![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 12 of 12. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Miller on April 8, 2003, at 18:27:42
I can't believe how all of us are feeling horrible, yet, we can't stop the momentum. I haven't been on this board for a long time, but, I have been here long enough to know that we need each other. More than that, we need to support each other. If nobody would have had an open mind when I first posted, I would have been requested by everyone not to post to them.
Does anyone remember? My post was misunderstood from my meaning. I was hurt at the time and thought I was being supportive. EVERYONE was in an uproar. Yet, once we all figured out the true meanings, I was accepted here. I have been supported. I have been listened to. I have been appreciated. I have been worried over. I have worried over others.
Please, can't we step back, take a breather, and try to remember it is each other we need?
My heart aches. It aches for us all.
-Miller
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 19:54:24
In reply to Is anybody else's heart broken?, posted by Miller on April 8, 2003, at 18:27:42
miller,
you wrote,[...we need to support each other...if nobody had an open mind...I would have been requested by evryone not to post to them...once we figured out the true meaning...].
Now could you clarify if what I am going to write is in some way what your posts is saying?
I feel that you are saying that you agree with me in relation to my objection to the establishment of any policy here that could allow posters to invoke that you can not respond to them. I base that on what you wrote when you wrote,[...we need to support each other...]. I feel that to refuse to enter into a discussion about what you wrote, denies others of support, for you wrote,[...if nobody had an open mind...I would have been requested by evryone not to post to them...once we figured out the true meaning...]. Am I in the ballpark here?
Lou
Posted by Miller on April 8, 2003, at 20:31:02
In reply to Lou's respomse to miller's post-LR » Miller, posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 19:54:24
Hi Lou,
It is so good to hear from you again. I have missed you.
To answer your question, yes. When I first got to the social board, I gave very inappropriate advise. It wasn't meant as that at all. The person I was responding to was a very well-liked established poster.
I felt I was attacked by everyone. Not becaue I was a bad guy (Althoughsome wondered) but because they were protecting the poster they knew and cared about. At that time it could have gotten really ugly.
I was hurt. Everyone else was offended. The person I was responding to never responded due to the horrible depression she was having, making everyone more nervous.
But you know what? I was able to explain what I had meant. I truly never wanted to endanger someone. Every apologized for attacking me. It all ended "happily ever after".
In fact, it brought me closer to a lot of people. More than that it has enabled me to be more sensitive to how I say things and what I say.
I would be devastated if those people would have requested me not to post to them. I couldn't have stayed a member of the board. One, because my feelings would have been hurt. Two because I would have nobody to post to. And finally, because of the humiliation I would have suffered.
One thing Dr. Bob has forgotten is that in order for someone to request a "no post to me please from a certain individual" is that it is on the message line for everyone to read. I, myself, pick and choose what I read. I do so by reading the message lines. By it's very nature, a message like that is almost uncivil. It brings tears to my eyes even thinking about how much that could hurt our members that have trouble socializing as it is. Why restrict them more than they do themselves? Why allow people with low self-esteem to be put into a public display of humiliation?
I am sorry that I went off on a tangent. I am hoping there is a better solution. There has to be.
-Miller
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 20:50:01
In reply to Please let's reconsider. , posted by Miller on April 8, 2003, at 20:31:02
miller,
You wrote[...the message...no post to me...humiliates...put into a public display of humiliation...].
Dinah wrote recently to me something like,[...I am beginning to see a much bigger picture here about this...]. You see a lot of the big picture as I see it also, for the [stigmatization] by the subject line is what you are referring to?
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 9, 2003, at 2:13:18
In reply to Please let's reconsider. , posted by Miller on April 8, 2003, at 20:31:02
> It all ended "happily ever after".
>
> In fact, it brought me closer to a lot of people. More than that it has enabled me to be more sensitive to how I say things and what I say.Sorry you had such a rough start, thanks for sticking it out. :-)
> One thing Dr. Bob has forgotten is that in order for someone to request a "no post to me please from a certain individual" is that it is on the message line for everyone to read.
Not necessarily, it could be in the body of a post...
> By it's very nature, a message like that is almost uncivil.
Almost, but again, not necessarily...
> It brings tears to my eyes even thinking about how much that could hurt our members that have trouble socializing as it is. Why restrict them more than they do themselves? Why allow people with low self-esteem to be put into a public display of humiliation?
If it were in fact civil, I'd allow it, but it wouldn't be coming from me, and hopefully, people would remember the golden rule...
> I am hoping there is a better solution. There has to be.
Anyone who thinks of one, let me know...
Bob
Posted by Tabitha on April 9, 2003, at 3:35:15
In reply to Is anybody else's heart broken?, posted by Miller on April 8, 2003, at 18:27:42
I remember Miller. That was certainly a case of one post setting people off. People didn't know you and didn't know how to take it. Dinah helped iron that out too by letting us know what she knew of you from PPB. It was really nice to see that conflict get resolved, and to see you stick around.
I'm not sure I understand the new policy either, but I'm hoping it's supposed to just apply when communication has broken down between 2 posters after several exchanges. It would be a shame to see folks able to just take a sudden dislike to someone based on one post and declare communication from that poster off-limits forever.
I am also distressed by the high level of conflict here recently, but it goes in waves, so it will likely change again. Maybe it's the war setting us all on edge. Maybe it's a healthy periodic energy purge. Maybe the good times are over for good. Who knows? I think I'll just hunker down and wait.
Posted by Greg on April 9, 2003, at 8:09:33
In reply to Is anybody else's heart broken?, posted by Miller on April 8, 2003, at 18:27:42
Hi Miller,
I know what it is you’re feeling, I’ve felt it for a few years now. When I first came to PB it was a relatively simple place, one board, a lot less members. If I remember correctly, I think I got one response to my first post. But I stuck it out and ended up making some wonderful friends that I know I will take with me for the rest of my life. Even though the site was smaller then, we still had problems, just we do now. The difference is we were able most of the time to work those problems out with very little intervention by Bob. We were pretty close knit and always seemed to be able to work out any misunderstandings among ourselves.
Bob has told me, and I’m paraphrasing here, that as the site grows larger and larger, it becomes necessary to have more and more rules. To an extent, I agree. To a greater extent, I disagree. Having too many rules can only serve to stifle a person’s writing creativity and their ability to express their feelings. I see this “having to walk on eggshells” as the cause of a lot of the frustration that happens here. Using “I” statements just isn’t always possible when one is trying to express how they feel. IMHO, there are several rules we could do away with altogether. I think this new one about being asked to clarify statements and asking another poster not to post to you not needed. If you leave a post, and you feel that your post is clear and understandable, then if someone asks you to clarify it, if you don’t fell like you need to, don’t. If someone who you don’t care to talk to posts to you, don’t reply.
I know this current uproar hurts you because you care so much about the site, and more importantly, about the people here. That’s a special quality, I hope you never stop caring. What’s happening now will blow over and everyone will take a step back to catch their breath, they always do. But something else will come up. It always does. There are a lot of really great people here, I wish I knew more of them better. My advice FWIW, is to focus on the things here that make you happy and that follow the credo of “mutual support and education”, and stay away from those things that cause you pain.
I’m glad to see someone speak up about this, and I hope you are doing well.
Greg
> I can't believe how all of us are feeling horrible, yet, we can't stop the momentum. I haven't been on this board for a long time, but, I have been here long enough to know that we need each other. More than that, we need to support each other. If nobody would have had an open mind when I first posted, I would have been requested by everyone not to post to them.
>
> Does anyone remember? My post was misunderstood from my meaning. I was hurt at the time and thought I was being supportive. EVERYONE was in an uproar. Yet, once we all figured out the true meanings, I was accepted here. I have been supported. I have been listened to. I have been appreciated. I have been worried over. I have worried over others.
>
> Please, can't we step back, take a breather, and try to remember it is each other we need?
>
> My heart aches. It aches for us all.
>
> -Miller
>
Posted by Zo on April 9, 2003, at 15:44:38
In reply to Re: Please let's reconsider. , posted by Dr. Bob on April 9, 2003, at 2:13:18
>> I am hoping there is a better solution. There has to >>be.
>Anyone who thinks of one, let me know...
>Bob
Bob,
. . you might want to read up on the way internet message boards are commonly administered and moderated. There are good, thoughtful guidelines out there. I'm a moderator on another, unrelated board, and am happy to post/send the links I've collected if you like.Zo
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 9, 2003, at 16:17:25
In reply to Re: Please let's reconsider. » Dr. Bob, posted by Zo on April 9, 2003, at 15:44:38
Zo,
I am interested in your opinion as to how you would handle the issue here of requesting clarification from another poster.
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 9, 2003, at 20:37:34
In reply to Re: Please let's reconsider. » Dr. Bob, posted by Zo on April 9, 2003, at 15:44:38
> . . you might want to read up on the way internet message boards are commonly administered and moderated. There are good, thoughtful guidelines out there. I'm a moderator on another, unrelated board, and am happy to post/send the links I've collected if you like.
Sure, thanks!
Bob
Posted by Zo on April 26, 2003, at 0:15:10
In reply to Re: links, posted by Dr. Bob on April 9, 2003, at 20:37:34
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 27, 2003, at 21:47:49
In reply to Re: Please let's reconsider. » Dr. Bob, posted by Zo on April 9, 2003, at 15:44:38
> >> I am hoping there is a better solution. There has to >>be.
>
> >Anyone who thinks of one, let me know...
>
> . . you might want to read up on the way internet message boards are commonly administered and moderated. There are good, thoughtful guidelines out there.Thanks for the links. I think PB is different from a typical online community because one of the goals is support. But still, which guidelines you don't you think I follow?
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.