![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 8 of 8. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by AuntieMel on August 12, 2004, at 9:37:02
In reply to Re: blocked for week » fires, posted by Dr. Bob on August 12, 2004, at 3:50:55
I'm confused. The whole topic of the thread was about a convention where a group of therapists were leaning toward "needing proof" So, it wasn't off topic.
Granted it could have been worded better. But wasn't admin just talking about issuing "please rephrase" or "please be sensitive?"
wasn't this his first post after a block?
Or maybe this is an argument for another board on psychotheory? same with rod's postings leading to his block?
Posted by partlycloudy on August 12, 2004, at 10:09:02
In reply to Re: blocked for week - fires - confused » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on August 12, 2004, at 9:37:02
I think that Dr. Bob was perfectly in line with the Babble policies in applying these blocks. The tone of the posts here at Babble is just as important as the content, if not more so. I think our guest expert during the past week was a great help in explaining how important it is that we all should be sensitive to this while posting.
Posted by Aphrodite on August 12, 2004, at 12:02:04
In reply to Re: blocked for week - fires - confused » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on August 12, 2004, at 9:37:02
I think Dr. Bob just acknowledged your point above under the gymnastics thread.
However, the stakes are higher for repeat offenders.
Posted by AuntieMel on August 13, 2004, at 9:06:04
In reply to Re: blocked for week - fires - confused » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on August 12, 2004, at 9:37:02
Right. Agreed on all points.
The main problem I have with the block is that the sentence he was blocked for wasn't about the posters on the thread. It was about the attendees at the meeting. And it was the topic of the thread in the first place.
I agree with you completely about sensitivity.
But I am confused on one thing, since I'm stumbling over the rules myself, the rules here is there a place in babble that this kind of topic *is* allowed? [If this reads as sarcastic, I apologize. I tried really hard to find a better way to word this part...] I truly don't want to hurt anyone and I'll happily try to redirect things somewhere else if there is a more appropriate place.
Peace?
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 13, 2004, at 10:49:50
In reply to Re: blocked for week - fires - confused » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on August 12, 2004, at 9:37:02
> The main problem I have with the block is that the sentence he was blocked for wasn't about the posters on the thread. It was about the attendees at the meeting. And it was the topic of the thread in the first place.
>
> I agree with you completely about sensitivity.
>
> But I am confused on one thing, since I'm stumbling over the rules myself, the rules here is there a place in babble that this kind of topic *is* allowed?Sorry, what kind of topic? About proof? That's fine at PBP, it just needs to be worded sensitively.
> Peace?
Seems to come and go. :-) Would it help to have some sort of alert level? Like they have for forest fires and I guess now terrorism? IMO, posters do a good job of assessing that for themselves...
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on August 13, 2004, at 17:07:31
In reply to Re: allowed topics, posted by Dr. Bob on August 13, 2004, at 10:49:50
Again, he wasn't talking about babblers, he was Talking about the Therapists in the NYTimes article. I don't understand how that could be insensitive.
<<<<Sorry, what kind of topic? About proof? That's fine at PBP, it just needs to be worded sensitively.
I got the impression from some of the earlier posts on admin that there *are* folks that believe the psych board should be about support, not any sort of debate. Need links? If so, I'll email them to you. I could have read them wrong and if that is the case, I wouldn't want to upset anyone. I'm just trying to figure out where the line is drawn. I don't want to upset anyone, but if friendly debates aren't allowed there, or will bother people, is there another place to do this?
Just trying to understand. And hopefully understand it as everyone else does.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 14, 2004, at 12:12:45
In reply to Re: allowed topics » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on August 13, 2004, at 17:07:31
> he wasn't talking about babblers, he was Talking about the Therapists in the NYTimes article. I don't understand how that could be insensitive.
I think it's great that Fires is getting support, too, but:
1. It's not clear exactly who's being referred to.
2. Even if it just refers to therapists, it isn't so sensitive to the feelings of Babblers who rely on therapists.> if friendly debates aren't allowed there, or will bother people, is there another place to do this?
I'm fine with sensitive discussions there, how about that?
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 14, 2004, at 14:06:44
In reply to Re: Re: First let me... please read, Rod! » JenStar, posted by AuntieMel on August 13, 2004, at 15:51:48
> It's fires' block that I can't seem to get a complete explanation of. It was called deemed 'jumping to conclusions about others' and 'insensitive' when he seemed to me to be just excited about a bunch of psychologists causing a rucus at a convention by saying things that fires had also believed.
Something like that would've been fine:
> I was excited about a bunch of psychologists causing a rucus at a convention by saying things that I also believed.
Expressing oneself in alternative ways can make a big difference...
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.