![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 11 to 35 of 35. Go back in thread:
Posted by jonhed on June 28, 2016, at 16:10:00
In reply to Re: Please. » Tabitha, posted by SLS on June 28, 2016, at 14:11:27
Why are you saying this again?
I get very mixed messages.I don't want to be here anymore..
Sorry for trying to connect with lou on a plane, and my intensions whas to get him to see what he does.
I'm sorry.
I should just shut up because i always mess things up.
I thought we where on the same line again, but of course not.
Everything i do get so big and out of proportions.
This was my last post. for real.
Goodbye and thanks for this time...
i like you all.
Posted by SLS on June 28, 2016, at 18:05:56
In reply to Re: Please., posted by jonhed on June 28, 2016, at 16:10:00
> Why are you saying this again?
I apologized to you along another thread. We got crossed-up.
Sorry.
I hope you don't leave. I believe that your knowledge and passions will add much to Psycho-Babble.
- Scott
Posted by linkadge on June 28, 2016, at 18:43:17
In reply to Re: Please. » jonhed, posted by SLS on June 28, 2016, at 18:05:56
I don't see how this is so difficult....
If something has nothing to do with medication, then it shouldn't be on the medication part of the board.
The trolls in question appear to be quite computer savy. It is not as if such individuals cannot find an appropriate venue to vent such views.
This is Dr-Bob's site and his experiment in the application of the internet to provide therapeutic support for mentally ill individuals.
Clearly, Dr-Bob should have the final say in whether the posts in question are "therapeutic", or provide any form of support for those on the board.
Linkadge
Posted by SLS on June 28, 2016, at 18:52:01
In reply to Re: Please., posted by linkadge on June 28, 2016, at 18:43:17
> I don't see how this is so difficult....
Dr. Bob currently has no presence on these forums.
There is no moderation.
There is no policing.
There is no redirection.
Because of this, things remain difficult.
> Clearly, Dr-Bob should have the final say in whether the posts in question are "therapeutic", or provide any form of support for those on the board.
Yes, he should.
- Scott
Posted by baseball55 on June 28, 2016, at 19:28:42
In reply to Re: Please. » Tabitha, posted by SLS on June 28, 2016, at 14:11:27
> It is interesting that no one comes to my defense when the troll attacks me incessantly with such obviously uncivil content.
I don't come to your defense because I have no interest in engaging with Lou or discussions about Lou. I always value your posts and, as I said earlier, ignore his posts and all responses and discussions which they provoke. Troll may be the current usage in the internet world, but, you have to admit, it is provocative.
Posted by baseball55 on June 28, 2016, at 19:36:52
In reply to Re: Please., posted by jonhed on June 28, 2016, at 16:10:00
You don't need to apologize. You are new to this board and tried to be empathic and helpful to Lou. If people may not have been supportive of you and your efforts, it's because those of us who've been around a while are pretty jaded about Lou. I apologize for all of us if you experienced this as hostile and dismissive.
I for one am happy to have you join babble and I appreciate you honesty and sincerity. I hope you don't get so discouraged that you leave. You are a sensitive person and I hope all of us can learn to appreciate that and treat you with the empathy and compassion you deserve.
> Why are you saying this again?
> I get very mixed messages.
>
> I don't want to be here anymore..
>
> Sorry for trying to connect with lou on a plane, and my intensions whas to get him to see what he does.
>
> I'm sorry.
>
> I should just shut up because i always mess things up.
>
> I thought we where on the same line again, but of course not.
>
> Everything i do get so big and out of proportions.
>
> This was my last post. for real.
>
> Goodbye and thanks for this time...
>
> i like you all.
Posted by Phillipa on June 28, 2016, at 20:12:25
In reply to Re: Please. » jonhed, posted by baseball55 on June 28, 2016, at 19:36:52
I've said this before and I am writing it again as someone babblemailed me and said the same. Dr Bob & Lou are one in the same. And we are just some experiment to see what happens on an unmoderated board. Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 28, 2016, at 20:30:31
In reply to Re: Please. » linkadge, posted by SLS on June 28, 2016, at 18:52:01
> > I don't see how this is so difficult....
>
> Dr. Bob currently has no presence on these forums.
>
> There is no moderation.
>
> There is no policing.
>
> There is no redirection.
>
> Because of this, things remain difficult.
>
> > Clearly, Dr-Bob should have the final say in whether the posts in question are "therapeutic", or provide any form of support for those on the board.
>
> Yes, he should.
>
>
> - ScottFriends,
Who has believed my report? And to whom has the final say been revealed?
You see, the poster here in question that I was having dialog with is near death. This is all because of the drugs the psychiatrist has given him. The culprit here is Methadone. Methadone is one of the top 10 worst drugs as being in the difficulty to withdrawal from. (number 4)
But it is much worse than that. And I am prohibited by Mr. Hsiung to post the worst of it here.
But there is a way out for him that I know. And the members here that want to silence my voice, could be accessories to his death. For it has been revealed to me that cleansing from these drugs can be accomplished and healing then to bring the person back to the green fields that they used to know.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 29, 2016, at 7:40:34
In reply to Re: Please. » SLS, posted by Tabitha on June 28, 2016, at 12:46:18
> > I think it is important for the health of Psycho-Babble that the subject line not be hijacked by the same person over and over again. People are simply replying to these posts without rewriting the subject line to excise the toll's name and to return it to its previous verbiage. Failing to do so perpetuates the person's name along threads and makes for an ugly, irrelevant forum.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Scott, without re-hashing the argument over whether the poster's intentions are malicious or not, can we discuss whether or not it is civil to call another poster a troll? What do you think Bob's response would be?
>
> I bring this up because
> 1) It's my impression that you are dedicated to continuing to uphold the community standards regarding civility despite the absence of the moderator. It is a goal that I applaud, so I feel disappointed to see posts that don't fit that framework.
> 2) I personally find it jarring and un-civil to see name-calling, and worry that it will be counter-productive, leading to more dramatic accusations of anti-semitism
>
> Would love to understand your reasoning on this point.
>
> To your original point, I do agree that changing the subject is a good practice and make an effort to do so.
>
> Tabitha,
You wrote,[...could we discuss whether it is civil to call another poster a troll?...] and, [...personally I find it jarring and uncivil to see name calling..leading to more dramatic accusations of anti-Semitism...].
Anti-Semitism is created and developed here by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record and those members in concert with Mr. Hsiung. I do thank you for questioning Scott being allowed to slander me with name-calling that Mr. Hsiung allows Scott immunity from his enforcement rules.That could lead readers to think that Scott is in concert with Mr. Hsiung to arouse anti-Semitic feelings and actually consider anti-Semitism to be supportive. This turns my stomach.
Many a tear has to fall, in this game. But my world sees only losers from the game. The game leads to addiction, life-ruining conditions and death. Take a chance on me.
Lou
Posted by SLS on June 29, 2016, at 8:02:16
In reply to Re: Please., posted by baseball55 on June 28, 2016, at 19:28:42
> > It is interesting that no one comes to my defense when the troll attacks me incessantly with such obviously uncivil content.
>
> I don't come to your defense because I have no interest in engaging with Lou or discussions about Lou. I always value your posts and, as I said earlier, ignore his posts and all responses and discussions which they provoke. Troll may be the current usage in the internet world, but, you have to admit, it is provocative.I do.
I think there was one other period awhile back when I used the term "troll". At the suggestion of others, I stopped. However, the poster who I allude to has become very mean, as can be seen in his subject lines. He exaggerates without restraint and is, of course, purposely provocative. For now, I have a hard time not calling this person a troll.
If people would ignore him and not give him the stimulation of posting replies, I would not have posted all of this stuff.
Not rewriting the subject line must be a constant source of delight for the troll. I have forgotten to do this a few times in the past. I wanted to kick myself.
I try not to feed the troll.
- Scott
Posted by Tabitha on June 29, 2016, at 13:10:39
In reply to Re: Please. » Tabitha, posted by SLS on June 28, 2016, at 14:11:27
> It is interesting that no one comes to my defense when the troll attacks me incessantly with such obviously uncivil content.
I can't speak for others but for me it's like, if a 2-year-old throws a tantrum and calls my friend a poopy-head, it doesn't occur to me that it's necessary to speak up and state that my friend is not a poopy-head since the accusation is absurd. But for the record, I declare that SLS is not a poopy-head, an anti-Semite, is not leading thousands of people to death by psychiatric medication, is not in need of salvation by the Rider, or anything else any un-civil posting may imply.
> Perhaps you can tell me why you feel that the troll is not a troll.
Looking at the definition you posted, it only partially fits:
> a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,
Yes, definitely
> by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community
Yes, definitely
> with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,
Unclear. Only the poster knows what his intent is. It's my subjective opinion that the disruption is considered by the poster to be acceptable collateral damage for his mission of crusading for what he sees as truth and justice. In short I see True Believer mode operating here. I recognize that I could be mistaken. I think an actual, deliberate troll would have a little more variety to his methods. We see the same three notes being hit over and over. A deliberate troll (in my opinion) would get bored and shake things up a little.
> [3] often for their own amusement."
Unclear. I see no indication that the poster feels amused by the results. In contrast he seems to get more and more upset and ramp up the accusations of anti-Semitism and notifications to "Mr Hsiung" in response to pushback. Again, I recognize that I could be mistaken.
> "Experienced participants in online forums know that the most effective way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore it,[citation needed] because responding tends to encourage trolls to continue disruptive posts hence the often-seen warning: "Please do not feed the trolls"."
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_trollI don't really notice that anything anyone does here affects the postings. Ignoring, engaging, arguing, the posts continue along in the same manner. I do notice them responding (negatively) to being attacked, and that's about it. Thus, if the pattern of a troll is to quiet down when ignored, I don't notice that pattern here.
> In the absence of a moderator, and in consideration of the unfettered uncivil behaviors of the troll, especially when the content of its posts casts dispersions upon my character, behaviors, motivations, and affiliations, I don't have any regrets in calling the troll a troll - at least for now. Am I civil? I imagine not. My incivilities are few, I should think. Perhaps I slipped off track? For right now, I really don't care.
>
> The behavior of the troll grows more and more uncivil and offensive. It is apparently refractory to teachability despite years of people trying to guide it. To ignore the troll seems to me to be the best solution anyone has come up with yet.OK, I think I understand where you're coming from a bit more. I'm willing to agree to disagree about how best to respond to the situation. I'm trying to remain civil in direct interactions with the poster, although I am almost certainly being un-civil in discussions of them with other posters, including this discussion.
> I'm mentally ill, you know. There should be more tolerance of my incivilities, don't you think? I should not expect others to guide, reprimand, shame, or judge me for that reason, regardless of how much of a troll I become.
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I am sensing that you don't like to see a lower-functioning individual appear to get treated more gently than higher-funcitoning individuals, because that amounts to rewarding bad behavior. I am sorry that it works out that way. Speaking personally again, I have tried to engage and encourage the poster to modify their posting style and have had complete failure. But I thought there might be hope of improving the situation somewhat by reducing the collateral damage of un-civil pushback. In short, I see one poster as a lost cause-- it's not that I fail to notice the incivility of their posts.
> I would love for Dr. Bob to return to throw me out for a few weeks, as long as the enforcement of civility returns and he throws the troll out as well. To sanction the troll's behavior with posting blocks would greatly mitigate the deterioration of the forum.
I would like the return of Dr Bob. I don't wish to see you blocked. I don't agree with Dr Bob's strategy regarding the poster. His last comments about the situation were to the effect that we should have lower standards for the most needy. That led directly to one of my favortite long-term babblers leaving the forum. I don't like that at all.
> I think you would be surprised by how much self-control the troll has when it is confronted with posting blocks.
I haven't been here continuously, but I don't see a lot of self-control. He managed to get blocked for a year. Perhaps multiple years, I can't remember. The only rule he seems to be trying to uphold is the rule against sharing his Rider vision in its entirety. I'm not sure why he holds back on that one, while posting so freely with the anti-psychiatry and accusations of anti-Semitism.
> Be not deceived.
Ha.
On a personal note, I think the labelling "troll" grates on me so much because it amounts to claiming to know a person's motivations better than they know themselves. When people ask the poster his motivation, he responds that it is about avoiding blood on his hands due to not warning people off deadly medication, fighting anti-Semitism, and leading people to the peace of his Rider-inspired vision. To say no, you're really just a troll, implies either
(1) you're accusing him of lying about his motivations. which, OK, fine, it's un-civil according to the rules, but you could be correct, or
(2) you're implying he has some hidden motivation unknown to himself, that you can discern despite his protestsIt's #2 that's a real pet peeve of mine. It's the gaslighting bullsh*t that I see operating so freely in therapy, recovery, and new age cultures. Everyone supposedly has some hidden story that only other people can identify, and refusing to adopt their story is seen as more evidence the story is true. It's maddening, and emotionally abusive. It's also sloppy thinking. How can you know the story behind someone else's behavior better than they do? How can you even know the story behind your own behavior? It's all subjective and non-falsifiable. Being the one who knows "the true story" operates not so much as truth-seeking but a way to dominate others. So I think.
Posted by Tabitha on June 29, 2016, at 13:24:15
In reply to Re: Please., posted by jonhed on June 28, 2016, at 16:05:11
I don't want you to leave, either. It's really a no-win situation when there are disruptive posts. I have seen this over and over. The newer or soft-hearted posters come to their defense, and the older more jaded ones then feel accused of being big meanies. It's very divisive. You are not doing anything wrong, and you are not a bad person, even if you hate yourself.
Posted by Tabitha on June 29, 2016, at 14:55:46
In reply to Lou's response-take a chance » Tabitha, posted by Lou Pilder on June 29, 2016, at 7:40:34
> I do thank you
You're welcome, thank you for acknowledging my effort.
> Take a chance on me.
I think I am taking a chance on you, by believing you to be sincere in your efforts to persuade, rather than thinking you are (solely) intentionally antagonizing others for fun. However, I also continue to wish that you would accept feedback from others and modify your posting style so as to better blend with the group. Then, I would not feel as if I have to "take sides" in order to be supportive to you.
Posted by SLS on June 29, 2016, at 15:05:34
In reply to Re: Please. » SLS, posted by Tabitha on June 29, 2016, at 13:10:39
You offer some very fine points.
Motive is difficult to ascertain with certainty.
Who is the 2 year old?
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 29, 2016, at 16:29:32
In reply to Re: Please. » SLS, posted by Tabitha on June 29, 2016, at 13:10:39
> > It is interesting that no one comes to my defense when the troll attacks me incessantly with such obviously uncivil content.
>
> I can't speak for others but for me it's like, if a 2-year-old throws a tantrum and calls my friend a poopy-head, it doesn't occur to me that it's necessary to speak up and state that my friend is not a poopy-head since the accusation is absurd. But for the record, I declare that SLS is not a poopy-head, an anti-Semite, is not leading thousands of people to death by psychiatric medication, is not in need of salvation by the Rider, or anything else any un-civil posting may imply.
>
> > Perhaps you can tell me why you feel that the troll is not a troll.
>
> Looking at the definition you posted, it only partially fits:
>
> > a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,
>
> Yes, definitely
>
> > by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community
>
> Yes, definitely
>
> > with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,
>
> Unclear. Only the poster knows what his intent is. It's my subjective opinion that the disruption is considered by the poster to be acceptable collateral damage for his mission of crusading for what he sees as truth and justice. In short I see True Believer mode operating here. I recognize that I could be mistaken. I think an actual, deliberate troll would have a little more variety to his methods. We see the same three notes being hit over and over. A deliberate troll (in my opinion) would get bored and shake things up a little.
>
> > [3] often for their own amusement."
>
> Unclear. I see no indication that the poster feels amused by the results. In contrast he seems to get more and more upset and ramp up the accusations of anti-Semitism and notifications to "Mr Hsiung" in response to pushback. Again, I recognize that I could be mistaken.
>
> > "Experienced participants in online forums know that the most effective way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore it,[citation needed] because responding tends to encourage trolls to continue disruptive posts hence the often-seen warning: "Please do not feed the trolls"."
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
>
> I don't really notice that anything anyone does here affects the postings. Ignoring, engaging, arguing, the posts continue along in the same manner. I do notice them responding (negatively) to being attacked, and that's about it. Thus, if the pattern of a troll is to quiet down when ignored, I don't notice that pattern here.
>
> > In the absence of a moderator, and in consideration of the unfettered uncivil behaviors of the troll, especially when the content of its posts casts dispersions upon my character, behaviors, motivations, and affiliations, I don't have any regrets in calling the troll a troll - at least for now. Am I civil? I imagine not. My incivilities are few, I should think. Perhaps I slipped off track? For right now, I really don't care.
> >
> > The behavior of the troll grows more and more uncivil and offensive. It is apparently refractory to teachability despite years of people trying to guide it. To ignore the troll seems to me to be the best solution anyone has come up with yet.
>
> OK, I think I understand where you're coming from a bit more. I'm willing to agree to disagree about how best to respond to the situation. I'm trying to remain civil in direct interactions with the poster, although I am almost certainly being un-civil in discussions of them with other posters, including this discussion.
>
> > I'm mentally ill, you know. There should be more tolerance of my incivilities, don't you think? I should not expect others to guide, reprimand, shame, or judge me for that reason, regardless of how much of a troll I become.
>
> Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I am sensing that you don't like to see a lower-functioning individual appear to get treated more gently than higher-funcitoning individuals, because that amounts to rewarding bad behavior. I am sorry that it works out that way. Speaking personally again, I have tried to engage and encourage the poster to modify their posting style and have had complete failure. But I thought there might be hope of improving the situation somewhat by reducing the collateral damage of un-civil pushback. In short, I see one poster as a lost cause-- it's not that I fail to notice the incivility of their posts.
>
> > I would love for Dr. Bob to return to throw me out for a few weeks, as long as the enforcement of civility returns and he throws the troll out as well. To sanction the troll's behavior with posting blocks would greatly mitigate the deterioration of the forum.
>
> I would like the return of Dr Bob. I don't wish to see you blocked. I don't agree with Dr Bob's strategy regarding the poster. His last comments about the situation were to the effect that we should have lower standards for the most needy. That led directly to one of my favortite long-term babblers leaving the forum. I don't like that at all.
>
> > I think you would be surprised by how much self-control the troll has when it is confronted with posting blocks.
>
> I haven't been here continuously, but I don't see a lot of self-control. He managed to get blocked for a year. Perhaps multiple years, I can't remember. The only rule he seems to be trying to uphold is the rule against sharing his Rider vision in its entirety. I'm not sure why he holds back on that one, while posting so freely with the anti-psychiatry and accusations of anti-Semitism.
>
> > Be not deceived.
>
> Ha.
>
> On a personal note, I think the labelling "troll" grates on me so much because it amounts to claiming to know a person's motivations better than they know themselves. When people ask the poster his motivation, he responds that it is about avoiding blood on his hands due to not warning people off deadly medication, fighting anti-Semitism, and leading people to the peace of his Rider-inspired vision. To say no, you're really just a troll, implies either
> (1) you're accusing him of lying about his motivations. which, OK, fine, it's un-civil according to the rules, but you could be correct, or
> (2) you're implying he has some hidden motivation unknown to himself, that you can discern despite his protests
>
> It's #2 that's a real pet peeve of mine. It's the gaslighting bullsh*t that I see operating so freely in therapy, recovery, and new age cultures. Everyone supposedly has some hidden story that only other people can identify, and refusing to adopt their story is seen as more evidence the story is true. It's maddening, and emotionally abusive. It's also sloppy thinking. How can you know the story behind someone else's behavior better than they do? How can you even know the story behind your own behavior? It's all subjective and non-falsifiable. Being the one who knows "the true story" operates not so much as truth-seeking but a way to dominate others. So I think.
>
Tabitha,
You wrote,[...It's #2 that is a real pet peeve of mine. It's the gaslighting bull...].
I appreciate that you have an understanding of this and have posted it here. It is part of The Great Deception that I am prohibited by Mr. Hsiung to post here.
People may not understand {gaslighting} and maybe you could offer some more information here to those that do not understand it. I think that you are referring to the movie that fostered the name that produced the psychological tactic?
Lou
Posted by Tabitha on June 29, 2016, at 16:54:16
In reply to Re: Please. » Tabitha, posted by SLS on June 29, 2016, at 15:05:34
> You offer some very fine points.
Thank you for your consideration. It is an interesting topic to me for some reason.
>
> Motive is difficult to ascertain with certainty.I know, right? We're just speculating based on our hunches. I don't think we can even identify our own motivations. It's all post hoc rationalization.
>
> Who is the 2 year old?
>I didn't mean you, if that's what you were thinking. Someone who is differently-brained is a bit like a 2 year old. It's an un-civil comparison and an exaggeration, I'm sure.
Posted by Tabitha on June 29, 2016, at 17:05:24
In reply to Lou's response- The Great Deception » Tabitha, posted by Lou Pilder on June 29, 2016, at 16:29:32
> Tabitha,
> You wrote,[...It's #2 that is a real pet peeve of mine. It's the gaslighting bull...].
> I appreciate that you have an understanding of this and have posted it here. It is part of The Great Deception that I am prohibited by Mr. Hsiung to post here.
> People may not understand {gaslighting} and maybe you could offer some more information here to those that do not understand it. I think that you are referring to the movie that fostered the name that produced the psychological tactic?
> Lou
>
Right, the term comes from the movie. It can feel like abuse to be told that your own mind is not trustworthy. However, feeling abused doesn't mean that what your mind is telling you is actually correct. It is difficult to know what is true, particularly when you yourself have qualities known as "mental illness".Some topics where it is particularly difficult to discern truth are:
- judgement of other people's motivation and intent
- prediction as to the likely result of other people's actions
- cause and effect regarding the interaction between medical treatments or other interventions and naturally variable conditions such as "mental illness".https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 29, 2016, at 19:59:54
In reply to Re: gaslighting » Lou Pilder, posted by Tabitha on June 29, 2016, at 17:05:24
>
> > Tabitha,
> > You wrote,[...It's #2 that is a real pet peeve of mine. It's the gaslighting bull...].
> > I appreciate that you have an understanding of this and have posted it here. It is part of The Great Deception that I am prohibited by Mr. Hsiung to post here.
> > People may not understand {gaslighting} and maybe you could offer some more information here to those that do not understand it. I think that you are referring to the movie that fostered the name that produced the psychological tactic?
> > Lou
> >
>
>
> Right, the term comes from the movie. It can feel like abuse to be told that your own mind is not trustworthy. However, feeling abused doesn't mean that what your mind is telling you is actually correct. It is difficult to know what is true, particularly when you yourself have qualities known as "mental illness".
>
> Some topics where it is particularly difficult to discern truth are:
> - judgement of other people's motivation and intent
> - prediction as to the likely result of other people's actions
> - cause and effect regarding the interaction between medical treatments or other interventions and naturally variable conditions such as "mental illness".
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
>
> Tabitha,
Part of the Great Deception here involves the people here being taken captive. The captivity involves making them believe that they are "mentally ill". This is the crux in gaslighting. I have not come here to destroy Mr. Hsiung or his lackeys, but to free the captives.
You see, these drugs promoted here are not medicines because they do not treat a disease or cure. But the people advocating the drugs are captives to the drugs. I can make them free. This could be the reason that those have that deride me here and advocate more and more drugs to the captives of the drugs already. They actually could see that I could lead people to be free from addiction and depression and want to stop me. This could be the reason that Mr. Hsiung has made all of the prohibitions to me. He could see that those that say that others are mentally ill are what you are saying. You could free the captives also.
Lou
Posted by Tabitha on June 29, 2016, at 20:47:03
In reply to Lou's reply-free the captives » Tabitha, posted by Lou Pilder on June 29, 2016, at 19:59:54
> Part of the Great Deception here involves the people here being taken captive. The captivity involves making them believe that they are "mentally ill". This is the crux in gaslighting. I have not come here to destroy Mr. Hsiung or his lackeys, but to free the captives.
> You see, these drugs promoted here are not medicines because they do not treat a disease or cure. But the people advocating the drugs are captives to the drugs.I don't think the word "captive" makes sense when you are talking about a thing (drugs) that has no agency. I am effectively dependent on the drugs, just like I am effectively dependent on my eyeglasses, the municipal water supply, the power grid, the food production system, and many other institutions of modern society. Take those away and I would function only with great difficulty. Yet it seems sort of over-dramatic to say I am "captive" to those things, don't you think?
> I can make them free. This could be the reason that those have that deride me here and advocate more and more drugs to the captives of the drugs already. They actually could see that I could lead people to be free from addiction and depression and want to stop me. This could be the reason that Mr. Hsiung has made all of the prohibitions to me.Well, it's possible, but I see a simpler explanation.
> He could see that those that say that others are mentally ill are what you are saying. You could free the captives also.
No, I can't. I can share my limited experience and knowledge about psychiatric management of bipolar disorder. That's the main thing I can do here. I can also find fellowship with individuals with similar challenges.Do you like to be able to talk with others who face similar challenges as yourself?
Posted by TriedEveryMedication on June 30, 2016, at 7:18:22
In reply to Re: Please. » linkadge, posted by SLS on June 28, 2016, at 18:52:01
>
> Dr. Bob currently has no presence on these forums.
>
> There is no moderation.
>
> There is no policing.
>
> There is no redirection.
>
> Because of this, things remain difficult.
>
>
> - ScottConsidering the lack of moderation here and the subject matter, I'm very surprised there is only one prominent troll here.
I'm also surprised people here (undoubtedly seasoned internet veterans) aren't ignoring him.
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 30, 2016, at 7:43:23
In reply to Re: Please. » SLS, posted by TriedEveryMedication on June 30, 2016, at 7:18:22
> >
> > Dr. Bob currently has no presence on these forums.
> >
> > There is no moderation.
> >
> > There is no policing.
> >
> > There is no redirection.
> >
> > Because of this, things remain difficult.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Considering the lack of moderation here and the subject matter, I'm very surprised there is only one prominent troll here.
>
> I'm also surprised people here (undoubtedly seasoned internet veterans) aren't ignoring him.T_E_M,
What you have posted here about me could decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile and disagreeable opinions and feelings toward me.
This is allowed by Mr. Hsiung which could show to a subset of readers that you are in concert with him to defame me. The accusation of me being a troll is unfounded as even the poster named Tabitha has written about it in what I think is one of the best refutations to this false charge against me that I have ever seen..
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 1, 2016, at 16:17:04
In reply to Re: the captives » Lou Pilder, posted by Tabitha on June 29, 2016, at 20:47:03
> > Part of the Great Deception here involves the people here being taken captive. The captivity involves making them believe that they are "mentally ill". This is the crux in gaslighting. I have not come here to destroy Mr. Hsiung or his lackeys, but to free the captives.
> > You see, these drugs promoted here are not medicines because they do not treat a disease or cure. But the people advocating the drugs are captives to the drugs.
>
> I don't think the word "captive" makes sense when you are talking about a thing (drugs) that has no agency. I am effectively dependent on the drugs, just like I am effectively dependent on my eyeglasses, the municipal water supply, the power grid, the food production system, and many other institutions of modern society. Take those away and I would function only with great difficulty. Yet it seems sort of over-dramatic to say I am "captive" to those things, don't you think?
>
>
> > I can make them free. This could be the reason that those have that deride me here and advocate more and more drugs to the captives of the drugs already. They actually could see that I could lead people to be free from addiction and depression and want to stop me. This could be the reason that Mr. Hsiung has made all of the prohibitions to me.
>
> Well, it's possible, but I see a simpler explanation.
>
> > He could see that those that say that others are mentally ill are what you are saying. You could free the captives also.
>
>
> No, I can't. I can share my limited experience and knowledge about psychiatric management of bipolar disorder. That's the main thing I can do here. I can also find fellowship with individuals with similar challenges.
>
> Do you like to be able to talk with others who face similar challenges as yourself?
>
> Tabitha,
You wrote,[...the word captive...does it make sense when talking about drugs...I am dependent on drugs...taking them away from me would cause me to function with great difficulty...but my saying as being captive is over dramatic don't you think?...]
The captivity that I am referring to is a completely different captivity. Sorry that I did not describe what I meant by captive.
The captivity that I am referring to is a spiritual captivity. And that also would need to be explained. And when the spiritual captivity is released, the captivity as in being addicted to a drug is released. This is what Mr. Hsiung prohibited me from posting about here. It would come from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me which he prohibits.
That you brought up gaslighting, that is part of the captivity that I am also prohibited by Mr. Hsiung to post about here. But you could go on more with that and it could help others.
But be it as it may be, I am here The shepherd that you are following will lead you to the destination that the shepherd has determined in advance. Those that follow the shepherd of drugs, in advance can know that the destination could be addiction, life-ruining conditions and death.
There is a Shepherd that has the destination in advance of life, and life more abundantly.
Lou
Posted by Tabitha on July 1, 2016, at 18:47:04
In reply to Lou's reply-follow the Shepherd to life » Tabitha, posted by Lou Pilder on July 1, 2016, at 16:17:04
> The captivity that I am referring to is a spiritual captivity.Sorry, dude, I don't believe in the existence of spirits. I'm made of meat and that's A-OK with me.
> Those that follow the shepherd of drugs, in advance can know that the destination could be addiction, life-ruining conditions and death.
It's possible, but the result so far is higher functioning and less suffering compared to periods without medications.
> There is a Shepherd that has the destination in advance of life, and life more abundantly.
> LouI hope it's working out for you.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 2, 2016, at 7:11:27
In reply to Re: to life » Lou Pilder, posted by Tabitha on July 1, 2016, at 18:47:04
>
> > The captivity that I am referring to is a spiritual captivity.
>
> Sorry, dude, I don't believe in the existence of spirits. I'm made of meat and that's A-OK with me.
>
> > Those that follow the shepherd of drugs, in advance can know that the destination could be addiction, life-ruining conditions and death.
>
>
> It's possible, but the result so far is higher functioning and less suffering compared to periods without medications.
>
>
> > There is a Shepherd that has the destination in advance of life, and life more abundantly.
> > Lou
>
> I hope it's working out for you.
>
> Tabitha,
You wrote, [...I don't believe...].
Many people taking mind-altering drugs say that they do not believe in a God, for it has been revealed to me that God is a spirit, and they say that they do not believe in spirits ,like yourself.
I am here to seek the lost sheep. These sheep have no shepherd, so they are easily led astray. They are easily deceived that the shepherd of mind-altering will lead them to life. But thousands are killed by the drugs each month and thousands more made addicted and get life-ruining conditions from these drugs being promoted here.
I can show the lost sheep a way back to the green fields that they used to know. Gone will be the dark clouds and the cold winds. And they will see the flowers kissed by the sun.
The shepherd of drugs leads the sheep to want to fall off a cliff to their deaths. The sheep do not understand the plain warning on the bottle says that the drug will cause suicidal thinking. Poor little fools.
Lou
Posted by herpills on July 28, 2016, at 13:33:33
In reply to Lou's reply-poor little fools » Tabitha, posted by Lou Pilder on July 2, 2016, at 7:11:27
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | 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.