![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 10 to 34 of 51. Go back in thread:
Posted by Toph on October 10, 2004, at 1:55:27
In reply to Re: one last thing..dr bob--toph » newwife, posted by gardenergirl on October 9, 2004, at 23:55:47
Posted by alexandra_k on October 10, 2004, at 19:48:54
In reply to one last thing..dr bob, posted by newwife on October 9, 2004, at 19:54:56
> you know i should not even have to be careful how to word my stuff, i should be able to write without being scared of getting in trouble.
Though the only reason one 'gets into trouble' is because one says something that could lead to others feeling accused or put down. Is it too much to ask that people not post anything that could cause others to feel offended or put down? Some people are more sensitive to that than others, of course, but isn't it a nice idea at least, that one should refrain from hurting others to the best of ones ability?
>also, did you ever stop to think that what you consider un civil some might not. so how is it my fault if i type something you consider un civil if i dont even know it is.
If you didn't understand what was considered to be uncivil about those two points, then it may have been useful to ask.
>who died and made you the master and commander of a support group website.
Ouch. Dr. Bob kindly donates his time and moderates this site.
>i feel like you are a mean teacher who takes posts out of context and i dont think anything on my post was un civil and if you want to band me go ahead, freedom of speech dr bob? remember that??? go ahead and band me, i bet atleast 5 other people agree with my post and dont think its uncivil. they are just scared to agree in fear of getting booted. i dont care, i dont agree with you and i bet you are not even a dr. if you were then you would be more understanding about how people think differently and if you want a social opinion giving website then quit punishing people that try to say how they feel. go ahead and kick me off, i have made friends and we can communicate off this website. i thought the admin section was to voice concerns. guess not. i refuse to let you put words in my mouth, i never said force him to leave. dont make me look bad. i was really nice by not dropping names. anyone can make something un civil if they try. mine was not. i am a nice 23 year old newlywed that has never tried to offend anyone and you have managed to hurt my feelings. happy? how is that for uncivil?
It seems to me that you do not understand why those aspects of your post were considered uncivil. Why don't you try to understand that (by asking) before resorting to personal attacks?
Posted by Toph on October 10, 2004, at 20:13:34
In reply to Re: one last thing..dr bob » newwife, posted by alexandra_k on October 10, 2004, at 19:48:54
I think it must be very difficult for Bob to review a thread after the fact. I really got rapped up in the heat of last night's thread of Jess'. He may find that I posted something in which he sensed contempt, but can fair post mortem judgements be made when you weren't there in real time? I think, for example, that some of Jess' ire in her second thread was fueled by others (including myself) who chastized Bob for what he asked her. I hope he can take that into consideration when he looks at the specifics of what she said. When a topic is hot, it's not just a series of detached carefully thought out statements. There is real emotion during a flurry of posts.
Posted by alexandra_k on October 10, 2004, at 20:19:34
In reply to Re: one last thing..dr bob, posted by Toph on October 10, 2004, at 20:13:34
> I think it must be very difficult for Bob to review a thread after the fact. I really got rapped up in the heat of last night's thread of Jess'. He may find that I posted something in which he sensed contempt, but can fair post mortem judgements be made when you weren't there in real time? I think, for example, that some of Jess' ire in her second thread was fueled by others (including myself) who chastized Bob for what he asked her. I hope he can take that into consideration when he looks at the specifics of what she said. When a topic is hot, it's not just a series of detached carefully thought out statements. There is real emotion during a flurry of posts.
I suppose that in reviewing a thread one can only go by the objective words on the page, and consider whether they imply judgement or offence to others. It is hard to be careful with what one says when one is caught up in the emotion of the moment. Thats when I find it helpful to try and distance myself from what I have written as much as possible and read through what I have written as objectively as I can before I hit 'submit'.
Posted by Toph on October 10, 2004, at 20:36:03
In reply to Re: one last thing..dr bob » Toph, posted by alexandra_k on October 10, 2004, at 20:19:34
But Alexandra, can't a website hosted by a physician who has published about the therapeutic potentials of the internet have a real time dynamic like a chat room or a group therapy session? Isn't there a place for spontaneity, emotion and flow in discourse here? I was amazed how last night people rallied around Jes when she was so upset and seemed to carefully bring her to a calmer state. All that work (to use a clinical term) is lost in sanctions imposed hours later. I'm not anti-civility, just pro fairness and compassion.
-Toph
Posted by alexandra_k on October 10, 2004, at 20:47:28
In reply to Re: one last thing..dr bob » alexandra_k, posted by Toph on October 10, 2004, at 20:36:03
> But Alexandra, can't a website hosted by a physician who has published about the therapeutic potentials of the internet have a real time dynamic like a chat room or a group therapy session? Isn't there a place for spontaneity, emotion and flow in discourse here?
So long as people don't post anything that could lead to others feeling accused or put down, sure. The trouble is that I, for one do not take so much trouble to be civil in my 'real world' or 'real time' interactions. In posting here I get the chance to really think about what I am saying and the effects that that may have on a reader before I hit the 'submit' key. What takes a lot of working out now may become automatic and occur in real time interactions eventually. It is harder, though. It is a skill that must be worked on and developed.
Posted by newwife on October 10, 2004, at 22:05:10
In reply to Re: one last thing..dr bob » Toph, posted by alexandra_k on October 10, 2004, at 20:47:28
did you forget that he hurt my feelings? i guess so.
Posted by newwife on October 10, 2004, at 22:09:34
In reply to Re: one last thing..dr bob » alexandra_k, posted by Toph on October 10, 2004, at 20:36:03
i think we are forgetting that we are have real true emotions and we get hurt and mad. i did read through my post a million times. once again, we all take things out of context no matter how careful people are with there posts. its pretty wierd that we have yet to hear from bob, it took him no time to jot down his message to me, but i am suppossed to read caredfully through my posts. pleeeeeeeeeease, are the rules not for him to?
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 11, 2004, at 5:40:05
In reply to Re: one last thing..dr bob-alex, posted by newwife on October 10, 2004, at 22:05:10
> i feel like you are a mean teacher
> they are just scared to agree> did you forget that he hurt my feelings? i guess so.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Atticus on October 11, 2004, at 11:01:49
In reply to Re: please be civil » newwife, posted by Dr. Bob on October 11, 2004, at 5:40:05
Jesus, Bobby, you are really something. I feel angry that you appear to believe you are above the very rules that you set for everyone else. Specifically, the ubiquitous PBC line you toss out: "Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down." I feel, like so many others who posted, that your response to newwife contained uncalled-for and unjustifiable elements of sarcasm and mean-spiritedness. In any case, she unambiguously told you that she felt "hurt and put down" by the remark. No guesswork or interpretation required on your part to see that under the PBC rules, you earned yourself a PBC. The number of posts you let go by before actually responding to her about your "asking them to leave" remark was also very noticeable. You left her hanging in the wind for a long time. Then there's the notion you introduce about making the guests feel unwelcome by saying they can always go elsewhere. I feel this is a cheap shot and a non-sequitor. It does seem very clear from her posts that YOU made her feel unwelcome. Give it up, Bobby -- cut out the bullsh**. I'd like to see you just admit you stepped over the line in your response. Admitting to a mistake won't kill you. After all, you did once (and only once) on PB before, way back in 2002. And you're still breathing. I feel frustrated -- like so many others -- that what you've perfected on Psycho-Babble is the art of creating the illusion that you're responding without actually providing a substantial response at all. I perceive you as a master of rhetorical misdirection. Online psych forums may have a future, but to be honest, I don't feel you're the ideal person to be refereeing a site such as this. I just perceive far too many of your judgments as being off target and your responses dismissive. Maybe it's time to pass the baton on PB. Atticus
Posted by verne on October 11, 2004, at 11:57:30
In reply to The Doctrine of Bob Infallibility, posted by Atticus on October 11, 2004, at 11:01:49
Ever see the Caine Mutiny or read the book? I better double q it: "The Caine Mutiny". When I saw the movie as a kid I just thought the Captain was deranged and completely wrong but in later viewings, I realized the crew was also to blame. They turned an eccentric captain into a madman. The captain (Bogart) makes an issue over a quart of missing strawberries but the crew, in turn, made it an even bigger issue and things escalated from there. Perhaps that's the point (or one of the points) of the book.
verne
Posted by Toph on October 11, 2004, at 15:01:14
In reply to Re: The Doctrine of Bob Infallibility, posted by verne on October 11, 2004, at 11:57:30
I'm not sure what you are trying to communicate with this reference, Verne, is it that Newwife, Attica, and the rest of us ought not act muntinously or we may drive Bob mad? Was it Captain Queeg's rigidity and inability to empathize with his crew that caused his demise? I can't remember the movie well but perhaps this quote from the movie says something about his downfall: "...there are four ways of doing things on board my ship. The right way, the wrong way, the Navy way, and my way. (If) They do things my way, we'll get along...(Queeg)?"
Posted by verne on October 11, 2004, at 15:28:21
In reply to Re: The Doctrine of Bob Infallibility » verne, posted by Toph on October 11, 2004, at 15:01:14
The reason I mentioned the book is that it probes the nature of mutiny. I'm not suggesting Dr. Bob will be driven mad, join the navy, suddenly misplace a quart of strawberries, or anything in particular.
I am suggesting that like the captain, Dr. Bob is the authority, and we the posters, the "crew". And that like a navy ship, the HMS Babble has rules.
verne
Posted by Toph on October 11, 2004, at 15:36:05
In reply to Re: The Doctrine of Bob Infallibility » Toph, posted by verne on October 11, 2004, at 15:28:21
OK, I was just reacting to the ascribing blame part of your original post. I've been spendiing entirely too much time here, and I don't have my sea legs yet. -Toph
Posted by newwife on October 11, 2004, at 15:51:36
In reply to The Doctrine of Bob Infallibility, posted by Atticus on October 11, 2004, at 11:01:49
Posted by Atticus on October 11, 2004, at 16:14:09
In reply to Re: The Doctrine of Bob Infallibility, posted by verne on October 11, 2004, at 11:57:30
I guess my response would be that despite his extensive training and experience, certain character traits made the captain of the Caine unsuitable for his position of leadership, and this capriciousness (or even the perception of it among his subordinates) turned his crew against him. His unresponsiveness to the situation didn't help. Perhaps, in this instance, one might infer that an advanced psychiatric degree does not necessarily translate into management and administrative skills. Atticus
Posted by Atticus on October 11, 2004, at 16:17:30
In reply to Re: The Doctrine of Bob Infallibility » Toph, posted by verne on October 11, 2004, at 15:28:21
There is one very crucial difference. The crew on the Caine were Queeg's subordinates, and bound by military law to obey his every command -- no matter how absurd. I don't recall signing a loyalty oath when I registered on PB. Atticus
Posted by newwife on October 11, 2004, at 16:17:45
In reply to Re: The Doctrine of Bob Infallibility » verne, posted by Atticus on October 11, 2004, at 16:14:09
once again, good point, i agree with you AGAIN!
Posted by verne on October 11, 2004, at 16:55:13
In reply to Re: The Doctrine of Bob Infallibility » verne, posted by Atticus on October 11, 2004, at 16:14:09
Atticus,
When I use the navy analogy I don't mean to suggest that psychobabble has a military-like loyalty oath. But there are similarities such as agreeing to the terms of service or civility guidelines. There is an authority and a set of rules.
The captain was eccentric, capricious, and perhaps a poor leader, but if the crew had accepted him with his quirks, the ship would have made its destination.
Once the crew rebelled, questioned authority, and mutinied, the captain's weaknesses were magnified. The mutiniers thought the captain, who probably could have got them where they were going - maybe with a few detours, like looking for strawberries - was unfit, and in doing so, helped make him unfit.
The crew undercut him and precipitated the fall. The crew became his undoing and made the ship's mission impossible. If the crew had met him half way (given him the benefit of the doubt) a mutiny could have been avoided.
verne
Posted by AuntieMel on October 11, 2004, at 17:41:36
In reply to Re: Infallibility » verne, posted by Toph on October 11, 2004, at 15:36:05
You seem to be getting your sea legs. By this, and before anyone comes down on me, I mean you are catching on to the 'mysterious ways of babble.'
Posted by Jai Narayan on October 11, 2004, at 17:47:42
In reply to Re: You seem to be getting your sea legs » Toph, posted by AuntieMel on October 11, 2004, at 17:41:36
Posted by Toph on October 11, 2004, at 18:00:49
In reply to Re: You seem to be getting your sea legs » Toph, posted by AuntieMel on October 11, 2004, at 17:41:36
Thanks Mel, though it seems like Admin has been in the "Perfect Storm" lately.
It does take some courage to begin posting here.
Posted by Atticus on October 11, 2004, at 20:11:15
In reply to Re: The Doctrine of Bob Infallibility, posted by verne on October 11, 2004, at 16:55:13
Let me be sure I understand your argument. The crew was to blame for Captain Queeg's incredibly poor judgment and stewardship of the vessel he commanded, and if it had just let him go on his merry demented way, all would have been well? So even if a leader proves himself or herself utterly unfit for command, those under that command shouldn't question his or her decisions? I couldn't disagree more, if that's what you're asserting. We have critical faculties for a reason: to independently assess situations and apply our own moral and ethical standards. If we don't, I feel, we become sheep. The crew wasn't Queeg's downfall; Queeg was. I ask anyone who remembers his meltdown during the court martial to ask themselves if this man should have been in charge of anything anywhere. Enabling such behavior only reinforces it, I believe. I firmly believe that all of our leaders, those we agree with and those we don't, should always be subject to our constant scrutiny and appraisal. Because if they make a poor judgment call, a lot of people stand to get hurt. It's essential to question authority -- the most basic tenet in a democratic-thinking society, even if the forum is PB. Atticus
Posted by newwife on October 11, 2004, at 21:49:31
In reply to Re: The Doctrine of Bob Infallibility » verne, posted by Atticus on October 11, 2004, at 20:11:15
i agree and my feeling stood to be hurt in this situation and i feel like i tried to hard to avoid hurting anyone else. does dr bob do the same?
Posted by Atticus on October 11, 2004, at 22:13:04
In reply to Re atticus, posted by newwife on October 11, 2004, at 21:49:31
No he doesn't. Not hard enough. In any case, I've said my piece about Bobby's gross deficiencies as the administrator and mediator of a site such as this. You'd think that after so many years of doing this he'd be better at it. His concept of cyber-psych is sound; it's his execution -- his virtual bedside manner -- that sucks. I've found a new site to post poems, and left a message for Malthus and Jai on Writing. They both know how to get in touch with me via e-mail. Me, I've had enough of this place. It served a purpose for a while, but I've had it with little Bobby's megalomania routine. Ta. Atticus
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.