![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 22 to 46 of 50. Go back in thread:
Posted by 10derHeart on November 28, 2005, at 23:24:23
In reply to Yep. No auto asterisking., posted by Dinah on November 28, 2005, at 19:54:40
Posted by muffled on November 28, 2005, at 23:27:39
In reply to sorry. nevermind. stupid assumption :-( (nm) » Dinah, posted by 10derHeart on November 28, 2005, at 23:24:23
Posted by muffled on November 28, 2005, at 23:32:12
In reply to Re: sorry. Not stupid.Very kind.:) (nm) » 10derHeart, posted by muffled on November 28, 2005, at 23:27:39
Yeah, thanks for watching my *ss 10der. F*cking son of a b*tch *ss of mines NEEDS watching!!!!!Thanks!
Muffled :)
Posted by muffled on November 28, 2005, at 23:33:25
In reply to Re: sorry. Not stupid.Very kind.:) » muffled, posted by muffled on November 28, 2005, at 23:32:12
Posted by 10derHeart on November 28, 2005, at 23:52:21
In reply to Re: sorry. Not stupid.Very kind.:) » muffled, posted by muffled on November 28, 2005, at 23:32:12
lol. I was trying to help...'fraid Dr. B might come and give you a PBC and hurt your feelings. Don't want that....uh-uh.
Just feeling dumb and impulsive tonight, but it's better now. Sense of humor coming back...oh no....not here on Admin!! (NOT generally a funny place...)
I guess I should have written....
"well, hell's freakin' bells, I can't keep this crap straight...which damn words are vulgar and which aren't. Hell!! oh....yeah...the weirdest ones are:
p*m p*ms AND
f*rt
HAhahahahaha!
**okay...leaving admin to admin stuff and going to behave now...{giggle}**
Posted by Tabitha on November 29, 2005, at 0:20:57
In reply to Re: sorry. Not stupid.Very kind.:) » muffled, posted by 10derHeart on November 28, 2005, at 23:52:21
I'm happy to report that Merriam Webster online does not list any vulgar meaning associated with the word p*m-p*ms. I think the asterisking software is confused.
Posted by Tabitha on November 29, 2005, at 0:23:17
In reply to Re: sorry. Not stupid.Very kind.:) » muffled, posted by 10derHeart on November 28, 2005, at 23:52:21
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2005, at 1:46:00
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on November 27, 2005, at 14:53:49
> > The only one who seems to be offended here Happyflower is you.
> >
> > it seems that the things you have said about yout intentions towards your T in so many posts suggest you are not just joking.
> >
> > You're pretty upset that some of us are shining the bright light of reality on this situation.
> >
> > I am being a friend. I know it dosn't seem like that.
>
> I don't get it, Dr. Bob. I didn't see anything uncivil at all in this post.
>
> Maaaayyyybeeee a Please Be Supportive, but I don't see a PBC.
>
> You've let far more challenging statements go with no remark at all, haven't you?Fair enough, maybe a PBS. I just get concerned when someone keeps posting to someone else despite their being offended and not viewing it as friendly, contradicts what they say they're doing, or declares one thing fantasy and another reality...
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on November 29, 2005, at 3:11:18
In reply to Re: sorry. Not stupid.Very kind.:), posted by Tabitha on November 29, 2005, at 0:20:57
> I'm happy to report that Merriam Webster online does not list any vulgar meaning associated with the word p*m-p*ms. I think the asterisking software is confused.
LOL!!!P*m p*ms aren't the problem...
Its calling people P*ms that is the problem...'P*ms'...
It is Australasian (Australian and New Zealand) vulgar slang for people from England.
One theory is that it stands for:
'Prisoners of her majesties service'
Which is to say...
That most of the English in Australia are / were criminals
(Not so nice and only sometimes true);-)
Though I should also say that the term has fairly affectionate connotations now...
Posted by alexandra_k on November 29, 2005, at 3:19:19
In reply to Re: sorry. Not stupid.Very kind.:) » Tabitha, posted by alexandra_k on November 29, 2005, at 3:11:18
((((Cricket)))))
Sometimes...
I really think you are my twin or something...
:-)(Well, not so good for you really, but nice to not feel so alone... I hope you get what I mean)
Sorry about getting a bit wound up...
I'm doing alright now.
I guess I just wanted to say that it was good (in a funny kind of way) to get some of that out there...
(Never have said that to anybody before...)Declan...
Yeah.
That is really interesting...
I would like to talk about that more...
MUST DO THESIS!!!
But I would like to talk about that more...Because...
Yeah, it is hard.
I don't condone people doing those things...
Not at all
Nope
But it is interesting...
About how some offenders say that they did it out of love etc
And yeah, that is a bit messed up...
But sometimes...
You can kind of see where they are coming from...
Which is not to condone it at all...
Just to point out that there is a difference between violent assault and the other kind of thing...
And it is interesting that people are considered 'monsters' rather than messed up...
And it is interesting that considering them to be 'monsters' shifts the burden of responsibility to the offending individual...
Which leads us to pass over the social factors that contribute etc etc...
And it is hard...
It is really very hard.
There is a whole heap more to 'abuse' than gets typically talked about...
And... I guess I don't consider what happened to me to be abuse because...
I was willing.
But I guess...
Its not a black and white issue.Though for the next two weeks it is a FORGOTTEN issue
I swear...Going now...
:-(
Posted by alexandra_k on November 29, 2005, at 3:47:52
In reply to Re: sorry. Not stupid.Very kind.:) » Tabitha, posted by alexandra_k on November 29, 2005, at 3:11:18
> Though I should also say that the term has fairly affectionate connotations now...
Well... In a 'come here ya p*mmy bastard - mate'
ruffle your hair
slap ya around (lightly)
kinda way...hmm.
Posted by cricket on November 29, 2005, at 7:40:20
In reply to Re: Cricket and Declan, posted by alexandra_k on November 29, 2005, at 3:19:19
It is an interesting discussion.
But now off to your thesis, my lovely twin sister.
I'll talk to you soon.
Posted by Dinah on November 29, 2005, at 9:42:46
In reply to Re: Being Supportive, posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2005, at 1:46:00
Ok. I was just concerned with consistency. Supportive would have been ok.
But for the sake of argument, what if the poster had apologized for any distress and reiterated her caring before repeating her point?
Or do you make allowances for relationships between posters? So that if two posters who are known to be on good terms have the same conversation, you might treat it differently? I'm just trying to resolve remaining inconsistencies. :)
By the way, I think the latter scenario would be a good thing not a bad one. At least I think it would. I would hate to see friends punished for a bit of bluntness. I've been on the receiving end a few times, and if I'm assured of the goodwill behind it, it's hard to be really offended.
Posted by Dinah on November 29, 2005, at 9:52:41
In reply to sorry. nevermind. stupid assumption :-( (nm) » Dinah, posted by 10derHeart on November 28, 2005, at 23:24:23
That's why I tested it in the body of the post and looked it up. I still tend to asterisk it.
The ways of the auto-asterisk are mysterious. :)
Posted by Tabitha on November 29, 2005, at 11:43:53
In reply to Re: sorry. Not stupid.Very kind.:) » Tabitha, posted by alexandra_k on November 29, 2005, at 3:11:18
Wow, thanks for clearing that up. It was kind of disturbing to think that the word for cute fluffy yarn ornaments might have some unpleasant alternate meaning.
Posted by Declan on November 29, 2005, at 13:46:31
In reply to Re: Cricket and Declan » alexandra_k, posted by cricket on November 29, 2005, at 7:40:20
Yeah, it wasn't to condone the actions, but really, a much older man has (some sort of) sex with a thousand schoolboys and not one of them complains. (With pardonnable excuse) I can't think of a better indicator of the emptiness and lovelessness of so many kids lives. It was over 20 years or so. That's the context, if you follow my drift.
Declan
Posted by alexandra_k on November 29, 2005, at 15:19:51
In reply to Re: Being Supportive » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on November 29, 2005, at 9:42:46
>I've been on the receiving end a few times,
(((Dinah)))
> and if I'm assured of the goodwill behind it, it's hard to be really offended.
Yeah. Though... If you ask someone to BACK OFF (or to not post to you) and they continue...
I think they would get warned / blocked.
Posted by Dinah on November 29, 2005, at 17:37:10
In reply to Re: Being Supportive » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on November 29, 2005, at 15:19:51
Quite true. A direct do not post violation would be cited. :)
Posted by happyflower on November 29, 2005, at 19:49:05
In reply to Re: Being Supportive, posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2005, at 1:46:00
Thank you Dr. Bob, I agree with you. I felt blasted and by someone I didn't even know or have talked to before. (just my view, being the on the receiving end of it)
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2005, at 22:19:35
In reply to Re: Being Supportive » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on November 29, 2005, at 9:42:46
> But for the sake of argument, what if the poster had apologized for any distress and reiterated her caring before repeating her point?
IMO, saying one cares shouldn't give one license to be uncivil...
> Or do you make allowances for relationships between posters? So that if two posters who are known to be on good terms have the same conversation, you might treat it differently?
I might, but OTOH, others might conclude it's OK in general...
> I would hate to see friends punished for a bit of bluntness. I've been on the receiving end a few times, and if I'm assured of the goodwill behind it, it's hard to be really offended.
I think if the person on the receiving end is sure, that's one thing, but if they're just told, that's another.
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on November 29, 2005, at 22:44:01
In reply to Re: Being Supportive, posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2005, at 22:19:35
> I think if the person on the receiving end is sure, that's one thing, but if they're just told, that's another.
Maybe one is more likely to feel assured if they are friends. Because they come to trust the persons intentions more over time (which is why they are friends).
But when you don't know the person who is posting then maybe you are less likely to feel assured because you don't know whether they would typically post uncivil posts, or challenging posts, or dogmatic posts, or supportive posts, or what...
Posted by Dinah on November 29, 2005, at 23:15:24
In reply to Re: Being Supportive, posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2005, at 22:19:35
Fair enough, Dr. Bob. :)
Posted by verne on November 29, 2005, at 23:59:39
In reply to Re: Being Supportive, posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2005, at 1:46:00
I didn't follow the thread but I had difficulty with the posts for different reasons.
When we say, "The only one who seems to be offended here ... is you." and "You're pretty upset that some of us are shining the bright light of reality on this situation", aren't we invalidating the other person's reality?
We are even telling them how they FEEL - offended - and that they are the "only one" feeling that way. Then there's more telling them how they feel with, you are "pretty upset".
And finally, to say that we have the "light of reality" - suggests the other person doesn't. That they live in a dark unreal place.
Being borderline I have a huge problem with people telling me what I think and how I feel. This sort of invalidation really frustrates me.
I think we just need to let people be who they are and not try to think and feel for them.
Verne
Posted by happyflower on November 30, 2005, at 6:25:44
In reply to Re: Being Supportive, posted by verne on November 29, 2005, at 23:59:39
I agree with what you are saying, it is exactly how I felt, like, um, I am not in reality? But you are, who knows very little about me since they are new to the boards.
I just think there are gentler ways to give your view on topics without making the person feel "condemned".
I feel it is easier to take the medicine down if it is sweet, than if it is bitter.
Posted by Gabbix2 on November 30, 2005, at 12:45:11
In reply to Re: Being Supportive, posted by verne on November 29, 2005, at 23:59:39
I think that was articulated brilliantly.
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.