![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 13 of 13. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by muffled on May 7, 2008, at 22:29:29
in re-opening the debate over whether to remove posts that are considered harmful because this is a mental health site?
Such as the one above by medjuggler?
Wasting my time...
Crap.
M
Posted by muffled on May 8, 2008, at 21:27:06
In reply to S'pose there's no point...., posted by muffled on May 7, 2008, at 22:29:29
Posted by SLS on May 9, 2008, at 5:10:34
In reply to S'pose there's no point...., posted by muffled on May 7, 2008, at 22:29:29
> in re-opening the debate over whether to remove posts that are considered harmful because this is a mental health site?
> Such as the one above by medjuggler?
> Wasting my time...
> Crap.
> M
I think it is dangerous for the administration to take on the role of selecting which posts to allow and which to not allow. I think there is already enough editing of posts demanded by administration. It might be the mission statement of PB to allow for free speech, but to be able to admonish a poster or block their posting based on their behavior.There are certain posts that I wish had not appeared on the boards, but it has always been within my power to select which post to read and which to avoid. Even if there is no hint in the subject line as to profane or "uncivil" language, I usually stop reading at the point I come across such verbiage.
- Scott
Posted by muffled on May 13, 2008, at 11:09:04
In reply to Re: S'pose there's no point.... » muffled, posted by SLS on May 9, 2008, at 5:10:34
> > in re-opening the debate over whether to remove posts that are considered harmful because this is a mental health site?
> > Such as the one above by medjuggler?
> > Wasting my time...
> > Crap.
> > M
>
>
> I think it is dangerous for the administration to take on the role of selecting which posts to allow and which to not allow. I think there is already enough editing of posts demanded by administration. It might be the mission statement of PB to allow for free speech, but to be able to admonish a poster or block their posting based on their behavior.* I am weak.
Thats why i want them posts gone.
I don't like that babble is a place where I have to be fearful.
So, thats why I keep going away.
I come back cuz of the good people I miss.
But I too weak.
So I stay away.
Sad, cuz its just pretty damn simple and not complicated.
If its SO frikken obvo a nasty post.
If I see a used condom on the school grounds, I pick it up and put it in the garbage. If there is dog sh*t in the park where the kids are playing, I pick it up. I remove that which is harmful.....> There are certain posts that I wish had not appeared on the boards, but it has always been within my power to select which post to read and which to avoid. Even if there is no hint in the subject line as to profane or "uncivil" language, I usually stop reading at the point I come across such verbiage.
*sometimes there is no warning.
And theres the thing where a person can't tear themselves away. Its very common.
Or sometimes in my case, I use it as a form of self punishment, to read that nastiness and feel hurt. I guess a form of Sinjury.
I hate that the ugliness stays.
It makes BABBLE UGLY that its there.
DIRTY UGLY BAD.
So block me.
I really don't care.
M
Posted by karen_kay on May 13, 2008, at 11:21:55
In reply to Babble NOT safe to me-GENERAL post, posted by muffled on May 13, 2008, at 11:09:04
you're a good person hun. please remember that.
and people here really do care about you.
take care of yourself dear. and keep picking up the dog sh*t and used condoms. that's a good girl!
you are loved!
kk
Posted by SLS on May 13, 2008, at 15:30:21
In reply to Babble NOT safe to me-GENERAL post, posted by muffled on May 13, 2008, at 11:09:04
> > > in re-opening the debate over whether to remove posts that are considered harmful because this is a mental health site?
> > > Such as the one above by medjuggler?
> > > Wasting my time...
> > > Crap.
> > > M
> > I think it is dangerous for the administration to take on the role of selecting which posts to allow and which to not allow. I think there is already enough editing of posts demanded by administration. It might be the mission statement of PB to allow for free speech, but to be able to admonish a poster or block their posting based on their behavior.
> * I am weak.How so?
> > There are certain posts that I wish had not appeared on the boards, but it has always been within my power to select which post to read and which to avoid. Even if there is no hint in the subject line as to profane or "uncivil" language, I usually stop reading at the point I come across such verbiage.
> *sometimes there is no warning.Correct.
> And theres the thing where a person can't tear themselves away. Its very common.
Perhaps, but you don't need to be common. You are far from being that anyway. :-)
There is a bit of a learning-curve involved in how to avoid hurt and distress here. It takes a committment to avoid that which is unhealthy for you. It takes practice. If you are weak, then get strong. Do not let the words of another which you consider profane or offensive gain significance by reading them and letting them affect you.
> Or sometimes in my case, I use it as a form of self punishment
In what way? Why do you feel justified in punishing yourself?
There are so many things in life that we have little control over. However, here you have power. Select those words which enhance your life and avoid or repudiate those which detract from it. I think it is incumbant upon you to gain control of your own behavior before attempting to influence the behavior of others.
Be the best Muffled that you can be. You are perfect - weak or strong.
Of course, "weak" and "strong" are words that must be defined, and are relative rather than absolute. What one considers to be weak might be strong in the eyes of another. I see strength.
- Scott
Posted by muffled on May 13, 2008, at 15:32:41
In reply to Re: Babble NOT safe to me-GENERAL post, posted by SLS on May 13, 2008, at 15:30:21
I just kinda messed right now on another issue thats personal.
I like what you said Scott. Its good. TY.
KK you a peach as always.
M
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 19, 2008, at 7:34:40
In reply to Babble NOT safe to me-GENERAL post, posted by muffled on May 13, 2008, at 11:09:04
> If I see a used condom on the school grounds, I pick it up and put it in the garbage. If there is dog sh*t in the park where the kids are playing, I pick it up. I remove that which is harmful.....
>
> sometimes there is no warning.My hope is that people will stop themselves before posting that which is harmful in the first place. But I know not everyone will, at least not right away. In the meantime, others can help by posting trigger warnings to those threads. Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Happyflower on May 23, 2008, at 21:50:46
In reply to Re: warnings, posted by Dr. Bob on May 19, 2008, at 7:34:40
Seems like to error is to be human. We are not robots that can be programed with morals and do what is right or wrong based on one person's ideals.
There will always be people who commit crimes, no matter how harsh the sentence it, it is human nature. But who are we to judge if it was a true crime, we don't always know the entire story. If a women steals food for her starving family, is that a crime? Some say yes and some say no due to circumstances. This is a site where a lot of people have suffered horrible stuff, but is seems like blocks don't help, just increase the anger of a lot of posters.
Do most prisoners become rehabilitated while serving their sentence? Nope, they just learn how to beat the system even better. Long blocks don't work, I for one can say so because I have been blocked many times. I can see both sides. People are people.
Kinda like is killing wrong? What about in war? Why aren't the soldiers prosecuted because of this, they still killed. Do the circumstances change the rules or morals?
I think forgiveness would be a better goal for this site, tolerance towards different types of people with different weaknesses. Because in real life you can't control if people use I statements, that is very unrealistic. To me blocking seems uncivil in it's self, punishing people for what can be a symptom of their mental illness.
Posted by muffled on May 23, 2008, at 21:52:55
In reply to Re: warnings » Dr. Bob, posted by Happyflower on May 23, 2008, at 21:50:46
WELL said HF, here here!!!
I agree.
M
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 24, 2008, at 17:48:25
In reply to Re: warnings » Dr. Bob, posted by Happyflower on May 23, 2008, at 21:50:46
> This is a site where a lot of people have suffered horrible stuff, but is seems like blocks don't help, just increase the anger of a lot of posters.
I'd like it if there were fewer blocks. There are ways you might be able to help prevent them, did you see the thread of suggestions above?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080424/msgs/825530.html
> in real life you can't control if people use I statements
No, but you do have some control over whether you use them yourself. So you could set an example. And you could ask others to focus on how they feel instead of what they think about you.
> To me blocking seems uncivil in it's self
Blocking isn't intended to support those who are blocked. But we don't do it recklessly, either.
Bob
Posted by Happyflower on May 24, 2008, at 19:41:35
In reply to Re: blocks, posted by Dr. Bob on May 24, 2008, at 17:48:25
Using I statements is something you insist on, the public does not, in fact most people don't have any idea of what you are talking about. I think blocking people for these reason because their grammar style isn't like what you would prefer is based on discrimination of language. Using I statements rarely change the meaning of what one is writing.( most know what the poster wanted to say) I understand if blocks are for flaming people and being vulgar, but I believe the blocks for using I statements are over reactive, nit picky and really don't help the communtiy as a whole.
I consider myself fairly intelligent, and yet after 3 years on this site, I have really don't understand it completely. If this rule is the norm in cyber world, please show me other message boards that have this rule.
I believe blocking someone who has mental disorders, and that is the reason for their behavior, is discrimination of the mentally ill.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 2, 2008, at 4:16:08
In reply to Re: blocks » Dr. Bob, posted by Happyflower on May 24, 2008, at 19:41:35
> Using I statements is something you insist on, the public does not, in fact most people don't have any idea of what you are talking about. ... Using I statements rarely change the meaning of what one is writing.( most know what the poster wanted to say) ... I believe the blocks for using I statements are over reactive, nit picky and really don't help the communtiy as a whole.
>
> I consider myself fairly intelligent, and yet after 3 years on this site, I have really don't understand it completely. If this rule is the norm in cyber world, please show me other message boards that have this rule.I don't think it's the norm, this board may be unique! Some things can take a long time to understand. Thanks for sticking around and working on it.
If you don't say something, someone may appreciate it even if they know what you wanted to say. They might even appreciate it more. Maybe I'm being nitpicky, but I do believe being careful about how we express ourselves helps the community as a whole.
Bob
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.