![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 16 of 16. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by wendy b. on October 28, 2002, at 16:06:41
Dear Bob and others:
If Phil is not blocked for making fun of Lou here,
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20021001/msgs/1170.htmlI am really wondering why I was blocked (see above) for four weeks, after a reasonable and civil question about the way Lou posts.
Why is there such a double-standard here? I really don't understand how or why Bob blocks, yet again... Phil can make fun of people, and I cannot ask a civil question...
Sincerely,
Wendy
Posted by mair on October 28, 2002, at 20:04:34
In reply to Phil on Faith: song about Lou, posted by wendy b. on October 28, 2002, at 16:06:41
Posted by Tabßitha on October 29, 2002, at 1:58:49
In reply to Phil on Faith: song about Lou, posted by wendy b. on October 28, 2002, at 16:06:41
Well, shoot. I didn't see any "making fun of Lou" in Phil's song. I just thought it was awfully creative of him to write a folk song about babble threads.
Posted by oracle on October 29, 2002, at 2:10:56
In reply to Re: Dang it, Phil's blocked again., posted by Tabßitha on October 29, 2002, at 1:58:49
I think he was OK up to "Nazi". That one put
him over the top.I think Lou is blocked, too:
<quote>
> It is my understanding that the following statement would be restrained here:
> [The Rider said to me "I am your God amd (sic) you XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX."]Yes, so posting it again will mean being blocked again.
<end quote>
Posted by Tabßitha on October 29, 2002, at 2:17:14
In reply to Re: Dang it, Phil's blocked again., posted by oracle on October 29, 2002, at 2:10:56
Thanks for trying to shed some light. I just plain didn't get the Nazi reference. I assumed it was a topic that came up in the threads (must admit I haven't kept up lately) Surely Phil wouldn't be so crass as to just throw in an arbitrary reference to Nazis.
Posted by tina on October 29, 2002, at 6:58:10
In reply to Re: Dang it, Phil's blocked again. » oracle, posted by Tabßitha on October 29, 2002, at 2:17:14
Phil probably knew he'd get blocked for that song but I personally liked it ALOT. It was extremely creative and funny. I hope Phil will come back and sing some more.
Posted by BeardedLady on October 29, 2002, at 7:59:47
In reply to Re: Dang it, Phil's blocked again., posted by oracle on October 29, 2002, at 2:10:56
> I think he was OK up to "Nazi". That one put him over the top.
I winced at that—didn't know what he meant, but I don't ever like to see that word. That's my peeve, my personal n-word. I don't even like it when folks use the n-word on evil-doers, as, to me, there was no greater evil.
But I thought the poem itself was clever, and I especially liked the image of the grandmother. On first read, it seemed (with that major exception) like a very sweet tribute. But I'm a better writer than I am a reader, and maybe others' insights are correct.
On a board such as this one, it's certainly block-worthy, as it had a few jabs, but I thought it showed some talent. (And those jabs seemed to me to be handled in sort of a friendly way, rather than a poking fun way. But I must be naive.)
beardy
Posted by Dinah on October 29, 2002, at 9:39:53
In reply to Re: Dang it, Phil's blocked again., posted by Tabßitha on October 29, 2002, at 1:58:49
Well, consider me humorless. But I would not like such a ditty composed about me and posted on an internet board unless the person who wrote it was an extremely good friend of mine. And perhaps even if it were. It would hurt my feelings. Perhaps it brings back too many school memories, where such things were certainly not done with affection.
This is a rhetorical question, because I feel rather uncomfortable discussing either the song or Phil's block, since I have a liking for both Lou and Phil. But I wonder how many people would appreciate such a song written about them and their presentation on this board of something that means a whole lot to them. A lot of times we open up here and share things that make us vulnerable to others.
Perhaps there are those among us who would not mind such a thing, but I don't think it can be assumed that that is the case. I do congratulate those among you who would not be hurt. I spent my whole life trying to get to that point. And I'm not there yet.
Posted by BeardedLady on October 29, 2002, at 9:50:48
In reply to Re: Dang it, Phil's blocked again., posted by Dinah on October 29, 2002, at 9:39:53
I would probably be a good sport about a roast, too. But you never know until it happens, and you never know what kind of mood you'll be in when it does happen. If your self-esteem is relatively high, things like that, when done in good-natured fun, are usually kind of flattering.
I don't know Phil's relationship with Lou, but I didn't see it as mean-spirited. I certainly could be wrong, and Phil's not allowed to answer. I prefer to assume the good in a case like this.
beardy
Posted by Dinah on October 29, 2002, at 9:59:47
In reply to I wouldn't mind it if it were done with affection. » Dinah, posted by BeardedLady on October 29, 2002, at 9:50:48
Oh, I also prefer to assume the best. I'm just explaining why I agree that such things shouldn't be allowed on the board. There is no way for Dr. Bob to know the relationships of everyone on the board, or the temperament of the person who is being written about, or the motives of the author.
Since the guideline states that things that could make another feel put down should not be posted, it seems like good general policy not to allow roasts on the board. :)
I suspected that you would be a good sport about such things. I admire those who can do that. I have always burst into tears.
Posted by Dinah on October 29, 2002, at 10:12:05
In reply to I wouldn't mind it if it were done with affection. » Dinah, posted by BeardedLady on October 29, 2002, at 9:50:48
PS. Beardy
I'm not sure it's just a question of self esteem either. There's nothing wrong with my self esteem, so I assume there is a separate component to it. Rejection sensitivity perhaps?
Dr. Bob, I know this belongs on PPB, but it was just a quick comment on a post and didn't seem to warrant a redirect.
Posted by BeardedLady on October 29, 2002, at 12:05:12
In reply to Re: I wouldn't mind it if it were done with affection., posted by Dinah on October 29, 2002, at 9:59:47
> Oh, I also prefer to assume the best. I'm just explaining why I agree that such things shouldn't be allowed on the board.
I wasn't making that statement about anything you said. I was making it about me. My comment didn't mean that I thought you weren't assuming the best intentions of Phil.
> Since the guideline states that things that could make another feel put down should not be posted, it seems like good general policy not to allow roasts on the board. :)
As I said previously, it was certainly a block-worthy post, according to the rules of this site. I was not arguing that I thought it should be allowed. I was merely responding to your post about how others would feel about it.
beardy
Posted by SandraDee on October 29, 2002, at 13:52:37
In reply to roast posts » Dinah, posted by BeardedLady on October 29, 2002, at 12:05:12
For what it's worth, I like Phil and I thought his post crossed the PB civility lines quite a bit too. I was waiting for the PBC to come. We seem to have a shortage of men that post and it's nice to have his input on most things.
So to clarify, I thought the post in question was definately worthy of reprimand.
Hope you come back, Phil!
Posted by mair on October 29, 2002, at 16:19:26
In reply to roast posts » Dinah, posted by BeardedLady on October 29, 2002, at 12:05:12
For whatever reason, I am generally very uncomfortable being the focus of anyone's attempts at humor, no matter how affectionate it may be. As such, when I first read Phil's song, I tried to think how I would feel if it were about me. I would've been pretty upset even if he left out all the stuff about Nazis. Maybe I just don't have the right sense of humor and I probably take myself way too seriously, but the way I look at it, "roast" posts, no matter how amusing and lighthearted, are always at the expense of someone else. Some people aren't bothered by them at all and some people just don't like it. Because we are all so different, it's probably so much safer to just avoid these kinds of posts.
All that said, I think we'll all miss Phil while he's gone.
Mair
Posted by ShelliR on November 21, 2002, at 12:59:31
In reply to Re: I wouldn't mind it if it were done with affection. » BeardedLady, posted by Dinah on October 29, 2002, at 10:12:05
Dinah,
Um, well, I certainly would think that rejection sensitivity *is* related to less than robust self-esteem. (Focusing on the sensitivity part).
Not that you're alone in that; in fact most of us are right there with you. But couldn't let an almost oxymoron just pass me by.
Shelli
Posted by Phil on November 21, 2002, at 17:54:55
In reply to Re: I wouldn't mind it if it were done with affection. » Dinah, posted by ShelliR on November 21, 2002, at 12:59:31
Just to keep the record straight.
I meant no harm to Lou and found that my little version of satire goes whoosh around here sometimes.
This is the end of the 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.