![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 51 to 75 of 82. Go back in thread:
Posted by twinleaf on April 25, 2008, at 18:54:10
In reply to Lou's request twinleaf for identification-wreighll, posted by Lou Pilder on April 25, 2008, at 5:17:43
Sorry, Lou- I didn't read all the posts in this section before writing mine. I guess I was hoping everyone would list what they feel could make the board go better. Your idea is a very valid one- and, of course, it's your own- so I wouldn't want to pass any kind of judgement on it.
Previously, I have identified some problem areas here, and I could certainly do so again. I was hoping that Bob would show some interest in a brain-storming session like this. I think it would clear the air of a lot of still-simmering resentment, and would probably produce some useful ideas. I guess I am waiting for him to show some support for something like this.
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 25, 2008, at 20:14:12
In reply to Re: Lou's request twinleaf for identification-wrei » Lou Pilder, posted by twinleaf on April 25, 2008, at 18:54:10
> Sorry, Lou- I didn't read all the posts in this section before writing mine. I guess I was hoping everyone would list what they feel could make the board go better. Your idea is a very valid one- and, of course, it's your own- so I wouldn't want to pass any kind of judgement on it.
>
> Previously, I have identified some problem areas here, and I could certainly do so again. I was hoping that Bob would show some interest in a brain-storming session like this. I think it would clear the air of a lot of still-simmering resentment, and would probably produce some useful ideas. I guess I am waiting for him to show some support for something like this.twinleaf,
You wrote,[...I have identified some problem ares here...]
Could you post those areas here in this thread or post a link to those posts ?If you could, then I could possibly offer additional input as seeing what are {real} problems.
Lou
Posted by twinleaf on April 25, 2008, at 20:59:18
In reply to Lou's reply to twinleaf -getngtunoughu » twinleaf, posted by Lou Pilder on April 25, 2008, at 20:14:12
Oh, Lou, I just don't feel that I possess the time or patience to comb through all these old threads. I do, generally, remember identifying some of the factors that I thought went into our "March Meltdown", and I would be very willing to post about those again, but only if Bob supports this as part of a problem-solving effort by everyone, and only if other posters also feel that it is useful and something they also wish to participate in.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 26, 2008, at 0:05:40
In reply to Re: we get to holler » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on April 24, 2008, at 12:35:41
> i've never even given any thought at all as to what you have or don't have. that seems to be a really loaded question with alot of traps in it.
It feels kind of loaded to me, too. Which is partly why I thought it might be worth exploring. But maybe not.
Bob
Posted by fayeroe on April 26, 2008, at 8:13:34
In reply to Re: we get to holler, posted by Dr. Bob on April 26, 2008, at 0:05:40
> > i've never even given any thought at all as to what you have or don't have. that seems to be a really loaded question with alot of traps in it.
>
> It feels kind of loaded to me, too. Which is partly why I thought it might be worth exploring. But maybe not.
>
> Bob
If, and it is a big if, I belonged to The Sacred Church of the Holy Chihauhaus, I would knock those doors open so fast today to get moi some spiritual support from the little dog.
There are about 1,000,000 things that we need here and we get a loaded question...I knew it~I knew it~I knew it~It is bad enough that you did it, but I think admitting it ices the cake.
After this "dog and pony show" or "smoke and mirrors show", what can follow? Maybe I am not seeing the forest for the trees and your not being here would work.I do not speak for anyone other than myself concerning your attendance here.
Pat
Posted by karen_kay on April 27, 2008, at 7:50:54
In reply to Re: we get to holler, posted by Toph on April 24, 2008, at 10:37:01
Posted by karen_kay on April 27, 2008, at 7:55:25
In reply to Re: we get to holler, posted by Dr. Bob on April 24, 2008, at 10:22:34
you forgot your apostrophes (did i spell that right? it doesn't look correct... anywhoo...)
i can think of a few thigns you have that i want and i'm pretty sure i have a few things you might want too. i make a mean chocolate chip cookie, wanna trade?
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 27, 2008, at 13:20:29
In reply to Re: we get to holler » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on April 26, 2008, at 8:13:34
> > > that seems to be a really loaded question with alot of traps in it.
> >
> > It feels kind of loaded to me, too. Which is partly why I thought it might be worth exploring. But maybe not.
>
>
> There are about 1,000,000 things that we need here and we get a loaded question...I knew it~I knew it~I knew it~Sorry, maybe we meant different things by "loaded". What I meant was that it might have a lot of "baggage" attached, which might make it difficult to address, which could be a "trap".
Bob
Posted by Dinah on April 27, 2008, at 13:46:41
In reply to Re: we get to holler, posted by Dr. Bob on April 27, 2008, at 13:20:29
I don't mind discussing it, Dr. Bob. It's the sort of thing I enjoy doing.
But honestly, aside from the things I deduce from you from your posts (your detachment and seeming lack of hurt from personal attacks for example), I don't spend all that much time imagining what you have.
You're intelligent, obviously. But intelligence is not something that I would want, precisely. I'm comfortable there. You seem to have a sly sense of humor. And while I appreciate it, it's again nothing I would feel envy for. I am assuming you don't mean worldly possessions. So power? Is it power you're going for?
I'm perfectly happy with your having power and my having much less power. I have power over myself and my reactions. Your power over the site seems meet and fitting to me. You own it. It's yours. However much I might yell at you from time to time over your decisions, I would not want your power or your responsibility.
I do admit that while I might not like the things that come with detachment and imperviousness to hurt, I would still like to have those. I hurt way too much and am way too interpersonally sensitive. But it's just my perception that you're invulnerable. Lots of people IRL see me as snobby and aloof and unhurtable, and don't realize how much it's just a shield against being too vulnerable.
Your persona of invulnerability may make me want to yell and scream and kick and dent it a bit, and get a reaction from you, any reaction at all. I'd behave much better if you showed a bit of vulnerability. :)
But I also do envy it. It would be nice to never be sucked into vortexes, and never feel hurt by what people say.
There. I've been entirely honest.
How about some reciprocity?
Do we have anything you want?
Vulnerability, emotional honesty, the ability to say what we think? Connection with each other. Complexity? I'm just throwing a few things out there to start you off.
Sure it's a loaded question, and may carry a lot of baggage and feel like a trap. But sometimes loaded questions bring many rewards.
Posted by muffled on April 27, 2008, at 18:04:35
In reply to Re: we get to holler » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 27, 2008, at 13:46:41
is that Bob gets to choose the battles. He picks what he wants to respond to and ignores that which he doesn't.
I hate to be ignored, or I used to....now I think I just don't give a sh*t anymore :-( not really.
Eyes wide open.
Bob has the pwer here.
This is Bobs website.
He can keep archivees forever.
He can use them in his work.
He can block at will.
He has noone to answer to but himself.
If it gets ugly here he can just walk away.
Bob has given me no real good indications that make me feel I can trust consistancy from him.
He is a wild card, can go any which way.
He's nebulous like a fogbank.
Clear as mud.
Thats why I be careful.
M
Posted by Dinah on April 27, 2008, at 19:02:19
In reply to nuther thing bout power...., posted by muffled on April 27, 2008, at 18:04:35
Well, I don't disagree precisely. But someone has to have the power. Dr. Bob isn't such a terrible choice, considering.
Posted by muffled on April 27, 2008, at 21:07:50
In reply to Re: nuther thing bout power.... » muffled, posted by Dinah on April 27, 2008, at 19:02:19
Posted by fayeroe on April 27, 2008, at 21:30:43
In reply to Re: we get to holler, posted by Dr. Bob on April 27, 2008, at 13:20:29
> > > > that seems to be a really loaded question with alot of traps in it.
> > >
> > > It feels kind of loaded to me, too. Which is partly why I thought it might be worth exploring. But maybe not.
> >
> >
> > There are about 1,000,000 things that we need here and we get a loaded question...I knew it~I knew it~I knew it~
>
> Sorry, maybe we meant different things by "loaded". What I meant was that it might have a lot of "baggage" attached, which might make it difficult to address, which could be a "trap".
>
> BobBob, I am here because I have alot of "baggage", among other things. For me, I know a "loaded" question. You know what a "loaded" question is.
I really don't know how to explain to you that I knew that you knew that I knew what you meant.
Long day, Pat
Posted by fayeroe on April 27, 2008, at 21:32:56
In reply to Re: we get to holler » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 27, 2008, at 13:46:41
Posted by fayeroe on April 27, 2008, at 23:42:37
In reply to Re: we get to holler » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on April 27, 2008, at 21:30:43
> > > > > that seems to be a really loaded question with alot of traps in it.
> > > >
> > > > It feels kind of loaded to me, too. Which is partly why I thought it might be worth exploring. But maybe not.
> > >
> > >
> > > There are about 1,000,000 things that we need here and we get a loaded question...I knew it~I knew it~I knew it~
> >
> > Sorry, maybe we meant different things by "loaded". What I meant was that it might have a lot of "baggage" attached, which might make it difficult to address, which could be a "trap".
> >
> > Bob
>
> Bob, I am here because I have alot of "baggage", among other things. For me, I know a "loaded" question. You know what a "loaded" question is.
>
> I really don't know how to explain to you that I knew that you knew that I knew what you meant.
>
> Long day, Patbeen listening to some bluegrass, man of constant sorrow, and thought i would try to articulate my feelings about you, Bob......you see bluegrass is like the most honest music that i know. i grew up with it and then added Nirvana as an adult.
what that has to do with anything, i don't know.
i know that you may think that i pick on you, Bob. i know that some posters believe that i do.
that doesn't matter to me...what matters to me is this..i think that you can do better by us. i don't buy the mantra of how busy you are, you have a life, blah, blah, blah that some people subscribe to.i believe that if i created a garden and never watered or weeded it......i'd have some unhappy plants and in my case, that would cause unhappiness for me. are you unhappy? or just disconnected from us?
you can do better and i would like to see less detachment, less questions to answer questions and some feelings that come from down around your chest region. thinking with your head isn't as rewarding as thinking with your heart. do you have a heart? i hope so. Pat
>
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 28, 2008, at 5:35:38
In reply to Re: we get to holler » fayeroe, posted by fayeroe on April 27, 2008, at 23:42:37
> > > > > > that seems to be a really loaded question with alot of traps in it.
> > > > >
> > > > > It feels kind of loaded to me, too. Which is partly why I thought it might be worth exploring. But maybe not.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There are about 1,000,000 things that we need here and we get a loaded question...I knew it~I knew it~I knew it~
> > >
> > > Sorry, maybe we meant different things by "loaded". What I meant was that it might have a lot of "baggage" attached, which might make it difficult to address, which could be a "trap".
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Bob, I am here because I have alot of "baggage", among other things. For me, I know a "loaded" question. You know what a "loaded" question is.
> >
> > I really don't know how to explain to you that I knew that you knew that I knew what you meant.
> >
> > Long day, Pat
>
> been listening to some bluegrass, man of constant sorrow, and thought i would try to articulate my feelings about you, Bob......you see bluegrass is like the most honest music that i know. i grew up with it and then added Nirvana as an adult.
>
> what that has to do with anything, i don't know.
>
> i know that you may think that i pick on you, Bob. i know that some posters believe that i do.
> that doesn't matter to me...what matters to me is this..i think that you can do better by us. i don't buy the mantra of how busy you are, you have a life, blah, blah, blah that some people subscribe to.
>
> i believe that if i created a garden and never watered or weeded it......i'd have some unhappy plants and in my case, that would cause unhappiness for me. are you unhappy? or just disconnected from us?
>
> you can do better and i would like to see less detachment, less questions to answer questions and some feelings that come from down around your chest region. thinking with your head isn't as rewarding as thinking with your heart. do you have a heart? i hope so. Patfayeroe,
You wrote,[...I think that you could do better...I don't buy..how busy you are..that some people subscribe to...].
The generally accepted meanings of the word {buy} in this context could be #5 in {citation m-w-buy). Could you confirm or not as to if or if not #5is what your intended meaning of the word {buy} is in the context of what you wrote?
(citation m-w-buy)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/buy
You wrote,[...if I created a garden and never..]
I am unsure as to if you are using the analogy of the garden to as that Mr. Hsiung writes in his TOS that he takes responsibility for what he writes here. Could you look at (ciation m-w-responsible) and confirm as to which definition you could use for the word if you are using the analogy of the garden to that Mr. Hsiung writes in his TOS that he takes responsibility for what he writes? If you could confirm or not your uses of the two words here, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly
Lou
(citation m-w-responsible)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/responsible
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 28, 2008, at 8:09:30
In reply to Re: nuther thing bout power.... » muffled, posted by Dinah on April 27, 2008, at 19:02:19
> Well, I don't disagree precisely. But someone has to have the power. Dr. Bob isn't such a terrible choice, considering.
Dinah,
You wrote,[...someone >has< to have the power...]
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean in that statement. For could not there be a community where one person {does >not< have to have the power}? If you are wanting to mean that there could not be a community where one person does not have the power, could you post here your rationale for such? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 28, 2008, at 8:30:23
In reply to Lou's request to Dinah for a rationale » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on April 28, 2008, at 8:09:30
> > Well, I don't disagree precisely. But someone has to have the power. Dr. Bob isn't such a terrible choice, considering.
>
> Dinah,
> You wrote,[...someone >has< to have the power...]
> I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean in that statement. For could not there be a community where one person {does >not< have to have the power}? If you are wanting to mean that there could not be a community where one person does not have the power, could you post here your rationale for such? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> LouDinah,
I am unsure as to what meaning of the word,{has} is the meaning that you are wanting to mean in the context of your statement in question here. The generally accepted meaning of the word {has} is that it is the present 3(d) singular of {have}
The word {have} could have numerous conotations (citation m-w-have) and I am unsure as to which one you are wanting to mean in the context of your statement here. If you could post here the meaning that you are intending, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
(citation m-w-have)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/have
Posted by Dinah on April 28, 2008, at 9:00:38
In reply to Lou's request to Dinah for a rationale » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on April 28, 2008, at 8:09:30
I really don't have anything to add to my previous statements, Lou.
Dr. Bob owns this site, and thus has the power here.
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 28, 2008, at 9:36:32
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Dinah for a rationale » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on April 28, 2008, at 9:00:38
> I really don't have anything to add to my previous statements, Lou.
>
> Dr. Bob owns this site, and thus has the power here.Friends,
It is written here,[...someone has to have the power...]. A generally accepted meaning of {someone} is of one person.
It is writtten here,[...Dr. Bob owns this site and {thus} has the power here...]. It is my understanding that the word {thus} could mean {because of that}. But I think that just because one owns this site, that that is not meaning that the owner must have the power, for the owner could delegate the power to a group or agree to have an impartial third party, which could be one person or a group of people, to decide matters.
Another aspect is that the owner could publish specific criteria that could be used to well-define things to decide matters, such as that I am requesting in other threads here like my request for criteria that could be used to decide as to if a statement does or does not put down the faith of another, or my request to the administration for clarification or guidance concerning site rules and such could or could not be good for the community as a whole. If those criteria were published here, one could refer to them and know in advance what is or is not in regards to the subject of the criteria and the {power} would be known as to what are the criteria that are known and published.
There are other aspects...
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 28, 2008, at 11:47:56
In reply to Re: we get to holler » fayeroe, posted by fayeroe on April 27, 2008, at 23:42:37
> I do admit that while I might not like the things that come with detachment and imperviousness to hurt, I would still like to have those. I hurt way too much and am way too interpersonally sensitive. But it's just my perception that you're invulnerable. Lots of people IRL see me as snobby and aloof and unhurtable, and don't realize how much it's just a shield against being too vulnerable.
>
> Your persona of invulnerability may make me want to yell and scream and kick and dent it a bit, and get a reaction from you, any reaction at all. I'd behave much better if you showed a bit of vulnerability. :)
>
> But I also do envy it. It would be nice to never be sucked into vortexes, and never feel hurt by what people say.
>
> There. I've been entirely honest.
>
> How about some reciprocity?
>
> Do we have anything you want?
>
> DinahI do feel hurt by what people say sometimes. I'm not really invulnerable. I'm glad you understand that's a persona/perception. Why posters might want to dent it is a good question, and might be worth discussing either here or at Psychology.
The subject line refers to one thing I don't have here, I don't get to holler. Or to form the kinds of relationships posters get to. We're all limited by our roles here.
--
> nuther thing bout power....
> is that Bob gets to choose the battles. He picks what he wants to respond to and ignores that which he doesn't.
> He can keep archivees forever.
> He can use them in his work.
> He can block at will.
> He has noone to answer to but himself.
> If it gets ugly here he can just walk away.
>
> MPosters also have the power to choose battles, walk away, or not be sucked into vortexes.
And I don't block at will. There are limits to my power, or at least to what I do with it. That said, there's no denying that I still do have a lot of power.
--
> what matters to me is this..i think that you can do better by us. i don't buy the mantra of how busy you are, you have a life, blah, blah, blah that some people subscribe to.
>
> i believe that if i created a garden and never watered or weeded it......i'd have some unhappy plants and in my case, that would cause unhappiness for me. are you unhappy? or just disconnected from us?
>
> you can do better and i would like to see less detachment, less questions to answer questions and some feelings that come from down around your chest region. thinking with your head isn't as rewarding as thinking with your heart. do you have a heart? i hope so.
>
> PatYou don't believe I have a life? :-)
I'm unhappy when my plants are unhappy. At the same time, I see this online human garden as having the potential to water and even to weed itself. To a large extent.
Would it make a difference to think of this as a prairie rather than a garden?
Bob
Posted by muffled on April 28, 2008, at 11:52:00
In reply to Re: we get to holler, posted by Dr. Bob on April 28, 2008, at 11:47:56
Its so hard to tell...
:-(
I never wanto hurt noone, ever.
Sorry if I ever hurt you Bob :-(
M
Posted by fayeroe on April 28, 2008, at 13:25:55
In reply to Re: we get to holler, posted by Dr. Bob on April 28, 2008, at 11:47:56
"> you can do better and i would like to see less detachment, less questions to answer questions and some feelings that come from down around your chest region. thinking with your head isn't as rewarding as thinking with your heart. do you have a heart? i hope so."
i don't think that i said that you don't have a life. i asked you if you have a heart.
some of it you answered in the other post.
do you feelings ever get hurt here in a way where you think about it later?
do you mind if i pick at your head and soul?
i hope not.
>
Posted by Dinah on April 28, 2008, at 17:16:33
In reply to Re: we get to holler, posted by Dr. Bob on April 28, 2008, at 11:47:56
Thank you, Dr. Bob.
I must confess I wasn't really expecting you to answer. But it was a very nice answer.
And thank you for not hollering. I do very much admire you for not hollering. It makes me feel much safer here than if you did.
Does this mean I need to behave much better? Or can I get by with behaving somewhat better? :-)
I do think it would be interesting to compare notes with other posters who feel the way I do about your seeming invulnerability.
Posted by fayeroe on April 28, 2008, at 17:33:54
In reply to Re: we get to holler » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 28, 2008, at 17:16:33
> Thank you, Dr. Bob.
>
> I must confess I wasn't really expecting you to answer. But it was a very nice answer.
>
> And thank you for not hollering. I do very much admire you for not hollering. It makes me feel much safer here than if you did.
>
> Does this mean I need to behave much better? Or can I get by with behaving somewhat better? :-)
>
> I do think it would be interesting to compare notes with other posters who feel the way I do about your seeming invulnerability.we're seeing something, aren't we? i hope it lasts and the onion peels itself.
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.