![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 235 to 259 of 275. Go back in thread:
Posted by gardenergirl on June 14, 2006, at 13:47:36
In reply to Re: the power to hurt, posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2006, at 9:40:02
> >
> What I hear is that posters feel (1) hurt and angry when their friends are hurt (for example, by being blocked) and (2) powerless when I insist on doing something they're opposed to. Is that close?Thanks for responding to muffled's request for reflecting. I think you've got some of it, but I wanted to add my tweaks, box of salt included.
1) I don't think it's just about when a friend is blocked. I think it can be about any block regardless of whether the person is a friend or not.
2) I think powerless is correct. But also perhaps devalued, because I believe that many do not feel as if their questions are adequately addressed in your replies.And I would add 3) Many are not happy with the blocking policy in general. My interpretation of many recent posts is that they are not so much about estella's block in particular, but about wanting to talk about their feelings about the policy and its implementation in general. Estella's recent block, as many blocks do, stimulated these feelings coming out again.
Muffled or others, please feel free to tweak my reflecting here, as I may be missing something or not presenting it just right.
Questions for Dr. Bob:
-Are even you willing to give serious and thoughtful consideration to making more changes to the blocking policy? Because if you are not, then that would be a very useful piece of information for those who are trying so hard to be heard.
-If you are not willing to make any changes at this time, would you consider spelling out in some detail the purposes, intents, and goals of the blocking policy in enough detail so that Babblers can better understand what the policy is there for?
-If you are willing to consider making changes, how would you like to get posters' input and to discuss changes? Some ideas: we could continue to post to a thread, and perhaps someone could periodically summarize ideas so that none get lost and the conversation has some structure to it. (This might help you in replying if info is summarized into one post now and then. Or, we could put together a "task force" or committee who can formulate ideas and proposals, put out those agreed upon to the group for comment, etc. Or the deputies and you can discuss it, although we have in the past without much consensus.
Any other ideas?
gg
Posted by muffled on June 14, 2006, at 15:08:58
In reply to Re: the power to hurt, posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2006, at 9:40:02
> What I hear is that posters feel (1) hurt and angry when their friends are hurt (for example, by being blocked) and (2) powerless when I insist on doing something they're opposed to. Is that close?***Well.... not really. Hey this reflecting stuff is cool. Its not just about FEELINGS. Feelings are merely signals that something else is going on (ha, my T would be dancing if she could read that!). Go beyond them and see what we are getting at. WHY the feelings come up.
Think on that one, and GG posted a good post.
Thanks.
Y'know for a p-doc you sure are missing the boat. mebbe you should come talk to me Bob. I'll straighten you out. HA!
> > Are you willing to reconsider this block?
> >
> > Jake
>
> Yes, but my mind hasn't been changed yet. And I think it's kind of moot now.
>
> Bob***IT IS NOT MOOT. You could lift it now. You could say sorry, maybe I shouldn't have been so stuck on rules. You could say I AM REALY open to change, or NOT as the case may be)
I wish I could understand you better... :-(
It don't SEEM like you so bad....
But I just dunno....
Muffled
Posted by AuntieMel on June 14, 2006, at 16:54:44
In reply to What folks have been saying/ideas for using info » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on June 14, 2006, at 13:47:36
Well, I think another thing about Estella's block is that she tried to rephrase. But she ended up saying the same thing, with lot's more explanation.
And she also said she wasn't wanting to put anyone down, and that it was only her opinion.
It just doesn't seem fair to block someone who is trying.
Posted by Jakeman on June 14, 2006, at 19:55:26
In reply to Re: the power to hurt, posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2006, at 9:40:02
>
> Yes, but my mind hasn't been changed yet. And I think it's kind of moot now.
>
> BobPretty much sounds like a NO. I guess, I'm not sure. And what makes it moot?
warm regards, Jake
Posted by henrietta on June 14, 2006, at 20:08:52
In reply to What folks have been saying/ideas for using info » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on June 14, 2006, at 13:47:36
Consistency, lack of bias, attention. These are some of the qualities gravely lacking, and frequently and passionately requested. Do it right or don't do it bobster..
Posted by henrietta on June 14, 2006, at 20:17:04
In reply to Re: What folks have been saying/ideas for using info, posted by henrietta on June 14, 2006, at 20:08:52
RESPECT. I think it boils down to that, bob. You demonstrate a marked lack of respect. Inexcusable.
Posted by Tamar on June 15, 2006, at 5:45:06
In reply to Re: truly massive thread, posted by Dr. Bob on June 12, 2006, at 4:56:10
> I think that's a better way of putting it, I have power and you're vulnerable. Which I know can be scary.
>
> BobI don't know about others, but it's only scary to me when power appears to be exercised capriciously.
Posted by Jakeman on June 17, 2006, at 1:30:23
In reply to Re: the power to hurt » Dr. Bob, posted by muffled on June 14, 2006, at 15:08:58
Dr. Bob, would you reconsider this block on Estella? Again, why is it moot?
warm regards, Jake
> > What I hear is that posters feel (1) hurt and angry when their friends are hurt (for example, by being blocked) and (2) powerless when I insist on doing something they're opposed to. Is that close?
>
> ***Well.... not really. Hey this reflecting stuff is cool. Its not just about FEELINGS. Feelings are merely signals that something else is going on (ha, my T would be dancing if she could read that!). Go beyond them and see what we are getting at. WHY the feelings come up.
> Think on that one, and GG posted a good post.
> Thanks.
> Y'know for a p-doc you sure are missing the boat. mebbe you should come talk to me Bob. I'll straighten you out. HA!
>
> > > Are you willing to reconsider this block?
> > >
> > > Jake
> >
> > Yes, but my mind hasn't been changed yet. And I think it's kind of moot now.
> >
> > Bob
>
> ***IT IS NOT MOOT. You could lift it now. You could say sorry, maybe I shouldn't have been so stuck on rules. You could say I AM REALY open to change, or NOT as the case may be)
> I wish I could understand you better... :-(
> It don't SEEM like you so bad....
> But I just dunno....
> Muffled
>
>
Posted by curtm on June 17, 2006, at 17:07:55
In reply to 6th request for a determination, Dr. Bob » muffled, posted by Jakeman on June 17, 2006, at 1:30:23
Jakeman-
I think what Dr. Bob is trying to say is "what WE think is moot." (We being an obvious majority of opinion.)
That being said in itself is moot too, now isn't it?
Posted by Dinah on June 17, 2006, at 17:47:07
In reply to 6th request for a determination, Dr. Bob » muffled, posted by Jakeman on June 17, 2006, at 1:30:23
Didn't he say he reconsidered based on the information presented, but wasn't convinced that it was the right thing to reverse it?
I think that means, yes I reconsidered, but in the absence of additional information, the reconsidered answer is no.
So I think if you want him to reconsider again, you'd have to come up with new arguments, or restate the old ones in a way he finds more convincing.
I'm not commenting as myself here. I'm just trying to interpret Bob-ese.
Posted by Jakeman on June 18, 2006, at 13:13:35
In reply to Re: 6th request for a determination, Dr. Bob » Jakeman, posted by Dinah on June 17, 2006, at 17:47:07
> Didn't he say he reconsidered based on the information presented, but wasn't convinced that it was the right thing to reverse it?
>
> I think that means, yes I reconsidered, but in the absence of additional information, the reconsidered answer is no.
>
> So I think if you want him to reconsider again, you'd have to come up with new arguments, or restate the old ones in a way he finds more convincing.
>
> I'm not commenting as myself here. I'm just trying to interpret Bob-ese.He said his mind hasn't been changed yet and that it's mostly a moot point. I'm not sure what that means. I suspect there's some pride involved. But what do I know.
Thanks for your interpretation.
Jake
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 20, 2006, at 22:26:19
In reply to 6th request for a determination, Dr. Bob » muffled, posted by Jakeman on June 17, 2006, at 1:30:23
> I wanted to add my tweaks, box of salt included.
>
> 1) I don't think it's just about when a friend is blocked. I think it can be about any block regardless of whether the person is a friend or not.
> 2) I think powerless is correct. But also perhaps devalued, because I believe that many do not feel as if their questions are adequately addressed in your replies.Thanks for the tweaks. Any suggestions on how to address questions better?
> And I would add 3) Many are not happy with the blocking policy in general.
Sure, but I see that as related to 1) and 2)...
> -Are even you willing to give serious and thoughtful consideration to making more changes to the blocking policy?
Of course!
> -If you are not willing to make any changes at this time, would you consider spelling out in some detail the purposes, intents, and goals of the blocking policy in enough detail so that Babblers can better understand what the policy is there for?
The goal is to have it be supportive here. What kinds of details would people like?
> -If you are willing to consider making changes, how would you like to get posters' input and to discuss changes? Some ideas: we could continue to post to a thread, and perhaps someone could periodically summarize ideas so that none get lost and the conversation has some structure to it. (This might help you in replying if info is summarized into one post now and then. Or, we could put together a "task force" or committee who can formulate ideas and proposals, put out those agreed upon to the group for comment, etc. Or the deputies and you can discuss it, although we have in the past without much consensus.
>
> ggAny of those would be fine. :-)
Maybe a related issue is that of a more democratic structure?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/425076.html
I think one's evolving, but change is slow...
--
> Dr. Bob, would you reconsider this block on Estella? Again, why is it moot?
>
> JakeRegarding reconsidering, see Dinah's excellent translation:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060525/msgs/658093.html
I think it's kind of moot because she was blocked again:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060525/msgs/654732.html
after the block being discussed:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060417/msgs/646629.html
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 20, 2006, at 22:26:37
In reply to How naive » Dr. Bob, posted by curtm on June 14, 2006, at 10:26:36
> How naïve
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Jakeman on June 20, 2006, at 22:47:56
In reply to Re: please be civil » curtm, posted by Dr. Bob on June 20, 2006, at 22:26:37
>It is about 1) the fact that WE don't find the original content lacking civility, and 2) the >judgement/punishment for civlity violations is inconsistent.
>What I hear is that you just don't get it.
I see a communication problem here. Dr. Bob I don't think you ever addressed the reasons why the numerous objections to this block have no merit. The FAQ? What part?
warm regards, Jake
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 20, 2006, at 22:49:18
In reply to Re: What folks have been saying, posted by Dr. Bob on June 20, 2006, at 22:26:19
> Maybe a related issue is that of a more democratic structure?
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/425076.html
>
> I think one's evolving, but change is slow...So long as you retain veto, there is no democracy, Bob. It seems half the folk just simply wait on you to pronounce judgment, and then try to figure out what the heck you were thinking.
It can't evolve until you say it can. Please do not speak in riddles.
Lar
Posted by curtm on June 20, 2006, at 22:54:36
In reply to Re: What folks have been saying » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on June 20, 2006, at 22:49:18
Maybe a related issue is that of a more democratic structure?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/425076.html
I think one's evolving, but change is slow...
Posted by Dinah on June 20, 2006, at 23:10:16
In reply to Re: What folks have been saying » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on June 20, 2006, at 22:49:18
Just to clarify, are you suggesting that Dr. Bob give up veto power on Babble?
The name is associated with him, through his copyright (per the bottom of each page it says that anyway). And he pays the costs associated with the site.
I wouldn't give up veto power while my name was associated with the site and while I was paying the bills if I were Dr. Bob.
Or did I completely misunderstand, which seems more than possible - especially today. Misunderstanding seems to be my middle name today. And I can't even blame the meds.
Posted by Jakeman on June 20, 2006, at 23:41:28
In reply to It's not 2004 anymore Dr. Bob..., posted by curtm on June 20, 2006, at 22:54:36
I have ADD and have trouble reading thru all these threads. It's highly frustrating and I won't be back often. BUT...it's just amazing to me though that someone would be blocked for four weeks for saying:
"I think the world would be a better place without religion."
"i believe the world would be a better place if people appealed to natural rather than supernatural explanations."
It is a VALID OPINION based on HER OWN personal beliefs, not directed at anyone, and she herself is being treated uncivily because (i.e. a moderator) made a unilateral judgement that her statement is uncivil. It devalues her and makes the block uncivil in itself.
She didn't say Jane X or anyone else is an *sshole. That's uncivil
good grief! let's be reasonable!!!
Bob will you respond to this or are you going to let it get lost in the ongoing threads?
Jake
Someone mentioned he needed more evidence or arguments. Am I pissing in the wind?
Posted by muffled on June 20, 2006, at 23:46:50
In reply to Re: What folks have been saying » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on June 20, 2006, at 23:10:16
> Just to clarify, are you suggesting that Dr. Bob give up veto power on Babble?
>
> The name is associated with him, through his copyright (per the bottom of each page it says that anyway). And he pays the costs associated with the site.
>
> I wouldn't give up veto power while my name was associated with the site and while I was paying the bills if I were Dr. Bob.
>
> Or did I completely misunderstand, which seems more than possible - especially today. Misunderstanding seems to be my middle name today. And I can't even blame the meds.***I agree with you Dinah, I too feel Bob should have final veto. The prob seems to be that he doesn't listen to us when so many of agree on something. He just won't back down. So we have NO power. NONE. ZIP. ZERO.
I understand that there needs to some restarints, its just the restraints are too capricious and rather unrealistic at times, and that causes alot of dissention and fear.
Hey, and don't be so hard on yourself.
I like you Dinah.
You OK.
Muffled
Posted by muffled on June 20, 2006, at 23:50:07
In reply to Re: What folks have been saying, posted by Dr. Bob on June 20, 2006, at 22:26:19
>Thanks for the tweaks. Any suggestions on how to address questions better?
****Bless your heart I'm sure your a busy man, but maybe answers that are more than one line??????????
> And I would add 3) Many are not happy with the blocking policy in general.
>Sure, but I see that as related to 1) and 2)...*****1.friend thing 2. powerlessness
Gaaaaaackkkkkkkkkk. Manoman you are @#$%. YES, we FEEL hurt and distressed for our friends, and we FEEL powerless. WHEN we(or they) are blocked.HOWEVER its not JUST that. Bob you seem to be fixated on that particular aspect of it.
>The goal is to have it be supportive here.
****We also feel FEAR, that we MAY be blocked, over something relatively trivial, at the whim of Bob.You can go online and make a post and be shocked to find your blocked over a stupid word that noone actually cares about(for example). That doesn't make me feel supported. We DO try to support each other, and WE are very often willing to give the person the benefit of the doubt on alot of stuff, cuz we are TRYING TO BE SUPPORTIVE. We know how much blocks hurt. Alot of people here have problems with self esteem, abandonment, rejection etc, and I REALLY don't think blocking is always the answer. Some of the blocks have been ridiculous and we have TRIED so HARD to try and help you to understand, but you don't :-(
We are human, we will have moments, we will err, but blocking should ONLY be for serious OBVIOUSLY harmful interactions. "Lighter" infractions, for want of a better word, should just be warned. Give the person some time to backpeddal and understand their error and LEARN. Blocking teaches by FEAR. Many of us have learned too much about being obedient thru fear. IT IS WRONG. We should be given correction in kinder ways, and if we are still creating HAVOC, THEN a block is in order. More pbc's AS NEEDED only, and WAY, WAY, less blocks.>Maybe a related issue is that of a more democratic structure?
***We have spoken, time and again, but Bob doesn't hear us :-(
No democracy. See this post:http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060525/msgs/658093.html
We presented all our info, but it didn't matter. Bob doesn't hear or understand. Bob wanted MORE, or no reconsidering. We said it all, what more could we say? No democracy. Alex was blocked cuz she was spazzing bout blocks, they were freaking her and she was getting no response from Bob and she was escalating in utter frustration.
Can you let us in on why the one liners?
Can you tell us or point us in the direction of info on better ways of communicating with you that you will understand better?
Do you tend to respond more to anger, or kindness?(I'd say the first, which is pretty human of you)
I'm just tired and at a loss right now......
Bob I want to beleive your an ok guy....but sometimes I get back to feeling like a lab rat being observed as it responds to various stimuli :-(
Thanks anyways.
Muffled
Posted by Tamar on June 21, 2006, at 5:07:12
In reply to Re: What folks have been saying, posted by Dr. Bob on June 20, 2006, at 22:26:19
> I think it's kind of moot because she was blocked again:
I would agree with you if I thought this were an issue of authority.
But I think it is an issue of justice. If the first block is in fact unjust, then it should be revoked, regardless of whether she was blocked again.
And that’s why I still think it’s worth talking about the first block. The issue of whether it was appropriate still seems to be a question in the minds of many people in this community.
Furthermore, the current block was doubled to 8 weeks because the earlier block had been four weeks. It seems to me that if the initial four week block turns out to be unjust, then the 8 week block should be reduced to four weeks (and I think most of that time has been served).
If you’re able to respond to this I’d really appreciate it.
Tamar
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 21, 2006, at 6:12:32
In reply to Re: What folks have been saying » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on June 20, 2006, at 23:10:16
> Just to clarify, are you suggesting that Dr. Bob give up veto power on Babble?
I'm certain you misunderstood.
I can recall many posts of his, explicitly stating that this place is not a democracy. All of the deputies must defer to him. We must wait upon him, until he comes around again. He doesn't even schedule things, to make sure people are around at the right time. Because it doesn't matter. It's his sandbox.
For him to suggest that a democracy is evolving is false. It cannot be so, unless he's made decisions that he hasn't even bothered to inform us of. Which is another problem he seems prone to creating.
> The name is associated with him, through his copyright (per the bottom of each page it says that anyway). And he pays the costs associated with the site.
It can be his democracy, too. That issue is not germane.
> I wouldn't give up veto power while my name was associated with the site and while I was paying the bills if I were Dr. Bob.
Which is as much as saying you know this isn't a democracy, isn't it?
> Or did I completely misunderstand, which seems more than possible - especially today. Misunderstanding seems to be my middle name today. And I can't even blame the meds.If it was a democracy..... If *only* it was a democracy....
Dinah, this is not intended to be any kind of a slight, to you, or to other deputies. Bob carefully selects people who become his acolytes. People who can weigh the posts here, not in terms of the rule as written, but in terms of how he has applied the rule. With no regard to what is written.
The problem is, it presumes that all posters know of, have read, understood, and recalled all the minor and major variations in what I have collectively called Bobjectivity. The FAQ is largely a waste of effort, as it stands now.
Try and explain the Do Not Post rule, as if you were going to create a complete description of it, for an interested newbie. And then, compare *that* description to the FAQ.
This is not a democracy, here. It is an oligarchy.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 21, 2006, at 6:17:00
In reply to Is it moot? » Dr. Bob, posted by Tamar on June 21, 2006, at 5:07:12
> Furthermore, the current block was doubled to 8 weeks because the earlier block had been four weeks. It seems to me that if the initial four week block turns out to be unjust, then the 8 week block should be reduced to four weeks (and I think most of that time has been served).
That may be the end of the administrative part. But it isn't the end, in a truly civil environment. She deserves an apology. She deserves reparations, for unjust suffering.
Correcting the administrative part is admitting a mistake was made. That's only a part of the job.
Lar
Posted by Dinah on June 21, 2006, at 8:16:17
In reply to Re: What folks have been saying » Dinah, posted by Larry Hoover on June 21, 2006, at 6:12:32
> Which is as much as saying you know this isn't a democracy, isn't it?
Of *course* I know it's not a democracy.
I wouldn't stay here if it were a democracy. I like having Dr. Bob run the place. I've never made any secret of that.
Posted by Dinah on June 21, 2006, at 9:27:31
In reply to Re: What folks have been saying » Dinah, posted by Larry Hoover on June 21, 2006, at 6:12:32
> Dinah, this is not intended to be any kind of a slight, to you, or to other deputies. Bob carefully selects people who become his acolytes. People who can weigh the posts here, not in terms of the rule as written, but in terms of how he has applied the rule. With no regard to what is written.
And this is wrong because? Even the judiciary considers prior case law as well as the written word. And we're not the judiciary. We're not part of an oligarchy. We're not moderators. We're deputies. Which means that we are limited to applying Bob's rules as Bob would have them applied.
I don't think that makes us acolytes.
I am truly, deeply saddened. I have long stood your friend, on board and off. I have protested blocks that I did not think were proportionate, I have lobbied for leniency when I thought the rules had been properly applied. I have steadfastly refused to take sides in any disagreements between two or more of my friends, even to risking the friendship. While I empathize with feelings, I also emphasize that I consider all parties a friend. I am very sad when I read "acolyte" and "oligarchy" under any conditions. Today, I am more sad than usual.
> This is not a democracy, here. It is an oligarchy.
>
> Lar
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.