![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 6 to 30 of 41. Go back in thread:
Posted by susan C on April 21, 2002, at 21:29:20
In reply to I WISH I were clever..., posted by Krazy Kat on April 21, 2002, at 19:55:14
Posted by CtrlAlt n Del on April 21, 2002, at 23:00:09
In reply to which tool? I need one to clip n.. (nm) » Krazy Kat, posted by susan C on April 21, 2002, at 21:29:20
I used to do my last partners nasal fur yuck..think that's what lost the sex appeal...in fact I'm sure of it.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 21, 2002, at 23:26:18
In reply to Dr. Bob - is there more than we know going on?, posted by Krazy Kat on April 21, 2002, at 16:09:24
> Can you please Specifically define the do's and don't's for this site?
I've tried! Is there something in particular that you think is too vague?
> We have a comment from the link above "I WISH I could give you my adranifil (sp?)" and you post a civility warning. What if I post "I WISH I could offer you a back massage complete with oils and candles." ? Is that to be "interpretted" as a sexual advance?
First, it wasn't a civility warning. Second, there isn't (yet) a do or a don't regarding sexual advances. Is there going to need to be one? It's hard to keep up with this group...
Bob
Posted by Krazy Kat on April 22, 2002, at 9:07:06
In reply to which tool? I need one to clip n.. (nm) » Krazy Kat, posted by susan C on April 21, 2002, at 21:29:20
Posted by Krazy Kat on April 22, 2002, at 9:17:52
In reply to Re: is there more than we know going on?, posted by Dr. Bob on April 21, 2002, at 23:26:18
> I've tried! Is there something in particular that you think is too vague?
I'll look at the civility lists and offer some suggestions if it helps, but, yes, it's too vague, based on the inconsistencies. people have asked about length of blocks and for other specific info, and you reply with "it depends". that statement is vague.
> First, it wasn't a civility warning.Semantics, Dr. Bob. Is calling it a "friendly reminder to follow the rules" better? why did that need to be posted at all?
> Second, there isn't (yet) a do or a don't regarding sexual advances. Is there going to need to be one?
Granted, I was being facetious - I apologize. I would rather it all hang out so to speak. but that's not my call. that's why i wish everything would be as spelled out as much as possible.
also, in accordance with some of your concerns re: "stepping on egg shells", it would be productive to address the many concerns re: the new exclusionary board(s).
i'll drop it, but it's getting frustrating/tiring... i also am still reeling from sar's death, and it seems that that has not been addressed fully here to me.
- kk
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 22, 2002, at 17:35:54
In reply to i give up (kind of) » Dr. Bob, posted by Krazy Kat on April 22, 2002, at 9:17:52
> I'll look at the civility lists and offer some suggestions if it helps
Great, thanks.
> people have asked about length of blocks and for other specific info, and you reply with "it depends". that statement is vague.
Sorry, but it does depend. And I don't think I can express it as a formula. But if you have a suggestion...
> > First, it wasn't a civility warning.
>
> Semantics, Dr. Bob. Is calling it a "friendly reminder to follow the rules" better? why did that need to be posted at all?Yes, that's better. :-) I needed to post it because of where the thread was heading.
> also, in accordance with some of your concerns re: "stepping on egg shells", it would be productive to address the many concerns re: the new exclusionary board(s).
I've been trying?
> i also am still reeling from sar's death, and it seems that that has not been addressed fully here to me.
Maybe not...
Bob
Posted by tinaboo on April 22, 2002, at 19:25:35
In reply to Re: i give up (kind of), posted by Dr. Bob on April 22, 2002, at 17:35:54
I think I take exception to that word. I find the old-timers board more Inclusionary actually. It's nice to see all the old familiar names that never or rarely posted to the social board. They are back now and it makes me feel more connected again. I lost that for a long time.
Thanks Dr Bob for, what I prefer to call the, 'extra' board.tina
Posted by Phil on April 22, 2002, at 19:54:36
In reply to Re: Exclusionary?? C'mon......., posted by tinaboo on April 22, 2002, at 19:25:35
I have been seeing names that I haven't seen in a long time, too. I hope we soon see a LOT of others; this could be a trip!
Also thought your post was the best one on this subject so far. Thanks again.Phil
Posted by Krazy Kat on April 22, 2002, at 21:10:42
In reply to Re: Exclusionary?? C'mon......., posted by tinaboo on April 22, 2002, at 19:25:35
Posted by Zo on April 22, 2002, at 21:22:27
In reply to Re: is there more than we know going on?, posted by Dr. Bob on April 21, 2002, at 23:26:18
Posted by Zo on April 22, 2002, at 21:34:40
In reply to Re: Exclusionary?? C'mon......., posted by tinaboo on April 22, 2002, at 19:25:35
Well of *course* you wouldn't think it's exclusionary. .. You're included!
Zo
Posted by Phil on April 22, 2002, at 22:33:28
In reply to Re: Exclusionary?? Phil and » tinaboo, posted by Zo on April 22, 2002, at 21:34:40
If we weren't all suffering from treatment resistant depression, bipolar that's treatment resistant, etc. we wouldn't even be here!
I don't think people with mental illness should argue too much. I don't think any of us handle the repercussions of anger very well.
That's why I'm letting this one go. It's not the board that's the problem, it's the anger.
Being on the geezer board doesn't give me a boost.
What am I going to do? Go to work tomorrow and tell everyone I'm in the upper echelons of an internet mental illness board.
Could y'all imagine explaining this to a judge.
~~~~~~~~~
Well, the older mentally ill people got their own screen to write on and newer m.i. people can only read it and have to comment on it on another screen. But there are a lot of screens and any of us can write whatever we want unless the guy in the white robe, carrying a surfboard, he's our doctor, tells us that we're uncivil. Then we can't write on the screen for a few weeks..you know, any screen. We're screened out, we're in the penalty box. After we're out of the box, we're out for blood. We have to be more subtle in trying to tell the other m.i. person to eat shit and die, meanwhile avoiding the PBC. Too many PBC's and you are SOL at PB or PSB. Then you have to go to PBA where all the other PBC's are telling the surfer DOC he got the wrong guy.
........
Posted by Janelle on April 22, 2002, at 23:21:48
In reply to Re: Exclusionary?? Phil and, posted by Phil on April 22, 2002, at 22:33:28
Posted by Zo on April 23, 2002, at 3:18:27
In reply to Re: Exclusionary?? Phil and, posted by Phil on April 22, 2002, at 22:33:28
Lighten up, kid. That was meant to be ironic. I *hate* little smiley faces, but I guess I'm gonna have to invent one.
Zo
Posted by trouble on April 23, 2002, at 6:09:53
In reply to Re: Exclusionary?? Phil and » tinaboo, posted by Zo on April 22, 2002, at 21:34:40
> Well of *course* you wouldn't think it's exclusionary. .. You're included!
>
> ZoZoZo,
why are'nt you running the world woman?!!
How come these pithy one-liners of yours and Dr. bob's never occur to me, is it the learning disability, or what Bettelheim called "THE ART OF THE OBVIOUS"?
Where do I sign up for the class?
It's always just out of reach and I'm gettin sick of it.love, trouble
Posted by trouble on April 23, 2002, at 6:16:20
In reply to Re: Exclusionary?? Phil and, posted by Phil on April 22, 2002, at 22:33:28
Phil,
You are funny.
Does the arguing make you that funny? If so I'd say it's worth it.
Anyway, I've been reading all this stuff, for hours, and the only angry person I find so far is, well, uh....But the night is young yet.
take care,trouble
Posted by Phil on April 23, 2002, at 6:38:49
In reply to Phil, Tina: Look up EXCLUSIONARY in dictionary! (nm), posted by Janelle on April 22, 2002, at 23:21:48
Posted by Phil on April 23, 2002, at 6:43:39
In reply to go ahead, ignore me » Phil, posted by trouble on April 23, 2002, at 6:16:20
Good to see you out tha clink. I think pain and insecurity make me funny(to some).
I couldn't stay in group, I was always looking for a one-liner. In group, there's an opportunity everytime somebody talks.
Posted by tina on April 23, 2002, at 8:19:52
In reply to Phil, Tina: Look up EXCLUSIONARY in dictionary! (nm), posted by Janelle on April 22, 2002, at 23:21:48
Don't have to. I'M and old-timer, they taught me proper english when I went to school.
I swear you new people aren't happy unless you're stirring the sh*t and that's precisely why us old timers didn't post on YOUR social board. I felt extremely EXcluded from your social board for over a year and now that we oldies have our own board, you guys have to whine about it. Jeez......Look, ya can't make everyone happy all the time.
Why is this such a big deal?
Posted by DinahM on April 23, 2002, at 8:24:29
In reply to Re: Phil, Tina: Look up EXCLUSIONARY in dictionary!, posted by tina on April 23, 2002, at 8:19:52
I thought I had always tried to be supportive of you and your posts. I'm sorry it didn't come across that way. I hope you find what you're looking for on the new board.
Dinah
Posted by tina on April 23, 2002, at 8:32:18
In reply to Re: I'm sorry » tina, posted by DinahM on April 23, 2002, at 8:24:29
I do recall your posts Dinah and they were very supportive. I didn't mean to imply that they weren't. It just occurred to me that most of the 'support' got lost in the arguing and rude behaviour of some posters and I didn't want to be around that kind of hostility so stopped frequenting that board. YOu have nothing to be sorry for. The old timers know eachother very well and aren't offended by eachother because we know how certain things are worded - either to be funny or sarcastic or serious etc - the offense just doesn't happen when you know how something is meant and no one jumps down your throat. For some reason I found the social board just so ignorant and disrespectful of others and the world has too much of that in it already. If I'm looking for support, that's the last place I want to look for it, you know??
No worries Dinah. I hope all is well.
take care
tina
Posted by tina on April 23, 2002, at 8:33:45
In reply to You're right, Janelle. There was a picture of me (nm), posted by Phil on April 23, 2002, at 6:38:49
You've always got the perfect answer. YOu're so cool..........hehe :)
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2002, at 8:41:56
In reply to Re: Phil, Tina: Look up EXCLUSIONARY in dictionary!, posted by tina on April 23, 2002, at 8:19:52
> I swear you new people aren't happy unless you're stirring the sh*t ... now that we oldies have our own board, you guys have to whine about it.
Please don't post anything that others could take as accusatory or put them down, thanks.
Bob
Posted by tina on April 23, 2002, at 8:48:13
In reply to Re: please be civil » tina, posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2002, at 8:41:56
I just knew you'd smack me for that one. Sorry Doc. It just popped out. Won't happen again.
T
Posted by Krazy Kat on April 23, 2002, at 15:14:34
In reply to Re: Phil, Tina: Look up EXCLUSIONARY in dictionary!, posted by tina on April 23, 2002, at 8:19:52
tina:
the tone of the board has changed for me as well. and i find it difficult to handle at times.
you're right - the longer we post and get to know each other, the easier it is to "read" what's really being said. and perhaps the concept of "support" becomes more important than debate.
i still think it's better on chat or yahoo where others aren't specifically excluded from dr. b's site, but that's just my opinion.
- kk
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.