![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 16 of 16. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Elizabeth on October 6, 2001, at 10:36:55
> Well, it is just a reminder that they are true counterparts, and one belongs with the other. If it was posted only on p-s-support, it wouldn't be seen..heh.
Can you please explain why you posted your "reminder" in a thread that was about purchasing textbooks? You posted "In reply to Read this book: APP textbook of Psychopharmacology, posted by 3 Beer Effect on September 28, 2001, at 3:48:37" -- but I don't see any connection between your post and 3 Beer Effect's post (http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010927/msgs/79791.html).
> If I post a "med" reminder on p-s-support, it again is just asking for balance.
I would think that if balance were your concern, you would have posted complementary "reminders" to both forums.
According to your posts on this board and on PB, you believe that "building a good social support network and engaging in psycho and cognitive therapy is a *must* along with meds if you want to get better" (your words). A little while ago there was a debate about whether it was okay to "evangelize" on PB. Some people were "triggered" -- reminded of unpleasant things that had happened to them in the past -- when a couple of posters started plugging their religions. One of the "evangelizers" felt it was his duty to try to convert people to his religion because otherwise they would go to hell. Do you see what I'm getting at?
I'm sure you didn't intend to offend anyone, but in the future, please consider who your audience is and try to be supportive. You may have felt "attacked," but some people on PB felt attacked too. I thought you sounded perhaps a bit condescending. You seemed to be saying that your treatment of choice (talk therapy + meds) is the only thing that will work, for anyone. Reading your posts to PSB only confirms this impression. It's particularly distressing that you stereotype those who aren't interested in talk therapy as having "ego-type issues" and believing that "they are too 'smart' for therapy or something." (Yes, you did sound "harsh and judgmental." I don't understand why you posted something if you knew that you were being unsupportive.) Personally, I've been through a lot of talk therapy of many flavors (among them: cognitive, interpersonal (group), psychodynamic, and supportive therapies), and it isn't for me. For the most part, it didn't help much, and in some cases it was actually harmful. I know that there are others who have been through this too. Please be more respectful in the future and take care not to invalidate others' experiences.
Nobody is telling you that you shouldn't be in talk therapy. Nobody (nobody on these forums, anyway) is saying that everyone with a mental disorder should be in psychoanalysis, or that everyone should take Effexor, or even that everyone should take meds of some sort. In the same vein, please don't try to tell other people what treatment is right for them. We're all different.
Thanks.
-elizabeth
Posted by jay on October 6, 2001, at 18:01:00
In reply to Re: psycho-social support (redirect from PB) » jay, posted by Elizabeth on October 6, 2001, at 10:36:55
I guess I posted the "reminder" because I have such strong faith in both social and biological therapies. Yes, that is my bias, but social therapy isn't limited to going to a counsellor to get psycho-analysis or CBT. It also involves basic things we *all* need to focus on, especially "life-skills". There is also much more to the story though...
Please just hear me out, because I find this area lacking, and it seems majorly problematic amoung us with mental health issues. Life-skills of course is everything from communicating, to finding a job, to eating and cooking properly. There are people out there who used to be CEO's who now collect welfare (*not* a bad thing!), and can't even get out of bed and make a peanut-butter and jam sandwich. Many of us have lost all our friends and much of our family, and it takes activation of the very basics of some type of social support to get life back together again.
Maybe that isn't you, but I will tell you it is massive and widespread.
Rich and middle class people often have a few people around them to help keep things together. They have insurance, can go without a job while being in the hospital. They write books about going around the world and having 'breakdowns' on all corners of the planet. It is the poor, who make up the largest majority of mental-health clients, who need this basic type of social support. Therapy and support is far from limited to sitting in a therapists office, paying 200 dollars an hour exploring your childhood. It involves getting the very basic skills of life together, and maybe some on here aren't concerned with those things because they don't have to be, but there are a majority of people who are deeply in need of basic life skill support. That clasifies as a therapy just as much as psychoanalysis.Maybe we are coming from two different vantage points, so I think that is likely where the confusion is. Mental illness may cross class boundaries, but the proof is it hits harder and wider, as usual, among the poor and lower-class.
So, yes, in closing, social-support (and even economic support) is *just* as important as is medical/biological therapy for these folks.
Thanks for listening..
Jay
> > Well, it is just a reminder that they are true counterparts, and one belongs with the other. If it was posted only on p-s-support, it wouldn't be seen..heh.
>
> Can you please explain why you posted your "reminder" in a thread that was about purchasing textbooks? You posted "In reply to Read this book: APP textbook of Psychopharmacology, posted by 3 Beer Effect on September 28, 2001, at 3:48:37" -- but I don't see any connection between your post and 3 Beer Effect's post (http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010927/msgs/79791.html).
>
> > If I post a "med" reminder on p-s-support, it again is just asking for balance.
>
> I would think that if balance were your concern, you would have posted complementary "reminders" to both forums.
>
> According to your posts on this board and on PB, you believe that "building a good social support network and engaging in psycho and cognitive therapy is a *must* along with meds if you want to get better" (your words). A little while ago there was a debate about whether it was okay to "evangelize" on PB. Some people were "triggered" -- reminded of unpleasant things that had happened to them in the past -- when a couple of posters started plugging their religions. One of the "evangelizers" felt it was his duty to try to convert people to his religion because otherwise they would go to hell. Do you see what I'm getting at?
>
> I'm sure you didn't intend to offend anyone, but in the future, please consider who your audience is and try to be supportive. You may have felt "attacked," but some people on PB felt attacked too. I thought you sounded perhaps a bit condescending. You seemed to be saying that your treatment of choice (talk therapy + meds) is the only thing that will work, for anyone. Reading your posts to PSB only confirms this impression. It's particularly distressing that you stereotype those who aren't interested in talk therapy as having "ego-type issues" and believing that "they are too 'smart' for therapy or something." (Yes, you did sound "harsh and judgmental." I don't understand why you posted something if you knew that you were being unsupportive.) Personally, I've been through a lot of talk therapy of many flavors (among them: cognitive, interpersonal (group), psychodynamic, and supportive therapies), and it isn't for me. For the most part, it didn't help much, and in some cases it was actually harmful. I know that there are others who have been through this too. Please be more respectful in the future and take care not to invalidate others' experiences.
>
> Nobody is telling you that you shouldn't be in talk therapy. Nobody (nobody on these forums, anyway) is saying that everyone with a mental disorder should be in psychoanalysis, or that everyone should take Effexor, or even that everyone should take meds of some sort. In the same vein, please don't try to tell other people what treatment is right for them. We're all different.
>
> Thanks.
>
> -elizabeth
Posted by JahL on October 7, 2001, at 10:37:03
In reply to Re: psycho-social support (redirect from PB) » jay, posted by Elizabeth on October 6, 2001, at 10:36:55
> According to your posts on this board and on PB, you believe that "building a good social support network and engaging in psycho and cognitive therapy is a *must* along with meds if you want to get better" (your words). A little while ago there was a debate about whether it was okay to "evangelize" on PB.It was the *must* bit that bothered me. This is a clear case of someone believing that because a treatment helps them, it will be of equal benefit to everyone. Sulpiride helps me immensely but I don't feel the need to place posts on Social-Babble recommending everyone takes anti-psychotics.
> I'm sure you didn't intend to offend anyone, but in the future, please consider who your audience is and try to be supportive. You may have felt "attacked," but some people on PB felt attacked too. I thought you sounded perhaps a bit condescending.
Jay actually said: "I think we become a bit smug when we ignore that besides chemical changes, we *also* need to change interpersonal habits, communication, and control and mastery over our lives."
Jay, you should have learnt by now, with the help of yr therapist, that calling people who don't agree with your questionable opinions "smug", is uncivil. Who's smug?
>You seemed to be saying that your treatment of choice (talk therapy + meds) is the only thing that will work, for anyone. Reading your posts to PSB only confirms this impression. It's particularly distressing that you stereotype those who aren't interested in talk therapy as having "ego-type issues" and believing that "they are too 'smart' for therapy or something." (Yes, you did sound "harsh and judgmental." I don't understand why you posted something if you knew that you were being unsupportive.) Personally, I've been through a lot of talk therapy of many flavors (among them: cognitive, interpersonal (group), psychodynamic, and supportive therapies), and it isn't for me. For the most part, it didn't help much, and in some cases it was actually harmful. I know that there are others who have been through this too.
I'm one of them. Agree with you to the letter Elizabeth.
J.
Posted by jay on October 7, 2001, at 19:08:21
In reply to Re: psycho-social support (redirect from PB) » Elizabeth, posted by JahL on October 7, 2001, at 10:37:03
>
> > According to your posts on this board and on PB, you believe that "building a good social support network and engaging in psycho and cognitive therapy is a *must* along with meds if you want to get better" (your words). A little while ago there was a debate about whether it was okay to "evangelize" on PB.
>
> It was the *must* bit that bothered me. This is a clear case of someone believing that because a treatment helps them, it will be of equal benefit to everyone. Sulpiride helps me immensely but I don't feel the need to place posts on Social-Babble recommending everyone takes anti-psychotics.OK..fine, the *must* was stupid for me to say. I didn't take kindly to your backlash either, though, as I still tried to be respectful and kind. That is the most important thing, and I would hope we could all treat each other like that on here. I read Dr. Bob's code of *civility* to extend to the above. On one post, (different thread) I lashed out and realized how stupid and wrong it was. With this thread, I tried to tread as gently as possible, and all's I asked for was the same in return.
> > I'm sure you didn't intend to offend anyone, but in the future, please consider who your audience is and try to be supportive. You may have felt "attacked," but some people on PB felt attacked too. I thought you sounded perhaps a bit condescending.
>
> Jay actually said: "I think we become a bit smug when we ignore that besides chemical changes, we *also* need to change interpersonal habits, communication, and control and mastery over our lives."
>
> Jay, you should have learnt by now, with the help of yr therapist, that calling people who don't agree with your questionable opinions "smug", is uncivil. Who's smug?Well, I was refering to our general lack of ability to drop ego-boundaries. That can be a major hurdle in therapy, and my statements where not just made out of thin air..there is some very good research that backs it. No, it is not absolute, and cannot be "proven" 100 percent correct. I did not say anybody in particular was smug, but that not at least acknowleding there is an opinion different then yours or a few others is, especially when that opinion has some good backing.
> >You seemed to be saying that your treatment of choice (talk therapy + meds) is the only thing that will work, for anyone. Reading your posts to PSB only confirms this impression. It's particularly distressing that you stereotype those who aren't interested in talk therapy as having "ego-type issues" and believing that "they are too 'smart' for therapy or something." (Yes, you did sound "harsh and judgmental." I don't understand why you posted something if you knew that you were being unsupportive.) Personally, I've been through a lot of talk therapy of many flavors (among them: cognitive, interpersonal (group), psychodynamic, and supportive therapies), and it isn't for me. For the most part, it didn't help much, and in some cases it was actually harmful. I know that there are others who have been through this too.
>
> I'm one of them. Agree with you to the letter Elizabeth.
>
> J.Well, please show show me the research that concludes, across the board, that *modern* psychodynamic and life-skill (which is a type of rehab that has some of the strongest research backing it out of any treatment)therapy are absolutely harmful. I do know what I am talking about in the wide range of therapies, as I am a counselor myself. Did you know about the other 100+ schools of therapy? Can you explain a life-skill module to me, types that are often used by the Red Cross on all corners of the planet? Did you know CBT and psychoanalysis are now some of the least popular forms of therapy in the world?
The few comments made seem to based on experience with some form of ancient psychoanalysis, and even Beck, RET, and CBT are old news. I honestly think we are arguing on two different things here, and all's I ask is for you to look into the vast amount of modern research on current therapies.
Jay
Posted by JahL on October 8, 2001, at 3:37:14
In reply to Re: psycho-social support (redirect from PB) » JahL, posted by jay on October 7, 2001, at 19:08:21
>I didn't take kindly to your backlash either, though, as I still tried to be respectful and kind.
What are you like??? I certainly played no part in any backlash. I merely backed up Elizabeth's statement & stated a desire for psychotherapists to butt out of my life.
>That is the most important thing, and I would hope we could all treat each other like that on here. I read Dr. Bob's code of *civility* to extend to the above. On one post, (different thread) I lashed out and realized how stupid and wrong it was. With this thread, I tried to tread as gently as possible, and all's I asked for was the same in return.
> Well, I was refering to our general lack of ability to drop ego-boundaries. That can be a major hurdle in therapy, and my statements where not just made out of thin air..there is some very good research that backs it. No, it is not absolute, and cannot be "proven" 100 percent correct. I did not say anybody in particular was smug, but that not at least acknowleding there is an opinion different then yours or a few others is, especially when that opinion has some good backing.Who wasn't 'acknowledging' psychotherapy? You're in a dreamland. The thread was about books.
> > >You seemed to be saying that your treatment of choice (talk therapy + meds) is the only thing that will work, for anyone. Reading your posts to PSB only confirms this impression. It's particularly distressing that you stereotype those who aren't interested in talk therapy as having "ego-type issues" and believing that "they are too 'smart' for therapy or something." (Yes, you did sound "harsh and judgmental." I don't understand why you posted something if you knew that you were being unsupportive.) Personally, I've been through a lot of talk therapy of many flavors (among them: cognitive, interpersonal (group), psychodynamic, and supportive therapies), and it isn't for me. For the most part, it didn't help much, and in some cases it was actually harmful. I know that there are others who have been through this too.
> >
> > I'm one of them. Agree with you to the letter Elizabeth.
> >
> > J.
>
> Well, please show show me the research that concludes, across the board, that *modern* psychodynamic and life-skill (which is a type of rehab that has some of the strongest research backing it out of any treatment)therapy are absolutely harmful.Please show me where I, or Elizabeth said it's 'absolutely harmful'. We didn't. It just was for us. And then not 'absolutely'. What's yr problem with accepting this? (Ah-ha!-see below).
> I do know what I am talking about in..
No you don't, as is made apparent to yr long-winded, boastful post to me. My post was to Elizabeth.
>...the wide range of therapies, as I am a counselor myself.
THAT-SAYS-IT-ALL. You have a vested interest in all of this. AARRRGGGHHHH. Please don't talk to me anymore. Please.
>Did you know about the other 100+ schools of therapy?
No & I don't care.
>Can you explain a life-skill module to me, types that are often used by the Red Cross on all corners of the planet?
No. Did I say I can? That word 'smug' is coming to mind again.
>Did you know CBT and psychoanalysis are now some of the least popular forms of therapy in the world?
> The few comments made seem to based on experienceExactly. Forget the rest of yr sentence.
GOODBYE.
J.
Posted by Wendy B. on October 8, 2001, at 13:36:50
In reply to Re: psycho-social support (redirect from PB) » jay, posted by JahL on October 8, 2001, at 3:37:14
here's a suggestion: since you all seem bent on displaying your anger and hostility for all to see, we won't mind if you take the discussion away again.
how'd that be?
PSB is, wonderfully, happily, devoid of such harping. hit each other over the heads with your intellectual superiorities elsewhere, or not at all. if you can't be supportive, why bother posting?
peace, please,
wendy
> >I didn't take kindly to your backlash either, though, as I still tried to be respectful and kind.
>
> What are you like??? I certainly played no part in any backlash. I merely backed up Elizabeth's statement & stated a desire for psychotherapists to butt out of my life.
>
> >That is the most important thing, and I would hope we could all treat each other like that on here. I read Dr. Bob's code of *civility* to extend to the above. On one post, (different thread) I lashed out and realized how stupid and wrong it was. With this thread, I tried to tread as gently as possible, and all's I asked for was the same in return.
>
> > Well, I was refering to our general lack of ability to drop ego-boundaries. That can be a major hurdle in therapy, and my statements where not just made out of thin air..there is some very good research that backs it. No, it is not absolute, and cannot be "proven" 100 percent correct. I did not say anybody in particular was smug, but that not at least acknowleding there is an opinion different then yours or a few others is, especially when that opinion has some good backing.
>
> Who wasn't 'acknowledging' psychotherapy? You're in a dreamland. The thread was about books.
>
> > > >You seemed to be saying that your treatment of choice (talk therapy + meds) is the only thing that will work, for anyone. Reading your posts to PSB only confirms this impression. It's particularly distressing that you stereotype those who aren't interested in talk therapy as having "ego-type issues" and believing that "they are too 'smart' for therapy or something." (Yes, you did sound "harsh and judgmental." I don't understand why you posted something if you knew that you were being unsupportive.) Personally, I've been through a lot of talk therapy of many flavors (among them: cognitive, interpersonal (group), psychodynamic, and supportive therapies), and it isn't for me. For the most part, it didn't help much, and in some cases it was actually harmful. I know that there are others who have been through this too.
> > >
> > > I'm one of them. Agree with you to the letter Elizabeth.
> > >
> > > J.
> >
> > Well, please show show me the research that concludes, across the board, that *modern* psychodynamic and life-skill (which is a type of rehab that has some of the strongest research backing it out of any treatment)therapy are absolutely harmful.
>
> Please show me where I, or Elizabeth said it's 'absolutely harmful'. We didn't. It just was for us. And then not 'absolutely'. What's yr problem with accepting this? (Ah-ha!-see below).
>
> > I do know what I am talking about in..
>
> No you don't, as is made apparent to yr long-winded, boastful post to me. My post was to Elizabeth.
>
> >...the wide range of therapies, as I am a counselor myself.
>
> THAT-SAYS-IT-ALL. You have a vested interest in all of this. AARRRGGGHHHH. Please don't talk to me anymore. Please.
>
> >Did you know about the other 100+ schools of therapy?
>
> No & I don't care.
>
> >Can you explain a life-skill module to me, types that are often used by the Red Cross on all corners of the planet?
>
> No. Did I say I can? That word 'smug' is coming to mind again.
>
> >Did you know CBT and psychoanalysis are now some of the least popular forms of therapy in the world?
>
> > The few comments made seem to based on experience
>
> Exactly. Forget the rest of yr sentence.
>
> GOODBYE.
>
> J.
Posted by Elizabeth on October 9, 2001, at 13:48:34
In reply to Re: psycho-social support. (redirect from PB) » Elizabeth, posted by jay on October 6, 2001, at 18:01:00
Hi Jay. Nice post, but it didn't answer my question: "Can you please explain why you posted your `reminder' in a thread that was about purchasing textbooks?"
I actually agree with much of what you have to say: life skills are necessary for everyone, and it's certainly true that most people who suffer from severe mental illness never had a chance to learn some of these skills. (That doesn't mean that learning life skills constitutes a medical treatment of any kind; like I said, life skills are necessary for everybody.)
I think it's safe to say that quite a few people on PB have been hounded about the need for "psychosocial" therapy/support more than they would like already. To these people (and I know I'm not the only one), your post came across as preachy.
I don't think that people reading psycho-babble are unaware of the importance of having psychosocial supports at all. I also am pretty sure that although people on these boards are probably mostly middle-class, most of us are aware that there are many, many less fortunate people who suffer from the same illnesses as we do but who lack the supports that we have.
> It is the poor, who make up the largest majority of mental-health clients, who need this basic type of social support.
And these poor people who lack even basic social supports are posting to the internet? I think you're preaching to the wrong crowd if that's all you're talking about (which, of course, it isn't; you just decided to devote an entire message to it in an apparent effort to sidetrack).
> Maybe we are coming from two different vantage points, so I think that is likely where the confusion is. Mental illness may cross class boundaries, but the proof is it hits harder and wider, as usual, among the poor and lower-class.
I'm well aware of that. I'm also pretty certain that (for example) the homeless guy who I used to chat with at the bus stop when I lived in Boston is not posting to Psycho-Babble about his difficulties.
Finally, it's obvious that although you may be including "life skills" in your definition of "psychosocial supports," and although this particular post was devoted to discussing the plight of poor people with mental illnesses, it's only one of a number of things you're advocating.
-elizabeth
Posted by Elizabeth on October 9, 2001, at 13:48:48
In reply to Re: RE-redirect! please take this back to PB! » JahL, posted by Wendy B. on October 8, 2001, at 13:36:50
> here's a suggestion: since you all seem bent on displaying your anger and hostility for all to see, we won't mind if you take the discussion away again.
Please be supportive.
> if you can't be supportive, why bother posting?
Would you please practice what you preach?
-e
Posted by Krazy Kat on October 9, 2001, at 17:02:46
In reply to Re: RE-redirect! please take this back to PB! » Wendy B., posted by Elizabeth on October 9, 2001, at 13:48:48
Elizabeth:
I'd like to add my two cents here. I can certainly understand an aversion to therapy - I personally haven't chosen it. But did you stop to think that the person who jumped in, Jay, may have just joined the board, as I believe was the case, and not known it had been brought up before?
One comment in particular WAS offensive:
"P.S. I have family and friends who offer me all the "psychosocial support" I need. I would hope that most others don't need to pay somebody for it, either."
I didn't expect that from someone who has so much knowledge about medicine. It shows a lack of maturity to me, that, again, I didn't expect. And then for you to continue to harp on this over here...
I believe Wendy's comment regards the fact that this board has naturally evolved into more of a support network, at least over the six months I've been here, and Jah's comments were just instigating with no where to go.
You should know lots of folks can't afford therapy, or at least "good" therapy, and lots can't take that step when they need to.
Shame on you for "bragging" that you "have family and friends who offer me all the "psychosocial support" I need" when so many don't. It's just thoughtless.
- K.
P.S. I really wish no one but Dr. Bob would use his terms such as "Please Be Civil". I see it and think he has stepped in when he hasn't. It also implies a sort of hierarchy that you think you have.
Posted by JahL on October 9, 2001, at 19:28:37
In reply to I'd say feelings were definitely hurt » Elizabeth, posted by Krazy Kat on October 9, 2001, at 17:02:46
> I believe Wendy's comment regards the fact that this board has naturally evolved into more of a support network, at least over the six months I've been here, and Jah's comments were just instigating with no where to go.I don't deny that my words were a little inhospitable (& therefore inappropriate) but I should point out that I was merely responding to a post directed towards me. Given that I was only *responding* how can I have been *instigating* anything? Especially when I made it clear that I wanted no further part in the discussion (I still don't but people keep dragging my name up)?!!! I wasn't trying to 'go anywhere...'
My crime was not being able to keep a lid on my temper in the face of wind-up merchants. I remember you being a little imprudent with your words just lately Kat....
Stones, glass-houses & all that :-)
Anyway,
J.
Posted by Krazy Kat on October 9, 2001, at 19:59:05
In reply to Re: I'd say ... » Krazy Kat , posted by JahL on October 9, 2001, at 19:28:37
Oh, for heaven's sake, how was I imprudent?
This makes me want to laugh now.
This is a defensive response to some silly and thoughtless comments. Frankly, Jah, yours make more sense to me as they seem to come from the heart. But please try to understand that there's a shaky balance in keeping everyone together here. It's hard. And there's an effort to keep the tone "even-handed", from my observation.
Don't feel the need to respond further. It's just silly now, in my opinion. But I do still think E's comment was irresponsible.
- K.
Posted by sar on October 10, 2001, at 0:41:39
In reply to Re: I'd say ... » JahL, posted by Krazy Kat on October 9, 2001, at 19:59:05
wow!
completely new to this thread and have had a bit drink. my thoughts:
people should be able to post on a wide0scal;e of emotions, i don't think everything on this board should be "supportive," good argumentation leads some place;
i haven't read the aforementioned PB thread, but can we cut some people some slack? when i found a somewhat proper cocktail, i couldn't hard-sell it enough to anyone! mistakes lead to wisdom...
re: talk therapy and meds...for 5 years i was strictly anti-med and pro talk-therapy. the meds have done for me than CBT, counselling, psychoanaylsis, therapy, what-have-you...jeez prozac works better than pot for me, who'd have thought...but everyone's different...
because jay is a counselor himself he may have a "vested interest: or whatever someone posted, but don't you yourself have an agenda regarding something, whether it be politics, religion, "family values," etc? everyone's got vested interests and a right to post the, it just helps to keep things even by mentioning BY THE WAY , [vested interest inserted here]...
i don't think ANYONE has been irresponsible. i respect Elizabeth for being strong in her belifes; o don't think she ought to take "civility" into her own hands on thos board, but this is a thread i've enjoyed, and i look forward to more discussion and free speech, particularly because of my own personal experience (i visit pusher-man to get my meds and no longer trust counselling as a whole, a 18-degree turn-around...choosing a therapist is sucj a shot-in-the-dark...would you choose a best friend from the yellow pages, or based on recommendation or referral by your insurance co? thot not.)
sorry if disjointed.
these are my thoughts on a once-over read.
sar
Posted by Krazy Kat on October 10, 2001, at 10:48:04
In reply to Re: I'd say ..., posted by sar on October 10, 2001, at 0:41:39
Yeah, I prefer open discussions. I think we have to be a little careful here, though. To be honest, I have not perused Dr. Bob's rules and I should - just going by gut.
Tempers flaring like Jah's, mine, Wendy's - that's to be expected and I certainly don't see why it can't be worked with. I was really happy when my ability to express anger got upped a notch when I moved to NY City. (Gee, I wonder why that coincidence? ;))
But, there's a condescendsion (word?) in tone in this thread that really bothered me. So, I'm trying to calmly express that. Guess I wasn't Completely calm before, though, as Jah pointed out.
There are rules to debating (I'm an old Forensics/Theatre grad), and they should apply here I would think. Comments such as E's don't fit.
This subject is getting worn out and I'm sure should be on admin by now. Sorry.
But, yes, Sar, I, too, prefer being open and discussing things without worrying too much about the consequences. Unfortunately, it makes things a lot easier in the long run if you do.
- K.
Posted by Elizabeth on October 10, 2001, at 13:57:02
In reply to I'd say feelings were definitely hurt » Elizabeth, posted by Krazy Kat on October 9, 2001, at 17:02:46
Krazy --
I'm sorry about my remark about psychosocial support. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings or anyone else's.
-elizabeth
Posted by jay on October 10, 2001, at 20:44:57
In reply to I'd say feelings were definitely hurt » Elizabeth, posted by Krazy Kat on October 9, 2001, at 17:02:46
Kat:
Thank's for the kindness and understanding. I don't want this to go on...I never wanted any arguments, as I hate them, and I think (hope) others don't want them too. That's also why I abandoned this thread, and P-B Support for a bit. That's my choice, though, and I don't blame anyone else for it. Yeah, my feelings do get hurt (like all of us),and I am not afraid to show it for fear of looking "weak" or *whatever*!
I am an idealist, and proud of it. I believe in gentle sensitivity, caringness, empathy, compassion..etc. In fact, I wouldn't trade these things in for any cost. Like everyone on here, my emotions are very unstable, but I really try to go that extra mile (esp on here) to keep any insensitive or harsh remarks under wraps. I made one mistake in an early post, and learn't my lesson.
Those feelings of empathy, hope, kindness, they are just as much a tool in the fight against depression as some chemical compound. I honestly pity and feel sorry for those who ignore these qualities. It's very nice to see someone like you and many on here who use those qualities.
Sincerely,
Jay
> Elizabeth:
>
> I'd like to add my two cents here. I can certainly understand an aversion to therapy - I personally haven't chosen it. But did you stop to think that the person who jumped in, Jay, may have just joined the board, as I believe was the case, and not known it had been brought up before?
>
> One comment in particular WAS offensive:
>
> "P.S. I have family and friends who offer me all the "psychosocial support" I need. I would hope that most others don't need to pay somebody for it, either."
>
> I didn't expect that from someone who has so much knowledge about medicine. It shows a lack of maturity to me, that, again, I didn't expect. And then for you to continue to harp on this over here...
>
> I believe Wendy's comment regards the fact that this board has naturally evolved into more of a support network, at least over the six months I've been here, and Jah's comments were just instigating with no where to go.
>
> You should know lots of folks can't afford therapy, or at least "good" therapy, and lots can't take that step when they need to.
>
> Shame on you for "bragging" that you "have family and friends who offer me all the "psychosocial support" I need" when so many don't. It's just thoughtless.
>
> - K.
>
> P.S. I really wish no one but Dr. Bob would use his terms such as "Please Be Civil". I see it and think he has stepped in when he hasn't. It also implies a sort of hierarchy that you think you have.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 11, 2001, at 18:29:54
In reply to Re: I'd say feelings were definitely hurt » Krazy Kat , posted by jay on October 10, 2001, at 20:44:57
> Nice post, but it didn't answer my question: "Can you please explain why you posted your `reminder' in a thread that was about purchasing textbooks?"
Please don't put pressure on others. If someone would rather not answer a question, that's their choice.
> I think it's safe to say that quite a few people on PB have been hounded about the need for "psychosocial" therapy/support more than they would like already. To these people (and I know I'm not the only one), your post came across as preachy.
> you just decided to devote an entire message to it in an apparent effort to sidetrack
Also, please don't post anything that others could take as accusatory.
> I don't deny that my words were a little inhospitable (& therefore inappropriate) but I should point out that I was merely responding to a post directed towards me...
>
> My crime was not being able to keep a lid on my temper...I wouldn't call it a crime, but I agree, it would've been more civil to have kept a lid on your temper, despite what was directed towards you.
> people should be able to post on a wide0scal;e of emotions, i don't think everything on this board should be "supportive," good argumentation leads some place;Argumentation is fine, but needs to be civil.
> Those feelings of empathy, hope, kindness, they are just as much a tool in the fight against depression as some chemical compound. I honestly pity and feel sorry for those who ignore these qualities. It's very nice to see someone like you and many on here who use those qualities.I hope you weren't implying that you pitied other people here...
> This subject is getting worn out and I'm sure should be on admin by now.I agree. Further posts about posting (rather than psychosocial support), should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. Thanks,
Bob
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | 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.