![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 14 to 38 of 60. Go back in thread:
Posted by Phillipa on February 26, 2012, at 17:42:57
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-psehymschd » Lou Pilder, posted by Solstice on February 26, 2012, at 13:59:18
Lou's Little Shoppe I like this. Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2012, at 19:17:02
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-pstpdhtguy » Lou Pilder, posted by Solstice on February 26, 2012, at 13:56:01
>
> > Sol,
> > The concept of {keeping count} on what someone says, has historicl paralles that I am prohibited here by Mr. Hsiung to post about.
> > Sometimes there are more than one post about the same thing because the poster is responding to more than one person at a time. Sometimes I will post a response that could entail having many posts that each bring in something different to the discussion, such as a doctor explaining something in a video that is IMO easier for members to understand and could bring out the point in question in a better light for people to see.
> > But the forum is for all, it is public. This means that there could be people viewing the posts that are not participants in the thread or even in any thread, they just read the posts and do not post themselves. These people could be looking for information and I am trying to reach those people also. If I could, then they could have the information from me that IMHO could save their life or prevent them from getting a life-ruining condition or addiction.
>
> Lou -
>
> I think this could be solved by you having your own thread - like the "Lou's Little Shoppe" idea, that is ongoing. It could even have some phrase in it that stays in every post you make that would be a tag likely to be found by people searching the internet. In any event, there is nothing stopping you from using this forum to have your own thread (or threads) to post about whatever interests you or that you think will interest others, even those who are not members of psychobabble. Even if you aren't getting much psychobabble participation, you could keep it going. If someone else has a thread about something that alarms you, you could post your one warning about medications, and a link to your own thread where you could re-post what you want to respond to, and you can keep it going for as long as you are happy with it producing what you want. That way, you are still exercising your freedom to post your concerns about medications, without being unduly disruptive to other threads. You very well may attract people outside babble, who could then read what you post, and if they want to find out more than what you have posted, they can join babble and babblemail you. I haven't tried to google you, but it appears you might be using your real name, so people could google you that way as well. If you have a facebook account, perhaps you could set that up as your information-hub about your concerns about medication. Bob would have no control over what you do on facebook.
>
> I think you are placing an undue burden on yourself if you believe that you are responsible for saving the world. You can't possibly do that. If you believe you have good information, then you can make it available, but people generally don't respond well to being forced to swallow massive quantities of information that they are not seeking or are not open to receiving. One anti-med post in a thread is sufficient. Excessive posting about a particular dogma is not going to increase interest in the dogma.. it will likely irritate people and have them skipping over your posts entirely. Regardless, you are not responsible for saving the world.
>
>
>
> > Now this brings up the concept of keeping count on me as to how many posts I make as to there could be some stopping me from posting after I post whatever amount of posts that you say could be prohibited here. If that happened, then those people wanting answers from me could have the potential IMO be killed because they could not get the answers from me after a particular number of posts by me, for the rule would cut me off.
>
> That is really extreme, Lou. If you really believe that, then you need to start your own forum that has tags that would draw people searching for information about the dangers of medications. Then you could post a thousand times a day without it being disruptive. But when you are posting within a community of people, there is a social order that comes into play. It really is extreme, Lou, to think that you are responsible for ensuring that every single person out there who takes medications knows what you believe you have discovered about the dangers of medications.
>
>
> > Now I do not consider it supportive to still anyone's voice here or anywhere else.
>
> It's not about 'stilling' your voice, as much as it is about preventing it from drowning out everyone else's. That's why I think you having your own on-going thread would work well. I doubt Bob would take issue with you posting repeatedly in your own thread. He would not allow anyone to be uncivil to you, and people who go there would be interested in discussing what you are interested in discussing, and you could direct them to your own private resources to give them what Bob won't allow you to post here.
>
> Like it or not, belonging to a community requires 'community rules.' You can have whatever opinion you want, but you can't always freely express your opinions, even in a free country. Private groups like this one (it's publicly displayed, but is privately run), do not *have* to allow blanket 'free speech.'
>
>
> > In fact, there could be a situation that if you do get such a rule here implemented, that if someone dies as a result of them not being allowed to see what I could have posted if not stopped, then could not you be held accountable for their death? If not, could you post here why not?
>
> I would absolutely Not be responsible for anyone's death if they failed to receive information as a result of rules that are put in place to protect my thread from being swallowed up by warnings of death and life-ruination if my child takes medications. Everyone is free to make their own choices - whether or not to take meds - and whether or not to seek information. And like I said - if you really want a soapbox that fits your needs, you need to have a facebook account or some other platform that you can link to. I think that what frustrates you is that you aren't eliciting the amount of interest that you want to elicit. But you need to know that overwhelming people with a message they have already heard for years, and have decided they aren't interested in, isn't going to convert them.
>
> Honestly Lou, get your own thread going that focuses on the dangers of medications. People who are seeking information about such dangers would then have a 'one stop shoppe' to find it all right there, including a way to babblemail you for more, or click on a link to your facebook. There might be people out there who would be genuinely interested in what you have to say, but get turned off by all the drama created by some of your posting techniques.
>
> One of your anti-med posts per thread (started by others) is sufficient to serve the purposes you have stated here.
>
> Give it some thought..
>
> Solstice
>
Solstice,
You wrote,[...it's not about 'stilling' your voice...].
In my understnding of what you are proposing here about one post concerning anti-med, I could post only one post and then if I was to post another in that thread of the same nature, I could be ostrcized here. So my voice could not be part of he discussion after he one post, for I would not be permitted to add to the discussion if I wanted to further my orignal post or post that something new could also requier me to post. My voice would be 'stilled' after the first post relating to what you call anti-med.
Actually, I am not anti-med, but anti-death and addiction and anti-life -ruinig conditions.
But if I was held to your proposed standard, then would there not be two standards here? For you did not say that your rule proposed would also still the voice after one post , let's say, of a member that was pro-med.
Now the TOS here states that different points of view are welcome. Now would your proposed rule fit that part of the TOS here? And is saparate equal? In 1954, the high court here ruled that "separate is not equal", nor is the requierment for some to sit in the back of the bus allowed to be policy or law.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2012, at 19:26:15
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-psehymschd, posted by Phillipa on February 26, 2012, at 17:42:57
> Lou's Little Shoppe I like this. Phillipa
Phillipa,
Did you not stop in and then leave? Was the heat to high? Stop on in. Could you stay, just a little bit longer?
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on February 26, 2012, at 21:02:54
In reply to Lou's reply-pstehy » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2012, at 19:26:15
I like the idea. Each day a new topic would be nice? Phillipa
Posted by SLS on February 26, 2012, at 22:47:17
In reply to Lou's reply-kubah » Solstice, posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2012, at 11:04:39
> Now it is my understanding that the concept of "hijacking a thread" is not a part of the TOS here.
I am not well-versed in Internet etiquette.What exactly is "hijacking" a thread? How does one go about hijacking a thread? One effective first step might be to change every subject line to insure that my name appeared in it with no reference to the previous posts. It would make the original thread unrecognizable. Thanks for setting a good example.
> Instead, the forum allows the freedom to respond to posts here in what the poster wants to post about whatever it is that they are responding to.
Just because you can doesn't mean that you must. You are certainly in control of to whom, what, where, and why you post your words. Sometimes, it is considerate to take into account the feelings of another, particularly if they have made theirs known. You don't have to, I guess. However, some people might feel pressured or harassed.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on February 26, 2012, at 23:18:43
In reply to Scott's first comment. » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on February 26, 2012, at 22:47:17
> I am not well-versed in Internet etiquette.
>
> What exactly is "hijacking" a thread? How does one go about hijacking a thread? One effective first step might be to change every subject line to insure that my name appeared in it with no reference to the previous posts. It would make the original thread unrecognizable.I would like to learn how to hijack a thread. I could use some help with this.
Does anyone have any suggestions on what I can do to successfully hijack a thread?
What are some of the characteristics of a hijacked thread?
- Scott
Posted by gardenergirl on February 27, 2012, at 0:17:02
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-pstpdhtguy » Lou Pilder, posted by Solstice on February 26, 2012, at 13:56:01
> I would absolutely Not be responsible for anyone's death if they failed to receive information as a result of rules that are put in place to protect my thread from being swallowed up by warnings of death and life-ruination if my child takes medications.I was once told something along the lines that I would be responsible for starting the next Holocaust if I didn't carry out the demands then being made of me. It's exactly that type of escalation that signals to me that further dialog with someone who would make such a statement is of no value to me. I empathize with your predicament, Solstice.
gg
Posted by Solstice on February 27, 2012, at 0:38:56
In reply to Scott's first question., posted by SLS on February 26, 2012, at 23:18:43
> > I am not well-versed in Internet etiquette.
> >
> > What exactly is "hijacking" a thread? How does one go about hijacking a thread? One effective first step might be to change every subject line to insure that my name appeared in it with no reference to the previous posts. It would make the original thread unrecognizable.
>
> I would like to learn how to hijack a thread. I could use some help with this.First thing you need to do is have your own agenda.. then go onto threads and use the originator's subject as a springboard for posting about your agenda. It is especially effective if you change the subject line - and if you put your name in there then all the attention will be focused on you, and hopefully your agenda.
>
> Does anyone have any suggestions on what I can do to successfully hijack a thread?The real key to success is to fill up the other person's thread with multiple posts that have your own subject line related to your agenda. If no one takes the bait, then by all means respond to your own posts to keep it going. Post a minimum of 10 times per day in the threads you want to hijack. And see if you can pack in as many as possible that are successive. You don't have ot change the content. You can just keep responding to your first agenda post, and keep your original post in each successive post. You can always add a few more letters of the alphabet to the subject line to hopefully attract interest.
>
> What are some of the characteristics of a hijacked thread?
>Someone else has monopolized the thread with their own agenda, and the thread originator's subject has gotten lost, or is in danger of getting overwhelmed by the hijacker's agenda. When the whole thread starts to be about the hijacker and their agenda: Mission Accomplished.
Sol
Posted by Solstice on February 27, 2012, at 0:50:34
In reply to Re: » Solstice, posted by gardenergirl on February 27, 2012, at 0:17:02
>
> > I would absolutely Not be responsible for anyone's death if they failed to receive information as a result of rules that are put in place to protect my thread from being swallowed up by warnings of death and life-ruination if my child takes medications.
>
> I was once told something along the lines that I would be responsible for starting the next Holocaust if I didn't carry out the demands then being made of me. It's exactly that type of escalation that signals to me that further dialog with someone who would make such a statement is of no value to me. I empathize with your predicament, Solstice.
>
> gg
Thanks gg.. it means a lot to me to know that you 'get it.' And.. until now, there hasn't been a need to dialogue.. and I haven't. But now, it's like if I want to get help from the community while I go through this difficult situation with my daughter's medication, I have to proactively protect the flow of information to me. It has been very discouraging for it to be so hard, when things are very difficult in my world right now.It's really a shame that behavior that is disruptive to the purpose of the forum is not being addressed by administration.
Solstice
Posted by SLS on February 27, 2012, at 7:15:21
In reply to Re: » gardenergirl, posted by Solstice on February 27, 2012, at 0:50:34
Hi Solstice.
I can't thank you enough for outlining a protocol for how to hijack a thread. I have archived your detailed instructions and valuable insights.
> It's really a shame that behavior that is disruptive to the purpose of the forum is not being addressed by administration.
The thing that is most difficult in developing a policy against hijacking a thread, or any other behavior, is to produce the details of how to define and proscribe unacceptable behaviors without further limiting the posting privileges of others. Some posting behaviors in the past have required such changes in policy.
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on February 27, 2012, at 7:57:04
In reply to Scott's response to Solstice - Hijacking Threads » Solstice, posted by SLS on February 27, 2012, at 7:15:21
I'd hate to see a policy about hijacking threads.
I've seen website where any deviation from concentration on the originating poster is considered a hijacking. Where originating posters jealously guard their thread like a mama bird with just one chick. Where threads aren't allowed to develop as conversations, and the site doesn't feel much like a community at all.
I don't like it.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 27, 2012, at 8:05:37
In reply to Re: Scott's response to Solstice - Hijacking Threads, posted by Dinah on February 27, 2012, at 7:57:04
> I'd hate to see a policy about hijacking threads.
>
> I've seen website where any deviation from concentration on the originating poster is considered a hijacking. Where originating posters jealously guard their thread like a mama bird with just one chick. Where threads aren't allowed to develop as conversations, and the site doesn't feel much like a community at all.
>
> I don't like it.Dinah,
You wrote,[...I'd hate to see..].
Thanks, I think that's good.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on February 27, 2012, at 8:13:40
In reply to Re: » gardenergirl, posted by Solstice on February 27, 2012, at 0:50:34
There are already rules in place, and I've described them. Admittedly a more active administrative presence, at times, would be welcome.
I think once matters start to get complicated, with violations on more than one side, it's harder for Dr. Bob to find the time to deal with it. That's just my observation based on seeing him come deal with minor matters while leaving an all out board war untouched.
I get it too. Or at least I did originally. After a while, the pendulum on the board starts to swing, and with it my sympathy.
I think any comparison to Nazis, any suggestion that one's actions on Babble could lead to death to millions of Jews, or any assertations that any complaints about any one person are the result of that person's ethnic origin (in the absence of any evidence that this is the case) is on the face of it uncivil and accusatory and should be dealt with under existing Babble rules.
But it also upsets me when people act together towards one poster. And I tend to lose any sympathy I had for the original cause when it continues too long or becomes spread over many threads. Particularly when it deals with behaviors Dr. Bob has already explicitly approved. And I don't think Dr. Bob is wrong.
This is a mental health board. There are many posting behaviors by *many* posters that the majority of posters find annoying. If they aren't uncivil, accusatory, or explicitly insensitive to a particular poster or particular group of posters, these behaviors are allowed on Babble. Making it a more inclusive place than the world at large often can be. I would think many of us would appreciate that inclusiveness. I certainly do.
Posted by SLS on February 27, 2012, at 9:05:35
In reply to Re: Scott's response to Solstice - Hijacking Threads, posted by Dinah on February 27, 2012, at 7:57:04
> I'd hate to see a policy about hijacking threads.
>
> I've seen website where any deviation from concentration on the originating poster is considered a hijacking. Where originating posters jealously guard their thread like a mama bird with just one chick. Where threads aren't allowed to develop as conversations, and the site doesn't feel much like a community at all.
>
> I don't like it.
I don't like it either. Up until now, it hasn't been an issue here.Do you think the type of posting described by Solstice would constitute "pressuring" or "harassment"? These things are already proscribed by the rules of civility.
- Scott
Posted by Solstice on February 27, 2012, at 9:19:45
In reply to Re: Scott's response to Solstice - Hijacking Threads, posted by Dinah on February 27, 2012, at 7:57:04
> I'd hate to see a policy about hijacking threads.
>
> I've seen website where any deviation from concentration on the originating poster is considered a hijacking. Where originating posters jealously guard their thread like a mama bird with just one chick. Where threads aren't allowed to develop as conversations, and the site doesn't feel much like a community at all.
>
> I don't like it.
There is a big difference between a thread developing and morphing into things other than the original subject, and hijacking. A thread that evolves into other things happens fairly naturally, and is participated in by the group of people involved in the discussion. The thread originator may or may not be participating as well, but their original purpose has run its course. Hijacking is all about the hijacker. That's where it is rude and uncivil. The hijacker is focused on substituting the original subject with their own agenda, which is usually in opposition to the original poster's subject. People can increase their power by just overwhelming the original poster.I don't think being assertive about not wanting a thread I initiated where I am earnestly seeking information due to a medical crisis in my family is the equivalent of a mama bird jealously guarding a thread. I just didn't want my need to be sidelined by outrageous claims that imply I am killing my daughter. A poster with the characteristics of that mama bird would need to be reigned in just like a hijacker needs to be reigned in.
My therapist told me once about what she called "Sharpeners and Levelers." Fascinating way to look at group dynamics. Anyway, she said I am a 'Sharpener.' Dinah, you seem to be a 'Leveler.' It's characteristic of a 'Sharpener' to see clear distinctions between things, whereas 'Levelers' tend to be more focused on the common ground between things. People are not necessarily one or the other - they just tend to lean more toward being a 'Sharpener' or a 'Leveler.' The world functions best with both :-) One is not more important than the other - and they both keep each other in balance. You keep my sharpening in check, but I have learned to be comfortable with the value of my sharpening, and I see danger in allowing a hijacker to become dominant in threads. That's not a 'conversation'... it's someone who has taken control and has sidelined the person who started a thread to get help on a mental health board.
Solstice
Posted by Dinah on February 27, 2012, at 9:20:28
In reply to Re: Scott's response to Solstice - Hijacking Threads » Dinah, posted by SLS on February 27, 2012, at 9:05:35
I think an originating poster can ask that certain types of posts not be made on any thread that poster originates. I think a Please be Sensitive would be upheld. This can also be used with repetitive responses on other threads as well, I think.
Harassment might be if a poster follows another poster from thread to thread to make the same type of post. Although that would also fall under "Please be sensitive" if a request is made, I think.
It's a fine balance between wanting to handle things ourselves and wanting Bob to get involved. I hate to see extra rules enacted. It won't help much anyway if Dr. Bob won't be around.
Perhaps we could work some sort of Bat-signal with Dr. Bob, to let him know when urgent help is needed.
Posted by Dinah on February 27, 2012, at 9:24:12
In reply to Re: Scott's response to Solstice - Hijacking Threads » Dinah, posted by Solstice on February 27, 2012, at 9:19:45
But there is already a rule in place to handle what you describe. Why put another rule in place that might be used in ways that aren't helpful to the board?
I wasn't describing you. I was describing behaviors I've seen on other boards that I wouldn't want to see here. And that's the truth. I haven't seen that behavior here, and wouldn't want to see it in future if a hijacking rule was in effect.
Personally I was always in favor of a "Hey, cut it out" rule rather than creating new rules to fit every possible contingency, since the new rules are often used more broadly than I like. I trust Dr. Bob to use it wisely. But Dr. Bob is opposed to that.
Posted by Dinah on February 27, 2012, at 9:30:23
In reply to Re: Scott's response to Solstice - Hijacking Threads » Dinah, posted by Solstice on February 27, 2012, at 9:19:45
And to be clear, I don't think I have any problem seeing distinctions. I see any number of distinctions in matters of civility. I just may not see them the same way you do.
Posted by Solstice on February 27, 2012, at 9:45:00
In reply to Re: Scott's response to Solstice - Hijacking Threads » SLS, posted by Dinah on February 27, 2012, at 9:20:28
> I think an originating poster can ask that certain types of posts not be made on any thread that poster originates. I think a Please be Sensitive would be upheld. This can also be used with repetitive responses on other threads as well, I think.
>
> Harassment might be if a poster follows another poster from thread to thread to make the same type of post. Although that would also fall under "Please be sensitive" if a request is made, I think.
>
> It's a fine balance between wanting to handle things ourselves and wanting Bob to get involved. I hate to see extra rules enacted. It won't help much anyway if Dr. Bob won't be around.
>
> Perhaps we could work some sort of Bat-signal with Dr. Bob, to let him know when urgent help is needed.and that`s the problem. none of this would be taking place- it wouldn`t have escalated or have gone on and on if Bob had followed his own rules.
I submitted multiple notifications.. never addressed
I emailed him... he never responded.
all the while, the 3 post rule was violated multiple times and my request for no anti_med posts was cleverly ignored.
Bob is the one who creates the need for members to use social pressure to moderate what he refuses to tend to.
I don`t necessarily want more rules, but if he won`t honor the ones he`s made, social pressure is all we have to work with. I think it`s fine for a poster to post their opinions, regardless of how much it may not make sense to most of us. But their right to express their opinion should not dominate someone else`s thread. It`s not civil and their disruptiveness and rudeness should not be protected, should it?
It worries me...
Posted by SLS on February 27, 2012, at 9:55:38
In reply to Re: Scott's response to Solstice - Hijacking Threads » SLS, posted by Dinah on February 27, 2012, at 9:20:28
Hi Dinah.
> Harassment might be if a poster follows another poster from thread to thread
I disagree that harassment should be defined by and require that one be followed from thread to thread. I think harassment can occur along a single thread. Why wouldn't it?
"Please be sensitive"? There is no way that this suggestion would prevent a hijacking or a harassment or a pressuring by a persistent offending poster unless a block were used as a deterrent.
Handle things ourselves? There is no way that this suggestion would work because a persistent poster would not be discouraged from continuing their offending behavior. In addition, it is difficult to make such suggestions to the offending poster as they could claim that they feel accused or "put-down".How about posting generalizations and exaggerations? Why would these things no longer be proscribed such that they be sanctioned? It appears to me that there are several proscriptions that are being overlooked or removed from consideration.
1. Harassment.
2. Pressuring.
3. Generalization.
4. Exaggeration.
5. Posting the same material along different threads at the same time.
6. Failure to be sensitive.
7. Alluding to Nazis history and the Holocaust.To name a few.
This is a job for a moderator to deal with. I don't want to handle it myself. It takes up too much time and energy.
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on February 27, 2012, at 9:55:48
In reply to Re: Scott's response to Solstice - Hijacking Threads » Dinah, posted by Solstice on February 27, 2012, at 9:45:00
The reason I volunteered to be a deputy all those years ago was because Dr. Bob was sometimes gone, a situation escalated, and instead of one person being dinged for incivility, many were.
Regardless of Dr. Bob's actions or inactions, he expects us to respond according to his civility rules.
As far as the ignoring of the request. I do see posts on another thread of yours, but also see that when the request for no anti med posts was brought to Lou's attention, he didn't make any more. I could be wrong, but that's beside the point.
If someone's violating the rules, they will receive consequences when Bob finally arrives. That applies to all involved. To be frank, what is the advantage in making Dr. Bob's reprimands two sided? Posting freely is the best revenge.
Posted by Dinah on February 27, 2012, at 9:57:40
In reply to Re: Scott's response to Solstice - Hijacking Threads » Dinah, posted by SLS on February 27, 2012, at 9:55:38
Please be sensitive carries the same weight and consequences as a Please be civil. It can result in a block.
And it has, IMO, advantages over creating a lot of new rules.
I would think the generalization rule would also apply, but Dr. Bob hasn't applied that recently.
Posted by Dinah on February 27, 2012, at 10:00:46
In reply to Re: Scott's response to Solstice - Hijacking Threads » SLS, posted by Dinah on February 27, 2012, at 9:57:40
I can't see where anything I post has any effect whatsoever.
My sympathy is now decidedly split. I am a wee bit angry about that.
Posted by SLS on February 27, 2012, at 10:03:30
In reply to I give up, posted by Dinah on February 27, 2012, at 10:00:46
> I can't see where anything I post has any effect whatsoever.
>
> My sympathy is now decidedly split. I am a wee bit angry about that.Dinah, just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean that your posts receive no attention and deliberation.
I'm sorry that you feel ignored and perhaps hurt. Your posts carry great weight with me, and I very rarely skip over them.
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on February 27, 2012, at 10:11:32
In reply to Re: I give up » Dinah, posted by SLS on February 27, 2012, at 10:03:30
It's not that, Scott.
I just meant that they're not doing any good. They aren't effective. People don't agree with me. It's not that I'm hurt. I just don't see the point of expending effort and time where it has no effect. I can better husband my limited resources.
So I'll just wait for Dr. Bob to come along, and hope that he's as laid back as he has been lately. Because I think I'm more in agreement with Dr. Bob than I am with posters on this matter.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.