Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 1010543

Shown: posts 20 to 44 of 92. Go back in thread:

 

Re: This is ridiculous... » europerep

Posted by ed_uk2010 on February 18, 2012, at 12:05:25

In reply to This is ridiculous..., posted by europerep on February 17, 2012, at 12:56:21

>Ed is probably the nicest, most helpful member of this whole board, and it is him who has to apologize....

Thanks! I am *usually* nice, I just get mad sometimes. My post to Lou was crude and unpleasant. I should have said it differently...

I get frustrated by Lou's posts because I think many of them could be frightening to new posters and vulnerable people. Lou does not discuss things as such, but I'm not sure he can. His posting style is rather cryptic. Threads tends to go off course and the original poster's question is lost.

Like Sigi said, Lou's poetic moments can be excellent but I do not think he is going about 'saving lives' in the right way. When discussing the risks of a particular drug, it would be better to post a link to an article, study or case report. It's particularly important to maintain a balanced viewpoint. All psychiatric drugs have risks, we know this, but we need to look at the benefits too. Drug treatment is usually about balancing the risks and side effects against the benefits. Scare tactics are not very helpful.

Perhaps you would like to be my civility buddy!!! ;-)

 

Re: opportunity to support europerep » Twinleaf

Posted by sleepygirl2 on February 18, 2012, at 13:06:43

In reply to Re: opportunity to support europerep, posted by Twinleaf on February 18, 2012, at 9:40:50

I'm not sure that the request is about supporting Dr. Bob's views. It could be about supporting each other when we react strongly, so that we might do it as respectfully as possible.

 

Re: opportunity to support europerep » Twinleaf

Posted by sigismund on February 18, 2012, at 14:56:22

In reply to Re: opportunity to support europerep, posted by Twinleaf on February 18, 2012, at 9:40:50

Yep. It's been done before and we know where it leads.

 

Re: opportunity to support europerep » sigismund

Posted by sleepygirl2 on February 18, 2012, at 17:00:21

In reply to Re: opportunity to support europerep » Twinleaf, posted by sigismund on February 18, 2012, at 14:56:22

Can anyone say how dr bob, or we, can/should handle this? Or should things just run their natural course?

 

Re: opportunity to support europerep

Posted by sigismund on February 18, 2012, at 19:18:45

In reply to Re: opportunity to support europerep » sigismund, posted by sleepygirl2 on February 18, 2012, at 17:00:21

I suppose he is handling it in the right way since he wants civility.

My concern is with backing someone into a corner. Once you do that the outcome is almost predetermined. We are a stubborn species.

So yes, I do think it might be better to let things run their course.

 

Lou's request-ehydeipurpayn » Twinleaf

Posted by Lou Pilder on February 18, 2012, at 21:07:59

In reply to Re: opportunity to support europerep, posted by Twinleaf on February 18, 2012, at 9:40:50

> Just addressing one small aspect of Bob's request for suggestions to help make this site more active: I personally find requests for other posters to join Bob in encouraging posters to apologize ( or change their wording) for things which Bob has found uncivil to be inappropriate. Others may well not have the same reaction that Bob had. Their purpose here is to speak for themselves and to help and support others in ways which originate with them. Bob is of course expected to state his views, but not necessarily to request others to back up his requests.
>
> On a related issue, I think it is demeaning and patronizing to ask others to be civility buddies; this assumes that the poster in question is incapable of making intelligent, civil choices of their own. This is almost never the case, and is certainly not with Eduk, one of our most thoughtful, supportive and well-informed contributors over the years.
>
> To sum up, genuine respect for contributing posters would mean, to me, not asking people to support Bob's views ( but just letting them do so if they wish), and not asking for civility buddies. Just these two small changes would improve the atmosphere a lot.

Tl,
You wrote the above. As I understand what the thrust of your post could be, it is that the owner/operator of this site is in some way part of your thinking on ways to make the site have an improved atmosphere. In this case, you could see that him redacting his policy in his TOS concerning civility buddies and requests to members to apologize to remain members, could improve the atmosphere here.
This opens the door to more introspection concerning the operation of this site by the owner and his deputy. They can control the content by either performing what their functions are in the TOS here, or not, as one way for an indoctrination to happen. They can effect the psychological/emotional state of person also by either performing their functions or not. If a statement could inflict emotional distress upon another member, and the owner and his deputy allow it to stand, then that can be a way for the psychological/emotional state of the member that the statement is diresct to , to have the infliction of the emotional disterss to continue and/or be made a deeper pain.
What your introspection shows here to me is that the site is a {union} of the members and the administration members. And if one in the union is not performing their stated function, or has a policy that could in your opinion have a detrimental effect psychologically/emotionally on some members, then that could be part of the atmosphere here.
And there is much more to this that I think could come out of this discussion. But in my thinking, as long as my requests here to Mr. Hsiung and his deputy remain outstanding, and all of the notifications from me to the administration remain outstanding, that could hold back improving the atmosphere for me. I do recognize your contribution here as that I am in agreement with your thinking about the situation with asking a person to change their wording to fit someone else's thinking. And what good could it do for someone to post an apology? Is not the way an apology is accepted or not determined by the one that the statement that is apologised for considers the apology acceptable, not someone else? An apology is generally accepted if the apology is judged to be sincere and sufficiant by the one the statement is agaainst, not someone else. I do not know how that could be done here as to be able to judge if something posted is sincere, maybe someone else does?
So what I see is the policy of apologizing a way for the one apologizing to remain a member here. How, then, could anyone judge if the apology is sincere?
Lou

 

Re: opportunity to support europerep

Posted by Dr. Bob on February 19, 2012, at 1:34:07

In reply to Re: opportunity to support europerep » Twinleaf, posted by sleepygirl2 on February 18, 2012, at 13:06:43

> It's an interesting thing, tolerating distorted views of reality, because someone else believes them.
>
> How much can we tolerate because we know someone is not well?
> It's an important thing I think.
> There's schizophrenia in my family, not dealt with well at all, so it interests me.

> I'm not sure that the request is about supporting Dr. Bob's views. It could be about supporting each other when we react strongly, so that we might do it as respectfully as possible.

I see it as tolerating *different* views of reality -- which is of course harder if we're convinced our view is right and the other's is distorted. More generally, it's about accepting others who are different. Has anyone here been considered different and wanted instead to be accepted?

Bob

 

Solstice's thread » sleepygirl2

Posted by ed_uk2010 on February 19, 2012, at 14:03:09

In reply to Re: opportunity to support europerep » sigismund, posted by sleepygirl2 on February 18, 2012, at 17:00:21

Regarding Lou, I am particularly disturbed by his posts about 'Lamictal and death' on Solstice's thread on the meds board. She specifically asked him not to post to her, several times, and yet her thread has been hi-jacked by posts which are, in my opinion, unpleasant and unwarranted.

 

Re: opportunity to support europerep

Posted by ed_uk2010 on February 19, 2012, at 14:03:51

In reply to Re: opportunity to support europerep, posted by Dr. Bob on February 19, 2012, at 1:34:07

Sorry, above post was not specifically for sleepygirl.

 

Re: opportunity to support europerep » Dr. Bob

Posted by ed_uk2010 on February 19, 2012, at 14:12:14

In reply to Re: opportunity to support europerep, posted by Dr. Bob on February 19, 2012, at 1:34:07

> > It's an interesting thing, tolerating distorted views of reality, because someone else believes them.
> >
> > How much can we tolerate because we know someone is not well?
> > It's an important thing I think.
> > There's schizophrenia in my family, not dealt with well at all, so it interests me.
>
> > I'm not sure that the request is about supporting Dr. Bob's views. It could be about supporting each other when we react strongly, so that we might do it as respectfully as possible.
>
> I see it as tolerating *different* views of reality -- which is of course harder if we're convinced our view is right and the other's is distorted. More generally, it's about accepting others who are different. Has anyone here been considered different and wanted instead to be accepted?
>
> Bob

That's true, but Lou also needs to accept other people's views and respect that not everyone will want him to post his view on their threads.

 

Re: Solstice's thread » ed_uk2010

Posted by sleepygirl2 on February 19, 2012, at 17:29:46

In reply to Solstice's thread » sleepygirl2, posted by ed_uk2010 on February 19, 2012, at 14:03:09

She has been incredibly gracious. I don't think I would have been able to do that.

 

Re: Solstice's thread

Posted by Solstice on February 19, 2012, at 18:13:49

In reply to Re: Solstice's thread » ed_uk2010, posted by sleepygirl2 on February 19, 2012, at 17:29:46

> She has been incredibly gracious. I don't think I would have been able to do that.

I deeply appreciate the support from you and ed_UK (and anyone else who has supported me in silence).

As much as I am all for people being tolerant of others, and of those who are 'different' being accepted, I don't think that accepting those who are 'different' requires everyone (or anyone) else to accept socially unacceptable behavior from them.

I could tolerate him making one post where he repeats his message that we're all going to die from medications.. but he's not happy to post it once. He has posted that message (or subliminally by excerpting an out-of-context phrase from someone else's thread to make his same point). Bottom line, though is that this practice is disruptive and discouraging. I've been here a long time and it has been very upsetting to me. I can't imagine what it would be like for a newcomer who came here in desperation and poured their heart out on here only to have their thread hijacked by Lou. It's universally considered very uncivil on the internet to do that.. so for Bob to allow it in the name of tolerance might be misguided.

Sometimes the 'greater good' has to be taken into account. And when a single poster's behavior is extreme enough that the majority of the community feels harmed by it, then the offending behavior should be addressed.

I used the notification button and suggested to administration that perhaps an ongoing thread could be created for Lou to post his concerns about medications. All of Lou's posts would default to his thread, and the subject line he was responding to would stay with his post. That way, if there are people who want to read his objections to medications and watch his videos, they could follow it, but he would be disallowed from committing the offense of hijacking.

That way, he would be accepted and allowed to post whatever he wants, without being allowed to hijack a poster's attempt to get input from others about a medication issue.

It's not about the community being intolerant. It's about LOU being intolerant of others' right to get input from others on medications. And clearly, I have gotten a wide range of responses from others so far - from those who have medication suggestions - to those who are doubtful that ADHD and bipolar are valid diagnoses. I have welcomed ALL of those opinions. And I wouldn't complain about Lou posting his warnings and videos once.. but that's not what he does. His hijacking practices very well may be a very intelligent effort to interfere with people getting input from others about medications.

No one should have the right to impose his message of death and 'life ruination' more than once in a single thread.

:-(

Solstice

 

Re: Solstice's thread » Solstice

Posted by Phillipa on February 19, 2012, at 18:18:34

In reply to Re: Solstice's thread, posted by Solstice on February 19, 2012, at 18:13:49

Extremly well put and to me very civil. And a great idea about the separate thread. I have seen others in the past be asked by the originator of the thread not to post to their threads and it was respected by the poster. Phillipa

 

Re: opportunity to support europerep » Dr. Bob

Posted by Solstice on February 19, 2012, at 18:26:07

In reply to Re: opportunity to support europerep, posted by Dr. Bob on February 19, 2012, at 1:34:07

> > It's an interesting thing, tolerating distorted views of reality, because someone else believes them.
> >
> > How much can we tolerate because we know someone is not well?
> > It's an important thing I think.
> > There's schizophrenia in my family, not dealt with well at all, so it interests me.
>
> > I'm not sure that the request is about supporting Dr. Bob's views. It could be about supporting each other when we react strongly, so that we might do it as respectfully as possible.
>
> I see it as tolerating *different* views of reality -- which is of course harder if we're convinced our view is right and the other's is distorted. More generally, it's about accepting others who are different. Has anyone here been considered different and wanted instead to be accepted?
>

I get that we all have different perceptions of things, and that each person's perception is their reality. That's why tolerance is important and highly civilized. But I don't think that people here have too much of a hard time tolerating Lou's opinions. We are well-versed in his reality. We've all read his views over and over and over. Same view. So I don't think it's his views that get him crossways with people. It's his posting behavior. It's more about the civility issue that you embrace. Some of what Lou does is not civil - especially with regard to hijacking threads and posting repeatedly about the same thing on a single thread. He is prone to filling up threads with his name and his message of death and life-ruination if people take medications or allow their kids who have mental illness to be treated. Isn't Lou demonstrating intolerance when he obsessively posts on a thread? When he hijacks a thread with his agenda? Shouldn't he be required to be more tolerant of the med-lovers on here?

Can't a person come here and post about their teenager's mental illness and medical treatment without Lou burying it in his repeated posts about Nazi's, the Holocaust, anti-Semitism, death and life-ruination?

I hope I haven't gotten myself in trouble, but this whole thing has been distressing under my particular circumstances. I wish Lou would send some tolerance, civility, and kindness my way and leave my thread alone.

Solstice


 

Re: Solstice's thread » Phillipa

Posted by Solstice on February 19, 2012, at 18:35:05

In reply to Re: Solstice's thread » Solstice, posted by Phillipa on February 19, 2012, at 18:18:34

> Extremly well put and to me very civil.


Thanks Phillipa. I've worried about whether I was getting myself in trouble.


> And a great idea about the separate thread.

I think it would solve the problem, for sure.


> I have seen others in the past be asked by the originator of the thread not to post to their threads and it was respected by the poster. Phillipa

?? I'm not sure who you are referring to, but I don't think I've ever asked people to not post to my thread - except this time - and it's only because I really feel anxious about what's going on with my daughter, and once he started posting, I knew he would be likely to hijack it, and I was desperate to hear from people. Thank goodness he apparently had technical problems last night and wasn't able to post easily, but he sure has made up for it today :-(

And to clarify, I don't mind Lou or anyone else posting on my thread. The more people that post, and the wider the span of information, the happier I am. What I DON'T want, is for my thread to be hijacked by someone's agenda that has nothing to do with responding to my request. What is taking place is rude and uncivil, and I don't understand why Dr. Bob allows it. Allowing it defeats my thread, and it doesn't equal 'tolerance.' Rather, it is giving a voice to someone else's intolerance of those who have found success in treatment with medications.

Solstice

 

Re: Solstice's thread » Solstice

Posted by Phillipa on February 19, 2012, at 20:30:11

In reply to Re: Solstice's thread » Phillipa, posted by Solstice on February 19, 2012, at 18:35:05

No not your threads other posters in the past. I will fix the situation. I do think I can. Doesn't matter how I can I think like the little engine that could. Phillipa

 

Scott's response. » Dr. Bob

Posted by SLS on February 19, 2012, at 22:45:04

In reply to Re: opportunity to support europerep, posted by Dr. Bob on February 19, 2012, at 1:34:07

> I see it as tolerating *different* views of reality -- which is of course harder if we're convinced our view is right and the other's is distorted. More generally, it's about accepting others who are different. Has anyone here been considered different and wanted instead to be accepted?

Yes. However, I was not given carte-blanche to behave in any manner I wished. This was especially true in public venues and in school, where disruptive behaviors prevented the learning process of the entire class. There were rules. It seems to me that Lou Pilder overgeneralizes and exaggerates. Since this sort of posting behavior was considered uncivil in the past, what has changed? Perhaps Lou Pilder manages to make his statements by formatting them as questions. But not all of his statements of exaggerations and overgeneralizations are contained in questions. Why are these statements not considered uncivil?

I have taken note of a change in tactics in Lou Pilder's most recent posts. He's pretty smart. Something should have been done prior to this shift in posting format. That you have let his previous posts stand unsanctioned is a tacit agreement by you of his overgeneralizations and exaggerations. I'm sure this is a familiar argument to you. It is probably specious, but I thought I would make it anyway. It is ironic, really.

"Different points of view are fine, and in fact encouraged, but your freedom of speech is limited here."

"It's fine to give others feedback as long as it's constructive."

"Also, please don't post the same information in more than one place at the same time."

"Some may not realize, for example, that I don't consider it civil to overgeneralize"

"Please don't... post information that you know to be false, exaggerate or overgeneralize -- etc. Even if you're quoting someone else."

I acknowledge that this is a difficult situation to handle equitably and remain faithful to the rules of conduct that you have established. I don't want to see Lou Pilder blocked from posting. That would be a shame. But what I want is not terribly relevant. What is relevant is what you want.

What do you want?


- Scott

 

Re: Solstice's thread » Solstice

Posted by Dinah on February 20, 2012, at 8:48:07

In reply to Re: Solstice's thread, posted by Solstice on February 19, 2012, at 18:13:49

You have my full support.

I worry, though, that what happened on the other thread (and countless times previously) that Dr. Bob's actions will be against the poster pointing out the problem. I feel very angry when that happens. In my opinion, you've tried to be clear that you aren't rejecting Lou, but are complaining about a behavior.

In the interests of keeping the focus where it should be, in terms of a posting behavior that many on board would like to see addressed, might I suggest that the posting behavior be addressed in terms that aren't exclusive to Lou? After all, it's not at all unlikely that another poster might come along and post on threads with anti-medication rhetoric. Dr. Bob has already made a rule about linking medications with Nazis or the Holocaust or the death of millions of Jews. I think it would be easy enough to come up with a way to state that anti-medication messages would not be helpful on a particular thread.

The Please Be Sensitive rule would easily fit that circumstance. In fact, I'm surprised it already has not been invoked on that thread. You have stated that you would not find anti-medication posts helpful, and requested that they not be posted on this thread where you're asking for help of a certain sort. (That could be fine tuned a bit.) And someone has chosen to ignore your request.

It seems on the face of it pretty straightforward. In the interests of clarity to Dr. Bob, it might be best to make the request without naming particular posters or being overly specific.

I suspect that the generalization rule might also be applied, but that rule has been applied less predictably in the past, and is open more to interpretation by Dr. Bob.

I hope this is understood in the spirit it was intended. I fully share your concerns, and the concerns of others as they have recently expressed them. I know how Dr. Bob likes rules, and I see a way an existing rule can be utilized without risk to the requesting poster.

I will totally support anyone trying to see this existing rule properly enforced and do what I can to further those efforts.

 

Re: Solstice's thread

Posted by Dinah on February 20, 2012, at 8:50:17

In reply to Re: Solstice's thread » Solstice, posted by Dinah on February 20, 2012, at 8:48:07

I also at this time would fully support an "ignore" function.

 

And on a related note

Posted by Dinah on February 20, 2012, at 9:12:54

In reply to Re: Solstice's thread, posted by Dinah on February 20, 2012, at 8:50:17

I would like to see any phrases requesting posters to view a webpage or video in order to be a participant in the thread considered insensitive to the originating poster, who has the right to receive input from posters whether or not they wish to conform to certain requests by other posters.

At any rate, I think Poster A ought to be able to request to Poster B a single time not to make requests concerning the ongoing participation of other posters. After that, future requests for conditions to be met by participants on the part of Poster B on threads of Poster A would be considered insensitive.

I see no problem with Poster B requesting that if anyone wishes to carry on a conversation with Poster B, that they should watch a certain video or view a certain link. I think Poster B's requests for certain actions should be solely related to conversing with poster B, and possibly carried on in a separate thread for those who wish to comply with those guidelines.

 

Re: And on a related note

Posted by sleepygirl2 on February 20, 2012, at 9:32:00

In reply to And on a related note, posted by Dinah on February 20, 2012, at 9:12:54

As usual, Dinah makes excellent sense. I agree with her suggestions.

 

Thanks :)

Posted by Dinah on February 20, 2012, at 9:49:23

In reply to Re: And on a related note, posted by sleepygirl2 on February 20, 2012, at 9:32:00

And if I might make another. I think if Solstice starts a separate thread, and requests that anti medication posts not be made on that thread, perhaps Dr. Bob will move some of the posts on the current thread to Admin. If there is a lot of activity on Medication, perhaps the board will turn over soon.

And being totally pragmatic, it might be wise for everyone to prophylactically apologize to Dr. Bob if they inadvertently violated any civility rules and ask him what he would and would not consider ok in these types of requests.

In fact, I do so myself, if I was a bit too specific in my posts. It wasn't my intent to cause Lou any distress, but rather to address concerns about posting behaviors that are more global than personal.

And I hope this is recognized as the attempt to help posters that it was intended. I've always considered the best result to be achieving my goals without unnecessary casualties.

 

How about just skipping posts that disturb you?

Posted by jane d on February 20, 2012, at 12:04:17

In reply to Re: Solstice's thread, posted by Solstice on February 19, 2012, at 18:13:49

Just don't read them. I seriously doubt that anyone arrives at this board unaware that some people hold these views about meds. And anyone who's read a few posts knows what Lou's views are - just as we know the views of many other frequent posters. If seeing it on the screen upsets you - then just don't read the posts. It really works fairly well and I promise you it gets easier with practice.

And if you start skipping enough posters it will free up lots of time for truly useful pasttimes like youtube and cooking shows. ;-)

 

Lou's thanks-psehymjehyn

Posted by Lou Pilder on February 20, 2012, at 12:19:52

In reply to How about just skipping posts that disturb you?, posted by jane d on February 20, 2012, at 12:04:17

> Just don't read them. I seriously doubt that anyone arrives at this board unaware that some people hold these views about meds. And anyone who's read a few posts knows what Lou's views are - just as we know the views of many other frequent posters. If seeing it on the screen upsets you - then just don't read the posts. It really works fairly well and I promise you it gets easier with practice.
>
> And if you start skipping enough posters it will free up lots of time for truly useful pasttimes like youtube and cooking shows. ;-)
>

Jane,
You wrote the above. Thanks, I think that's good.
Lou
BTW, are you the same {Jane} as in other post that we have had dialog in?

 

Re: Thanks :) » Dinah

Posted by Solstice on February 20, 2012, at 13:56:46

In reply to Thanks :), posted by Dinah on February 20, 2012, at 9:49:23

> And if I might make another. I think if Solstice starts a separate thread, and requests that anti medication posts not be made on that thread, perhaps Dr. Bob will move some of the posts on the current thread to Admin. If there is a lot of activity on Medication, perhaps the board will turn over soon.

I tried to start a separate thread for Lou to post his views about my daughter's situation - but he has not used it - which seems to underscore that his purpose is less about his brand of 'education' and is really more about defeating my threat through hijacking. It's his way of overwhelming the flow of information that serves the purpose of the thread - me getting input from others on the board about possible medical AND non-medical treatments for my daughter.

And it's upsetting that there has been no intervention.

I think if I started another thread to continue getting input related to my issue, Lou would just follow that second thread, because disruption seems to be the goal.


>
> And I hope this is recognized as the attempt to help posters that it was intended. I've always considered the best result to be achieving my goals without unnecessary casualties.

:-) You, Dinah, are the definition of balance. And really.. this is NOT an issue of Lou being 'unlikeable' or 'unacceptable.' I can easily accept him, accept his message, and am happy to see him participate in the forum. My issue is that he has a single message, and uses tactics to spread that message that are nothing less than bullying and uncivil (as in hijacking a thread and dominating it by repetition of his message). It's not Lou that I object to. It's not even his message. It's his tactics - his behavior - that is universally considered uncivil at best - and should not be permitted to take place.

I know you suggested that I not be specific by using a certain person's name.. and I get why that's a good idea... but it would feel weird to do that when there isn't anyone who would read this and not know who is engaging in this objectionable behavior - because Lou is the only one here who wages these kinds of wars. My and my daughter's needs being met are what threatens to be the casualty of the tactics he uses. And that's what his objective seems to be - to defeat the thread of a concerned mom exploring medication and non-medication options for her daughter :-(

Solstice

ps I apologize if I'm repeating myself somewhat. I'm just worn out trying to keep my head above water - and it feels like I'm being pushed under (by the tactics being used to defeat my thread).


Go forward in thread:


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] 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.