![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 36 to 60 of 97. Go back in thread:
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 5, 2003, at 23:44:10
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry, posted by stjames on August 5, 2003, at 22:24:30
> Yes, he was attacking my EGO, an insult to me, a put down TO ME! Helpful suggestion? PLEASE!
>
> He asked to to simply consider your ego envolvement in this.Thank you. I'm glad that my intent was clear to some people.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 5, 2003, at 23:47:11
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry » wendy b., posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 5, 2003, at 12:39:10
> > Dear Dr Bob, Larry (and Pax, indirectly),
> >
> > > If you didn't find them to be reasonable or logical, why did you join?
> >
> > An unkind remark, which was uttered to put Pax down. Definitely NOT following the rules, which he so strongly defends.
>
> It is apparent to me that this remark was not meant as a put-down to Pax... it was a simple, reasonable, and relevant question.I thought so then, and I still do now. Thanks for understanding.
> > >Mistaking their silence for lack of emotional response is to exhibit a total lack of empathy.
> >
> > Now he's telling Pax he's "exhibiting" no empathy. This is not just a casual observation, it is a remark made to put someone down. Again, not following Bob's rules...
>
> He didn't say Pax was exhibiting a lack of empathy. He said that the *act* of mistaking their silence for lack of emotional response is to exhibit a total lack of empathy.Very carefully worded, by the way. Thanks for reading it clearly.
> > > So, employ your own standard, expressed above, and "take your leave". Bob and his assistants have the responsibility for maintaining civility, not vigilantes like you.
> >
> > Now Larry calls Pax a name - vigilante. That's a definite no-no. Also a bit harsh, and shows he doesn't understand the original intent of Pax's comments, but maybe if he reads Pax's post again, he will understand. So again, Larry violates another civility rule by name-calling...
>
> A vigilante is defined by Webster's as "a member of an unauthorized organization to look after the interests, threatened in some way, of a group". It's hardly a derogatory term, and in no way should be considered an abusive epithet. In fact, I'd venture to guess that Pax wouldn't at all disagree with this label.Right on.
> > > >But using Dr, Bob's rule of exponential blocking,my next infringment, regardless of its level of "uncivility" will result in a block of a month. This, considering that I haven't been blocked in MANY months. So, should a brief moment of heated blood on my part lead to the removal of my possibly life-changing input to others?
> > >
> > > Please reassess your ego.
> >
> > And again, Larry replies to Pax's original post with *sarcasm*, which Bob has made very clear is not allowed, because he's PBC'd and blocked it in loads of other threads.
>
> I don't see that as sarcasm. Simply a helpful suggestion.My intent.
Thanks for helping me to feel that I can be understood.
Lar
Posted by BekkaH on August 6, 2003, at 0:15:39
In reply to Re: blocked for 8 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Zo on August 5, 2003, at 1:04:25
Hi Zo,
I posted on PSB (the social board) to discuss cats. I just had to get your attention while I have the chance.
Bekka
Posted by zenhussy on August 6, 2003, at 2:18:25
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry » Ame Sans Vie, posted by Larry Hoover on August 5, 2003, at 23:47:11
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 6, 2003, at 7:54:08
In reply to Lar--get over yourself (nm), posted by zenhussy on August 6, 2003, at 2:18:25
That wasn't a very constructive comment. I'd be happy to hear your thoughts about my opinions.
Lar
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2003, at 11:31:25
In reply to Lar--get over yourself (nm), posted by zenhussy on August 6, 2003, at 2:18:25
> people need protection from you. Clearly, you don't understand.
>
> Blaming the victim? I am very surprised that you would stoop to that.
>
> You refuse to think about the impact of your rhetoric
>
> Please reassess your ego.
>
> Lar> My other comments were essentially MY OPINION, to which your response so ironically stomps all over... Your retort of my post is a dichotomized mixture of insult and reprobation clearly uncalled for.
>
> PAX> your perceived definition of the word must be incorrect.
>
> Now that's just plain silly.
>
> Ame Sans Vie> get over yourself
>
> zenhussyDifferent points of view are fine, and it's good to see people supporting each other, but I'd appreciate it if there weren't posts that could lead others to feel accused or put down, thanks.
Bob
Posted by zenhussy on August 6, 2003, at 11:31:51
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry, posted by stjames on August 5, 2003, at 22:24:30
> Yes, he was attacking my EGO, an insult to me, a put down TO ME! Helpful suggestion? PLEASE!
>
> He asked to to simply consider your ego envolvement in this. Hmmmmm, you OTOH, reacted in anger. Hmmmm.stjames,
Why not try the above post again using some "I" statements? Might have more impact then.
constructively,
zenhussy
Posted by zenhussy on August 6, 2003, at 11:35:55
In reply to Re: please be civil » Larry » pax » Ame » zenhussy, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2003, at 11:31:25
> Different points of view are fine, and it's good to see people supporting each other, but I'd appreciate it if there weren't posts that could lead others to feel accused or put down, thanks.
>
> BobAlright then Dr. Bob could you please point out the support in this post:
Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry
Posted by stjames on August 5, 2003, at 22:24:30In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry, posted by paxvox on August 5, 2003, at 16:15:27
Yes, he was attacking my EGO, an insult to me, a put down TO ME! Helpful suggestion? PLEASE!
He asked to to simply consider your ego envolvement in this. Hmmmmm, you OTOH, reacted in anger. Hmmmm.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030508/msgs/248435.html
If PBCs are being doled out then please take a closer look at all involved in the thread, not just the usual suspects.
Thanks.
zenhussy
Posted by stjames on August 6, 2003, at 11:49:48
In reply to Yo Saint--wanna try some I statements? » stjames, posted by zenhussy on August 6, 2003, at 11:31:51
> > Yes, he was attacking my EGO, an insult to me, a put down TO ME! Helpful suggestion? PLEASE!
> >
> > He asked to to simply consider your ego envolvement in this. Hmmmmm, you OTOH, reacted in anger. Hmmmm.
>
> stjames,
>
> Why not try the above post again using some "I" statements? Might have more impact then.
>
> constructively,
> zenhussyWhatever. Does not apply here. I was describing what another poster said, so I do not see how I can do I statements here.
Posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 6, 2003, at 11:50:28
In reply to Re: please be civil » Larry » pax » Ame » zenhussy, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2003, at 11:31:25
Posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 6, 2003, at 11:53:22
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry » Ame Sans Vie, posted by Larry Hoover on August 5, 2003, at 23:47:11
You're very welcome... I know you realize I didn't just defend you because you've been so helpful to me, but because I vehemently disagreed with Wendy's idea of civility.
Also, upon further contemplation, I realize now that your comment about Cam was not out of line -- you're right, it obviously wasn't a personal attack, because you don't know him/her.
Posted by zenhussy on August 6, 2003, at 13:30:59
In reply to Re: Yo Saint--wanna try some I statements?, posted by stjames on August 6, 2003, at 11:49:48
> > > Yes, he was attacking my EGO, an insult to me, a put down TO ME! Helpful suggestion? PLEASE!
> > >
> > > He asked to to simply consider your ego envolvement in this. Hmmmmm, you OTOH, reacted in anger. Hmmmm.
> >
> > stjames,
> >
> > Why not try the above post again using some "I" statements? Might have more impact then.
> >
> > constructively,
> > zenhussy
>
> Whatever. Does not apply here. I was describing what another poster said, so I do not see how I can do I statements here.
>
>
From: http://www.m-w.com
Main Entry: de·scribe
Pronunciation: di-'skrIb
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): de·scribed; de·scrib·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin describere, from de- + scribere to write -- more at SCRIBE
Date: 15th century
1 : to represent or give an account of in words <describe a picture>
2 : to represent by a figure, model, or picture : DELINEATE
3 obsolete : DISTRIBUTE
4 : to trace or traverse the outline of <describe a circle>
5 archaic : OBSERVE, PERCEIVEYou were giving your perceptions of another person's post? Hmmm. In the almighty FAQ it is written: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Please respect the views of others even if you think they're wrong. Please be sensitive to their feelings even if yours are hurt. Different points of view are fine, and in fact encouraged, but your freedom of speech is limited here. It can be therapeutic to express yourself, but this isn't necessarily the place.Please don't be sarcastic, joke about death or suicide, suggest that others harm, or discuss specific ways of harming, themselves or others, jump to conclusions about others, post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, harass or pressure others, use language that could offend others, exaggerate or overgeneralize -- et cetera. Even if you're quoting someone else. Also, please don't post under more than one name at a time.
Could your interpretation not be perceived as accusatory or offensive or even as an exaggeration?Just asking.
zenhussy
Posted by stjames on August 6, 2003, at 13:48:25
In reply to Re: Yo Saint--wanna try some I statements?, posted by zenhussy on August 6, 2003, at 13:30:59
I think your correcting my spelling is an insult.
I have a learning disibility and have made it clear in the past this is a touchy subject.
Posted by zenhussy on August 6, 2003, at 14:07:47
In reply to Re: Yo Saint--wanna try some I statements?, posted by stjames on August 6, 2003, at 13:48:25
> I think your correcting my spelling is an insult.
> I have a learning disibility and have made it clear in the past this is a touchy subject.stjames,
If any spelling corrections took place they were surely accidental as I am a horrible speller. I included definitions of a word to bolster my position on a previous post exchange we were having.
My intention was one of constructive challenge to see what or where you were coming from. Not one of derision.
If you felt insulted then I apologize as that was not my intent and I feel badly you feel hurt.
My hope is that you will read this and see that I am coming from a different approach and not one of negativity.
zenhussy
Posted by stjames on August 6, 2003, at 15:05:33
In reply to Re: Yo Saint--wanna try some I statements? » stjames, posted by zenhussy on August 6, 2003, at 14:07:47
> stjames,
>
> If any spelling corrections took place they were surely accidental as I am a horrible speller.How funny !
No I don't think mentioning ego is a put down.
Ego is a natural part of psychology. In any case,
WHY have you fixated on me, Lar made the original statement, so WHY pick on me ?
Posted by zenhussy on August 6, 2003, at 15:19:36
In reply to Re: Yo Saint--wanna try some I statements?, posted by stjames on August 6, 2003, at 15:05:33
> > stjames,
> >
> > If any spelling corrections took place they were surely accidental as I am a horrible speller.
>
> How funny !
>
> No I don't think mentioning ego is a put down.
> Ego is a natural part of psychology. In any case,
> WHY have you fixated on me, Lar made the original statement, so WHY pick on me ?I was trying to engage in a dialogue with you but I shall bow out seeing as this does not seem to be progressing.
take care
zenhussy
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2003, at 19:09:18
In reply to Re: Will do, sorry about that. :-) (nm) » Dr. Bob, posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 6, 2003, at 11:50:28
Posted by Zo on August 8, 2003, at 0:04:32
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry » Ame Sans Vie, posted by Larry Hoover on August 5, 2003, at 23:00:26
Well, Lar, that's one possiblity. The other could be that there is *merit* to Pax's position, and Kid_A's. It could be precisely the case that the way in which the board is increasingly mishandled "drives people away." Do you know what that means? It means, with a heavy heart. Leaving one's friends.
Frankly, I'm at a loss. When I come back here and see the petty backbiting, the time spent hashing out these arguments over Bob. .. and think of the way we all used to matter to each other. It's very sad.
Look at the world around you. Or don't. Perhaps authoritarian suits you. It doesn't suit me, it hasn't suited other mature, intelligent people with an enormous amount to contribute who in time simply leave, discouraged from giving the very support they would like to give.
Find me a single board on the web that blocks contributing, valued posters - never mind for increasing amounts of time. I told Bob the first time I was blocked, this was going to break my ties to the board, and I told him that it really hurt. At the same time, others were posting to the value of my presence. Let me see, one of my offenses was writing that an *unnamed* person on the board had a "so-called" intellect. You could find them all.
Another block was made over a woman's use of the word or. Bob and I corresponded about that one. He argued that her use of a carraige return *proved* her intent to be uncivil. I'm sorry, but that way madness lies.
It's probably a reliable barometer: if you have to search and argue why someone's post was uncivil - let it go! That's what everybody else does! In the interest of having a lively and supportive community, they do *not* nitpick over long-time members posts, nor stonewall any discussion.
What I've posted to Bob and the board about Asperger's is the result of a year of thinking, and none of it has been easy. I had as much affection for Bob as anybody - hell, I'm the person who coined "PBC." And I would *still* be here and on good terms with Bob, except that it became increasingly, painfully clear that the structure was and is inherently unfair. No one person can keep the rules in their head, offer no means of recourse, make arbitrary decisions that affect the lives of others - and expect that to be helpful, or even to work.
Trust me. This board is known far and wide as an oddity. One begins tactfully, Lar. A year or two later, tact is hard to come by. To learn that a neurological condition is very likely the root cause of what have been some very hard times for a number of people comes as a relief.
What I really don't understand is the need to be cruel. If you phrase things just right, it's possible to be immensely cruel and still not have said an uncivil word. It is just as possible to throw some slang around and be a tremendously caring, insightful person.
I would say, unequivocably, most every single person who has been arbitrarily blocked has been someone creative. Who has committed no big offense - by any adult measure.That much is abundantly clear. I don't know - does coloring outside the lines rattle you, too? I mean, I honestly don't know.
Bob has been offered every suggestion under the sun, by lots of folks with lots of good ideas. People who care about him and most of all, about their kin, here. Or perhaps the idea of kin was mistaken. . ..
Zo
Posted by Simcha on August 8, 2003, at 0:34:07
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry, posted by Zo on August 8, 2003, at 0:04:32
People, please remember....
1. Thou shalt not disagree with Dr. Bob
2. If thou shalt disagree with Dr. Bob refer to rule #1
3. If thou dost have a complaint, please read rule #1This board is not a democracy. It's a Machiavellian Grand Duchy. If you don't like it read the rules and remember the temperment of our Leader.
Dearly and With Absolute Love and Civility,
Simcha(Just thought I'd post it again here. And Aspergers? Really? Someone can diagnose that from how someone administers a board? I don't think I could do that...)
Posted by Zo on August 8, 2003, at 0:34:29
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry » Larry Hoover, posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 6, 2003, at 11:53:22
. . pretty well illustrates the difference between those who come from their emotions, in their manner of speech - and those who more closely examine their actual wording.Is it not possible, Larry and Ame, to observe that real offence has been taken, and to consider that the analytical only goes so far, when it comes to people's feelings? It is not the scrupulosity with which you justify your own words that troubles me - and I do not mean to single you out, I merely address you both because you are here - and represent a position, a way of thinking, that contributes to many of the misunderstandings I've seen here.
And even more, it represents Bob's thinking, and the reason for the resultant upheavel.
The moment of difference, I notice, for each of you, is that when you get the response that someone is hurt or angry or offended at what you've posted - Larry, particularly you - you immediately turn to your *own* words.
Instead of turning *towards* your fellow board member who is upset with you, to mend things with them - you turn to your own words, reread them, find nothing wrong - and put the other person, who has told you of their feelings, at an further remove.
Follow me, here. In the world of Aspergers, the rest of us are called NTs. For neurotypical. And it is granted, by all, that NTs feel the general social run of things. Whether one approves or not, we are the norm. Whether it is fair or not - and I didn't invent this stuff - society and psychology are rife with judgement upon those who do not readily, or easily, "connect" to others. OR - and this is an important or - readily "get" the tone of things, that others are getting.
To NTs, turning away from the feelings brought before you - is an offense. It is the equivalent of saying, I do not care about your feelings.
So that when you comb over your post, instead of really listening to the *person* and their complaints, it unfortunately broadcasts a message I'm not sure you intend.
Then, let us say the NT gets further upset at being cold-shouldered, and the analytical type is even more mystified, why the big deal, examines his post even more - and withdraws even more from the person who wanted and needed his presence.
Awareness. That's all. These are different modes of being and of communicating - and they're horribly misread, as in this thread. Two different languages. I've had experience in both camps, and feel for everybody, and would dearly love this to stop.
Ame, Lar, it gives offense to justify yourself when another is hurting. It just does. Pax, Zen, Larry is turning to *his* skill set. Beneath our different tool kits, we all want the same thing - the love and caring of one another. Even if the opposite style from yours - all of you - pisses you off, I don't care. It's all a MISUNDERSTANDING.
And Larry, unfortunate but I'm sure you know, true, the more analytic types are outvoted. Society has already ruled, to listen is to demonstrate caring and respect. That's what is important. Not that your post be impeccable and well-defended. There is much to be said about adjustments from all sides, but for now, the burden is with you. Hey, my Dad was a physicist, he was the same way, I loved my Dad. That is quite apart from the fact *he* had to learn how to go along with common social behaviors. If he wanted to be liked and accepted, which he achieved.
Bob is not "the bad guy" here. He *is* the guy who regularly alienates and has driven away some of the most brilliant minds I've ever known. An unfortunate part of Aspergers is the inability to consider, to really in your heart consider, the other person's position. It's a neurological disability - that can be changed.
Many thoughts. I hope some prove useful.
Zo
Posted by Zo on August 8, 2003, at 0:38:18
In reply to Re: Yo Saint--wanna try some I statements?, posted by stjames on August 6, 2003, at 13:48:25
Hey, come on over to slashdot. Those guys can't spell worth a damn. Geeks, coders. But I've never read anyone funnier.And-that was pretty nice, your being open. Always gives a person a lift, when somebody else is open about their vulnerabilities, especially a guy. Whoo, do you live in a tough world--women have no idea. I'm writing about it.
Zo
Posted by Zo on August 8, 2003, at 1:02:15
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry, posted by Simcha on August 8, 2003, at 0:34:07
Hi, Simcha!
Yeah, you pretty much can. .. if you're 59 years old, a therapist/writer, were been the daughter of and married to an Aspergers male. . and have observed and interacted with someone over time.
Spectrum behavior has certain flags. Ever seen the geek test on Wired? It's pretty great. . .
Zo
Posted by Simcha on August 8, 2003, at 1:19:21
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry, posted by Zo on August 8, 2003, at 1:02:15
Zo,
Wow, I'm just studying for an MA in Counseling Psychology with a Specialization in Transpersonal Counseling, just passed my first year and got the green light to continue on the Counseling Track. This is a big deal in our school. I've also been a Mental Health Counselor for the past year for Middle School kids, fourth and fifth graders, and kidnergartners and first graders. I'm in there and green. I love it. I'm only 33, male. Some of our kids are on the Autistic Spectrum. I'm familiar with that. I know that Aspergers is different.
I hope to be able to have that diagnostic ability some day. That would be cool. Actually our school tries not to pathologize the person so that we continue to hold our clients in unconditional positive regard. It's a Holistic method. It has its pluses and minuses. We still have to be intimitely familiar with DSM IV criteria and diagnosis since that is how you get paid by the government and insurance companies if you deal with them. Next year I begin that series of classes.
I think I took that Wired test once and scored very high on the Geek side. I think I'll try it again.... LOL ;-)
Blessings,
Simcha> Hi, Simcha!
>
> Yeah, you pretty much can. .. if you're 59 years old, a therapist/writer, were been the daughter of and married to an Aspergers male. . and have observed and interacted with someone over time.
>
> Spectrum behavior has certain flags. Ever seen the geek test on Wired? It's pretty great. . .
>
> Zo
>
>
Posted by Simcha on August 8, 2003, at 1:39:18
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry » Zo, posted by Simcha on August 8, 2003, at 1:19:21
Zo,
> Spectrum behavior has certain flags. Ever seen the geek test on Wired? It's pretty great. . .On this test:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/aqtest.html
I scored a 21. That's 5 points higher than average. Hmmm....Simcha
Posted by Zo on August 8, 2003, at 1:54:44
In reply to Re: Bob, please consider a PBC for Larry » Zo, posted by Simcha on August 8, 2003, at 1:19:21
That is sooo cool. Of course unconditonal regard works - with children. But Aspergers adult males can and do give more than offense, their standards and behaviors are abusive, and the results are the same on their wives, partners, children. It's a dilemma. I'm moderating a group of recovering partners of Aspergers, mostly women. It's hugely pathological, the havoc these guys can wreak on the sanity,health and well-being of those around them, particularly if they are the wage-earner. Without theory of mind, there's pretty much no reason to "share the wages." And the tragic thing, at which you also gotta laugh, is the way they declare the rules, perservate over them, and of course are invariably wrong.Then you come across an AS guy with a big heart - it's all so mysterious. The DSM has got to be the biggest pile of steaming. . ..
I have great faith in the plasticity of the human brain and in the ability of these children to learn to connect and to take pleasure in connecting - you're on the frontline, kid, you go!
Love,
zo
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.