![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 7 to 31 of 31. Go back in thread:
Posted by Declan on October 16, 2005, at 20:03:39
In reply to Re: Scambuster Blocked?, posted by holymama on October 16, 2005, at 19:55:45
Posted by verne on October 16, 2005, at 21:44:49
In reply to Re: Scambuster Blocked? » verne, posted by gardenergirl on October 16, 2005, at 19:38:04
Like I said, "No good deed goes unpunished".
Posted by alexandra_k on October 16, 2005, at 21:49:58
In reply to Online Diagnosis, posted by Nickengland on October 16, 2005, at 18:26:34
Hiya Nick.
> oh and a recent online observation apprently *suggests* I've have had poor grammer, splelling and little quaulificatiion. Nevermind, i'll have to work on it :-)
why do you think you should work on it?
you communicate clearly
you say interesting things
why should you care what the establishment has to say about grammar?you are just fine as you are
that comment was said in the context of evidence for your not having the appropriate qualifications to offer a dx.
and that was correct.
but...
you don't have to take it as a personal criticism.
Posted by gardenergirl on October 16, 2005, at 22:15:39
In reply to Re: Online Diagnosis » Nickengland, posted by alexandra_k on October 16, 2005, at 21:49:58
I would take someone criticizing my grammar as personal criticism regardless of the context or part of a discussion in which it occured.
Now, I might not care if someone criticized me, depends on the person, but I certainly would view it as criticism.
gg
Posted by alexandra_k on October 16, 2005, at 22:31:43
In reply to Grammar » alexandra_k, posted by gardenergirl on October 16, 2005, at 22:15:39
you are more than that.
what is the function of communication?
to nail the grammer?
to express ones thoughts / ideas / feelings etc?grammer is only of importance when you have people breathing down your neck lecturing you about the apostrophe rule or whatever...
outside certain restricted contexts...
what does it matter?truth is i don't improve mine because i dont' really care.
maybe other people will think i'm illiterate on the basis of that...
thats their assumption.
but... i expect my behaviour will come into line soon enough...
thoguh i wish i didn't have to bother.
how is someone citing examples of my bad grammer derogatory?
they may condemn me for it
but i have no need to condemn myselfare some truths to be silenced?
out of fear
fear as to how others are likely to respond
even if they need not respond that way?its okay...
treat it as a rhetorical question...
nobody has to answer...
Posted by verne on October 16, 2005, at 22:40:58
In reply to Re: Scambuster Blocked? » verne, posted by Declan on October 16, 2005, at 19:14:48
I love that, "If one tells the truth, one is sure, sooner or later, to be found out."
Verne
Posted by verne on October 16, 2005, at 22:51:01
In reply to Re: you are not your grammer » gardenergirl, posted by alexandra_k on October 16, 2005, at 22:31:43
I agree Alexandera - I would no more get upset when someone corrects my grammar than I would if they told me my shoelaces were untied.
I could say, "thanks, I better tie them", or "thanks, I like them untied", or just take my shoes off all together.
Verne
Posted by Dinah on October 16, 2005, at 22:51:16
In reply to Re: you are not your grammer » gardenergirl, posted by alexandra_k on October 16, 2005, at 22:31:43
> fear as to how others are likely to respond
> even if they need not respond that way?Sigh. I sometimes get a bit frustrated talking to you because you really do believe this. And I really do believe that you can't control your deep down response. You can talk to yourself rationally and try to convince yourself. But down under all that rationality is the truth. And unless you understand and acknowledge what you actually feel, resentment breeds and grows.
BTW, the you in the above sentences actually meant me. Or a general universal you.
And I'm glad you've found a way of thinking that helps you.
I just hope you realize that not everyone finds it equally as helpful for *them*. And here I definitely mean me. :)
Posted by Dinah on October 16, 2005, at 22:53:46
In reply to Re: you are not your grammer » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on October 16, 2005, at 22:51:16
And btw, I often choose to believe or to think certain things, or to see things a certain way. Sometimes I'm better at it than others.
But as to reactions or feelings, for me they just *are*. And as Stuart Smalley would say "That's O-K."
Posted by alexandra_k on October 16, 2005, at 23:29:09
In reply to Re: you are not your grammer » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on October 16, 2005, at 22:51:16
> > fear as to how others are likely to respond
> > even if they need not respond that way?
> Sigh. I sometimes get a bit frustrated talking to you because you really do believe this.About some things... Yes. That is why I keep on saying it ;-)
>And I really do believe that you can't control your deep down response.
Ones initial emotional response is automatic. Yup, I give you that.
> You can talk to yourself rationally and try to convince yourself. But down under all that rationality is the truth. And unless you understand and acknowledge what you actually feel, resentment breeds and grows.
I give you that too. Ones initial emotional response... Is not (typically) the end result of rational analysis, rather it is automatic. And once it happens it is beyond all possible doubt (that is to say 100% certain) that you are in fact having the emotional response you seem to be having
(unconscious mental states / emotional states aside)
> BTW, the you in the above sentences actually meant me. Or a general universal you.no problemo
> And I'm glad you've found a way of thinking that helps you.But we agree so far, don't we?
But then what happens...Is we have the capacity to 'reinterpret' or 're-perceive' a situation / event.
By rationally considering the situation / event.
I say 'your shoes are untied Dinah'
Lets pretend you have an automatic emotional response of shame
You can't deny that responseShould people be prevented from saying 'your shoes are untied' because of how you are likely to respond to it?
Should your friends not say that because of how you are likely to respond to it?
Should posters be blocked for saying that?
How are we going to learn to be responsible for and manage our own emotional responses if our environment is re-arranged around us so that we never experience that situation again (and hope to god it never occurs spontaneously)? should other people be forced to alter their behaviour because of our emotional responses or be forced to leave our environment?
This doesn't seem right to me...
If you thought that someone cared about you and wouldn't hurt you intentionally then...
if they were to say to you 'your shoes are untied Dinah' your initial response might be shame.
But then... You may consciously appreciate that they don't mean to shame you and you don't have to be ashamed its okay to not be ashamed and you are not a shameful person...
then: you don't feel ashamed anymore.
or if you do a bit... typically the shame is manageable.
or of course you can sit there repeating to yourself 'i am a shameful person i am a shameful person' and what do you think the consequence of that is likely to be?
distress.
intense distress.the way we look at our emotions and events
significantly affects whether our emotion will be a transient response (think of something like a startle response)
or whether it will escalate...
Posted by Dinah on October 16, 2005, at 23:39:04
In reply to Re: you are not your grammer » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on October 16, 2005, at 23:29:09
But there is a limit to how well that will work.
I would hope not about shoes being tied.
But say...
Someone who I know doesn't mean me any harm says something about my choice in clothing, and my immediate response is hurt or shame.
I can talk to myself rationally about my response until I'm blue in the face.
I may be able to talk myself out of it, and that's great.
I may also feel vestiges of shame or hurt.
And that's ok too.
It may not be productive to stew over and over again about the words.
But it may be equally unproductive to try to convince myself that I shouldn't feel what I actually do feel.
A personal example is that someone I know feels friendly toward me once exclaimed without thinking "Hey! You used to be pretty!" I know she meant no harm. I talked myself into a way of thinking about her comment, and it's now in my lexicon of things to say in certain situations. I find it amusing, and very expressive. But I also retain vestiges of hurt about it. Based on the fact that it was an extremely accurate statement.
No one gets blocked over saying something that evokes an emotional response in someone else. But that is different from saying that the responder shouldn't respond in whatever way the responder responds.
Which is different from saying "*Perhaps* you could look at it this way, and that might cause you less pain." Adding the perhaps and making it a suggestion is a lot different than saying flatly that you don't have to respond the way you responded.
Which all is far astray from the original post, because I have no idea whatsoever how anyone responded emotionally to comments about grammar.
Posted by alexandra_k on October 17, 2005, at 0:09:38
In reply to Re: you are not your grammer » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on October 16, 2005, at 23:39:04
> But there is a limit to how well that will work.
Agreed.
> Someone who I know doesn't mean me any harm says something about my choice in clothing, and my immediate response is hurt or shame.
Okay.
> I can talk to myself rationally about my response until I'm blue in the face.Though of course 'arguing' with emotional responses is typically counter-productive. They need to be validated or acknowledged. Then one is able to consider *why* one responsed the way one did
(ie - is one responding to the situation or is one responding more to hurts in the past?)
> I may be able to talk myself out of it, and that's great.I'm not so sure... How much the CBT rationalising strategy actually works. I have to say... I haven't found much benefit to it myself.
But if you think about whether your distress is a response to the present or the past. to the event or to your interpretation of the event (what the event is *telling* you) then... if you see that its not an intense response TO THE EVENT. rather... its an intense response to something else (which is most probably JUSTIFIED with respect to wherever it came from)... Then... One typically doesn't feel so distressed about the event anymore.> But it may be equally unproductive to try to convince myself that I shouldn't feel what I actually do feel.
Absolutely counter-productive.
You *do* feel what you feel.
You are allowed to feel however you want
(though may not be free to express all feelings on these boards...)
but... some states are more preferable than others.
if you are distressed...
you might find it more preferable to not be *so very* distressed.
and if this is so...
then there are things you can do...
(even if you don't want to change it...)
there are still things you can do...because we do have some degree of control over our emotional responses. especially... the debilitating variety. it is just that it can be hard to see how at times...
> A personal example is that someone I know feels friendly toward me once exclaimed without thinking "Hey! You used to be pretty!" I know she meant no harm. I talked myself into a way of thinking about her comment, and it's now in my lexicon of things to say in certain situations. I find it amusing, and very expressive. But I also retain vestiges of hurt about it. Based on the fact that it was an extremely accurate statement.Your vestiges of hurt remain because you interpret the statement as being 'an extremely accurate statement'. Which means you take it as fact that you are not pretty any more. And then if we add in the point that our society / culture / significant other people in our life / parents / whoever / ourselves... value prettiness.... Yeah. I can understand why it may be hurtful to remember someone saying 'hey you used to be pretty'.
But is it true that you aren't pretty?
(I remember someone saying from the Babble party that they thought you were in fact pretty)
How valuable is prettiness anyway?I imagine it would be thinking along these lines that would enable one to remove the vestiges of hurt, or at least not feel so upset by them. If they there isn't much hurt there anymore it may not matter... But this is the sort of thing we do have the power to do. And I find this process... Helpful.
> "*Perhaps* you could look at it this way, and that might cause you less pain." Adding the perhaps and making it a suggestion is a lot different than saying flatly that you don't have to respond the way you responded.Well... They are different parts to the same thing. The reason why you don't have to respond the way you responded is because there are alternative ways of looking at it.
People are free to choose what they want.
Sometimes...
I cry in my room for hours.
I think about a lot of stuff...
About my childhood etc.I think that mostly...
The grief / pain is good for me
cathartic
I think I'm processing it a little...
But when I've had enough of that...
I have some freedom
If only I can find
Another way to look at it.I find it to be liberating.
I'm not such a slave to my emotions
I'm not such a slave to what other people sayOf course... This is much easier for me at some times than it is at others...
Posted by Sarah T. on October 17, 2005, at 0:51:32
In reply to Online Diagnosis, posted by Nickengland on October 16, 2005, at 18:26:34
> > All I am is Nickengland (my name is Nick, and currently I live in England) - oh and a recent online observation apprently *suggests* I've have had poor grammer, splelling and little quaulificatiion. Nevermind, i'll have to work on it :-)> > > Kind regards >> Nick> >
Hi Nick. Spelling and grammar are important for career advancement, but I understand what you are saying. For what it's worth, my uncle is a physician (an M.D.) and a nuclear physicist (a Ph.D.), yet his spelling is atrocious!
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 17, 2005, at 2:24:46
In reply to Re: Online Diagnosis » Nickengland, posted by Sarah T. on October 17, 2005, at 0:51:32
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 17, 2005, at 8:37:16
In reply to Re: let's get back to administration, thanks (nm), posted by Dr. Bob on October 17, 2005, at 2:24:46
> let's get back to administration, thanks
Here's a link for other posts:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20051015/msgs/568067.html
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dinah on October 17, 2005, at 8:41:41
In reply to Redirect: other posts, posted by Dr. Bob on October 17, 2005, at 8:37:16
Oh, I thought you meant Alexandra and I, and I was perplexed, since our discussion was administrative.
Posted by Nickengland on October 17, 2005, at 9:03:49
In reply to Verne and » Nickengland, posted by Dinah on October 16, 2005, at 19:53:13
Hi Dinah,
>I blocked a poster posting under another name while blocked and removed all posts by said poster, under the usual guidelines. Unfortunately, while doing so posts by you two were also removed, as followups to posts by a blocked poster, also under the usual guidelines.
Thanks for letting me know Dinah, no worries. I saw the messages that the were posted and sorry that it was said you acting as a deputy was compared to that of a Nazi regime! I've always thought you was just kindly using your time to help moderate a website, and doing a good job at that :-)
>I'm letting you know this per a suggestion by another poster, so that you won't wonder what happened to some of your posts.
Thats okay :-)
>Should Dr. Bob wish to restore the posts that were removed, he has the ability to do so, and if you wish him to do so, you can appeal to him.
With what was written about the website and Dr Bob, personally I'd prefer they were kept deleted - and of course without the Website, I wouldn't be able to write this message now ;-)
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by Dinah on October 17, 2005, at 9:08:38
In reply to Re: Verne and » Dinah, posted by Nickengland on October 17, 2005, at 9:03:49
Although sometimes I rather wish the rules about deleting posts by blocked posters were different.
There are times I feel like saying "BUT DIDN'T YOU SEE...?" Then I remember it was deleted. It only leaves up part of the story.
However, I understand the reasoning behind the rule. If someone is blocked, they're blocked, and if they post under another name to get around the block, leaving the posts up would reward and encourage that behavior.
Posted by AuntieMel on October 17, 2005, at 10:00:37
In reply to Re: you are not your grammer » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on October 16, 2005, at 23:39:04
>>once exclaimed without thinking "Hey! You used to be pretty!"
Wow - you mean you used to be prettier than you are now?
Posted by crushedout on October 17, 2005, at 11:38:01
In reply to Verne and » Nickengland, posted by Dinah on October 16, 2005, at 19:53:13
Can you tell us Scambuster's previous posting name? If this is already in a post somewhere, I apologize. I have not thoroughly perused the boards.
Posted by alexandra_k on October 17, 2005, at 14:00:46
In reply to Re: Verne and » Dinah, posted by Nickengland on October 17, 2005, at 9:03:49
i'm sorry i wasn't more sensitive to your feelings.
i remember gabbi commenting on my bad grammer once, over on social.
i felt... yeah, i did feel a little hurt / indignant / something.
it wasn't so bad... but i did feel it.
she then posted something about not meaning it to be a personal criticism.
and that was all it took for me to not feel bad about it anymore.
sometimes a little acknowledgement can go a long way...
i enjoy your posts.
i find them to be thoughtful
and you talk about a lot of interesting stuff
often researching it really well and presenting a lot of interesting facts and interesting discussion around those facts.i can understand why you were feeling that something was wrong... something was wrong... i felt that too but then i discredited that.
i'm sorry for anything i may have said that contributed to your hurt.
Posted by wildcard on October 17, 2005, at 14:08:24
In reply to Re: sorry nick, posted by alexandra_k on October 17, 2005, at 14:00:46
Posted by Dinah on October 17, 2005, at 15:47:37
In reply to Re: you are not your grammer » Dinah, posted by AuntieMel on October 17, 2005, at 10:00:37
Posted by Toph on October 17, 2005, at 16:51:03
In reply to Verne and » Nickengland, posted by Dinah on October 16, 2005, at 19:53:13
>
> I'm letting you know this per a suggestion by another poster, so that you won't wonder what happened to some of your posts.
>As the poster to whom I believe you are referring I hope you have not found offering this simple explanaton to someone whose civil post was deleted not too cumbersome, Dinah. I think it not trivial that as much an effort be made here to extend courtesies as is made in meting out sanctions.
Toph
Posted by Dinah on October 17, 2005, at 16:56:32
In reply to Re: Verne and » Dinah, posted by Toph on October 17, 2005, at 16:51:03
I'm happy to do it. It just never occurred to me before you said something.
Perhaps it sounded a bit awkward because there's no standard language for it yet.
But in general, I'm all in favor of doing anything that makes people feel more comfortable, and I'm all for extending courtesies.
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.