![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 66 to 90 of 90. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 20:43:47
In reply to Hi Lou, posted by Kali Munro on October 6, 2004, at 20:35:37
Kali,
You wrote,[...I apologise for not being clearer and more sensitive in my wording...].
Thank you very much for that, I appreciate you taking the time to clear up that misunderstanding.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 20:49:53
In reply to Lou's response to Dr. Hsiung's post » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 20:37:40
Friends,
If you are experiancing a problem clicking on the link in question that is on the faith board, then the link is:
http://www.classicreader.com/read.php/sid.1/bookid.615/sec.51/
Lou
Posted by Kali Munro on October 6, 2004, at 20:50:03
In reply to Re: Hi Lou (excuse me if I'm butting in) » Kali Munro, posted by partlycloudy on October 6, 2004, at 14:16:36
> Kali - what do make of this thread? I find it distressing to the extreme, yet I was really looking forward to your visit.
>
> I'm afraid I won't be able to return to this board to enjoy your posts, and that really saddens me.
>
> partlycloudy is very stormy.
>Awww I'm sorry to hear that. I understand feeling distressed. Do you feel comfortable saying more about how you feel? No pressure, of course.
What do I think? I understand that people get hurt and misunderstandings happen. I prefer to be addressed directly, but not everyone feels comfortable doing that. They feel more comfortable going to the moderator; I understand it can be hard to speak directly to someone whom you feel has hurt you.
I think there could be more checking things out here, for example saying, I heard you say...did you mean that? That helps to clear up misunderstandings and resolve hurt feelings.
I'm sorry it's so hard for you.
Kali
Posted by Kali Munro on October 6, 2004, at 20:53:26
In reply to Lou's response to Kali » Kali Munro, posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 20:43:47
> Kali,
> You wrote,[...I apologise for not being clearer and more sensitive in my wording...].
> Thank you very much for that, I appreciate you taking the time to clear up that misunderstanding.
> LouThank you. And, I appreciate you hearing me and letting me know that you did. :)
Kali
Posted by Kali Munro on October 6, 2004, at 20:55:30
In reply to Re: Hi, remember me? :) » Kali Munro, posted by Toph on October 6, 2004, at 14:51:27
> Hi Kali,
> As per usual I'm jumping in here late. I thought you said you'd be here till Thurs. <<<<
I am here until Thurs, and I promise to get back to you then.Take care,
Kali
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 21:07:08
In reply to Re: Lou's explanation of administrative review » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on October 6, 2004, at 17:32:07
NikkiT2,
Thank you addressing me here. I am glad to hear from you.
You wtote about my asking the moderatoer for a determination. I ask for a determination for reasons that I believe could be supportive. My requests to the moderator havwe been handled greatly and I appreciat his attending to my requests. In the cases previously, the determinations were mostly that the posts were acceptable. If they were not, a "please rephrase" is what I was thinking would be the remedy for the post not being acceptable, because there is generally a misunderstanding that I see in the post and I am thinking that the misunderstanding could be cleared up.
Good to hear from you and I would like to establish further dialog with you.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 21:13:22
In reply to Re: Lou's explanation of administrative review » Lou Pilder, posted by Toph on October 6, 2004, at 16:48:39
Toph,
You wrote about the moderator reading evry post. As i remember reading the opening page in the FAQ section, the moderator wrote that he could not read evry post due to the volume. I have not read that page recently, so that could have been changed?
Thank you for welcoming me back and it id good to hear from you.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 21:32:19
In reply to Hi Lou, posted by Kali Munro on October 6, 2004, at 20:35:37
Kali,
You wrote,[...perhaps you were trying to "teach" people something that they did not want to be "taught"...].
I do not know if you have read some of the threads involved here, but these generally concern statements that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings and that is why I would want them deleted, for I believe that those type of statements are not supportive, nor do I as a jew feel comfortable with them being visible without a note from the administration that they are not acceptable in relation to the rules for the forum. I am looking , generally, for a "please rephrase" because there is usually a misunderstanding and I believe that misunderstandings can be cleared up without in most cases expelling anyone. Are you referring to the thread that involved the poem that I considered having a part that had the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings?
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on October 7, 2004, at 3:03:44
In reply to Lou's reply to Kali, » Kali Munro, posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 21:32:19
Hi Kali,
(grins) Did you know what you were in for in coming back?I just wanted to say thank you for the advice and input you have offered previously and currently. I recently took some of your advice in not responding to a post when I thought it might lead to an escalation I just wasn't interested in or up for. Although my lack of response was not without consequence (further posts from said poster), it felt good to make that decision proactively and for my own self-care.
Hmmm, boundaries...a good thing to be very clear about. :)
Warmly,
gg
Posted by Toph on October 7, 2004, at 6:55:58
In reply to Lou's reply to Toph » Toph, posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2004, at 21:13:22
I guess maybe then he doesn't read every post, just every one of mine when I break the rules, haha. Anyway, it certainly is within your right to ask him for a review of something to draw attention to it.
BTW, I saw your reference to Beethoven. Web sites make mention of several theories about illnesses he may have had including attention disorder with hyperactivity, bipolar disorder, hypochondriasis,and tinnitus variously attributed to syphillus, typhus or lead poisoning. I wonder about the accuracy of these post mortem diagnoses. -Toph
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 7, 2004, at 7:08:39
In reply to Re: Lou's reply » Lou Pilder, posted by Toph on October 7, 2004, at 6:55:58
Toph,
My condition was caused by my being prescribed a tricyclic AD. There are 4 other cases in the wotld at this time similar to mine that came as a result of taking the AD. One case is in Japan, one in Germany ONe in France and me. There are others cases that were caused by other means and I hasve found about 45 in all in the history of the world.
I am the subject of reserch and have corrosponded with eminant doctors that are doing reserch in this phnominum.
Because of my math backgrond and that I am mostly deaf, this condition of mine is a little bit different than Beethoven's. However, I did talk to the Beethoven society and I told them that his condition was probably precipitated by eating bread with an ergot on it which could be similar to an AD chemically. There are cases in the liturature of mass happenings of people and it is thought to be caused by the bread in a common bakery..
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by Toph on October 7, 2004, at 7:53:10
In reply to Lou's reply to Toph » Toph, posted by Lou Pilder on October 7, 2004, at 7:08:39
Thanks for sharing Lou. I have to run to work. Maybe we'll get a chance to talk later, though your post will likely generate a response from others. Have a good day. -Toph
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 7, 2004, at 8:50:28
In reply to Re: Lou's reply » Lou Pilder, posted by Toph on October 7, 2004, at 7:53:10
Toph,
As far as further discussion concerning this, I think that the discussion is now going outside the rhelm of the administrative board. We could, though, email about that subject or use the feature mail here.
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Lou
Posted by Fi on October 7, 2004, at 15:34:01
In reply to Hi Fi!, posted by Kali Munro on October 5, 2004, at 19:46:20
Posted by Kali Munro on October 7, 2004, at 19:24:21
In reply to Re: Hi, remember me? :) » Kali Munro, posted by Toph on October 6, 2004, at 14:51:27
>>>>My question is, if Psycho-Babble aspires to be a therapeutic environment, isn't it valuable to have regular discussions of not only content but also process? <<<<
For sure, discussions about process are important -- I don't know how "regularly" but at times, yes. I might be misunderstanding something but isn't that what the admin forum is for?
>>>>We support each other and share information and experiences, which is great. We don't seem to talk much about how we arrive at the rules that govern this place, how certain conflicts develop, why some people feel safe to post and others don't, how the group acts dynamically to create social norms, to mention a few. >>>>>
I see, yes, I agree those are important issues to discuss.
>>>>Bob appears to be the playground supervisor -- he rarely kicks the ball. Should he stimulate more analysis of how things go here or is it up to us? -Toph>>>>>
Well, I think Bob needs to define his own role -- I'm not suggesting that he hasn't, just that he would be the one to define his role.I think that anyone should feel free to initiate discussions about these issues. In my experience, it's usually the members who have lots of good observations and insights into the dynamics of a board -- afterall they're the ones who are usually around the most and observing more of what's happening. I think members often don't know where or how to share that kind of information and what to do with the information and may need some direction about that. Would it be discussed here? Or is this more issue specific?
I've seen good discussions at boards about what members see happening at their board, for example, the kind of culture that exists and how that impacts on people. Those kinds of discussions have often led to all kinds of changes -- both personally in how folks interacted with one another and also in recommendations being presented to the moderators from a group of people.
Kali
Posted by Kali Munro on October 7, 2004, at 19:33:33
In reply to Re: Kali - this is exactly what happens, posted by verne on October 6, 2004, at 15:38:27
> I agree with partlycloudy that this is a problem and wonder what can be done about it. I'm reluctant to post for fear my messages will be submitted for "administrative review". I accuse myself enough, I don't need to go looking for it.
>
> verne
I understand; it could make it difficult to post for fear of "not saying it right" and being submitted for review. I think when someone has a concern or feels hurt by someone's post it might be gentler to give the poster the benefit of the doubt -- I doubt anyone here is trying to hurt anyone -- and ask the person to clarify what they meant, and/or they could express how they heard the poster's comments and ask if that's what they were intending to say. Would that help you to feel more comfortable posting?Kali
Posted by Kali Munro on October 7, 2004, at 19:41:30
In reply to Hi Kali, welcome back and thank you, posted by gardenergirl on October 7, 2004, at 3:03:44
Hi there gg (big grin back at you) :)
Thank you too. :)
>>>>it felt good to make that decision proactively and for my own self-care.>>>>
That is so wonderful to hear! Good work! :)
Nice to see you again, gg, and thanks for your kinds words.
Kali
Posted by Kali Munro on October 7, 2004, at 20:01:38
In reply to Re: Hi Kali, welcome back and thank you, posted by Kali Munro on October 7, 2004, at 19:41:30
Thank you, everyone, for your questions, honesty, sharing and kindness. I enjoyed my visit, and wish you all the best. :)
Kali
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 7, 2004, at 20:05:26
In reply to Hi Verne, posted by Kali Munro on October 7, 2004, at 19:33:33
Kali,
You wrote,[...might be gentler to...ask the person to clarify ...].
I am deeply gratefull for your posting of that.
Lou Pilder
Posted by verne on October 7, 2004, at 20:16:32
In reply to Hi Verne, posted by Kali Munro on October 7, 2004, at 19:33:33
Kali,
Yes, I would feel more comfortable posting in a climate where, as you say, other posters are given the "benefit of the doubt".
Afterall, Dr Bob reads all posts, so there's no need to bring a questionable post to his attention.
Imagine a soccer game where the players are constantly clamoring for the referee's attention and pointing the finger at other players? The game would be unplayable.
Let the players, play, and the ump, umpire.
verne
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 7, 2004, at 20:36:50
In reply to Lou's response to Kali's reply to verne » Kali Munro, posted by Lou Pilder on October 7, 2004, at 20:05:26
Friends,
There has been posters here that are under the impression that the moderator reads evry post. There are two statements by the moderator in the FAQ concerning that.
One states something like that he [...does not gaurentee that he will reads evry post...] and the other is something like [...if you want me to see a particular post you can either email me or post it on the administrative board...].
Lou
Posted by Toph on October 7, 2004, at 20:42:48
In reply to Hi Toph, posted by Kali Munro on October 7, 2004, at 19:24:21
I was rereading some of the posts in this thread and noticed that Melanie made several comments about group process and she also mentioned something about a schoolyard. Then I looked at my question to Kali where I asked about process and also used a schoolyard metaphor. Obviously, AuntieMel's posts must have made an impression on me and I thought it is only right for me to give her credit.
> >>>>My question is, if Psycho-Babble aspires to be a therapeutic environment, isn't it valuable to have regular discussions of not only content but also process? <<<<
>
> For sure, discussions about process are important -- I don't know how "regularly" but at times, yes. I might be misunderstanding something but isn't that what the admin forum is for?
>
>
>
> >>>>We support each other and share information and experiences, which is great. We don't seem to talk much about how we arrive at the rules that govern this place, how certain conflicts develop, why some people feel safe to post and others don't, how the group acts dynamically to create social norms, to mention a few. >>>>>
>
> I see, yes, I agree those are important issues to discuss.
>
>
>
> >>>>Bob appears to be the playground supervisor -- he rarely kicks the ball. Should he stimulate more analysis of how things go here or is it up to us? -Toph>>>>>
>
>
> Well, I think Bob needs to define his own role -- I'm not suggesting that he hasn't, just that he would be the one to define his role.
>
> I think that anyone should feel free to initiate discussions about these issues. In my experience, it's usually the members who have lots of good observations and insights into the dynamics of a board -- afterall they're the ones who are usually around the most and observing more of what's happening. I think members often don't know where or how to share that kind of information and what to do with the information and may need some direction about that. Would it be discussed here? Or is this more issue specific?
>
> I've seen good discussions at boards about what members see happening at their board, for example, the kind of culture that exists and how that impacts on people. Those kinds of discussions have often led to all kinds of changes -- both personally in how folks interacted with one another and also in recommendations being presented to the moderators from a group of people.
>
> Kali
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 7, 2004, at 23:33:31
In reply to Bye for now :), posted by Kali Munro on October 7, 2004, at 20:01:38
Posted by Dinah on October 9, 2004, at 7:54:28
In reply to Re: Is it worth fighting for » Dinah, posted by AuntieMel on October 6, 2004, at 10:29:25
I was thinking about this, and how very true what you say is. I was also thinking that maybe one of the skills involved in having a successful relationship with Babble is accepting that we do interact with others based a lot on perceptions. And learning to react less when evidence comes up that we, or I, I suppose really, can be rather extravagantly wrong about others. Not to get as angry about it, or to take it as personally. Just to accept it, be glad of the times that I am correct, and move on after making a slight adjustment in expectations.
Of course, I have no idea if I'm making any sense, if I'm responding appropriately to what you were attempting to say, or being at all relevant. :)
I think it's still more of a problem for me when it's Dr. Bob, and that's on my big list of unsolved issues. But I think I'm making some strides there too.
Does any of this make any sense to you, or echo any of your own experiences?
Posted by AuntieMel on October 9, 2004, at 18:40:12
In reply to Re: Is it worth fighting for » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on October 9, 2004, at 7:54:28
All of that makes sense, and is exactly what I was talking about - that we keep having to remind ourselves to give others the benefit of the doubt when something comes up. And maybe be a bit slower to trust? to protect ourselve from hurt.
And I can for sure see that it is hard to tune out the moderator. Especially for people like me that have a deep need to side with the underdog.
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.