nikki, I'm sorry you aren't doing well. I had thought/hoped you were in a good place right now. If you'd ever like to email me, I've got Babble mail on.
Posted by Dinah on October 6, 2004, at 19:04:18
In reply to Re: Lou's explanation of administrative review, posted by Dinah on October 6, 2004, at 19:03:49
Posted by Kali Munro on October 6, 2004, at 20:18:06
In reply to Question for Kali, posted by tabitha on October 6, 2004, at 1:37:49
>>>> What's a good way to respond to someone who is wanting support for feelings of upset, when I think their feelings are based on a perception that needs to be challenged? For example, let's say someone takes offense at a post, but I read it differently and don't think any insult was intended. Let's say they get several responses validating their feelings. How can I say anything without seeming to be taking sides against them, or invalidating their perceptions? Is it better to just say nothing if I can't be totally supportive?<<<<<
Great question, Tabitha. The first thing that comes to mind is even if someone misinterprets what someone else is saying (which happens all the time) they still feel what they feel and need understanding for their feelings. As you're saying, feelings are not facts and so, for example, just because someone feels "attacked" it doesn't mean that they were attacked. But, they still feel that way.
So, to answer your question: You could say something validating about how they feel, for example, "I can hear how hurt you feel, and I can understand how you would feel hurt given how you heard so-and-so's post. I want to share that I read her/his post differently than you. When she/he said such and such, I think you heard her/him as saying....and I heard her/him as saying.... I know you feel what you feel, and perhaps I am wrong, but I just wanted to share a different perspective with you."
Kali
Posted by Kali Munro on October 6, 2004, at 20:35:37
In reply to Lou's response to, posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2004, at 21:16:14
>>>>> Kali,
> You wrote the above and there was a poster that wrote that they, in their own way of saying it, did think that the initial posts about Jean Rousseau before I stopped had merit.
> Lou<<<<<Oh I didn't mean that your posts weren't interesting or didn't have merit, although I can understand you reading my post that way and I apologize for not being clearer or more sensitive in my wording. I'm sure they do have merit. My concern was for you (and others) that perhaps you were trying really hard to "teach" people something that they didn't want to be "taught". Of course your opinions are valid -- I just thought it'd be more satisfying to you, and others, if you were to share that information with people who wanted to have that discussion.
My question comes from process "rules" for communication:
*check out with the other person(s)if they are open to hearing your feedback or concerns at this time.
Kali
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 20:37:40
In reply to Re: statements on the faith board, posted by Dr. Bob on October 6, 2004, at 17:12:17
Dr. Hsiung,
Ther is a refference that is brought to our attention on the faith board. It is Jean Rousseau's writing of the Social Contract. Ther is a line to click on and the writing of Jean Rousseau is displayed. In that writing, about the 8th paragraph from the end, appears,[...christianity preaches only servitude and dependance...true christians are made to be slaves...this short life counts for little in their lives...].
Below is the link to bring up the faith board and clicking on the line under Jean Rousseau's writing about the social contract brings up the statement in question for those that are on the faith board .
Then there is a statement that writes that another statement from that writing supports the posting policy here.
As I see that, I consider that those statements taken together have the potential for one to have the potential to think that the faith board endorses both statements.
Below is the link to this.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith
Posted by Kali Munro on October 6, 2004, at 20:40:52
In reply to Re: where we're at, posted by Dr. Bob on October 6, 2004, at 9:55:39
> > I wonder what would have happened had someone said, "Hey, I'm sure you have some interesting things to say... I'd be far more likely to respond to you if you could write less. Do you think you could try that?"
>
> Some might be willing and able to try, others might not?For sure, and some might need help to learn how to do it.
> Thanks for helping out again,
>
> BobNo problem! :)
Kali
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 20:43:47
In reply to Hi Lou, posted by Kali Munro on October 6, 2004, at 20:35:37
Kali,
You wrote,[...I apologise for not being clearer and more sensitive in my wording...].
Thank you very much for that, I appreciate you taking the time to clear up that misunderstanding.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 20:49:53
In reply to Lou's response to Dr. Hsiung's post » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 20:37:40
Friends,
If you are experiancing a problem clicking on the link in question that is on the faith board, then the link is:
http://www.classicreader.com/read.php/sid.1/bookid.615/sec.51/
Lou
Posted by Kali Munro on October 6, 2004, at 20:50:03
In reply to Re: Hi Lou (excuse me if I'm butting in) » Kali Munro, posted by partlycloudy on October 6, 2004, at 14:16:36
> Kali - what do make of this thread? I find it distressing to the extreme, yet I was really looking forward to your visit.
>
> I'm afraid I won't be able to return to this board to enjoy your posts, and that really saddens me.
>
> partlycloudy is very stormy.
>Awww I'm sorry to hear that. I understand feeling distressed. Do you feel comfortable saying more about how you feel? No pressure, of course.
What do I think? I understand that people get hurt and misunderstandings happen. I prefer to be addressed directly, but not everyone feels comfortable doing that. They feel more comfortable going to the moderator; I understand it can be hard to speak directly to someone whom you feel has hurt you.
I think there could be more checking things out here, for example saying, I heard you say...did you mean that? That helps to clear up misunderstandings and resolve hurt feelings.
I'm sorry it's so hard for you.
Kali
Posted by Kali Munro on October 6, 2004, at 20:53:26
In reply to Lou's response to Kali » Kali Munro, posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 20:43:47
> Kali,
> You wrote,[...I apologise for not being clearer and more sensitive in my wording...].
> Thank you very much for that, I appreciate you taking the time to clear up that misunderstanding.
> LouThank you. And, I appreciate you hearing me and letting me know that you did. :)
Kali
Posted by Kali Munro on October 6, 2004, at 20:55:30
In reply to Re: Hi, remember me? :) » Kali Munro, posted by Toph on October 6, 2004, at 14:51:27
> Hi Kali,
> As per usual I'm jumping in here late. I thought you said you'd be here till Thurs. <<<<
I am here until Thurs, and I promise to get back to you then.Take care,
Kali
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 21:07:08
In reply to Re: Lou's explanation of administrative review » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on October 6, 2004, at 17:32:07
NikkiT2,
Thank you addressing me here. I am glad to hear from you.
You wtote about my asking the moderatoer for a determination. I ask for a determination for reasons that I believe could be supportive. My requests to the moderator havwe been handled greatly and I appreciat his attending to my requests. In the cases previously, the determinations were mostly that the posts were acceptable. If they were not, a "please rephrase" is what I was thinking would be the remedy for the post not being acceptable, because there is generally a misunderstanding that I see in the post and I am thinking that the misunderstanding could be cleared up.
Good to hear from you and I would like to establish further dialog with you.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 21:13:22
In reply to Re: Lou's explanation of administrative review » Lou Pilder, posted by Toph on October 6, 2004, at 16:48:39
Toph,
You wrote about the moderator reading evry post. As i remember reading the opening page in the FAQ section, the moderator wrote that he could not read evry post due to the volume. I have not read that page recently, so that could have been changed?
Thank you for welcoming me back and it id good to hear from you.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 21:32:19
In reply to Hi Lou, posted by Kali Munro on October 6, 2004, at 20:35:37
Kali,
You wrote,[...perhaps you were trying to "teach" people something that they did not want to be "taught"...].
I do not know if you have read some of the threads involved here, but these generally concern statements that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings and that is why I would want them deleted, for I believe that those type of statements are not supportive, nor do I as a jew feel comfortable with them being visible without a note from the administration that they are not acceptable in relation to the rules for the forum. I am looking , generally, for a "please rephrase" because there is usually a misunderstanding and I believe that misunderstandings can be cleared up without in most cases expelling anyone. Are you referring to the thread that involved the poem that I considered having a part that had the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings?
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on October 7, 2004, at 3:03:44
In reply to Lou's reply to Kali, » Kali Munro, posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 21:32:19
Hi Kali,
(grins) Did you know what you were in for in coming back?I just wanted to say thank you for the advice and input you have offered previously and currently. I recently took some of your advice in not responding to a post when I thought it might lead to an escalation I just wasn't interested in or up for. Although my lack of response was not without consequence (further posts from said poster), it felt good to make that decision proactively and for my own self-care.
Hmmm, boundaries...a good thing to be very clear about. :)
Warmly,
gg
Posted by Toph on October 7, 2004, at 6:55:58
In reply to Lou's reply to Toph » Toph, posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 21:13:22
I guess maybe then he doesn't read every post, just every one of mine when I break the rules, haha. Anyway, it certainly is within your right to ask him for a review of something to draw attention to it.
BTW, I saw your reference to Beethoven. Web sites make mention of several theories about illnesses he may have had including attention disorder with hyperactivity, bipolar disorder, hypochondriasis,and tinnitus variously attributed to syphillus, typhus or lead poisoning. I wonder about the accuracy of these post mortem diagnoses. -Toph
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 7, 2004, at 7:08:39
In reply to Re: Lou's reply » Lou Pilder, posted by Toph on October 7, 2004, at 6:55:58
Toph,
My condition was caused by my being prescribed a tricyclic AD. There are 4 other cases in the wotld at this time similar to mine that came as a result of taking the AD. One case is in Japan, one in Germany ONe in France and me. There are others cases that were caused by other means and I hasve found about 45 in all in the history of the world.
I am the subject of reserch and have corrosponded with eminant doctors that are doing reserch in this phnominum.
Because of my math backgrond and that I am mostly deaf, this condition of mine is a little bit different than Beethoven's. However, I did talk to the Beethoven society and I told them that his condition was probably precipitated by eating bread with an ergot on it which could be similar to an AD chemically. There are cases in the liturature of mass happenings of people and it is thought to be caused by the bread in a common bakery..
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by Toph on October 7, 2004, at 7:53:10
In reply to Lou's reply to Toph » Toph, posted by Lou Pilder on October 7, 2004, at 7:08:39
Thanks for sharing Lou. I have to run to work. Maybe we'll get a chance to talk later, though your post will likely generate a response from others. Have a good day. -Toph
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 7, 2004, at 8:50:28
In reply to Re: Lou's reply » Lou Pilder, posted by Toph on October 7, 2004, at 7:53:10
Toph,
As far as further discussion concerning this, I think that the discussion is now going outside the rhelm of the administrative board. We could, though, email about that subject or use the feature mail here.
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Lou
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.