![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 18 to 42 of 54. Go back in thread:
Posted by Noa on November 21, 2000, at 19:33:49
In reply to Re: Sorry to rain on your parade, but............. » Noa, posted by Cam W. on November 21, 2000, at 19:18:31
> Noa - Sorry, I did not realize this was about a real person (Hannah, I presume?). I never really did follow those threads. I was just trying to make funny, again. - Sincerely Cam
Posted by Noa on November 21, 2000, at 19:43:39
In reply to Re: Sorry to rain on your parade, but............. » Noa, posted by Mark H. on November 21, 2000, at 19:33:12
> However -- I should admit that I WAS thinking of YOU when I wrote the first reply and signed it "Ark." I thought it was pretty good parody.
Yep, it was. I'll give you that, Mark.
And --(picture Homer S. slapping forehead)--- after the wheels have turned ever so slowly......I fiiiinnnnnaallllyyy geeeeetttttt tttttthhhhheeeee puuuuunnnnnnnnnnnnn----Noa-Ark. :0)
Thanks for your reply. It isn't so surprising that the same dynamics occur here as other places, BUT, the very essence of this place is for emotional support, so I think we just have try to be aware of that.And many of us who come here are quite sensitive, having struggled and suffered a lot in our lives.
In general, sarcasm is risky in this form of communication. All the more so with a group of people that has many who are here because we are prone to hurting.
I hate being so "preachy"! But I had to say something. Thanks for understanding.
Posted by Mark H. on November 21, 2000, at 19:57:08
In reply to New Arrival Takes Offense, Stirs Contrition, Anger, posted by Mark H. on November 21, 2000, at 17:23:49
I think there is a fundamental lack of respect and understanding on this board for people who have had their senses of humor surgically removed. To the rest of you, it's just levity; to us, it's a painful reminder that everything should be taken personally and in the worst possible light. There's no joke, however innocent, that couldn't apply to someone. Therefore, jokes are a form of discrimination and oppression, a way for those with a sense of humor to put down those without. I feel I have to speak out about this important injustice!
In the words of our next president, well, read them for yourselves:
http://slate.msn.com/Features/bushisms/bushisms.asp
A. Whiney Newbie
Posted by coral on November 21, 2000, at 20:19:17
In reply to Re: Very Very Serious!, posted by Mark H. on November 21, 2000, at 19:57:08
> I think there is a fundamental lack of respect and understanding on this board for people who have had their senses of humor surgically removed. Just so there is no confusion, the aforementioned surgical procedure is NOT a lumpectomy.
Now, WHO has my whip?????
Coral
Posted by shar on November 21, 2000, at 20:24:07
In reply to New Arrival Takes Offense, Stirs Contrition, Anger, posted by Mark H. on November 21, 2000, at 17:23:49
> Hello, everyone,
>
> I'm brand new to this board, and I'm highly offended that others have been discussing topics longer than I have and have formed opinions about issues and interactions, and developed on-line friendships that don't include me. xxx
>
> Furthermore, I read a few postings out of context, and I'm deeply insulted and offended by the extreme rudeness of those who express their opinions about any issue to which I'm overly sensitive; however, if asked about it, I will not define my values or explain what I found offensive, because you already should know what I think is right and wrong.
>
> Although I've only been here eleven minutes, I think a new board should be created to insulate me from people who have a sense of humor. Such humor is inappropriate around those of us who experience REAL depression and other difficulties. But what would you care?
>
> I'm such a kind, caring, intelligent person while you all are members of cliques and don't really care about the feelings and sensiblities of others. I'm qualified to associate you by comparison with anyone I want to, but your attempts to psychoanalyze me are completely out of line. You hardly know me!
>
> I AM taking responsibility for my feelings, all of them, except when you offend me or degrade others or otherwise upset me, even when I'm not familiar with what you're talking about.
>
> Well, I don't see any reason why I should stay, since obviously no one here cares about anyone who hasn't already been a member of the inner circle for many months. This is disappointing, because I'm sure I had SO MUCH to offer.
>
> I won't tell you my real name, because my privacy is very important to me, and I would not want to have to be accountable for what I wrote. Good-bye forever! I hope you are very happy that you have torn down the hopes of a caring, intelligent person with your hurtful attacks and critical, cliqueish remarks!
>
> A. Whiney Newbie
Posted by shellie on November 21, 2000, at 20:29:46
In reply to Re: Whiney, Don't Go!, posted by Mark H. on November 21, 2000, at 17:31:19
> with your angry snap judgments, vague defensive responses, and attention-getting outbursts!
>
please be civil.bob (oops, I mean shellie)
Posted by shar on November 21, 2000, at 20:46:18
In reply to Re: Please be civil, posted by shellie on November 21, 2000, at 20:29:46
Having been there and done that myself at times, thank you for the parody! And, I've also seen the pattern occur on other boards as well as in certain group situations. You really nailed all the characters and how those things can play out! I enjoyed it thoroughly and I was laughing out loud.
SharP.S. Coral--while I believe you can talk about your whip here, any Lu-p reference belongs in the Lu-p thread above. I believe you get a demerit now.
Posted by coral on November 21, 2000, at 20:55:40
In reply to Thank you, Mark H. and others, posted by shar on November 21, 2000, at 20:46:18
How is it that I'm always the one to get in trouble?????? Wellllll....... okay.... demerit demerrier! :)
Posted by Mark H. on November 21, 2000, at 22:37:56
In reply to Re: Sorry to rain on your parade, but............., posted by Noa on November 21, 2000, at 19:43:39
Dear Noa,
I actually crossed messages with you earlier, so I didn't read your second post until after I had posted again.
You raise many good points, as always. There is an element here among the wounded (myself included) who respond to dark humor, and perhaps we experience a bit of resentment about certain types of unrestrained behavior because we suck it up all day long every day and avoid lashing out at those who may deserve it.
When we are among ourselves, it seems particularly uncivil for people to jump in who apparently lack even the most rudimentary basics of therapy, the kinds of things that are taught in the first few visits, who absolutely cannot consider the possibility that someone here might have a valid first impression or observation worth considering about the inappropriateness of their interactive behavior.
Paramount is owning one's own feelings -- those who haven't figured out that "offense is in the taking" haven't even begun their work. It's OK for them to be here, for all of us to offer one another support, but when they jump into the middle of a thread with righteous indignation, the choices are 1.) to ignore them; 2.) to educate them; or 3.) to ask them to start their own threads and butt out.
We need your level of compassion here, but we also need lots of people who don't put up with bad behavior. To me, it is not kind to coddle the level of self-indulgence that some people bring to this board. This may be the only place in their lives where they're challenged to take some accountability and responsibility for themselves. To some people at some times, "knock it off" is the most loving, compassionate thing you can say.
I don't want to name names, but you and I both have at times given up on some of the chronic self-sabotagers who beg for advice and then ignore it, who cry out for help and then disappear, who threaten violence and then never report back or maintain even the smallest amount of accountability when offered help.
It's not my place, of course, to suggest a set of "rules" for this list. The alternative is to use parody to highlight some of the attitudes that have caused unnecessary dissonance and strife on this and other boards.
I hope our differing viewpoints will continue to work together to offer a range of styles and ways of reaching people.
Best wishes,
Mark H.
Posted by shar on November 21, 2000, at 22:44:56
In reply to Re: Debriefing with Noa, posted by Mark H. on November 21, 2000, at 22:37:56
> Dear Noa,
>
> I actually crossed messages with you earlier, so I didn't read your second post until after I had posted again.
> xxx
> You raise many good points, as always. There is an element here among the wounded (myself included) who respond to dark humor, and perhaps we experience a bit of resentment about certain types of unrestrained behavior because we suck it up all day long every day and avoid lashing out at those who may deserve it.
>
> When we are among ourselves, it seems particularly uncivil for people to jump in who apparently lack even the most rudimentary basics of therapy, the kinds of things that are taught in the first few visits, who absolutely cannot consider the possibility that someone here might have a valid first impression or observation worth considering about the inappropriateness of their interactive behavior.
>
> Paramount is owning one's own feelings -- those who haven't figured out that "offense is in the taking" haven't even begun their work. It's OK for them to be here, for all of us to offer one another support, but when they jump into the middle of a thread with righteous indignation, the choices are 1.) to ignore them; 2.) to educate them; or 3.) to ask them to start their own threads and butt out.
>
> We need your level of compassion here, but we also need lots of people who don't put up with bad behavior. To me, it is not kind to coddle the level of self-indulgence that some people bring to this board. This may be the only place in their lives where they're challenged to take some accountability and responsibility for themselves. To some people at some times, "knock it off" is the most loving, compassionate thing you can say.
>
> I don't want to name names, but you and I both have at times given up on some of the chronic self-sabotagers who beg for advice and then ignore it, who cry out for help and then disappear, who threaten violence and then never report back or maintain even the smallest amount of accountability when offered help.
>
> It's not my place, of course, to suggest a set of "rules" for this list. The alternative is to use parody to highlight some of the attitudes that have caused unnecessary dissonance and strife on this and other boards.
>
> I hope our differing viewpoints will continue to work together to offer a range of styles and ways of reaching people.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Mark H.
Posted by Dasypodidae on November 21, 2000, at 23:36:11
In reply to Re: Debriefing with Noa, posted by Mark H. on November 21, 2000, at 22:37:56
!
> Dear Noa,
>
> I actually crossed messages with you earlier, so I didn't read your second post until after I had posted again.
>
> You raise many good points, as always. There is an element here among the wounded (myself included) who respond to dark humor, and perhaps we experience a bit of resentment about certain types of unrestrained behavior because we suck it up all day long every day and avoid lashing out at those who may deserve it.
>
> When we are among ourselves, it seems particularly uncivil for people to jump in who apparently lack even the most rudimentary basics of therapy, the kinds of things that are taught in the first few visits, who absolutely cannot consider the possibility that someone here might have a valid first impression or observation worth considering about the inappropriateness of their interactive behavior.
>
> Paramount is owning one's own feelings -- those who haven't figured out that "offense is in the taking" haven't even begun their work. It's OK for them to be here, for all of us to offer one another support, but when they jump into the middle of a thread with righteous indignation, the choices are 1.) to ignore them; 2.) to educate them; or 3.) to ask them to start their own threads and butt out.
>
> We need your level of compassion here, but we also need lots of people who don't put up with bad behavior. To me, it is not kind to coddle the level of self-indulgence that some people bring to this board. This may be the only place in their lives where they're challenged to take some accountability and responsibility for themselves. To some people at some times, "knock it off" is the most loving, compassionate thing you can say.
>
> I don't want to name names, but you and I both have at times given up on some of the chronic self-sabotagers who beg for advice and then ignore it, who cry out for help and then disappear, who threaten violence and then never report back or maintain even the smallest amount of accountability when offered help.
>
> It's not my place, of course, to suggest a set of "rules" for this list. The alternative is to use parody to highlight some of the attitudes that have caused unnecessary dissonance and strife on this and other boards.
>
> I hope our differing viewpoints will continue to work together to offer a range of styles and ways of reaching people.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Mark H.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 22, 2000, at 0:53:20
In reply to Re: Debriefing with Noa, posted by Mark H. on November 21, 2000, at 22:37:56
> There is an element here among the wounded ... who respond to dark humor, and perhaps we experience a bit of resentment about certain types of unrestrained behavior because we suck it up all day long every day and avoid lashing out at those who may deserve it.
Humor is fine, but not if it involves, or could be perceived to involve, making fun of others. In other words, please suck it up here, too. :-)
> We need ... compassion here, but we also need lots of people who don't put up with bad behavior. To me, it is not kind to coddle the level of self-indulgence that some people bring to this board. This may be the only place in their lives where they're challenged to take some accountability and responsibility for themselves. To some people at some times, "knock it off" is the most loving, compassionate thing you can say.
Again, please be careful not to put pressure on others.
I think it works out nicely if I deal with "bad behavior" ("maintain the therapeutic milieu") and the members of the group provide the support and education. It's a kind of division of labor.
Some people aren't open to support and education. They won't benefit from being here. I think we need to accept that this board can't be all things to all people.
Bob
Posted by shar on November 22, 2000, at 8:10:15
In reply to Re: Debriefing, posted by Dr. Bob on November 22, 2000, at 0:53:20
Is the point you are making to avoid dark humor?
Posted by Mark H. on November 22, 2000, at 10:42:19
In reply to Re: Debriefing, posted by Dr. Bob on November 22, 2000, at 0:53:20
Dear Dr. Bob,
Fair enough, Dr. Bob. You may delete this thread now if you wish without concern. I've made my point.
The vast majority of participants are among the most skillful, experienced, interesting, multi-faceted, delightful, helpful, kind, funny, intuitive, and passionate people I've ever known. I would GLADLY list them name by name with the outstanding qualities and gifts they possess and offer so freely to others, but for fear that I would inadvertently forget someone I intended to include.
This board is a treasure-chest and life-saver, a rich source of information on treatment and coping strategies, and a wonderful place to share experiences and support.
I am grateful, as always, to you and to the regulars who devote uncounted hours every week providing services and friendship that money could not buy.
And I'll gladly comply with your request that I let you take care of behavioral issues. I actually appreciate a bit of corrective guidance from time to time and don't find it offensive at all.
Thank you for your gentle guidance in response to my parodic thread.
With respect,
Mark H.
Posted by Noa on November 22, 2000, at 13:37:44
In reply to Re: Fair Enough; End of Thread » Dr. Bob, posted by Mark H. on November 22, 2000, at 10:42:19
> The vast majority of participants are among the most skillful, experienced, interesting, multi-faceted, delightful, helpful, kind, funny, intuitive, and passionate people I've ever known.
And, Mark, I have gotten to know some such wonderful people here who started out as highly reactive and hostile at first. Or, who had such periods of hostility and reactivity when they were in a particularly bad place. I myself have said some uncivil things and have learned from mistakes I have made here. Some babblers have even been banned for a while and came back. But people are multifaceted and I don't like to write people off completely, even if I don't condone uncivil behavior on their part.
I also think it is important not to jump in and always react to uncivil or hostile posts--and definitely think responding in kind is not a good idea. I don't agree with you that this is a place to correct other people's attitudes or problems. It is a place for mutual support. That doesn't mean we cannot disagree or confront each other sometimes. But I don't feel responsible to somehow correct anyone's supposed pattern of self-indulgence. To assume that self-indulgence is the problem is a big assumption. There is a lot we don't know about each other here.
I feel that my job here as a participant is to maintain good boundaries around myself. And to speak honestly about my opinions and feelings if I can do so in a way that doesn't add undue hostility here.
Dr. Bob has advised, at times, the following (I am paraphrasing--Dr. Bob, plese feel free to correct if necessary): if you don't think you can say something without bumping up against the civility boundary and possibly crossing it, it is usually a good idea to withhold your thoughts, or wait and restate them in a more civil way.
Shar, I am a lover of dark humor. My taste in films and books shows that. But good judgment about context and meaning to others here is also important. Dark humor in the form of sarcasm does have its risks in this modality, and I have seen it cause problems before.
Mark, I agree that I have withdrawn from some who made repeated calls for help and presented in dangerous conditions only to withdraw from the offers of help and support and come back again and repeat it. But I don't think that parodying that person would be appropriate either. People who have done that might need help seeing the boundaries, but they are really suffering tremendously--I have no doubt of that--even if it seems the crisis passes and they forget about it. I don't think adding more hostility to the interaction helps at all. I do think it is ok to state where our own boundaries are and what we can deal with or not, and even to withdaw, as I did, from responding to some people who I do care about but cannot deal with some of the ways they apprach and leave and ask for help, and seem to ignore it, etc. But there are others on this board who can tolerate that and have something to offer these people that I might not. I think at some point, Dr. Bob sometimes comes in and sets a boundary for the board, but sometimes a person can participate here within the boundaries of the board, but each of us needs to be aware of our own boundary needs.
Geez, I have no idea if this makes sense, I feel I have rambled on and overused the word boundary....
This dialogue is important. Dialogue is good. We don't always have to agree. I appreciate your considering other perspectives.
Posted by shar on November 22, 2000, at 15:42:37
In reply to Re: Fair Enough; End of Thread, posted by Noa on November 22, 2000, at 13:37:44
> Shar, I am a lover of dark humor...But good judgment about context and meaning to others here is also important. Dark humor in the form of sarcasm does have its risks in this modality...Noa,
actually, any form of humor in this modality has its risks, as we've seen time and again someone react to something written in all innocence to be humorous, but it pushes someones buttons.Having been the target, recently, of sarcastic "humor" I can agree it is unpleasant--especially when someone goes to the trouble of making it intentionally personal. I suppose I see a place for humor here, and not everyone does. I don't see many people rushing to offer support to the attackee, but instead--and under only certain circumstances--focusing on the attacker who must be in pain. It appears that who is doing the sarcasm makes a big difference, too, in the way people react.
So, really, when considering the breadth and depth of humor witnessed in the time I've been here, there is really no consistency. Sometimes an "attack" is ok, sometimes not, sometimes an attacker is seen as a poor victim who can't express their pain clearly, and the person being attacked is largely ignored or attacked yet again for responding to the attacker.
And, all this whole rigamarole started, in my opinion, because some people were having some innocent fantasy fun, hurting nobody, attacking nobody (except in one instance I can recall, when an attack was launched at a well-meant joke and people responded), but evidently displeasing a vocal minority who felt that the fun should be moved elsewhere, and lashed out at those who disagreed.
I saw a clear goal put forth, a lot of nastiness when L posts were not immediately banished, some celebrating when L posts were restricted to one thread, and the preservation of what I consider to be a questionably supportive milieu.
Well, I think the vocal minority won. As you can tell, posts of fun (as in Lumptonia--and I give myself a demerit for mentioning that name here) have diminished significantly. Restrictions have been placed on where posts can be put, so that others will apparently feel more comfortable posting on important issues. ?? And, if unsupported suppositions are correct, we should see an influx of new posters who stayed away due to the L posts.
This is supportive? Educational? Or a good example of competitive manipulation often found in group dynamics when splintering occurs?
Shar
Posted by Rzip on November 22, 2000, at 15:51:52
In reply to Re: Fair Enough; End of Thread, posted by Noa on November 22, 2000, at 13:37:44
> I also think it is important not to jump in and always react to uncivil or hostile posts--and definitely think responding in kind is not a good idea. I don't agree with you that this is a place to correct other people's attitudes or problems. It is a place for mutual support. That doesn't mean we cannot disagree or confront each other sometimes. But I don't feel responsible to somehow correct anyone's supposed pattern of self-indulgence. To assume that self-indulgence is the problem is a big assumption. There is a lot we don't know about each other here.
>
> I feel that my job here as a participant is to maintain good boundaries around myself. And to speak honestly about my opinions and feelings if I can do so in a way that doesn't add undue hostility here.
>
> Dr. Bob has advised, at times, the following (I am paraphrasing--Dr. Bob, plese feel free to correct if necessary): if you don't think you can say something without bumping up against the civility boundary and possibly crossing it, it is usually a good idea to withhold your thoughts, or wait and restate them in a more civil way.
I think at some point, Dr. Bob sometimes comes in and sets a boundary for the board, but sometimes a person can participate here within the boundaries of the board, but each of us needs to be aware of our own boundary needs.
>
> Geez, I have no idea if this makes sense, I feel I have rambled on and overused the word boundary....
>
> This dialogue is important. Dialogue is good. We don't always have to agree. I appreciate your considering other perspectives.Noa,
I think your post made perfect sense. I am a big advocate of civility and politeness. Civil mannerism makes the society liveable.
- Rzip
Posted by Noa on November 22, 2000, at 16:41:32
In reply to Re: Fair Enough; End of Thread » Noa, posted by shar on November 22, 2000, at 15:42:37
Shar, I see these as separate issues--not an attack on humor in general.
I agree that all humor is risky. But there are degrees of risk. The nature and timing and "geography" of this "parody" thread, to me, made it much more of a problem than many other threads. Mark says he intended this innocently, but he does later acknowldge having an agenda toward posters whom he percieves to need "correcting", so I do continue to feel that maybe there was a touch of something beside innocent lightheartedness in the sarcasm. I don't know. I can't go inside Mark's head and read his mind, and I won't try. This is an impression I have. Besides, as is often the case with sarcasm, it isn't the intent that is the problem. It is the effect.
But, my stating my concerns about the "parody" posts is not an attack on all humor! There are different degrees of risk. I don't think it is fair to dismiss my concerns about this thread by saying that it is an attempt to ban humor from this board. I participate in humorous threads all the time. But I think careful judgment and sensitivity to the effect of the humor on others is still important.
When criticism was made of a humorous post in the Lumptonia thread, I agree that it got viscious real fast and that was not good. And I think a lot of feelings were hurt. But that doesn't mean we have to attack back.
When subsequently, some opinions were expressed, in a civil manner, about the feelings and impressions stimulated by seeing how dominant the Lumptonia thread(s) had become, I thought this was done in a civil way, and not an "attack" on any one on the board. I can understand how feelings could be hurt, but I didn't see it as an attack.
I think you are saying you feel your position was not treated fairly when Dr. Bob said he would like the Lumptonia posts to stay in one thread. Is my understanding correct?
I think that is worth discussing. But directly, openly, politely.
I am not sure what posts you are referring to when you say you were the target of sarcasm. Can you point them out? Thanks.
Posted by Noa on November 22, 2000, at 16:47:08
In reply to Re: Fair Enough; End of Thread, posted by Noa on November 22, 2000, at 16:41:32
Shar,
I also want to say that I like having you here. You are smart, funny and have been supportive to me and others. I like your sense of humor and wouldn't want it banned!
I really feel strongly that it is possible to discuss concerns about what is said without it having to deteriorate into attacks on people.
This is a strange communication medium--prone to misunderstandings because of lack of nonverbal cues.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 22, 2000, at 19:50:31
In reply to Re: Fair Enough; End of Thread » Noa, posted by shar on November 22, 2000, at 15:42:37
> all this whole rigamarole started, in my opinion, because some people were having some innocent fantasy fun, hurting nobody, attacking nobody... but evidently displeasing a vocal minority who felt that the fun should be moved elsewhere, and lashed out at those who disagreed...
>
> I think the vocal minority won.> This is supportive? Educational? Or a good example of competitive manipulation often found in group dynamics when splintering occurs?
Am I the vocal minority being referred to? Nikki didn't suggest that anything be moved anywhere -- and *certainly* didn't lash out at anyone. I used the thread she started to address this issue, but I was already having concerns about it and had already voiced them, at:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20001117/msgs/2940.html
The one-thread limitation was my idea and was intended as a compromise. Like if people have a party and it gets kind of loud. It was great to see you all having fun, and I want there to continue to be room for that, but it's also important for people to feel comfortable and welcome here. And if push comes to shove, for the purposes of this board, the latter might be a higher priority than the former.
> if unsupported suppositions are correct, we should see an influx of new posters who stayed away due to the [Lumptonia] posts.
Well, that's a testable hypothesis! But they might also continue to stay away due to all the discussion of internal issues. Hmm, maybe I should take my own advice and banish *this* to a separate board. Psycho-Babble Management, it could be called...
Bob
Posted by shar on November 22, 2000, at 21:10:16
In reply to Re: Fair Enough; End of Thread, posted by Noa on November 22, 2000, at 16:41:32
Noa,
In my original response to your post, I was referring much more to the Lu-ptonia threads and not much at all about the parody posts.I don't think bob's decision to limit where certain posts could go was unfair to me. I think it appeased a vocal minority for all the wrong reasons. It's his board, not mine.
Re Lu-ptonia threads, I do think a lot of attacks were made and rudeness occurred, and that was, for the most part, ignored. Again, it's not my board. By posting here I agree to abide by decisions made or rules; if I don't like it I can leave; or I can, as bob said, suck it up.
My feeling about the parody posts was that many of them were right on target with respect to mirroring the occurrences of recent times and most of them were funny. It would be a microscopic probability, in my mind, that nobody on PSB would object to those posts.
Shar
Posted by shar on November 22, 2000, at 21:24:42
In reply to Re: group dynamics, posted by Dr. Bob on November 22, 2000, at 19:50:31
> Am I the vocal minority being referred to?*** No. The vocal minority started in the posts toward the beginning of this board. It was continued here and there throughout this board.
> Nikki didn't suggest that anything be moved anywhere -- and *certainly* didn't lash out at anyone.
*** I agree.
> The one-thread limitation was my idea and was intended as a compromise.
*** I am and was aware that the one-thread idea was implemented by you as a compromise.
Shar
Posted by shellie on November 22, 2000, at 22:27:21
In reply to Re: group dynamics » Dr. Bob, posted by shar on November 22, 2000, at 21:24:42
>
> > Dr. Bob:
> > Am I the vocal minority being referred to?
>
> *** No. The vocal minority started in the posts toward the beginning of this board. It was continued here and there throughout this board.I see posts from people who courteously agree with the suggestion that the Lumponian posts be moved; several people who don't even participate stated the case for no censureship, and then there was at least one very elegant post by coral making her case for non-banishment. Two people expressed that they felt left out of socialpsychobabble. I think it was a pretty even exchange. So, I am curious, who is the vocal minority? Could you name them; I truely don't get it.
Well, to be quite personal, most of the times that I read your posts they are so kind and giving, but gosh, if you get crossed in any way, watch out, you lash back with a lot of defensiveness and anger.
I realize here I am going outside of the norm here by directly addressing someone about something negative, but there have been so many accusations pointing to no one in particular, I felt like I should be specific. Why do I care? Mostly, as an observation, nothing more. It is not meant to hurt your feelings (although I do realize I might); but maybe to point out that when bad feelings are felt; they are often returned in even greater magnitude. As opposed to saying "that made me feel bad........" and promoting greater understanding.
Shellie
Posted by shellie on November 22, 2000, at 23:07:43
In reply to Re: group dynamics » shar, posted by shellie on November 22, 2000, at 22:27:21
I should have thought a bit more about sending that post, and now regret having done it. When I was writing about my cat, I realized this is the place I am most comfortable on the board. No confrontation. It much better for me not to have any strong feelings about the board--it is a board full of interesting people, but people I will never really know.
That said, the post is already sent and I cannot retrieve it. I will never know you really Shar, so it was not wise to put in my two cents about my observations. First of all it was not even about you; just about the shar I read on the board, probably a tiny percentage of who you are in total.
Anyway, that being said, I can only go to bed remembering next time to think longer about what I chose to say to someone.
Shellie
Posted by shar on November 23, 2000, at 9:33:57
In reply to Re: group dynamics » shar, posted by shellie on November 22, 2000, at 22:27:21
I have been asked to name the vocal minority that I've referred to in a few posts. There is no way, after everything that has happened here, that I will identify the posts or individuals about whom I speak.
I counted about 24 posts that were negative about Lu-ptonia, or from folks who felt uncomfortable with the L posts being around and so abundant, or folks who felt it was cliquish, etc. That is just in this current board--no archives.
The 24 posts were sent by 7 people. One person only sent one.
There are about 33 people total who have posted on this board. So, of 33 potential posters, 7 posted negatively toward L and generated about 24 posts.
Shar
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | 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.