![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 107 to 131 of 222. Go back in thread:
Posted by spoc on June 8, 2004, at 7:40:41
In reply to re: questions about Larry's block, posted by Dr. Bob on June 8, 2004, at 0:43:24
> > Has Larry hurt anyone?
>
> He may have. How does it matter?<<<<<< This obviously has "startle value" on its face. Proceeding beyond that to try to answer the question, I would say that two of the reasons would be:
1] It's been stated previously that anticipated supportiveness upon return is a factor in block reduction. If someone was unquestionably seen as supportive and an asset; and additionally he didn't hurt anyone, that would surely be relevant to block reduction (and preferably initial levying of a block).
2] If you mean that technical interpretations only are used (such that assessing hurt does not play a role), first, that would be hard to separate if "civility" can be seen as largely serving the function of preventing hurt. Meaning that what is being scanned for are things that have the potential to hurt. And if that is indeed one definition of civility and how it is enforced, and someone has not in fact hurt anyone, that would indeed seem very material to whether they remain blocked (or if they could have been merely warned instead).
> > I feel that you're being rather obstinate to prove a point. If I'm correct, please tell me what point you're trying to prove.
>
> In what way do you feel I'm being obstinate?<<<<<< It will soon be going on two weeks since a possible block reduction was announced. People apparently didn't understand what the process of deliberation was going to be. They probably got the idea that discussion, to some degree including you, was being welcomed. Or that they would be given some information as to what was transpiring. But perhaps you were thinking in terms of the matter not being "due" on the table until the four-weeks-since-block point, at which time the potential reduction would apply if granted. If so, that would probably have been another good thing to clarify at the outset, or at some point since.
As to whether the entire post (and possibly thread context) is considered, or just the “bad” part of a given post, I’m confused as to how this answer:
> I try my best to understand context. Even if that means reading and re-reading...
<<<<<< ...ties in with these:
> I don't always read every line of every post, especially if it isn't civil...
> If you'll allow me the same latitude, if someone doesn't want me to miss something potentially important, they should be civil...
<<<<<< Additionally, the first answer is hard to spot in action, when one of the classic complaints is about other, often more obvious violations on the thread being allowed to stand (including literal ones like cursing). And I thought the default explanation in those cases was that it was somehow too late or there wasn't time to go back and address other violations, even if it had only been hours/day(s). Not that they had been read and re-read and still somehow not seen.
> I think it's good to be flexible sometimes. I'm sorry if I've been unfair. It wouldn't be surprising if some people here were particularly sensitive to unfairness.
<<<<< The last sentence is a recurring one, that seems to modify any apology with “…but it is their unique weakness” or something of that nature. Possibly meaning that the average person would not react that way. But I don’t understand how that can be said of being treated unfairly. The “burden” would seem to be on the perpetrator to hope that people wouldn’t be sensitive to having been treated unfairly, not on the recipient to agree that unfairness to them was ok or no big deal. "Average" sensitivity or not.
If unfairness is typically thought to be ok by all but the sensitivity-challenged, then I presume there would be no problem with prefacing any previous research and future articles/books with the caveat that the circumstances leading up to the findings contained weren't necessarily fair.
Posted by fayeroe on June 8, 2004, at 8:04:17
In reply to re: questions about Larry's block, posted by Dr. Bob on June 8, 2004, at 0:43:24
I'll answer one question with another. Has anyone told you that they were hurt by Larry?
Has anyone indicated that he's tried to come back with another identity?
Perhaps I should have used another term such as "digging your heels in" because you've let this go on and on and on and on without any acknowledgment of several posts and I feel left in the dark about it.I can read and I see you answering questions from the posse immediately. Example, did you notify Larry that you lifted part of his block? And I'm beginning to think that the word "ban" is better than block. If this is a board of the people and for the people, I don't understand why you're aren't more open about what is going on.
Posted by fayeroe on June 8, 2004, at 8:12:32
In reply to re: questions about Larry's block, posted by spoc on June 8, 2004, at 7:40:41
Thanks, spoc, for addressing some of this in a way that I can't. AND I forgot the "unfairness
sensitivity" line. I know several people<many actually< that don"t post here and guess what? tHEY DON'T LIKE UNFAIRNESS EITHER. SORRY ABOUT THE TYPING..MY KEYBOARD SUDDENLY TOOK ON A MIND OF IT'S OWN. TWO WEEKS IS A LONG TIME FOR THIS TO GO ON. MY GRASS GROWS FASTER THAN THIS.
Posted by AuntieMel on June 8, 2004, at 12:11:40
In reply to re: questions about Larry's block » spoc, posted by fayeroe on June 8, 2004, at 8:12:32
It's probably just me and the current slump I'm in, but following this is starting to make me feel like a part of some kind of social experiment.
Like a lab rat in a maze.
So, I'm going to exercise my choice and stick to social.
Posted by spoc on June 8, 2004, at 12:58:22
In reply to round and round the mulberry bush, posted by AuntieMel on June 8, 2004, at 12:11:40
> So, I'm going to exercise my choice and stick to social.
<<<<< Don't blame you a bit Mel. I mean to do that too, as I am pretty numb to this now actually. I just have trouble turning off my That-does-not-compute-dar specifically, the part that automatically scans for contradictions and derailments of the actual subject(s). I'm working on it though.
I do want to say, in case I haven't often enough, that I realize this is a great site and one very dear to many! To anyone seeing this as unnecessary/harmful unrest or negativity (including Dr. Bob if it applies), I would just answer that acknowledging the great parts and discussing important principles that should be improved upon are not mutually exclusive. There are many places I would draw the line myself on debate, given the objectives of this site. I know and understand why "Your free speech is limited here." For example I wouldn't be here to argue that something like political debate is necessarily a good idea to foster on the boards. But this is a different and more relevant kind of debate, and taking place in another room created for this kind of thing.
Yours in intending to knock it off anyway,
Spoc
Posted by AuntieMel on June 8, 2004, at 14:07:40
In reply to Re: round and round the mulberry bush, posted by spoc on June 8, 2004, at 12:58:22
Oh, I agree it's a great site. I credit it for saving my life (so far) I started with the archives and read forward, learning so many valuable things - like it's ok to question your doctor and sometimes one drug doesn't work, etc, etc, ad nauseum
It's just that I've never mastered one part of the serenity prayer - the part that says 'serenity to accept the things I cannot change'
So removing myself from this seems the least of all the evils.
Posted by fayeroe on June 8, 2004, at 15:34:51
In reply to Re: round and round the mulberry bush, posted by AuntieMel on June 8, 2004, at 14:07:40
If I didn't' believe that this is something that will help present and future posters, I wouldn't be in the mix. This is not the most fun I've ever had. I just feel that an open and transparent, if you will, message board is healthier for all. I include the administrator in that approach.
Posted by AuntieMel on June 8, 2004, at 16:05:21
In reply to Re: round and round the mulberry bush, posted by fayeroe on June 8, 2004, at 15:34:51
I agree. I'm usually one to jump into anything I think is morally right. And often I'll take risks to defend the underdog. But it seems to me that this is just going nowhere and I'm way, way too tired to fight right now.
Posted by fayeroe on June 8, 2004, at 19:27:39
In reply to Re: round and round the mulberry bush » fayeroe, posted by AuntieMel on June 8, 2004, at 16:05:21
BUT giving up is what is expected.......and I'm just not going to ignore the elephant in my living room. I may not get anything resolved, I may get blocked, I may get more frustrated than I already am but I've watched this go on and on and on over a couple of years and I'm sick of it. If you offer something like this, you do what's right and run it fairly and competently. There are times that if I didn't know someone who teaches at the University, I'd not believe all of this. If Bob can't step up to the plate and tell people what's going on, then I want him to tell us that he's not willing to disclose. I doubt that he would tell why but I want some accountability~~for once.
Posted by AuntieMel on June 9, 2004, at 8:11:29
In reply to Re: round and round the mulberry bush » AuntieMel, posted by fayeroe on June 8, 2004, at 19:27:39
You've got great points, all of them. Fairness is important, especially to this community.
It's just that I personally can't join you right now, but I wholeheartedly support your goals.
Posted by fayeroe on June 9, 2004, at 8:23:06
In reply to Re: round and round the mulberry bush » fayeroe, posted by AuntieMel on June 9, 2004, at 8:11:29
That's okay........I've only got one horse and one sword. Thanks.
Posted by gardenergirl on June 9, 2004, at 10:03:41
In reply to Re: round and round the mulberry bush » AuntieMel, posted by fayeroe on June 9, 2004, at 8:23:06
Does anyone else feel like this is a process group versus a task group?
gg
Posted by spoc on June 9, 2004, at 10:57:30
In reply to Processing, posted by gardenergirl on June 9, 2004, at 10:03:41
Posted by Brio D Chimp on June 9, 2004, at 12:47:16
In reply to Re: round and round the mulberry bush » AuntieMel, posted by fayeroe on June 9, 2004, at 8:23:06
> That's okay........I've only got one horse and one sword. Thanks.
I present a musical tribute as I wish you good luck...............
To dream the impossible dream,
to fight the unbeatable foe,
to bear with unbearable sorrow,
to run where the brave dare not go...To right the unrightable wrong,
to love pure and chaste from afar,
to try when your arms are too weary
to reach the unreachable star!This is my quest --
to follow that star
no matter how hopeless,
no matter how far --
To fight for the right
without question or pause,
to be willing to march into he**
for a heavenly cause!And I know
if I'll only be true
to this glorious quest
that my heart
will be peaceful and calm
when I'm laid to my rest.And the world will be better for this
that one man, scorned and covered with scars,
still strove with his last ounce of courage
To reach the unreachable stars
Posted by fayeroe on June 9, 2004, at 12:58:18
In reply to Ride on Sister Fayeroe!!! Ride on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! » fayeroe, posted by Brio D Chimp on June 9, 2004, at 12:47:16
Thank you! The elephant hasn't left the living room and neither have I. The song was special. I had never really known the lyrics although I've heard it for years. I really don't care what others say that come to administration. I've had very little contact with the majority of the good people that are here so I'm not invested personally in many of them. But I am invested in seeing that things are done fairly and competently. And I've had enough contact with Bob to hang in as long as it takes.
Posted by Sabina on June 9, 2004, at 23:30:24
In reply to re: questions about Larry's block, posted by Dr. Bob on June 7, 2004, at 5:43:46
...because i freakin' give up.
i have been away, happily sailing, sunning, and swimming. although i had a wireless laptop setup, i opted not to check in here. now that i'm home, i'm overjoyed that i remained technology-free for the length of my vacation.
throughout this block of larry's, i've gone from general shades of irritation to feeling publicly disrespected. i posted that i felt jim's questions about larry's block should be addressed. two days later i got an amazingly difficult to believe response of, "what questions?" still, i played nice and told you where the questions could be found then watched in disappointment as the topic was re-routed into a discussion of your habit of not reading anything you deem uncivil. this effectively saved you from responding yet again to jim's questions about larry's block, even though chicklet also (kindly) provided you with an edited and absolutely civil version of jim's post to which you may have referred. so you see, your explanations for why you only read and answer "civil" things doesn't fit here. you just keep ignoring this issue and i don't know why. i only know that it has made me feel disrespected and publicly humiliated. but big deal, right?
in five days or so, we'll be at the four week mark of larry's block. jim will be able to post again soon, too. who knows? maybe he'll decide to try again and have his questions ignored in person soon? it's just as well because i'm officially tired of trying. i don't even care anymore. my spirit is officially crushed. remember how you mentioned reducing larry's block from six to four weeks? something about something then nothing then soliciting emails from posters who might be shy then waiting for smoke signals or signs from god and then no communication for days and by then i felt all too acutely that the decision was being held over our heads until such time as we're lucky enough to receive it. we're still waiting. either let larry back in or don't; but i think it's beyond the pale to keep the decision as to whether it's a good idea to be flexible in this particular case to be such an ordeal that you can't come to a decision before a month has passed. as i said, it was only to be four weeks that you were considering reducing the block. it will have run out of it's own accord before you will have made any decision...and after all this hue and cry? what was the point, then? i feel that it is unnecessary to keep this hanging over our heads for so long and, if nothing else, validates many of larry's original points about this place.
y'know what, though? that's just great...because i've decided to go back on vacation...from this place. it's not like anyone will care one way or the other where i place my observation seat. i was only ever posting about some people i cared about anyway. i feel like larry could help so many people here as he's been there for me. i don't know if he'll be able to come back after all that's happened, but i still hope he will.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 10, 2004, at 2:46:06
In reply to re: no more questions » Dr. Bob, posted by Sabina on June 9, 2004, at 23:30:24
> > > Has Larry hurt anyone?
> >
> > He may have. How does it matter?
>
> 1] It's been stated previously that anticipated supportiveness upon return is a factor in block reduction. If someone was unquestionably seen as supportive and an asset; and additionally he didn't hurt anyone, that would surely be relevant...
>
> 2] If you mean that technical interpretations only are used (such that assessing hurt does not play a role)...Anticipated supportiveness does matter.
If someone was unquestionably seen as supportive and an asset, they wouldn't have been blocked in the first place.
Whether someone's been civil and whether someone else has been hurt aren't necessarily the same question. I think I need to base decisions mostly on the former, which you may be calling "technical interpretations".
> > > I feel that you're being rather obstinate to prove a point. If I'm correct, please tell me what point you're trying to prove.
> >
> > In what way do you feel I'm being obstinate?
>
> It will soon be going on two weeks since a possible block reduction was announced. People apparently didn't understand what the process of deliberation was going to be. They probably got the idea that discussion, to some degree including you, was being welcomed. Or that they would be given some information as to what was transpiring. But perhaps you were thinking in terms of the matter not being "due" on the table until the four-weeks-since-block point, at which time the potential reduction would apply if granted.Sorry, I had no way of predicting how this process was going to go. I do in fact welcome discussion. What you see is what's transpiring. And yes, I don't think a decision is absolutely necessary until the 4-week point.
> I’m confused as to how this answer:
>
> > I try my best to understand context. Even if that means reading and re-reading...
>
> ties in with...
>
> > I don't always read every line of every post, especially if it isn't civil...Hmm, let me rephrase that...
I don't always read every line of every post. But if there's a civility issue, I will if I need to. But I may not respond to questions in an uncivil post.
Is that more comprehensible?
> Additionally, the first answer is hard to spot in action, when one of the classic complaints is about other, often more obvious violations on the thread being allowed to stand (including literal ones like cursing). And I thought the default explanation in those cases was that it was somehow too late or there wasn't time to go back and address other violations, even if it had only been hours/day(s).
Sorry, I'm confused, what answer is hard to spot?
Sometimes I let something stand when I missed it (or decided to let it go) the first time, but think it's better to move on. Other times it's because there's been an apology.
> > It wouldn't be surprising if some people here were particularly sensitive to unfairness.
>
> The last sentence is a recurring one, that seems to modify any apology with “…but it is their unique weakness” or something of that nature...
>
> spocSorry, that's not my intent at all. What I mean is, of course some people here are really going to care about fairness (because they've been subjected to unfairness).
--
> If I didn't' believe that this is something that will help present and future posters, I wouldn't be in the mix. This is not the most fun I've ever had. I just feel that an open and transparent, if you will, message board is healthier for all.
>
> fayeroeThanks for trying to make things better. This is better than last time, at least?
--
> even though chicklet also (kindly) provided you with an edited and absolutely civil version of jim's post
Was it edited? I had no idea.
> i think it's beyond the pale to keep the decision as to whether it's a good idea to be flexible in this particular case to be such an ordeal that you can't come to a decision before a month has passed.
I wanted to leave time for discussion, and discussion has continued...
> i've decided to go back on vacation...from this place. it's not like anyone will care one way or the other where i place my observation seat...
I'd rather you stayed, but if it's too frustrating or you're too opposed to the way I do things or whatever, then maybe a vacation would in fact be better...
> i don't know if he'll be able to come back after all that's happened, but i still hope he will.
>
> SabinaThe question is when, not whether, he can come back. And I suppose whether he'll want to...
Bob
Posted by fayeroe on June 10, 2004, at 8:16:24
In reply to re: questions, posted by Dr. Bob on June 10, 2004, at 2:46:06
I are once again graced with your way of answering questions....the non-way. And what did you mean by this is better than last time? When? Struggling with you, trying to get you to be open and straightforward is never good...I HATE IT! And I know that's why this took so long...we would all get frustrated and perhaps some of us, look at Sabina, would leave. I think the issue concerning fairness is ridiculous. EVERYONE wants to be treated fairly and wants that for others here. But it doesn't happen that way. You said the discussion was on-going.....what was on-going was a handful of us trying to get you to come clean.You weren't in the discussion, were you? You were probably reading what we wrote but you sure didn't respond in a timely fashion and with answers that make sense. And you see there are those that like things to make SENSE. And I do not care if I've offended you or any of your followers.I care about the people that have been involved in this that had the nerve, the energy and the conviction of their beliefs to try to change this place for the better. And that means the world to me. Some of the people that are here aren't afraid to question your "policies"........I spent entirely too much time communicating with you the last time you allowed "you know who" to be here and scare the living h--- out of some of the posters. Using one of Sabina's phrases, "this is entirely beyond the pale". I can't imagine that this has been good for anyone here this time. But you know what, Bob? I truly now know you for who you are and aren't. Not that I didn't have a pretty good idea before. By the way, your "research" using this site was rejected by the IRB, right? And if anyone wants to circle the wagons around Bob by attacking what I've said....save your energy for the next time a poster uses a dirty word or something similar, because I won't respond. p.s. Bob, I guess "better than the last time" meant the poster that you allowed back on here and "it" threatened suicide and such....do you not have the emotional depth to know that there aren't any "better" times when this place is hurting people? And to the supporters of Lar and Jim and fairness and things making sense~~I'm truly sorry that all of this work doesn't appear to have helped things. I tried. I guess you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
Posted by spoc on June 10, 2004, at 9:01:16
In reply to re: questions, posted by Dr. Bob on June 10, 2004, at 2:46:06
Had this post all loaded up, although now I am reminded that due to my shorter time here; intermittent idealism/naivete; and habituation to how conversation *usually* works, I can still get caught up in attempting to provide that golden clarification of the issue or question that could actually lead to true directness. Which may not be such a rewarding activity. Oh well...
I will even start with something positive, since I know the likelihood of change can get even lesser if told we never could/will. I'm glad you did show up Dr. Bob, I know we want to encourage that. And I'm glad you have acknowledged that unfairness exists, and that you're not opposed to apologizing for at least some things. Following are some responses to your own responses/questions.
> ...They probably got the idea that discussion, to some degree including you, was being welcomed. Or that they would be given some information as to what was transpiring...>
>> Sorry, I had no way of predicting how this process was going to go. I do in fact welcome discussion. What you see is what's transpiring... >
<<<<< That's probably where a lot of the confusion came in -- with people seeing you as an integral part of this and thinking you'd participate more actively, discussing rather than occasionally refuting or asking clarification in what could be seen as a diversionary way. It looked like maybe the carrot was dangled and then yanked back, leaving us appearing to be dissenting just for its own sake. I think we started to feel like we had erred in assuming that much beyond "yes" or "no" had been solicited or was welcome and would lead to interaction of some kind.
> I’m confused as to how this answer:
>
> > I try my best to understand context. Even if that means reading and re-reading...
>
> ties in with these...
>
> > I don't always read every line of every post, especially if it isn't civil...
>
> > If you'll allow me the same latitude, if someone doesn't want me to miss something potentially important, they should be civil...
>
> Additionally, the first answer is hard to spot in action,... I thought the default explanation in those cases was that it was somehow too late or there wasn't time to go back and address other violations, even if it had only been hours/day(s).
>
>> Sorry, I'm confused, what answer is hard to spot?<<<<<< Just meant that it's hard to spot "reading and re-reading" in action, when in the end other violations or prohibited language are so frequently still missed on a thread, and is part of what we're discussing now.
>> Hmm, let me rephrase that... I don't always read every line of every post. But if there's a civility issue, I will if I need to. But I may not respond to questions in an uncivil post...Is that more comprehensible?
<<<<<< A little ... But I don't think only unanswered questions in posts were being referred to, but rather something you said that sounded like in general you may disregard the good in a post if you spot a possible civility infraction (“I don't always read every line of every post, especially if it isn't civil”). So I still don’t quite get how one can read and re-read to determine civility and context, and at the same time profess to sometimes stop reading as soon as the civility issue is spotted...
> The last sentence is a recurring one, that seems to modify any apology with “…but it is their unique weakness” or something of that nature...
>
>> Sorry, that's not my intent at all. What I mean is, of course some people here are really going to care about fairness (because they've been subjected to unfairness).<<<<< Thank you, that was an important difference!
> even though chicklet also (kindly) provided you with an edited and absolutely civil version of jim's post
>
>> Was it edited? I had no idea.<<<<<< I think Chicklet reposted Jimi’s entire post, then I posted an attempted edit...
> i think it's beyond the pale to keep the decision as to whether it's a good idea to be flexible in this particular case to be such an ordeal that you can't come to a decision before a month has passed.
>
>> I wanted to leave time for discussion, and discussion has continued...<<<<<< Again, I just think people thought you were going to be more a part of it, shed light, appear to be interested in addressing ideas and opinions. Like I mentioned, it probably would have helped if people knew from the start, or at some point prior to this, that you were just presenting the subject and would be back in four weeks.
Posted by TofuEmmy on June 10, 2004, at 9:22:27
In reply to Dr. Bob is a hypocrite, posted by Larry Hoover on May 13, 2004, at 10:23:57
If you want Dr Bob, and everyone here to read your entire post, be succint. I am really interested in this thread, but sometimes I open these posts, and say, "Woah now....!".
The audience would grow, the participation would increase, Bob would be more effective, if we could all be concise.
Kick me, but do it briefly. :-)
Em
Posted by AuntieMel on June 10, 2004, at 10:06:30
In reply to re: questions » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on June 10, 2004, at 8:16:24
Thank you very much for wording what I was thinking.
By too tired to participate, I meant my brain was too tired. I'm the type that lives by my logical brain and muffles feelings. This discussion didn't seem to me to follow any kind of logical progression (is this ok for "i" statements?)
I know I've only been visible here for a short time, but have followed the history from the beginning. And I've noticed a huge change from the early days when there were fewer people and needed little policing to now. So, while the immediate question is about Lar's block - and most of us thinking even 4 weeks was too much - I was also hoping it would lead to a fuller discussion about blocks in general.
I would venture to guess that just about everyone here would agree that a larger issue does exist.
And for Jimi's block - I was caught totally off guard. I was reading the post thinking about how well written it was and how much he needed answers that when I saw the block I was floored. Especially when the only negative bits were about a past occurrence that was a HUGE issue at the time. And even these weren't ranting. (sigh)
Posted by spoc on June 10, 2004, at 10:51:55
In reply to Suggestion - don't hit me, posted by TofuEmmy on June 10, 2004, at 9:22:27
.... meaning another tidal wave of words in your face -- verbosity to address a succinctness issue -- of all the ironic things. Not me hitting you! :- )
(Thanks Mel, for thinking Fayeroe and myself have helped *maintain* focus. But as I also know the post size issue deters some, I must address and validate what Emmy said. And Mel -- in case you actually *hadn't* meant that I've contributed focus -- don't tell me, 'k? Sooner or later I'll get help!:) This post is all about me, so everyone here for the issues *please* feel free to tune out! ;- )
> ...be succint. I am really interested in this thread, but sometimes I open these posts, and say, "Woah now....!".
>
> The audience would grow, the participation would increase, Bob would be more effective, if we could all be concise.
>
> Kick me, but do it briefly. :-)
>
> Em<<<<<< Hi Emmy,
I have NO idea why ;-), but I think I could be amongst any of those covered in this subject. And I have no desire to hit you, or be mad. I know shorter is better for many purposes, and I've speculated on how this impacts me countless times.
Rather, it makes me sad, because as of now this is just how my brain is. I think some people just do have an in-depth style of addressing things, and hopefully also find a willing and similar market for that somewhere. But in my case, I think it's also a ramification of my OCD/perfectionism. And I have a huge fear that in general I do have good things to say, but that I bury any chance of having it heard, seen or even getting to know people in high word counts.
I give myself major tension sometimes proceeding this way, but I "physically" can't help it or usually even see where I could have cut something out. Trying to edit can add hour(s) during which I'll probably think of even MORE to add. I also bump word count by trying so hard to be tactful, and through automatically covering comments and questions I *anticipate* would be forthcoming based on what I'm saying.
That may not sound like a good way to do it and I indeed don't mean to, but ya know what.... When I don't, I see that in fact things often do ensue that wouldn't have if I had been as thorough as my impulses had dictated when first composing the thing. Meaning a suggestion or angle I already tried; or in the case of debate, a hole seeming to open up that didn't need to be there. As in someone coming back with "But -- aha! X,Y,Z!", when XYZ were things I DID anticipate would be said, so had actually wanted to cover in the first place. By nature I try to be airtight I guess. Now, differing opinions, great! I'm just compelled (as in compulsion) to head off possible misinterpretations or already-thought-of responses. And it all blends together so much to me that I can't see which is which anyway.
I have *no* idea if I managed to convey what I mean there! You can probably see by reading this that I am just afflicted with having too many "factors" on the brain at all times. It's painful (ADD has been proposed too). You should see me try to handle even routine business and errands. It's like Cheech and Chong sitting around high as kites, and *purposely* trying to see how complicated they could make everything, just to be funny.
I SO envy the people here who communicate back and forth in installments of a paragraph or two, without having all the other peripheral relevant thoughts, or blood vessels pulsing in their foreheads trying to channel them! But don't leave the seal unbroken on my posts, I can indeed be brief too, maybe just not on certain especially passionate or complex subjects.
I wish so much I was different, but as I'm not (and haven't given meds a crack at it), I always just hope that instead of assessing the length, people will start reading and assess whether it's interesting and relevant. Hey, they'll move on to read the same amount in the next 15 small posts, so what's the diff? Ha ha, I know it doesn't work that way. Maybe I should post 5 smaller posts in a row at times. That would look funny, but probably actually go down easier. And now I'm embarrassed that this got so long too. *<groan>*
Posted by spoc on June 10, 2004, at 11:01:56
In reply to Suggestion - don't hit me, posted by TofuEmmy on June 10, 2004, at 9:22:27
... maybe this would have been better:
"You definitely have a point Emmy, I agree. I do feel what I've said is all relevant, but know that it is also probably impacted by my untreated OCD and ADD. Oh well, hope my points still get through and/or are interesting to some!"
WOW. That did satisfy me too. But unfortunately it is almost *never* ever ever ever ever as clear or easy for me to see as it was with this. (Hey, do you think I could have cut out a few "ever"s, ya know it's a funny thing about that, when I was a small child..... HAAAAAAAAAA!!! ;- )
And WOW again -- I guess this *isn't* short, it's average length! Gee, I do have my work cut out for me. LUVOX, take me away! ;- )
Posted by AuntieMel on June 10, 2004, at 11:38:05
In reply to Re: BAM!!!!!!!! » TofuEmmy, posted by spoc on June 10, 2004, at 10:51:55
Yes, I did mean you are both helping maintain focus, but I also meant that both of you echoed things that were stuck in the brain and wouldn't come out.
And as for verbosity, I like the way you post. It's all so thought out and has a logical progression. Succintness might help some when trying to get Dr. Bob to read what you wrote, though. As for anything else, please don't change.
Posted by TofuEmmy on June 10, 2004, at 11:46:44
In reply to Re: BAM!!!!!!!! » TofuEmmy, posted by spoc on June 10, 2004, at 10:51:55
Spoc - My note was definately not aimed at any one person., or even one topic...just noted it here because it's such an interesting one.
I'm sorry if you felt picked on! I liked both versions of your post! They both made me wanna share my fritos with you.
:-)
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]
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.