![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 52. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by morgan miller on December 19, 2010, at 0:23:32
I'm curious as to why you did not give me a bit more time to say "the right thing" and properly rephrase what I originally said where you blocked me on the Faith board. I did respond and I do not believe my last response was a defiant one. I simply stated why I said what I said.
I understand that when I said "sad attempt" that is phrasing was not the best way to express my thoughts. I realize why it may have been interpreted as uncivil. What I am not sure I understand fully is why the use of the word patronize was thought of as uncivil. I mean, I think I do understand it, but I don't see why it was really that out of line as I believe that you were patronizing Christ_Empowered in the thread. Ed even came along and went to bat for me agreeing that what I said was the truth.
I do understand that you want to follow specific guidelines that will maintain civility on this forum. What I'm not sure I understand is your interpretation of these guidelines in all the cases of enforcement. You said to me "please don't say anything that may lead someone to feel accused or put down, and that includes me(you, Dr. Bob). The problem I have with this is that is that people here on the administration board say things all the time that could easily make you feel accused or put down. The thread Scott started above is a good example. Now, I realize that he very eloquently expressed his feelings in a very careful way, using words that were not blatantly derogatory. I realize that I did not do this. Still, everything he said was pretty much a personal attack on specific ways that you are running this site. Every complaint about you here on the Admin board is a personal attack that could lead you to feel accused or put down. So, was it the uncivil wording I used that got me blocked, or was it the content of what I said that could lead you to feel accused or put down? I hope it was primarily the uncivil wording. I hope that if I had worded things perfectly, and the content was the same, that I would not have been blocked and you would have just redirected my post to this board.
Morgan
Posted by muffled on December 19, 2010, at 11:35:50
In reply to To Dr. Bob, posted by morgan miller on December 19, 2010, at 0:23:32
It saves time and adds much clarity.
I am interested as this is related to one of the major sticking points to people here.
Block confusion....
Sorry you got blocked.
M
Posted by morgan miller on December 19, 2010, at 14:04:07
In reply to can you supply links to the things you refer to? » morgan miller, posted by muffled on December 19, 2010, at 11:35:50
Yeah I meant to do that, my bad. Here's the entire thread:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20100403/msgs/967761.html
Posted by Maxime on December 19, 2010, at 16:33:54
In reply to To Dr. Bob, posted by morgan miller on December 19, 2010, at 0:23:32
I hope that if I had worded things perfectly, and the content was the same, that I would not have been blocked and you would have just redirected my post to this board.
>
> MorganThe above is the part that scares me ... wording it perfectly. I have learned that wording phrases perfectly on this site is near impossible. I feel that no matter what I write that it could be taken the wrong way. Two or three words in a post could be misconstrued and "BAM" you are gone.
Sometimes it is not possible to re-word something without losing the meaning and the passion you want you your post to have. Even punctuation can give a sentence different meaning. I correct English/Communication papers all week for an undergraduate program as well as their final exams. I am always tempted to replace some of their words because it is grammatically correct. But I have to be careful because sometimes by changing one word, I can change the idea they were trying to get across. It's not easy.
Posted by morgan miller on December 19, 2010, at 21:15:46
In reply to Re: To Dr. Bob » morgan miller, posted by Maxime on December 19, 2010, at 16:33:54
> I hope that if I had worded things perfectly, and the content was the same, that I would not have been blocked and you would have just redirected my post to this board.
> >
> > Morgan
>
> The above is the part that scares me ... wording it perfectly. I have learned that wording phrases perfectly on this site is near impossible. I feel that no matter what I write that it could be taken the wrong way. Two or three words in a post could be misconstrued and "BAM" you are gone.
>
> Sometimes it is not possible to re-word something without losing the meaning and the passion you want you your post to have. Even punctuation can give a sentence different meaning. I correct English/Communication papers all week for an undergraduate program as well as their final exams. I am always tempted to replace some of their words because it is grammatically correct. But I have to be careful because sometimes by changing one word, I can change the idea they were trying to get across. It's not easy.I agree, it is not easy. There must be more flexibility used in the enforcement of the rules here. Or there needs to be a change in the rules. Whatever it is, some type of adjustment should be made in my opinion.
What amazes me about you Dr. Bob is doing here is that being a doctor, you would think he understood that it can take people a very long time to learn to communicate their feelings in the best most productive manner.
Dr. Bob, people go to group therapy to learn how to better communicate with others, how do you expect everyone that comes here to be equipped to do so?
If people that are in a stable healthy state of mind struggle with the ability to communicate properly, how do you expect people that are not in a stable healthy state of mind to learn to always communicate properly here on Babble?
Posted by muffled on December 19, 2010, at 23:07:22
In reply to Re: can you supply links to the things you refer to?, posted by morgan miller on December 19, 2010, at 14:04:07
> Yeah I meant to do that, my bad. Here's the entire thread:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20100403/msgs/967761.html
>
>This is the sort of thing that flips me out. I can see NOTHING wrong in christempowered post?!
Is noone entitled to ANY opinion whatsoever????
It was a mildly stated thing.
OMG this is SO stupid.
THIS is why the posting is down Bob DO YOU NOT SEE THIS?????
WTF????
:(
Posted by muffled on December 19, 2010, at 23:15:15
In reply to Re: can you supply links to the things you refer to?, posted by morgan miller on December 19, 2010, at 14:04:07
I know you been working hard to try and make this place better. But this is a classic example. And you can bet your butt that Bob will NOT change his mind, never has before.
Thats why I can't be here. Cuz I fully DO NOT understand Bob, and the fact that a person can share some of who they are, expose some of themselves, and then get it thrown in thier faces that they are somehow bad, that they are bad.....OMG, this is SO theraputically WRONG on SO many levels. And I know this isn't therapy, but I thot it was sposed to be a 'safe' place to share...Well I GUESS NOT.
I mean its wrong on ANY level..
I so wish there was something to be done....
But honestly....
Posted by Solstice on December 19, 2010, at 23:31:02
In reply to Again, the ridiculous.... :( W T F ??????, posted by muffled on December 19, 2010, at 23:07:22
> > Yeah I meant to do that, my bad. Here's the entire thread:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20100403/msgs/967761.html
> >
> >
>
> This is the sort of thing that flips me out. I can see NOTHING wrong in christempowered post?!
> Is noone entitled to ANY opinion whatsoever????
> It was a mildly stated thing.
> OMG this is SO stupid.
> THIS is why the posting is down Bob DO YOU NOT SEE THIS?????
> WTF????
> :(
Muff - It didn't sound to me like Bob had a problem with CE stating his opinion. I think it was just *how* he stated it that prompted Bob to ask him to rephrase. And personally, I wouldn't have perceived CE's reference to anti-psychiatry as uncivil, but it may have been the 'hogwash' word that tipped the scale.. because in the original post it sounded like those who are anti-psychiatry are believing in 'hogwash'And thing is - CE handled it all with a lot of decorum. He could have reacted as if he felt picked on, but he didn't. He could have acted offended and spouted off about the extraordinarily low threshhold in this situation, but he didn't. He was a gentleman every step of the way. So in the end, Muff - it was CE who came out of it looking exceptional. Bob's low threshhold didn't harm Christempowered at all. His reaction to that low threshhold made him look like a prince, in my eyes.
Just wanted to offer another persepctive..
Solstice
ps - and Muff - you have pointed out that warnings (before blocks) are important. And they are. I think Bob's rephrase requests are like warnings. So it might be important to recognize that Bob may be giving warnings warnings that aren't recognized as warnings.
Posted by Solstice on December 19, 2010, at 23:45:21
In reply to Solstice :( I lose hope, posted by muffled on December 19, 2010, at 23:15:15
Muffled - I understand why it feels to you like Bob is telling Christempowered that he's 'bad.' But I don't think Bob was trying to send that kind of message. I think it's really hard for those of us who have spent a big chunk of our lives on the receiving end of a lot of condemnation, judgment, rejection, and our trying to figure out what kind of dance we have to do to make our abusers happy. That creates in us an automatic response to an authority figure suggesting that we need to do something a little better - we end up 'hearing' them telling us that we are bad and worthless - can't do anything right. I know this struggle Muffled, because I have walked that road. It takes a long time to believe that it's even possible for someone to say we need to do something better, and for them to not mean that we are bad. First you have to begin to believe it yourself - that it is perfectly okay to make mistakes - even a lot of mistakes - and it does not mean that you are 'bad.'
Just give it some thought. Try to read through the dialogue between CE and Bob.and try to 'hear' Bob saying "CE, you're a great guy, but this thing you said about anti-psychiatry and hogwash might make someone who is very anti-psychiatry feel like he's not welcome. I'm worried about them feeling bad. Can you rephrase your opinion in a way that wouldn't make an anti-psychiatry person feel bad about themselves?" Maybe if you can say that in your head as you read it, you'll be able to see it from a perspective that doesn't feel so threatening to you.
Take good care, Muff
Solstice.
> I know you been working hard to try and make this place better. But this is a classic example. And you can bet your butt that Bob will NOT change his mind, never has before.
> Thats why I can't be here. Cuz I fully DO NOT understand Bob, and the fact that a person can share some of who they are, expose some of themselves, and then get it thrown in thier faces that they are somehow bad, that they are bad.....OMG, this is SO theraputically WRONG on SO many levels. And I know this isn't therapy, but I thot it was sposed to be a 'safe' place to share...Well I GUESS NOT.
> I mean its wrong on ANY level..
> I so wish there was something to be done....
> But honestly....
Posted by morgan miller on December 19, 2010, at 23:56:34
In reply to Re: Again, the ridiculous.... :( W T F ?????? » muffled, posted by Solstice on December 19, 2010, at 23:31:02
>And thing is - CE handled it all with a lot of decorum. He could have reacted as if he felt picked on, but he didn't. He could have acted offended and spouted off about the extraordinarily low threshhold in this situation, but he didn't.
But CE did express in later in the thread that what Bob was doing did make him uncomfortable. So, I believe that CE did feel picked on, despite handling the situation with such grace. You can see how this would not be a good thing-one for a member to be made to feel uncomfortable and possibly picked on, and two, to not feel like it may be worth expressing they felt this way.
I feel like you make many excuses for Dr. Bob.
I like Bob, from what I know of him, I just think he's making some mistakes in the way he is running his site. And for someone like Scott to come on here and express his concern of the way things are being run, there must be something to it.
Posted by morgan miller on December 20, 2010, at 0:05:45
In reply to Re: Solstice :( I lose hope » muffled, posted by Solstice on December 19, 2010, at 23:45:21
>Muffled - I understand why it feels to you like Bob is telling Christempowered that he's 'bad.'
That's not it. It's the unrelenting "schooling" that was going on that I felt(and I believe others did as well) was disrespectful and unnecessary, whether Crist_Empowered felt bad during it or not.
>Just give it some thought. Try to read through the dialogue between CE and Bob.and try to 'hear' Bob saying "CE, you're a great guy, but this thing you said about anti-psychiatry and hogwash might make someone who is very anti-psychiatry feel like he's not welcome. I'm worried about them feeling bad. Can you rephrase your opinion in a way that wouldn't make an anti-psychiatry person feel bad about themselves?" Maybe if you can say that in your head as you read it, you'll be able to see it from a perspective that doesn't feel so threatening to you.
But that isn't how Bob said it. Is this how you think it should have been approached? If it is, then you must disagree with how Bob approached it.
Posted by morgan miller on December 20, 2010, at 0:30:29
In reply to Re: Solstice :( I lose hope, posted by morgan miller on December 20, 2010, at 0:05:45
Technically to me, this thread was an example of patronizing. The way Dr. Bob communicates is not always done with any warmth. It's hard to communicate with warmth anyway on the internet when we are just dealing with written text. I also don't think Dr. Bob wants to communicate and probably should not communicate with a certain warmth, friendliness or emotion as he is in charge of running babble and enforcing the rules. I compare this to a police officer that is on the job or a therapist or psychiatrist. There is a line that has to be drawn, a distance that has to be maintained. So, it would make sense that Bob's way of communicating things to a member when trying to get them to rephrase something in a more civil way would sound more like patronizing, as opposed to two friends sitting side by side having a conversation about the same matter. Since Bob is seen as a sort of superior here, and there is a feeling of distance between he and the members, I had no other way of describing his actions as being patronizing.
I simply trying to explain why when I felt the need to jump in and defend Christ_Empowered, I used the word "patronize" and could not think of another word to use. I know I could have left the word patronize out, but I would have still essentially said the same thing. Has it reached a point where we can't use the best word to describe what we saw because someone may be offended by the use of that word?
I'm kinda feeling a 1984 vibe here. I'm sure others have already expressed their concerns over having to watch out for big brother.
Posted by muffled on December 20, 2010, at 1:23:48
In reply to Re: can you supply links to the things you refer to?, posted by morgan miller on December 19, 2010, at 14:04:07
> Yeah I meant to do that, my bad. Here's the entire thread:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20100403/msgs/967761.html
>
>"One of those view points I know have to assess as a believer is psychiatry. Before I knew Christ, I either accepted everything my shrinks told me, or I rejected it all b/c of some sort of Thomas Szasz+Goffman+Foucault-inspired "anti-psychiatry" hogwash."
This is the offending paragraph...
I still absolutely do not get the problem here? He was just expressing his opposing WITHIN HIMSELF views.
"I" either accepted vs "I" rejected-and he explained the why of the rejection.
Again....WHERE is this negative to anyone in any strong way worthy of intervention????
He was talking bout he felt about stuff.
If nayone wanted to counter it, judging by his response to Bob, chances are he(CE) would have handled it with grace.I think stuff like this is SO trivial and so triggering here. because yeah, it IS frightening, its un-undertandable.
IMHO, nothing should have been said at all about it unless someone had a prob, and then they could have addressed it. Then perhaps a thoughtful and enlightening communication could have occured.(and if it went bad, THEN consider stepping in....but it wasn't even a PROBLEM as far as I can tell...)
As it stands now.....manoman, what CAN we say???
Its SO restrictive here.
And confusing.
Cuz truly, I just DO NOT understand.I tend to figger people got good intentions unless proven otherwise.
Give people a chance to rise above, then maybe they will.
But you keep batting them down, often inexplicably....well what chance do they have? They just gonna not say as much or go away.
And I know Bob doesn't care if people go away, he has stated that repeately.
But at what result.....a rather stagnant babble....
Posted by Solstice on December 20, 2010, at 6:51:15
In reply to Re: Again, the ridiculous.... :( W T F ??????, posted by morgan miller on December 19, 2010, at 23:56:34
> >And thing is - CE handled it all with a lot of decorum. He could have reacted as if he felt picked on, but he didn't. He could have acted offended and spouted off about the extraordinarily low threshhold in this situation, but he didn't.
>
> But CE did express in later in the thread that what Bob was doing did make him uncomfortable. So, I believe that CE did feel picked on, despite handling the situation with such grace.Yes - and that's my whole point. CE's graceful response is not a sign that what he was being graceful about was justified. CE's grace despite the questionable legitimacy of the request to rephrase is what makes him 10 feet tall.
> You can see how this would not be a good thing-one for a member to be made to feel uncomfortable and possibly picked on,I agree - and we probably all harbor a secret hope for a utopia where no one ever feels uncomfortable. Unfortunately, the reality is that until we breathe our last breath, discomfort, inequity, pain, injustice... it's all part of the human condition and I don't think there's a person alive who hasn't felt each of those. I wondered for a minute if living on an island alone would relive discomfort, but loneliness isn't a particularly good way to feel either. I don't know that Bob can be held responsible for the human condition. Anyway - I don't think Bob intended to pick on CE or make him feel picked on or uncomfortable. And I don't think my saying so is making an excuse for Bob, anymore than my saying I personally would not have tagged CE's statement as in need of rephrasing means that I'm making excuse for CE. I'm just sharing my view.
> and two, to not feel like it may be worth expressing they felt this way.I really can see that one could be left feeling exactly that. But if we really look at the whole discourse - I still don't see Bob trying to get CE to express no opinion, or a different opinion. What CE was expressing was fine - and Bob didn't indicate otherwise. He just wanted that opinion expressed in a way that didn't imply that it was 'hogwash' to be in the anti-psychiatry camp.
> I feel like you make many excuses for Dr. Bob.:-) Sometimes I worry about it looking like that - but I give Bob enough of a hard time that I doubt *he* thinks excuses are being made for him (by me anyway).
> I like Bob, from what I know of him, I just think he's making some mistakes in the way he is running his site.And I really don't think even Bob would argue with that. There's no way for him to run this site without making mistakes. Anyone running a site like this would make mistakes, including me.. and including you. That's where we have to understand that it might be our expectation that needs to be reviewed. It does not matter who is running the site, or what their 'rules' for it are. It is not possible to satisfy everyone's idea of the best way to run it. Utopia is.. well.. it's utopia. It doesn't exist. So a more satisfying way to take in the human factor is to just let it be imperfect. It's imperfect because it's full of a bunch of imperfect people, and run by an imperfect administrator. It's probably not realistic to expect it to be anything other than... imperfect.
> And for someone like Scott to come on here and express his concern of the way things are being run, there must be something to it.Let me tell you - Scott is probably one of the smartest and most balanced people I've ever encountered. He's a rare bird, that's for sure. His concerns are on-point and fair - and are a genuine wake up call. However, I'd be surprised if Scott expects a perfectly run site. I think the reason the post you're referring to is such an aberration for Scott is because I'm guessing he knows perfection is not realistic. However - his powerful post is certainly a call for improvement - and I think that's what Bob is trying to achieve... imperfectly perhaps.. but I do think Bob cares about this site and wants it to be as civil, welcoming, and member-friendly as possible.
Solstice
Posted by Solstice on December 20, 2010, at 7:47:31
In reply to Re: can you supply links to the things you refer to?, posted by muffled on December 20, 2010, at 1:23:48
> > Yeah I meant to do that, my bad. Here's the entire thread:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20100403/msgs/967761.html
> >
> >
>
> "One of those view points I know have to assess as a believer is psychiatry. Before I knew Christ, I either accepted everything my shrinks told me, or I rejected it all b/c of some sort of Thomas Szasz+Goffman+Foucault-inspired "anti-psychiatry" hogwash."
>
> This is the offending paragraph...
> I still absolutely do not get the problem here? He was just expressing his opposing WITHIN HIMSELF views.
> "I" either accepted vs "I" rejected-and he explained the why of the rejection.
> Again....WHERE is this negative to anyone in any strong way worthy of intervention????
> He was talking bout he felt about stuff.
> If nayone wanted to counter it, judging by his response to Bob, chances are he(CE) would have handled it with grace.No argument from me, Muff. I perceived CE's post just like you did.
> I think stuff like this is SO trivial and so triggering here. because yeah, it IS frightening, its un-undertandable.
> IMHO, nothing should have been said at all about it unless someone had a prob, and then they could have addressed it.You make a very insightful and legitimate point. Again - no argument from me.
> Then perhaps a thoughtful and enlightening communication could have occured.(and if it went bad, THEN consider stepping in....but it wasn't even a PROBLEM as far as I can tell...)Another very insightful point, Muff.
> As it stands now.....manoman, what CAN we say???I think you can say pretty much anything - as long as in your saying it, you are civil toward other people and groups of people. Let's look for a minute at your posts, Muff. Every once in a while you cut Bob a (tiny) little slack :-), but for the most part - in your exquisitely endearing Muff-sort of way, you give Bobb a lot of grief! Whether you realize it or not - you have managed to express some pretty heavy criticisms, but you've done it without calling (or implying) Bob a jerk, an idiot, you-get-my-point. You talk about it being triggering here - without calling Bob an insuferable abuser. You talk about feeling unsafe here, without accusing Bob of trying to harm you. You talk about it being restrictive, and confusing - and about Bob being impossible for you to understand - and you do all of that without characterizing him in an uncivil way. Do you see that? How did you figure it out? Whether you realize it or not, though - you really do say a lot. How you feel about the current stateof the site is crystal clear - and also very civil. Now if you had a part that elbowed its way to the front and blurted out a string of incivilities - then you might find yourself being asked to rephrase. But it is very clear to me that Muffled is allowed to express her colossal dismay and upset at the mysterios and frustrating workings of Bob - very freely - as long as it's civil. He hasn't gotten in your way, Muff. As long as you keep doing it like you're doing it - I don't believe he will get in your way.
> I tend to figger people got good intentions unless proven otherwise.
> Give people a chance to rise above, then maybe they will.I admire that. A lot.
> But you keep batting them down, often inexplicably....well what chance do they have? They just gonna not say as much or go away.And Muff - here's where we run into the impact of your life experience. Bob is not batting them down. If you really look closely at it, I think you'll see that he's not telling them they can't express their opinion. He's not telling them that they can't express controversial opinions either. But he is demanding that when we express an opinion - or react to someone else's misbehavior - that we do it in a way that sometimes feels like walking a tightrope - in that it has to be very, very civil. I think the interesting thing about it is that when we have to work really hard at crafting it in a civil way, sometimes the side effect is that we end up 'feeling' more civil toward the people or group of people involved, ya know?
> And I know Bob doesn't care if people go away, he has stated that repeately.hmmmm.. I don't remember him saying he doesn't care if people go away. In fact, his rephrase requests, PBC's, blocks - all pretty much include his statement that he hopes they don't go away. I think what he's said is that he realizes that some people will go away as a result of civility guidelline enforcement. That's not the same as him not caring if people go away.
> But at what result.....a rather stagnant babble....
I dunno. That can be a matter of perception. I do think that a lot of Babble energy is eaten up by the legitimate outrage the community feels about unreasonably long blocks. And I think it is imperative that Bob address it. I also think things evolve. The community used to be much smaller and more intimate - and back in the day there was more of a feeling of privacy (even if there was no reason to feel that way). With the development of crisis issues like facebook/twitter and the upheaval it caused, there was marked shifts in the feeling members had about this place - especially the (perhaps unjustified) feeling of privacy here. So I don't know that it's stagnant - as much as it's first of all currently preooccupied with resolving the blocking issue, and secondly it's undergone an evolution of self-belief in that Babble used to see itself as small and relatively private, but now sees itself as accessible to huge numbers of people and very much NOT private.Just my tho'ts on the matter...
Solstice
Posted by Solstice on December 20, 2010, at 11:30:29
In reply to Re: Solstice :( I lose hope, posted by morgan miller on December 20, 2010, at 0:05:45
Hi Morgan -
I'm a little worried about how my response might be interpreted, so please let me just say that I am not directing this at *you* - as much as I'm trying to tease apart the myriad ways we understand things.
> >Muffled - I understand why it feels to you like Bob is telling Christempowered that he's 'bad.'
>
> That's not it.Here, I was speaking specifically to Muffled 'hearing' Bob's request that CE rephrase as a statement about CE being 'bad.' Muffled had some understandable righteous indignation at the idea of Bob implying CE was 'bad' because of CE's description of one end of the pendulum of his thinking as being to wholly subscribe to 'anti-psychiatry hogwash.' If Bob had told CE that he was 'bad' because of his way of describing his inner struggle - then I'd have probably pounced on Bob myself! Thing is - Bob did not say CE was 'bad.' He didn't even say that being in opposition to anti-psychiatry is 'bad.' He didn't even say that exactly what CE said was 'bad.' He just asked that CE rephrase it, because there could be someone reading the post who is a member here - or some random unsubscribed reader - who is anti-psychiatry, and using 'hogwash' to characterize their belief system might make them feel put down. So please know that in this case, I was only attempting to speak to how Bob's low-threshhold request to rephrase felt to Muffled. And Muffled's life experience plays a large role in why it felt this way to her. My goal was to give her another set of spectacles to see it through.
> It's the unrelenting "schooling" that was going onOk.. so the unrlenting schooling is offensive to you. I remember the word patronizing being used as well. I understand why it might feel like Bob is 'schooling' people. He's an administrator - so he has all the power. He also has a high level of education that only a relatively small percentage of the US population achieves. With that, he's got one of the most timeless and honored titles (Doctor) that one can carry in this country. In thr US we don't have English nobility titles to dilute the effect of someone being addressed as "Doctor so-&-so." Add on top of all that, the component that Bob is very directly instructing someone to take what they originally said, and say it again in a more acceptable manner. It is perfectly natural for an adult to feel diminished by this all-powerful (in Babbledom) Doctor Bob telling them to say something 'better.' I have had my own very long struggle with how to perceive authority-type figures. But I think it's important to remember that Bob has only a few words he uses to describe his intent for the site he created. One of them is 'education.' So in light of that, maybe those of us who choose to participate in the community should expect Bob to 'school' us somewhat. And another angle of it would be to recognize that if he didn't 'school' us - and just without-a-word slammed down the guillotine of a block, I think I would prefer to suffer thru a little 'schooling' :-)
> that I felt(and I believe others did as well) was disrespectful and unnecessary,You are the one who makes the call for yourself about whether it was disrespectful - and I think it feeling 'disrespectful' might be part-and-parcel of it feeling like being 'schooled' - but Bob's request - even if it is low-threshold - it wasn't disrespectful.
> whether Crist_Empowered felt bad during it or not.Well - I think we're in an area of really fuzzy edges here. Perceptions really are everything. And it helps a lot to be flexible enough to view Bob's administrative work as charitably as possible. And the really significant thing here is that it very likely did feel like 'schooling' (or worse) to CE - but he never missed a step in being gracious in his responsiveness. As a result - we got to watch a young man who struggles with uncertainties about his self-perception because of the judgmental small-town environment he grew up in - and he behaved like a prince in responding to something that was potentially a huge trigger. I hope Christempowered sees that about himself... sees himself as the 10-foot tall gracious young man that he was during that discourse.
> >Just give it some thought. Try to read through the dialogue between CE and Bob.and try to 'hear' Bob saying "CE, you're a great guy, but this thing you said about anti-psychiatry and hogwash might make someone who is very anti-psychiatry feel like he's not welcome. I'm worried about them feeling bad. Can you rephrase your opinion in a way that wouldn't make an anti-psychiatry person feel bad about themselves?" Maybe if you can say that in your head as you read it, you'll be able to see it from a perspective that doesn't feel so threatening to you.
>
> But that isn't how Bob said it.I intentionally did not use Bob's words. What I was providing there, was how *I* heard Bob's words. And that's my point - that when we get into the very fuzzy area of perceptions - we are each influenced by our very different life experiences - and we also have the ability to choose how we perceive things.
> Is this how you think it should have been approached? If it is, then you must disagree with how Bob approached it.I think this is one way it can be perceived. Bob is Bob, and he has his style of communicating. He tends to be brief, non-explanatory, and is often direct. His style can be annoying at times to some people. My style is quite opposite. I'm anything but brief :-) I tend to explain and re-explain. Sometimes I'm direct, but usually I take a long and winding road when I want to lead someone to an understanding of a concept I have in my head. I am well aware that my style can also be very annoying at times to some people. I think Bob approaches things as best as he can within his natural style of doing so. As long as he's not being uncivil, those of us on the receiving end are responsible for how we choose to 'hear' what he says. Those of us who still carry throbbing wounds of trauma will have a more difficult time 'hearing' Bob charitably because what he says gets filtered through the pain of the particular trauma we carry. I was recently intrigued by Dinah pointing out that she has little trouble with authority figures because she suffered more at the hands of peers than authority figures. My experience is opposite that. I have found a good place of healing with regard to my trauma - and it has been a very long and painful road. But because I have the memory of the past and my journey of healing is embedded in my marrow, it is very, very easy for me to see and relate to the difficulties I see here in how Bob is perceived through the wounding experiences of our trauma histories. I also know that crucial to the process of my own healing, was my therapist being able to gently keep leading me to other bins of water to drink from. I was suspicious of drinking - and I frequently refused to drink... at least while T was looking. But alone at night, my mind would replay the sights and sounds of those different bins of water, and I experimented - taking a sip here from this one - and a sip there from another one. Over time, I became comfortable - almost not even realizing that I was willingly accepting alternative ways of perceiving things. Before I knew it - I ended up with a reperatoire of perception options that were so helpful to me, that it became easier and easier to discard the perceptions that were borne of my trauma history. I'm not a therapist - but have had a spectacular one - and having internalized my therapist and my therapy - maybe it comes very natural to me to talk about the water bins I was led to that were cool, refershing, 'clean.' There's an endless supply of it - and I enjoy sharing it.
Solstice
Posted by alexandra_k on December 20, 2010, at 21:59:58
In reply to Re: Solstice :( I lose hope » morgan miller, posted by Solstice on December 20, 2010, at 11:30:29
It is interesting how the significant majority of his peers (since 'Dr' means so much to you) view his 'schooling'... Also interesting how the significant majority of professionals who used to be here have decided to move on.
If people don't appreciate it when Bob encourages them to consider their issues instead of considering his behavior I'm not sure why they would appreciate it any more when someone else attempts to do this for him...
Posted by Solstice on December 20, 2010, at 23:18:00
In reply to Re: Solstice :( I lose hope, posted by alexandra_k on December 20, 2010, at 21:59:58
Alex -
> It is interesting how the significant majority of his peers (since 'Dr' means so much to you) view his 'schooling'...And you know his peers well enough that they have discussed with you their views of his 'schooling?' (And it appears you are certain this 'significant majority' all have the same view?)
And you know me well enough to be certain what 'Dr' means to me? It's something I've discussed with you?
> Also interesting how the significant majority of professionals who used to be here have decided to move on.And these 'significant majority of professionals who used to be here' have personally discussed with you their reasons for moving on? And I suppose they all have the same reason?
> If people don't appreciate it when Bob encourages them to consider their issues instead of considering his behavior I'm not sure why they would appreciate it any more when someone else attempts to do this for him...Is that what I'm doing? You live inside my head and have personal knowledge of what I'm 'attempting to do'... and you are satisfied that your impression is fact?
I'd like to suggest that it might work better for you to make a bunch fewer assumptions about me, about where my heart is, and about what my motives are. If you want to know my motives, or what I'm trying to do - just ask me. No one appreciates being 'told' by a relative stranger what their motives are - especially when it's erroneous and negative. And although you are free to represent yourself, I don't know that you are qualified to represent others as having made the same erroenous assumptions you've made, and as having the same negative sentiment about me based on those erroneous assumptions.
And I'd like to ask you Alex - in your last clip there, how did you hope I would take it?
Solstice
*Tonight is the Winter Solstice*
Posted by violette on December 21, 2010, at 0:04:29
In reply to Re: Assumptions are presumptuous » alexandra_k, posted by Solstice on December 20, 2010, at 23:18:00
"Is that what I'm doing? You live inside my head and have personal knowledge of what I'm 'attempting to do'... I'd like to suggest that it might work better for you to make a bunch fewer assumptions about me, about where my heart is, and about what my motives are."
I can't be sure Soltice, but it sounds like what you said above about Alex's post, is what you said below about others' posts. Did it occur to you that some people here might view Bob as a forum administrator, rather than an 'authority figure' through childhood trauma lenses? And those who had no traumas...?
Not meant in a negative way, i just think sometimes you are my cognitive opposite, and i think it's interesting. Much of your stated thoughts - are the opposite of mine .I mean this in enteraining way (holiday stress can cause odd behavior sometimes)..Did you ever take Meyers Briggs? I'd guess ESTP...you describe things very concretely.
"Those of us who still carry throbbing wounds of trauma will have a more difficult time 'hearing' Bob charitably because what he says gets filtered through the pain of the particular trauma we carry....it is very, very easy for me to see and relate to the difficulties I see here in how Bob is perceived through the wounding experiences of our trauma histories."
P.S, as you might guess, I interpreted Alex's statement totalllllyyyy different that you did. I thought she was referring to a suggestion made by you that some will respond more positively to peer criticism about posts as opposed to Bob critisim about posts (rather than saying YOU were doing something) (?):
> If people don't appreciate it when Bob encourages them to consider their issues instead of considering his behavior I'm not sure why they would appreciate it any more when someone else attempts to do this for him...
"Is that what I'm doing? You live inside my head and have personal knowledge of what I'm 'attempting to do'... and you are satisfied that your impression is fact?"
Posted by Solstice on December 21, 2010, at 4:14:14
In reply to Re: Assumptions are presumptuous » Solstice, posted by violette on December 21, 2010, at 0:04:29
> "Is that what I'm doing? You live inside my head and have personal knowledge of what I'm 'attempting to do'... I'd like to suggest that it might work better for you to make a bunch fewer assumptions about me, about where my heart is, and about what my motives are."
>
> I can't be sure Soltice, but it sounds like what you said above about Alex's post, is what you said below about others' posts. Did it occur to you that some people here might view Bob as a forum administrator, rather than an 'authority figure' through childhood trauma lenses? And those who had no traumas...?I think the variety among people is enormous. I have great respect for it. It's been in my responses to Muffled that I've referred to authority figures and trauma. Muffled has described how things here that others might consider minor here tend to be intensely triggering for her. I didn't realize the potential for people to read something I write that is specifically directed at a specific individual's pain, and assumes that I am writing to everyone - or assumes that I believe that what may be true for one person is true for everyone.
> Not meant in a negative way, i just think sometimes you are my cognitive opposite, and i think it's interesting. Much of your stated thoughts - are the opposite of mine .I mean this in enteraining way (holiday stress can cause odd behavior sometimes)..Did you ever take Meyers Briggs? I'd guess ESTP...you describe things very concretely.INTJ, actually. Twice. Perhaps that proves my point that it's a mistake to make assumptions about others. I describe things concretely when that is going to serve my purpose, but I am actually much more abstract than concrete. Perhaps you have missed my heavy use of analogies. That said, I'm glad to know that you are entertained :-)
I'm not sure what you mean by "holiday stress can cause odd behavior sometimes." If my behavior appears odd to you, then it must just be a characteristic of mine, because I am not under any holiday stress. My way of celebrating the holidays is very simple. I'm not much into commercialism.
> "Those of us who still carry throbbing wounds of trauma will have a more difficult time 'hearing' Bob charitably because what he says gets filtered through the pain of the particular trauma we carry....it is very, very easy for me to see and relate to the difficulties I see here in how Bob is perceived through the wounding experiences of our trauma histories."
>
> P.S, as you might guess, I interpreted Alex's statement totalllllyyyy different that you did.The quote above is mine - so I'm not sure what we're talking about here.
> I thought she was referring to a suggestion made by you that some will respond more positively to peer criticism about posts as opposed to Bob critisim about posts (rather than saying YOU were doing something) (?):No.. Alex would be the one who needs to clarify - but I don't think you caught what she was referring to. It was not the dialogue between Muffled and I about something Dinah said that you have extracted here. Alex was referring to a post from someone else about what took place between Bob and Christempowered where many objected to Bob requiring CE to rephrase. So your interpretation does not appear to be based on the context of what Alex's comments were based on.
In her comment below, I believe Alex is referring in general to her belief that I am trying to do what Bob does - specifically when he makes comments referring to transferrence issues between posters and him. That has been offensive to a lot of people here - which in my opinion is understandable. I have tried to offer possible reasons for Bob doing that - i.e. he's a psychiatrist and has been immersed in thinking along those lines, etc. Alex's comment below indicates that she has taken my attempt to provide reasons for his transference references to mean that I am also suggesting that a lotta transference is going on here. And I happen to be of the opinion that transference goes on all the time - everywhere. I think our life experiences influence us continually - and transference in relationships is the norm. But that doesn't mean that I think what Alex believes I think.
> > If people don't appreciate it when Bob encourages them to consider their issues instead of considering his behavior I'm not sure why they would appreciate it any more when someone else attempts to do this for him...
>
> "Is that what I'm doing? You live inside my head and have personal knowledge of what I'm 'attempting to do'... and you are satisfied that your impression is fact?"So Violette - it can be hard to accurately interpret something if you haven't been able to stay involved in the various threads that were involved. A lot of misunderstandings are created when we make assumptions and jump to conclusions - rather than just asking in a curious sort of way - to get clarification.
Solstice
Posted by violette on December 21, 2010, at 12:45:02
In reply to Re: Assumptions are presumptuous, posted by Solstice on December 21, 2010, at 4:14:14
"You live inside my head and have personal knowledge of what I'm 'attempting to do'... "
You did say that Alex was referring to you-its your words above...I was saying-I thought she was referring to the forum in general-not you. She never said your name. You tell everyone to not make assumptions about others, but that is what I see you doing, often.
Anyway, I never could get through your message....but I noticed one thing you said and you're right - no guesses. When I read your very first post here, I actually thought maybe you were Dr. Bob posing as a new person to 'save' his forum! Crazy? If you go back to your first post, maybe you'd see how that was possible...or maybe it is crazy.
But none of us really know if what anyone says here is fact or fiction, or if they are even who they say they are. There's really no way to discern if someone is telling the truth or not. In real life, it's easier...and I usually stick to real life; internet life is more of a distraction for me-when stress levels are high.
But I have noticed its getting so structured and formal here, it's difficult to have a casual conversation with anyone. Sometiems you have to read a S.O.P....some have to take grammar classes..still some have to be educated in political science!!!
Posted by Willful on December 21, 2010, at 23:41:51
In reply to Re: Assumptions are presumptuous, posted by violette on December 21, 2010, at 12:45:02
Just to add another view, I thought Alex was suggesting that Solstice had condoned if not herself done what Bob did-- or that she thought it was reasonable if peers started to act that way on his behalf.
I read Alex's post with an impression somewhat like Solstices'-- so her interpretation is not so strange.
I don't know what you mean by saying you "never could get through" Solstice's message--- or why you would respond to it if you hadn't. The idea that Solstice is Bob is to me utterly incredible. Nothing in their style or approach to writing posts is the least similar. What in Solstice's first post could have lead you to this idea?
I personally think Solstice has gone out of her way to show how involved and caring she is. So what is so opposite from you? And what is that about needing to take a grammar course? You seem not to like internet communication except if you're stressed out-- but this may be when one is more likely to misread what others write.
Willful
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 22, 2010, at 0:43:46
In reply to Re: To Dr. Bob, posted by morgan miller on December 19, 2010, at 21:15:46
> I'm curious as to why you did not give me a bit more time to say "the right thing" and properly rephrase what I originally said where you blocked me on the Faith board. I did respond and I do not believe my last response was a defiant one. I simply stated why I said what I said.
Right, you didn't rephrase or apologize. Or say you wanted more time.
> What I am not sure I understand fully is why the use of the word patronize was thought of as uncivil. I mean, I think I do understand it, but I don't see why it was really that out of line
I'm glad you understand why I considered it uncivil. I didn't mean to imply that it was that out of line, just that it was out of line.
> everything he said was pretty much a personal attack on specific ways that you are running this site.
1. Two wrongs don't make a right.
2. Disagreements aren't necessarily uncivil. Different points of view are fine, and in fact encouraged here.
> So, was it the uncivil wording I used that got me blocked, or was it the content of what I said that could lead you to feel accused or put down? I hope it was primarily the uncivil wording.
Would you say the difference between an I-statement and a you-statement is the wording or the content? Would you like to give rephrasing a try now?
> There must be more flexibility used in the enforcement of the rules here. Or there needs to be a change in the rules. Whatever it is, some type of adjustment should be made in my opinion.
How about some kind of community council that could lift blocks? :-)
> being a doctor, you would think he understood that it can take people a very long time to learn to communicate their feelings in the best most productive manner.
I do understand that. For example, it took CE three weeks in the thread that's being discussed.
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on December 22, 2010, at 4:46:26
In reply to Re: Assumptions are presumptuous » violette, posted by Willful on December 21, 2010, at 23:41:51
Interesting...
I wonder what Bob's interpretation of my post is / will be...
And if he will block me for it...
(P.S., I've been blocked for 'directed' posts before (it is in the archives - so I s'pose people know) and think I understand how to successfully negotiate the civility rules on that. So I guess what is left (from Bob's point of view) is 'taking things personally').
Posted by alexandra_k on December 22, 2010, at 4:47:31
In reply to Re: Assumptions are presumptuous, posted by alexandra_k on December 22, 2010, at 4:46:26
is this what we have come to / are reduced to?
yes.
that is what people have been saying:
yes.
(a statement of 'support', if you will)
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.