![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 25. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 12, 2005, at 13:49:19
Dr. Hsiung,
I am requesting that you write a determination as to if the following is acceptable or not in relation to the guidlines of the forum.
The poster writes,[...me sad for certain posters...think what life must be like if you're the kind of person who spends hours ...asking for determinations, arguing fairness...it must be tiring...].
and,
[...the people who do this don't get happiness, mutual support or love from anyone here...]
and,
[...they derive...pleasure...they go on...power trip..."forcing" Dr. Bob or deputies to respond to them...]
and,
[...such a person must not be happy in their 'real" life, must not have a lot of friends, must be combative or argmentative or withdrawn...]
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050610/msgs/511428.html
Posted by Racer on June 12, 2005, at 14:31:25
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-suchaprsn, posted by Lou Pilder on June 12, 2005, at 13:49:19
Lou, you have left out some of the defining points in that post:
1. The poster was speculating about some characteristics about another poster, NOT stating that the person had such characteristics.
2. The main purpose of the thread as a whole was to express pain, and offer support and comfort to the poster expressing that pain. This site is about support, right? Giving us a place to come and get and give support? Well, this thread is entirely consistent with the purpose of this site. PartlyCloudy expressed the fact that she was experiencing pain and other negative emotional reactions after reading some posts here on Admin. Other posters were responding to her expression of pain, and offering support.
Did you pick these two posts out of the thread because you believe that they may have referred to one or more of your posts? If so, did you understand that those posts were not specifically referenced, because it wasn't about your posts so much as their emotional responses to reading them? Do you see the distinction?
And did you recognize that the reason they were posting involved having their feelings hurt in some way by the posts they referred to? Not because they thought that there was anything wrong with the posts, but only because their feelings were hurt?
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 12, 2005, at 14:59:17
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-suchaprsn » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on June 12, 2005, at 14:31:25
> Lou, you have left out some of the defining points in that post:
>
> 1. The poster was speculating about some characteristics about another poster, NOT stating that the person had such characteristics.
>
> 2. The main purpose of the thread as a whole was to express pain, and offer support and comfort to the poster expressing that pain. This site is about support, right? Giving us a place to come and get and give support? Well, this thread is entirely consistent with the purpose of this site. PartlyCloudy expressed the fact that she was experiencing pain and other negative emotional reactions after reading some posts here on Admin. Other posters were responding to her expression of pain, and offering support.
>
> Did you pick these two posts out of the thread because you believe that they may have referred to one or more of your posts? If so, did you understand that those posts were not specifically referenced, because it wasn't about your posts so much as their emotional responses to reading them? Do you see the distinction?
>
> And did you recognize that the reason they were posting involved having their feelings hurt in some way by the posts they referred to? Not because they thought that there was anything wrong with the posts, but only because their feelings were hurt?
Racer,
I have made a request to Dr. Hsiung to write a determination as to if the post in question is acceptable or not in relation to the guidlines of the forum.
Are you saying that, in your opinion , that the post is acceptable here?
Lou
Posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 16:33:30
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-suchaprsn » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on June 12, 2005, at 14:31:25
> 1. The poster was speculating about some characteristics about another poster, NOT stating that the person had such characteristics.
To speculate does not mean the ponderance is neccessarily inconclusive. Is the phrase "people who do this don't" conclusive or inconclusive? Is the phrase "It must be" conclusive or inconclusive?
If these phrases are written in reference to "certain posters" does that more conclusively or less conclusively attribute the speculative conditions to that "certain poster"?
I would need to scour the archives to learn if similar statements have been administratively sanctioned, but reviewing the officially cited model for I-statements ( http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/320097.html ), I wonder if I would be allowed to say that a "certain poster" derives pleasure from anything untoward.
And finally, I wonder about the veracity of an assertion that some certain posters don't get mutual support from anyone here. I support certain posters who might be referenced in your statement, I am somebody and I am here.
Posted by Racer on June 12, 2005, at 17:08:16
In reply to Lou's reply to Racer- » Racer, posted by Lou Pilder on June 12, 2005, at 14:59:17
> Racer,
> I have made a request to Dr. Hsiung to write a determination as to if the post in question is acceptable or not in relation to the guidlines of the forum.
> Are you saying that, in your opinion , that the post is acceptable here?
> Lou
>Not at all, Lou. I was only trying to point out to you that the posts you referenced, in the same thread, were about how these people FEEL -- and *not* about the acceptability of the posts that they were reacting to.
As far as I'm concerned, everyone here has the absolute right to post anything at all that they care to -- as long as they take responsibility for the potential consequences, such as getting blocked, hurting someone else's feelings, alientating another poster, whatever the consequences might be. All I was trying to do in my post to you was point out to you that the posts you questioned were not about you or any other poster, but about how PartlyCloudy and JenStar *felt* -- and that they were expressing hurt feelings.
Sometimes, a statement or question that is written innocently *does* lead to hurt feelings -- think of Cordelia, right? -- no matter how well-meant it may have been. You have every right to ask Dr Bob whether or not something that someone else has written is within the guidelines of this site. And other people here have the same right to be hurt by your question.
And Lou? I'm not going to engage in this matter further. I find that spending this morning exploring the Admin board is not good for my mental health, though I'll probably read what's written until these matters are resolved. I wanted to tell you that in hopes that your feelings will not be hurt when I don't engage with you any further. Outside of the threads I'm engaged in on this board now, though, I'd appreciate it if you did not post to me. You have every right to respond to what I've written here, even if I won't answer -- but this far and no further, OK?
Peace.
Posted by Racer on June 12, 2005, at 17:10:56
In reply to speculative language, posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 16:33:30
>
> And finally, I wonder about the veracity of an assertion that some certain posters don't get mutual support from anyone here. I support certain posters who might be referenced in your statement, I am somebody and I am here.
>I hope that this isn't directed at me. My post was intended solely in reply to Lou's post, and I didn't mean to suggest that I agreed with anything in the posts in question -- only to point out that what was written was really about how the two people involved felt.
I've asked Lou not to post to me, beyond replying to anything I'm currently active in on this Admin board. Please consider this my request to you for the same courtesy.
Posted by JenStar on June 12, 2005, at 20:23:09
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-suchaprsn, posted by Lou Pilder on June 12, 2005, at 13:49:19
Lou,
if you have questions about my post, you can always address me directly, too. Is there anything you wanted to ask me?JenStar
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 13, 2005, at 7:42:36
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-suchaprsn » Lou Pilder, posted by JenStar on June 12, 2005, at 20:23:09
> Lou,
> if you have questions about my post, you can always address me directly, too. Is there anything you wanted to ask me?
>
> JenStarJen Star,
In response to your invitation above, could you offer me any clarification as to what your reason or purpose was to use the [...virus model...] in relation to [...people just miss the point...I hope they don't multiply...like {a virus}...]
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050610/msgs/511452.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 13, 2005, at 11:55:19
In reply to Lou's reply to Jen Star-virsmod » JenStar, posted by Lou Pilder on June 13, 2005, at 7:42:36
> > Lou,
> > if you have questions about my post, you can always address me directly, too. Is there anything you wanted to ask me?
> >
> > JenStar
>
> Jen Star,
> In response to your invitation above, could you offer me any clarification as to what your reason or purpose was to use the [...virus model...] in relation to [...people just miss the point...I hope they don't multiply...like {a virus}...]
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050610/msgs/511452.html
>
Jen Star and others,
I am requesting that you read the following link before you contribute to this discussion.
The link is about the metaphore used in this thread,[...like a virus...]
The author shows that Hitler and the other high-ranking Nazis had a fantasy that the jews were a virus infecting Germany that had to be killed so that Germany could live. It is this type of statement that I am requesting the administartion to make a determination concerning and I have not seeen where Dr. Hsiung has posted a determination as to the use of this metaphore as ti if it is acceptable or not in a mental health community. I am requesting that you who read this consider the following link before you use that metaphor, even if Dr. Hsiung has not written if his thinking could allow it or not, which could have the potential for some others to think that Dr. Hsiung is allowing the metaphore to be used by not commenting on my request in the thread that I requested his determination.
Lou
http://foucault.info/Foucault-L/archive/msg09555.shtml
>
Posted by JenStar on June 13, 2005, at 12:46:11
In reply to Lou's request to Jen Star and others » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on June 13, 2005, at 11:55:19
Lou, I certainly had no ulterior motives to compare any person or group of persons to the Nazi regime. I was completely unaware of that metaphoric use by Hitler. I'm certainly sorry if the reference upset you, and I had no intent of referencing Hitler or the Nazis in any way.
However, I think the common and colloquial usage of the word "virus" are very well understood and would not be interpreted by anyone as referring to Hitler-like activities. To me, I think using the word "virus" should be completely acceptable because it is a very normally used word that does not, in most circumstances, EVER refer to Nazis or Hitler.
I think that if you have a serious sensitivity to this word, it's unfortunate, and I'm sorry you do. But it's a very common word. I would encourage you to NOT assume people would ever mean the Hitler reference when they use the word "virus" because that is an extremely uncommon reference.
take care,
JenStar
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 13, 2005, at 13:31:32
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Jen Star and others » Lou Pilder, posted by JenStar on June 13, 2005, at 12:46:11
> Lou, I certainly had no ulterior motives to compare any person or group of persons to the Nazi regime. I was completely unaware of that metaphoric use by Hitler. I'm certainly sorry if the reference upset you, and I had no intent of referencing Hitler or the Nazis in any way.
>
> However, I think the common and colloquial usage of the word "virus" are very well understood and would not be interpreted by anyone as referring to Hitler-like activities. To me, I think using the word "virus" should be completely acceptable because it is a very normally used word that does not, in most circumstances, EVER refer to Nazis or Hitler.
>
> I think that if you have a serious sensitivity to this word, it's unfortunate, and I'm sorry you do. But it's a very common word. I would encourage you to NOT assume people would ever mean the Hitler reference when they use the word "virus" because that is an extremely uncommon reference.
>
> take care,
> JenStar
>
>
JenStar,
You wrote,[...the word "virus" should be...acceptable...].
I have no objection to using the word,"virus" as in someone writing that they have a virus, or a virus causes ulcers, or a virus is hard to see under an electron microscope and such.
The metaphor of ,[...like a virus...] I think is different.
And in your post, you wrote something like,[...I hope that they don't multiply like a virus and some language that has the potential to mean that the board would be taken over by these people that the post was referrring to.
Lou
Posted by JenStar on June 13, 2005, at 14:28:31
In reply to Lou's reply to Jen Star-exdif » JenStar, posted by Lou Pilder on June 13, 2005, at 13:31:32
Lou,
I guess I don't understand why you ask for determinations on so many posts. Maybe I don't understand it because it's something I don't need myself, and I find it hard to understand the need for it in someone else, even if I try.I've come to accept that you *need* the determinations in some way, in order to understand the babble world better or to help yourself function here.
But honestly, I feel frustrated when I see so many requests for determinations. It makes me feel mentally exhausted, and it makes me feel worried for the posters whose posts are up for determination (since many have wrote that it distresses them).
I also personally feel that it's not really the best use of Dr. Bob's time to have to sort through the multiple determinations. Obviously that's MY feeling, not his. I can't speak for him and would not try. But it's MY feeling that I wish there were not be so many such posts.
So when I said that I hoped more posters would NOT start doing this, I meant it. Perhaps the language I used was rude (virus/etc.) I apologize if it was rude to you. However, whether the language was appropriate or not it still stated my true emotions and that has not changed. I really, really hope that more people do NOT start to ask for multiple determinations in the manner you do. While I understand, again, that you derive some sense of understanding from them, I *do* feel that the board would become overwhelmed if more people started to do this. And I hope that people do NOT take your lead on this and start asking for determinations in the same manner.
Again, I'm not trying to hurt your feelings, Lou. I'm trying to explain why I made the comment about more people making these kinds of posts.
Take care,
JenStar
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 13, 2005, at 14:51:23
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Jen Star and others » Lou Pilder, posted by JenStar on June 13, 2005, at 12:46:11
Jenstar,
The following is from what you posted.
[...You'r right,...some people ...miss the point...]
and then,
[...I just hope they don't multiply and bog down this site like a virus...].
Your statement was a reply to another here that wrote,[...{they} miss the point...that's where I feel the {threat}...]and,[...I find it disturbing and ...unsafe...]
That post was part of a thread about people here that post on the administrative board. I post on the administrative board and I do not consider that I should be referred to as someone that misses the point or to be considered a threat to anyone here.
Me a threat? Surly with a 1000 members here with many boards , could not one here find many others to converse with even with me as a member writing on the administrative board?
But what is this threat? Is it the same threat that Hitler feared by the existance of the jews. Are these people that post , like me, on the administrtive board, a virus that you have to fear that they will mutiply and bog down the site {like a virus}. And you say that I may have a serious sensitivity to the word when you wrote the word in the type of metaphore that Hitler used?
I have had enough here. You may still my voice now. But all the Hamans and all the Hitlers will not still The Voice of Israel.
Lou
Posted by JenStar on June 13, 2005, at 15:20:23
In reply to Lou's reply to Jen Star-lstpst » JenStar, posted by Lou Pilder on June 13, 2005, at 14:51:23
Lou,
I believe you have misunderstood my post. Hopefully it was not a deliberate misunderstanding. I will try to clarify.I don't feel that it's productive when members write multiple posts regarding the minutiae of other posts, especially when there is no blatant misuse of the rules. Yes, it's definitely possible to pinpoint minor violations, and question the validity of certain words & phrases, but it just doesn't seem to me to be really beneficial to the board as a whole. I don't see how the entire community here benefits, learns and grows from the posts.
Lou, on the average, you question -- how many -- about 10 posts a day? Maybe that's not the right amount. You know better than I do. But every time I read admin, I find at least several posts from you about a determination, all new ones. If there were 10 more posters who all posted in this fashion, that would mean at least 30 posts a day asking for a determination. To me, that seems exhausting and taxing on all of the members, if not especially on the administrators.
Sometimes people DO follow the lead of others, "virus-like", "lemming-like, "respect for another's ideas -like" or whatever word you choose to substitute. people often follow an example that is set forth. So I WAS a bit worried that some newcomers might see your posts, assume that is the best way to communicate, and start replicating your posting style. Again, without trying to insult you personally, Lou, I hope that people don't choose to replicate your posting style and manner. It's something that suits you, obviously, but I worry that if MORE people do that, it will not be in the best interests of the board.
Also, I have no anti-Semitic feelings in me whatsoever. I love all religions. I embrace Christianity, Judaism, and Zen Buddhism in my personal life. I have members of my family who belong to all these religions. I respect the Muslim faith and many other faiths about which I am aware. I'm a bit insulted that you would even think I'm POSSIBLY anti-Semitic! You don't even know me. Do you know what religion I am? How do you know I myself am not Jewish?
I'm not trying to still your voice. I kind of feel like I have never even HEARD your voice! Most of your posts seem to be covering administrative questions. I don't really know much about the real you. I'd be very interesting in hearing about your life experiences. Please, please don't make the mistake of thinking people here are anti-Semitic. I'm not and I've never seen evidence that others are.
JenStar
Posted by JenStar on June 13, 2005, at 23:30:16
In reply to Lou's reply to Jen Star-lstpst » JenStar, posted by Lou Pilder on June 13, 2005, at 14:51:23
hello Dr. Bob & deputies,
sorry to be a pain, but the truth is I felt offended when I read this post. I feel that I am being compared to a Hitler. It hurts my feelings. The more I think about it, the more hurt I feel.I understand that I only recently received a PBC and may be feeling a bit defensive, but is this post here acceptable? Or should I just suck it up and move on? Which I guess I'll obviously need to do anyway!
Would appreciate your review when you get a chance.
thanks,
JenStar
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2005, at 2:55:00
In reply to Lou's reply to Jen Star-lstpst » JenStar, posted by Lou Pilder on June 13, 2005, at 14:51:23
> You may still my voice now...
Sorry, but please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Nikkit2 on June 14, 2005, at 4:08:19
In reply to Re: please be civil » Lou Pilder, posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2005, at 2:55:00
Morning Dr Bob,
Don't you think that bascially accusing someone of being an anti-semite might also be breaking the civility rules?
Nikki
Posted by so on June 14, 2005, at 10:30:21
In reply to Re: please be civil » Lou Pilder, posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2005, at 2:55:00
Can you please explain how it is uncivil to characterize people's repeated requests for someone not to say what they are saying as a desire to "still" their voice, but how it is civil for a person to say that anyone who supports a particular government policy is responsible for perpetrating a "sick joke"?
You might also care to disclose whether your decision to characterize one thing as civil as compared to another has more to do with the content of the dicourse or the hominum.
> > You may still my voice now...
>
> Sorry, but please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
>
> If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
>
> Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob
Posted by Racer on June 14, 2005, at 11:24:31
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Nikkit2 on June 14, 2005, at 4:08:19
> Morning Dr Bob,
>
> Don't you think that bascially accusing someone of being an anti-semite might also be breaking the civility rules?
>
> NikkiNikki, I hadn't posted anything about that because I had asked Lou not to post to me and didn't think it fair to post about anything he wrote when that was the case. I thank you, though, very much for pointing this out. I read those posts, and I was appalled by them. It sure looked to me as though he was accusing JenStar of anti-semitism -- which would certainly make me feel *both* accused and put down if it had been directed at me.
Thank you for starting this thoughtful discussion. You bring so much value to these boards, and are -- in my not so humble opinion -- a real gem.
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 14, 2005, at 13:00:13
In reply to Re: please be civil » Nikkit2, posted by Racer on June 14, 2005, at 11:24:31
Gen Star,
Please accept my sincere apology for whatever I wrote in the thread that we were in.
It was not , and is not, my intention to have written anything that you could think to being something that indicated that you are antisemitic.
The phrase, {like a virus,} triggered my past and being human I did not take the time to write what I wanted to in a better way. There are at least two previous posts here that use a similar metaphore toward me and that was triggerd also, so this is not the first time that I have been called a metaphore like that here. And IRL I have had that phrase tacked on to me by others that were using me as a scapegoat.
I do not think that you are antisemitic and the parts of the post in question were about the jews having their voice stilled by tyrants in history but that these tyrants did not succeed in eliminating the voice of the jews, like Hitler and Haman. The point was that ,sure, my voice can be stilled here, but the voice of Judaism will not , even if there is another Hitler or Haman. I am hoping that you can see that in that statement at the end, for it was the Hitlers and Hamans in history and the one's that may come in the future to persecute the jews that I was referring to.
The other part could be about the use of the metaphore,[..like a virus...] and the constant pleas to Dr. Hsiung to do something to reduce the number of my requests here. But I see that if he carries out your and others pleas to make some policy, that I could possibly not be allowed to post requests on the administration board at all, for instance if he sets up a babblemail or separate email for such as some have put forth, or if I have to have a potential confrontation first, which I do not want to do.
That is what I mean by [...still my voice...]. I guess the "you" will stilll my voice could have been, [...my voice may be stilled by others and Dr. Hsiung here...].
Can we go forward?
Lou
Posted by JenStar on June 14, 2005, at 13:47:55
In reply to Lou's apology to Gen Star, posted by Lou Pilder on June 14, 2005, at 13:00:13
hi Lou,
thanks for your apology. I appreciate it. Yes, I agree we should go forward!Lou, I'm sorry you're experienced anti-Semitism IRL. Thanks for sharing some personal experiences in your post.
I really liked this post from you, because it let me see something about YOU. I guess I come this forum mostly to try and connect with people and to learn about them. Maybe the reason the number of admin posts bothers me is b/c they seem so impersonal, and I have a hard time understanding what you get out of them, or what other people might get out of them.
In any case, regardless of what happens with the admin posts, I'd really like to hear more about your life experiences and stories. Please feel welcome at any time to join us over on social or other other boards! I have a feeling that if you posted more there and shared personal feelings, that people might not mind the other queries so much. That's just my own hunch, so I can't be certain. And I understand if you don't feel comforable sharing personal stories.
Thanks for sharing this much, though!
JenStar
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 14, 2005, at 16:23:40
In reply to Re: Lou's apology to Gen Star » Lou Pilder, posted by JenStar on June 14, 2005, at 13:47:55
JS,
I am pleased that you have written to me in the way that you did. I will try to go to social for I have been there before and had delightfull comversations with those there.
But I do think that I need to finalise the aspect here of the administration in regards to my requests and I think that the thread with me and Minnie and Phillipa about that could resolve a lot so ifyou could come to that thread, I would value your input.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 15, 2005, at 1:21:19
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Nikkit2 on June 14, 2005, at 4:08:19
> Don't you think that bascially accusing someone of being an anti-semite might also be breaking the civility rules?
Morning Nikki,
You know you're not, right?
Bob
Posted by NikkiT2 on June 15, 2005, at 1:46:49
In reply to Re: being an anti-semite, posted by Dr. Bob on June 15, 2005, at 1:21:19
It wasn't me who was being accused though!
Nikki x
Posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 9:17:09
In reply to Re: being an anti-semite, posted by Dr. Bob on June 15, 2005, at 1:21:19
What does that matter? I know I'm not a bold faced liar. But I'm pretty sure calling me one would be uncivil. Do you consider antisemetism to be a lesser charge? I do not, I assure you.
This is the end of the 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.