![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 23 to 47 of 80. Go back in thread:
Posted by CarolAnn on May 27, 2000, at 9:05:26
In reply to Civil war, posted by boBB on May 26, 2000, at 21:19:59
>
>>Somebody asks me how I am doing. I reply honestly. Tag team jumps in and starts to criticize my feelings. I say I'm okay with who I am.>>Bobb, I've not been online for a few days, this is in reply to your post to me and some of the others in this thread.
I know you don't care, but I am *deeply* hurt that you chose to shove my compassion back in my face. As I reread my post of the 26th, I see that I in no way criticized your feelings nor did I suggest that you change them. I gave an 'honest' reaction to your 'honest' reply to the question of how you were doing.
Your post seemed to be a literal 'cry of the spirit', and I merely wanted to offer comfort to that 'cry'. As far as your implication that I do not suffer for the "causes" of humanity, you couldn't be more wrong. The fact is that my suffering for humanity is so great, that I would literally drown in sorrow, if I ever let myself be immersed in that suffering. If I am to be any help at all to mankind, it must be one "cause" at a time. When I said that I could not promise to "join" your cause, it was out of ignorance of which "causes" you are championing at this time.
The fact that you chose to ignore my offer of a "nonjudgemental" ear, shows that you care more for all your "causes" then you do for any member of the human race. Yes, you are right, none of "this" is about you or me. But, if any of humanities "causes" are to be served, if injustice is to be vanquished, it will have to be done cause by cause and individual by individual. You want to save humanity, feed the hungry, house the homeless, free those unjustly accused, ect., ect....Well, how do you expect to improve the conditions of humanity, when you don't *care* about the feelings of any individual human? We all suffer, just in different ways. If you can't have compassion for one man or one woman, you will never have any effect on the "causes" of mankind. CarolAnn
Posted by Tina1 on May 27, 2000, at 9:47:33
In reply to Re: Civil war, posted by Dr. Bob on May 27, 2000, at 0:56:30
Please, aren't we all used to boBB by now. He is an antagonist. From what I can tell he doesn't come to this board to help himself, he comes here to shake us up and remind us how alive we really are. He sees a lot of the bad side of humanity in his line of work and it can really undermine ones faith in humanity. Crusaders crusade, it's what they do, by the sword if necessary.
> > Somebody asks me how I am doing. I reply honestly. Tag team jumps in and starts to criticize my feelings. I say I'm okay with who I am.
>
> Honesty is good, but not an excuse for incivility. The problem wasn't how you felt, it was what you said. There's a difference between who you are and what you do.
>
> > I paraphrase a passage from the common bible - the most protected speech in western history, but guess who is wrong?
>
> 1. The specific way something's paraphrased can make a difference.
>
> 2. Coming from the Bible isn't an excuse for incivility, either.
>
> Bob
Posted by Noa on May 27, 2000, at 10:36:14
In reply to Re: Civil war, posted by Tina1 on May 27, 2000, at 9:47:33
Moving on.
Posted by Kathie on May 27, 2000, at 11:44:27
In reply to Re: Hey boBB, posted by boBb on May 25, 2000, at 23:25:34
I have been sitting here at my computer, in my pj's still, waiting for my coffee to brew...which is done now so I am going to grab a cup..........ahhhh, yummy.....anyway, where was I?? Oh yes, I read this thread from top to bottom and I have found it very interesting. I see tina, noa and carol ann reaching out to help a soul who is in obvious pain, only to have their compassion and concern turned around and used to hurt them. I see boBB, who sometimes has wonderful things to say to people one moment, turn on anyone who offers him any kind of comfort the next. After reading this thread, I will never offer boBB any kind of encouragement or sympathy or any type of kindness because it appears to me that is not what he is looking for, and to do so brings out the worst in him. I wonder if he reacts this way to stir up trouble on the board, to see what sort of reaction he can get from the masses....or if he really is so messed up he can't recognise human kindness for what it is. If the dark side is what he wants, I will pass him Darth Vader's light saber and he can go over to the "dark side."
My advice to you others....not boBB, as I would never presume to give that lad advice!.....is to not let him get to you. I read his words and I often find them sarcastic and downright amusing...in fact the only post I have ever read out loud to my husband was one of boBB's and he laughed with real appreciation!!
This post is not a cut to boBB, as I believe I can appreciate him for what he represents to me...I don't feel the need to offer him anything, he doesn't want that from any of us anyways....his negative views of the world are interesting, but certainly nothing I want to challenge. I try and harbour a positive view of the world and the challenge of day to day survival is enough for my.
tina, noa, carol ann...don't let boBB get you down, don't let him hurt your feelings, don't let him waste your compassion..all three of you ladies are in the throes of your own pain and suffering and yet you take the time, make the effort too try and reach out and help someone. To be rejected as you have been in this thread can only cause you more pain, save yourselves. There are people in the world who don't want to be saved....dole out your kindness to those that deserve it.
Well that is all I have to say over this cup of morning coffee. Take care ladies.
Kathie
Posted by CarolAnn on May 27, 2000, at 13:17:12
In reply to what a see saw ride this thread is!!, posted by Kathie on May 27, 2000, at 11:44:27
I swore off boBB's posts awhile ago, but got sucked back in with his (subject) "feelings" post.
I should have known that he wouldn't want any kind-hearted responses to his 'soul bearing'. What I can't figure out is why he bothered to answer Tina's question in the first place. Why would he want us to know how he feels, if he doesn't want us to care? I don't understand, he wants us to care about the "causes" he cares about, but he gets offended if we care about him.
......whatever....I'm done...CarolAnn
Posted by boBB on May 27, 2000, at 14:06:23
In reply to Re: from Bobb, posted by Noa on May 26, 2000, at 13:03:04
It sounds to me like some people are hurt that I won’t let them play doctor with my feelings.
Someone asked how I feel. I answered. When someone said tell me more I said its not about me. Someone promised of nonjudgmental response, but when I declined, replied with vicious judgment.
Somebody else writes back calling me hopeless because my hopes apparently to not concur with their expectations of what my hopes should be.
I replied that they seem to me to be adhering to fundamental philosophies, specifically meaning fundamental tenets of humanism in which optimism and happiness are presumed to be universally correct paramount hopes.
I am expressing fundamental tenets of another philosophy that presumes suffering to be an acceptable and appropriate part of living in a world balanced between lightness and darkness, between life and death.
I further wrote, using an ancient allegory attributed an spiritual leader, who was murdered for his supposedly disruptive behavior, that if someone’s eye offends them they should remove it. If you feel perverse watching me bare my soul, don’t watch. Deal with the log in your own eye before you start digging at splinters in mine.
In other replies respondents confuse what I feel and what I do in a specific situation with who I am. It was not my intention to start this thread. I feel I was baited. Then there are replies that presume to explain my motives. The fact that I and many, many others express sentiments here and elsewhere contrary to others preferences does not mean we are trying to do anything - to stir up, to disrupt or to challenge. Maybe that is part of my motive sometimes; it certainly seems to be an effect of my participation. Othertimes, I simply want to express concern for someone else. Sometimes I am just honestly expressing myself, perhaps in hopes of finding further acceptance. Maybe I am naive, but I am constantly suprised when people are unable to accept me for who I am - sort of like getting sucker-punched - I later realize I might be able to walk alone down my street but in this neighborhood I better be more wary, because I do not adhere to the correct creed.
I stand up to this kind of behavior toward me because I have seen it all too often toward others, especially by medical and social service caregivers toward their clients. If people can’t live with my assertion of who I am, drop it and move on.
I try to measure my participation, usually only offering personal insight when people ask, staying out of threads where I see people express views of themself what appear to me to be flawed, and joining threads where there is general discussion of the roles and philosophies of pscience.
_________________________
> If fish had wingsHopelessness, expressed succinctly.
Hopelessness, a hallmark of depression.
Depression, a difficult to treat, yet treatable illness.paraphrased read: “Your hopes are irrelevant, fish. You are sick.”
By writing in a passive voice, the prose disguises who is acting. It presumes definitions to be universal, effectively denying me an opportunity to define my own status.
____________________________.>.>.> I was talking about allowing yourself to meet some of your emotional needs, that if you did so, maybe you would actually have more strength....
This statement infers that either I am not allowing myself to meet my emotional needs or that I am making an incorrect choice in prioritizing my effort to meet my emotional needs, ultimately suggesting that I am weaker than the writer thinks I could or should be. Believe me, standing up in this forum requires more strength than you may have imagined.
>>>>wouldn't you be more effective as an advocate of the downtrodden if you were relieved of some of your suffering, if you were healthy and strong and could mobilize your convictions and anger more effectively?
Again, here is a suggestion that I am neither healthy, strong or living near my full potential - that loneliness and weariness are indicators of poor health rather than part of a price people sometimes choose to pay, or are required to pay for their strength and health.
______________________________
1. The specific way something's paraphrased can make a difference.Absolutely. That is the strength of paraphrasing. Pedantic repetition can turn strong statements into platitudes.
2. Coming from the Bible isn't an excuse for incivility, either.
Bombing the Chinese embassy then saying we thought it was something else is not an excuse either, and the act was not entirely civil. The recent U.S. bombings of Balkan radio and television stations put me on edge as well. I work in places like that. I am not excusing myself. I am saying your definition of civility excludes me from your civilization. I do not consider exclusion to be civil.
I am considering retiring this moniker from use at this site. Some people here seem unprepared to accept this part of whoever I am in real life. If more dishonesty on my part would make me seem more civilized, I can divide myself into any number of anonymous identities. But there seems to be too much recurring interest in my perspective to abandon those who are lurking and who sometimes show interest in my contributions.
Posted by Tina1 on May 27, 2000, at 15:51:27
In reply to Re: boBB is so wrong, posted by boBB on May 27, 2000, at 14:06:23
> It sounds to me like some people are hurt that I won’t let them play doctor with my feelings.
>
> Someone asked how I feel. I answered. When someone said tell me more I said its not about me. Someone promised of nonjudgmental response, but when I declined, replied with vicious judgment.
>
> Somebody else writes back calling me hopeless because my hopes apparently to not concur with their expectations of what my hopes should be.
>
> I replied that they seem to me to be adhering to fundamental philosophies, specifically meaning fundamental tenets of humanism in which optimism and happiness are presumed to be universally correct paramount hopes.
>
> I am expressing fundamental tenets of another philosophy that presumes suffering to be an acceptable and appropriate part of living in a world balanced between lightness and darkness, between life and death.
>
> I further wrote, using an ancient allegory attributed an spiritual leader, who was murdered for his supposedly disruptive behavior, that if someone’s eye offends them they should remove it. If you feel perverse watching me bare my soul, don’t watch. Deal with the log in your own eye before you start digging at splinters in mine.
>
> In other replies respondents confuse what I feel and what I do in a specific situation with who I am. It was not my intention to start this thread. I feel I was baited. Then there are replies that presume to explain my motives. The fact that I and many, many others express sentiments here and elsewhere contrary to others preferences does not mean we are trying to do anything - to stir up, to disrupt or to challenge. Maybe that is part of my motive sometimes; it certainly seems to be an effect of my participation. Othertimes, I simply want to express concern for someone else. Sometimes I am just honestly expressing myself, perhaps in hopes of finding further acceptance. Maybe I am naive, but I am constantly suprised when people are unable to accept me for who I am - sort of like getting sucker-punched - I later realize I might be able to walk alone down my street but in this neighborhood I better be more wary, because I do not adhere to the correct creed.
>
> I stand up to this kind of behavior toward me because I have seen it all too often toward others, especially by medical and social service caregivers toward their clients. If people can’t live with my assertion of who I am, drop it and move on.
>
> I try to measure my participation, usually only offering personal insight when people ask, staying out of threads where I see people express views of themself what appear to me to be flawed, and joining threads where there is general discussion of the roles and philosophies of pscience.
> _________________________
> > If fish had wings
>
> Hopelessness, expressed succinctly.
> Hopelessness, a hallmark of depression.
> Depression, a difficult to treat, yet treatable illness.
>
> paraphrased read: “Your hopes are irrelevant, fish. You are sick.”
>
> By writing in a passive voice, the prose disguises who is acting. It presumes definitions to be universal, effectively denying me an opportunity to define my own status.
> ____________________________
>
> .>.>.> I was talking about allowing yourself to meet some of your emotional needs, that if you did so, maybe you would actually have more strength....
>
> This statement infers that either I am not allowing myself to meet my emotional needs or that I am making an incorrect choice in prioritizing my effort to meet my emotional needs, ultimately suggesting that I am weaker than the writer thinks I could or should be. Believe me, standing up in this forum requires more strength than you may have imagined.
>
> >>>>wouldn't you be more effective as an advocate of the downtrodden if you were relieved of some of your suffering, if you were healthy and strong and could mobilize your convictions and anger more effectively?
>
> Again, here is a suggestion that I am neither healthy, strong or living near my full potential - that loneliness and weariness are indicators of poor health rather than part of a price people sometimes choose to pay, or are required to pay for their strength and health.
> ______________________________
> 1. The specific way something's paraphrased can make a difference.
>
> Absolutely. That is the strength of paraphrasing. Pedantic repetition can turn strong statements into platitudes.
>
> 2. Coming from the Bible isn't an excuse for incivility, either.
>
> Bombing the Chinese embassy then saying we thought it was something else is not an excuse either, and the act was not entirely civil. The recent U.S. bombings of Balkan radio and television stations put me on edge as well. I work in places like that. I am not excusing myself. I am saying your definition of civility excludes me from your civilization. I do not consider exclusion to be civil.
>
> I am considering retiring this moniker from use at this site. Some people here seem unprepared to accept this part of whoever I am in real life. If more dishonesty on my part would make me seem more civilized, I can divide myself into any number of anonymous identities. But there seems to be too much recurring interest in my perspective to abandon those who are lurking and who sometimes show interest in my contributions.
Posted by claire 7 on May 27, 2000, at 17:23:19
In reply to Re: Thanks for the reminder, Kathie..., posted by CarolAnn on May 27, 2000, at 13:17:12
> I swore off boBB's posts awhile ago, but got sucked back in with his (subject) "feelings" post.
>It is interesting to me that so many people seem baffled by boBB's response. Though his particular reasons are his particular reasons, and mine are mine, I find I often respond negatively to "compassion". To some people "compassion" can feel demeaning, diminishing. I understand many of the reasons why this is true for me, and they are not all that surprising. Since it is obvious that most people on this site are sincerely interested in expanding their understanding of human behavior, dismissing boBB's response could represent a missed opportunity for such expansion. I'm suggesting that a negative response to what some would call compassion is not as aberrant as you may believe, and could be interesting to think about. It could also be profitable to think about our own styles of expressing compassion, as well as the content of that expression.
P.S. I was just reminded of that cliched, popular complaint women were said to make about men a few years back. It was said that when women expressed their frustrations, fears, problems to males, the males invariably offered "solutions". Women, said those in the know, just wanted the guys to listen. (I always thought the gender issue was bogus, because both men and women seem to make this mistake with equal frequency, but I do believe it is usually a mistake.)
> I should have known that he wouldn't want any kind-hearted responses to his 'soul bearing'. What I can't figure out is why he bothered to answer Tina's question in the first place. Why would he want us to know how he feels, if he doesn't want us to care? I don't understand, he wants us to care about the "causes" he cares about, but he gets offended if we care about him.
> ......whatever....I'm done...CarolAnn
Posted by brian on May 28, 2000, at 13:26:19
In reply to Re: Thanks for the reminder, Kathie..., posted by claire 7 on May 27, 2000, at 17:23:19
First off, I feel that boBB performs a great service. By shaking up the discussion, he is (whether this is your goal or not, boBB) urging us to question the homogeneity of beliefs and opinions that sometimes dominate such discussion boards.
I first respond emotionally to beliefs that contrast with my own. Why? It's unsettling, I guess. Some of what boBB, and others, have written have shaken me a little. And the stakes can be a little higher when those contrasting beliefs threaten my definition of mental illness. After all, it's human to want to label something - to believe you understand that thing - in order to deal with it.
We see that in psychology all the time. The psychoanalyst scoffs at cognitive therapy. The behaviorist discredits psychopharmacology. Others have beliefs that question psychology as a whole. There are strong adherents to various schools of thought. They don't always play well together.
Once entrenched in a belief, it's painful to have that belief shaken. But I think it's healthy to have those beliefs shaken. Some of my professors in college said: religion is harmful. Religion excludes. Religion promotes unthinking faith. Many of those same professors had their own religion, but they called it humanism, or fatalism, or liberalism, or conservatism, etc. I'd even had a professor or two who graded based upon a student's adherence to the professor's beliefs. The professors took those believes as TRUTHS.
Well, if a belief is the same as a truth, then dissention shouldn't offend. You can't ridicule a tautology. But truths are few and far between. By listening to those beliefs that contrast with out own, we are given a valuable opportunity to question, and to grow. However, promoting an environment that stultifies those with divergent opinions is stagnating. To paraphrase Blake, you can't have creation without destruction. This is where the iconoclast performs a critical service.
On the other hand, this is a forum for support. And, boBB, when you post here, you should expect people to want to help you. If you are satisfied with your particular beliefs, why be so visibly shaken when someone challenges them? Why be so indignant when someone dares to "presume" to understand you? This is a HELP forum. That's why people come here. It's the nature of this discussion board. You have the right to use this as a soapbox (which I am doing now) but should you attack people when they attempt to offer insight? "You should gouge out your eye with a fork?" Are you hiding behind the bible to justify such violent words? Isn't this the same bible that has been used to justify the violence and exclusion you seem to oppose so strongly?
I defend the right to express any opinion, no matter how uncomfortable it might be to others. But I am against emotionally charged attacks, and especially threats. It's far too easy and safe to threaten others on the Internet. And either I'm way off base here, boBB, or you have offered threats to those you feel have imposed their belief system on you.
I swore off boBB's posts awhile ago, but got sucked back in with his (subject) "feelings" post.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It is interesting to me that so many people seem baffled by boBB's response. Though his particular reasons are his particular reasons, and mine are mine, I find I often respond negatively to "compassion". To some people "compassion" can feel demeaning, diminishing. I understand many of the reasons why this is true for me, and they are not all that surprising. Since it is obvious that most people on this site are sincerely interested in expanding their understanding of human behavior, dismissing boBB's response could represent a missed opportunity for such expansion. I'm suggesting that a negative response to what some would call compassion is not as aberrant as you may believe, and could be interesting to think about. It could also be profitable to think about our own styles of expressing compassion, as well as the content of that expression.
> P.S. I was just reminded of that cliched, popular complaint women were said to make about men a few years back. It was said that when women expressed their frustrations, fears, problems to males, the males invariably offered "solutions". Women, said those in the know, just wanted the guys to listen. (I always thought the gender issue was bogus, because both men and women seem to make this mistake with equal frequency, but I do believe it is usually a mistake.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I should have known that he wouldn't want any kind-hearted responses to his 'soul bearing'. What I can't figure out is why he bothered to answer Tina's question in the first place. Why would he want us to know how he feels, if he doesn't want us to care? I don't understand, he wants us to care about the "causes" he cares about, but he gets offended if we care about him.
> > ......whatever....I'm done...CarolAnn
Posted by boBB on May 28, 2000, at 18:05:14
In reply to Re: Thanks for the reminder, Kathie..., posted by brian on May 28, 2000, at 13:26:19
Thanks, claire 7 and brian, I figured some people would get it, eventually. Some of the responses to my self-expression were not supportive, they questioned the wisdom of my having learned to abide emotional pain.
The gouge your eyes comment was not strictly parrallel to the Bible's "If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out" passage. I take the biblical passage to refer to a wandering, lustful eye - at least that is the way most preachers explain the popular translation of the greek phrase. I choose that form of stark speech because it gets to the heart of the matter most effectively. The pseudobiblical choice of language provided me with an easy way to defend a style of speech that has been accepted (more or less, depending on who is the speaker) for centuries. Indeed, my rough paraphrase turned a pedantic Sunday morning platitude into a hard-hitting literary device. I could have said "if you don't like what you see don't look," but I was responding between tasks at work, and the person who was responding to my posts seemed to be just as swift. This all happend in a few hours time.
The issues here were deep and it was about all I could do to express the depth of my feelings, I needed somebody else to jump in and say its okay to be who I am - not so much for my sake but for the sake of people who are like me. Until the tide of battle turned against me, it was not likely that any one else would stand with me - the people likely to defend me in this are probably not likely to step into someone else's battle unneccessarily. I had a hunch emotional escalation would serve to let people deride my manner of speech in a futile effort to avoid confronting the content, and that others would stand up then to clarify the content.
I was not looking for therapy by answering Tina's question. I was trying to explain as succinctly as possible that I feel just as bad as many of the people on this board. In as much as accepting these feelings and sublimating them to a constructive social purpose is therapuetic, I was attempting to support anyone who might feel as I do, that they are suffering long term sadness for a reason, not because it is a disease but because things are very very wrong in our world. It would not be fair of me to constantly say to people wrought with distress that they should live with it. If they want to take drugs and be happy, more power to them. Maybe I did that or will do that sometime. But it is indeed very supportive of me to publicly share my way of coping, which has been practiced by billions more people throughout history than the few million who have experimented with psych drugs. Those who disagree with me would be less likely to get bitten if they discuss the matter in third person terms.
For tina, thanks for your sincere apology, but this kind of conflict is nothing new to me. I can handle it, and if I can't, I am prepared to suffer the consequences. In the end, a few more people are talking more supportively of me, and there are probably people reading who don't chime in that feel like I do. Your question served a purpose.
If I could share the whole story, another dramatic development occured related to one of the list of pains I shared - and it had nothing to do with me changing things in my life. If it had to do with anything here, it might have been when someone or someones secretly used the power of their own minds to push things along. Magical thinking might not sell well here, and correlation does not prove causation. I don't want to be more specific about what happened, but I did not in anyway try to make it happen. It doesn't solve anything either - this development opens a whole new set of difficulties for me and for others. But it happened. Pray hard, people.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 30, 2000, at 1:12:06
In reply to Re: boBB is so wrong, posted by boBB on May 27, 2000, at 14:06:23
> I am not excusing myself. I am saying your definition of civility excludes me from your civilization. I do not consider exclusion to be civil.
Well, I do. In some cases.
> I am considering retiring this moniker from use at this site... If more dishonesty on my part would make me seem more civilized, I can divide myself into any number of anonymous identities. But there seems to be too much recurring interest in my perspective to abandon those who are lurking and who sometimes show interest in my contributions.
1. If you could restrict your incivility to one moniker, then we'd be all set, I could just block it and we could move on. :-)
2. One consequence of how this site currently works is that it's possible that some "recurring interest" is from other "identities" of your own.
Bob
Posted by boBB on May 30, 2000, at 10:35:10
In reply to Re: boBB is so..., posted by Dr. Bob on May 30, 2000, at 1:12:06
> 2. One consequence of how this site currently works is that it's possible that some "recurring interest" is from other "identities" of your own.
>
> BobThat could be an effective tactic, but it is not one I am using on this site. You can check ISP numbers associated with this boBB perona on your server and you will see that my posts under a few other identies do not talk back to each other. I am not so impassioned with this at this point to bother masking my ISP number, either.
I looked back through several months of archives and I notice the dialogue recently has taken some new directions. The "drug-related violence" posts by Cam and Scott Schofield are exactly what I wanted to hear. Some of bob's posts on the nature of science, disease, meds and language are making a lot of sense to. Many of the respondants are regulars here, and don't always support me, but sometimes explain what I am trying to understand in better terms than I can find. Sorry it takes so much writhing to provoke this sort of discussion, but I never know what is going to work and what is not.
I don't mean to interfere with the "effexor makes me groggy" nature of this board, but I am watching some very disturbing things here in real life, and I am not afraid to kick a few doors in an effort to get to the bottom of it. I've said to you in private e-mail, I realize how this tests your professional obligations. Obviously, I consider these topics to be very critical problems. Do what you have to do, but don't write me off as someone who is not a very serious, gravely concerned player.
Maybe we can see how "boBB" does, but its the same "software" no matter what name I use. I am using that name less just because I think it causes a bit of an adrenaline reaction now in some readers.
Posted by claire 7 on May 30, 2000, at 12:47:27
In reply to Re: boBB is so..., posted by Dr. Bob on May 30, 2000, at 1:12:06
I hope we're not going to have to start proving we're not boBB whenever we agree with him, or say things that boBB might conceivably agree with.
Posted by claire 7 on May 30, 2000, at 14:04:14
In reply to Re: boBB is so..., posted by Dr. Bob on May 30, 2000, at 1:12:06
Despite your qualifiers, this tends to invalidate the posts of people who indicate an interest in boBB's perceptions. Perhaps you could reassure me that that was not your intention.
> 2. One consequence of how this site currently works is that it's possible that some "recurring interest" is from other "identities" of your own.
>
> Bob
Posted by firstfred on May 30, 2000, at 14:34:56
In reply to Re: boBB is so..., posted by Dr. Bob on May 30, 2000, at 1:12:06
> > I am not excusing myself. I am saying your definition of civility excludes me from your civilization. I do not consider exclusion to be civil.
>
> Well, I do. In some cases.
>
> > I am considering retiring this moniker from use at this site... If more dishonesty on my part would make me seem more civilized, I can divide myself into any number of anonymous identities. But there seems to be too much recurring interest in my perspective to abandon those who are lurking and who sometimes show interest in my contributions.
>
> 1. If you could restrict your incivility to one moniker, then we'd be all set, I could just block it and we could move on. :-)
>
Can all my monikers but fred come back through my blocked
computer?
> 2. One consequence of how this site currently works is that it's possible that some "recurring interest" is from other "identities" of your own.But you don't have any proof of that , so is it civil
to keep posting your unsupported speculations?>
fred
>PS I'm not boBB. Are you noa? The simplest
way to straighten these things out is just to
ask. ;-)
Posted by Noa on May 30, 2000, at 15:02:56
In reply to Re:A Vast Babbling Conspiracy, Dr B?, posted by firstfred on May 30, 2000, at 14:34:56
I am me. I am unsure of lots of things but of this I am sure.
Posted by claire 7 on May 30, 2000, at 20:22:26
In reply to Re: boBB is so..., posted by Dr. Bob on May 30, 2000, at 1:12:06
I'm not kidding, and I'm not boBB. This is very weird, surreal, and I think, a serious issue. Let's face it, we're not the most stable people in the world, and to have our identities questioned, and to know that our opinions might be dismissed because they might not be our opinions---this is unsettling to say the least.
boBB, though I don't blame you for this weirdness, I think maybe it would be a generous gesture if you collapsed your identities into one for a while, till this gets cleared up.
Posted by allisonm on May 30, 2000, at 20:58:10
In reply to Re: boBB is so..., posted by claire 7 on May 30, 2000, at 20:22:26
> I'm not kidding, and I'm not boBB. This is very weird, surreal, and I think, a serious issue. Let's face it, we're not the most stable people in the world, and to have our identities questioned, and to know that our opinions might be dismissed because they might not be our opinions---this is unsettling to say the least.
This is cyberspace. No one may be as they seem. Everyone one can be anyone and it's not the first time someone has used more than one moniker here. It's up to the reader to decide what and whom to believe. As Dr. Bob says at the top of the page, don't (necessarily) believe everything you hear.Until Bill Gates comes up with some software that makes it even easier for anyone and everyone to track anyone and everyone else, we'll have to rely upon and trust others' good intentions. Personally, I prefer more anonymity. I hate cookies et al.
Further, boBB's posts under other names are rather apparent. Or at least some of them are to me. See, for example, clever Aunt B's reply in the Jung thread. Reads like classic boBB to me. People have certain writing styles. It takes some effort to change them. If boBB wants to take the time to sound like someone else, that's his problem and wasted time. I don't really care.
Just my $.03.
Allison M. (absolutely not boBB)
Posted by boBB on May 31, 2000, at 0:05:28
In reply to boBB is so...boBB, posted by allisonm on May 30, 2000, at 20:58:10
Thanks allison. That is the way I saw it. This is an opportune time, and I intend to do my best to use it well.
claire7 is really kind too, though, and I don't want to do wrong by her. There is a sense of community here I don't want to upset.
But I don't want an apparently open discussion to subtly or covertly exclude some viewpoints. allison wasn't warned for bumping James Watt with a hammered dulcimer. Dr. Bob's defense of ECT a while back seemed rather accusatory of some doctors.
I'm really not out to get Dr. Bob by any means, either. Referees get yelled at in lots of games. Players get thrown out. We'll see how it goes. Referees get thrown out of the ring in WWF.
I'm gonna try to include my e-mail address more, then any private stuff might be more likely to happen off-board. No promises - verbal jujitsu can get rough, but it doesn't have to be. I'm definately not here to beat up anyone, or to prove I'm tough, and I don't want to dominate the board. But I am definately not just here to have fun, and I don't want to be feeble in my support of people who might not be getting any other support. I am really interested in Cam's and Scott's perspective in this drug-related violence thread, not for THEIR perspective (whoever they are) but to better understand who WE are, as a people. That is why I am here. There are people who can't articulate their concerns, for various reasons, and they need support, too.
Aunt B? obviously boBBesque.
andrew? definately, but I forgot there is Andrew B, who apparently is not suffering from boBB disorder.
rupert? yep. me.
but I am not william. Don't know what's up with that. What tangled Webs we weave. I have seen blank-post and repeat posts cascade until they propelled other sites to the top of common search engines. But that would break the flow, here.
fred, or firstfred? absolutely not.
Fred Stone? oops - maybe, or maybe it is a friend of boBB. There I go again. I'll hang with boBB for a while and see how it goes. Maybe try to hang back a little. (yeh, right!)
I'll *try* not to make Dr. feel like he needs to grab his referee shirt.
> > I'm not kidding, and I'm not boBB. This is very weird, surreal, and I think, a serious issue. Let's face it, we're not the most stable people in the world, and to have our identities questioned, and to know that our opinions might be dismissed because they might not be our opinions---this is unsettling to say the least.
>
>
> This is cyberspace. No one may be as they seem. Everyone one can be anyone and it's not the first time someone has used more than one moniker here. It's up to the reader to decide what and whom to believe. As Dr. Bob says at the top of the page, don't (necessarily) believe everything you hear.
>
> Until Bill Gates comes up with some software that makes it even easier for anyone and everyone to track anyone and everyone else, we'll have to rely upon and trust others' good intentions. Personally, I prefer more anonymity. I hate cookies et al.
>
> Further, boBB's posts under other names are rather apparent. Or at least some of them are to me. See, for example, clever Aunt B's reply in the Jung thread. Reads like classic boBB to me. People have certain writing styles. It takes some effort to change them. If boBB wants to take the time to sound like someone else, that's his problem and wasted time. I don't really care.
>
> Just my $.03.
>
> Allison M. (absolutely not boBB)
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 31, 2000, at 0:06:06
In reply to Re: boBB is so..., posted by claire 7 on May 30, 2000, at 20:22:26
> I'm not kidding, and I'm not boBB. This is very weird, surreal, and I think, a serious issue.
I agree, and this is one reason for the registration system.
The more information you provide when you register, the less anonymous and more distinct you are. I hope to move registration to a secure connection so people will be more comfortable providing more information (to me, at least).
I think I'd like to discourage multiple identities. I know it's controversial, but a registration fee would do that. Not everyone would be willing to pay, but I wonder if the tradeoff might be worth it.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 31, 2000, at 0:16:51
In reply to Re:A Vast Babbling Conspiracy, Dr B?, posted by firstfred on May 30, 2000, at 14:34:56
> > 2. One consequence of how this site currently works is that it's possible that some "recurring interest" is from other "identities" of your own.
>
> But you don't have any proof of that , so is it civil
> to keep posting your unsupported speculations?There, I was just pointing out the possibility. At other times, I do have evidence for my "speculations".
One reason I'd like to discourage multiple identities is that then this won't make me so paranoid.
Bob
Posted by claire 7 on May 31, 2000, at 0:55:30
In reply to Re: boBB-type issues and registration, posted by Dr. Bob on May 31, 2000, at 0:06:06
Dr Bob's solutions are not at all what I had in mind. I think a fee is a terrible idea, and anonymity and privacy (revelation of e-mail address a choice, not a requirement) are necessary. What I was really objecting to was Dr Bob's earlier suggestion that some of the recurring interest in boBB's perceptions may be a sham perpetrated by boBB. I felt this tended, intentionally or not, to devalue boBB's posts as well as posts supporting boBB. Of course it was obvious that AuntandAndrewb were boBB, so I didn't think Dr Bob's comment was entirely helpful.
Posted by harry b. on May 31, 2000, at 9:49:59
In reply to Re: boBB-type issues and registration, posted by claire 7 on May 31, 2000, at 0:55:30
Registration fees AND a requirement to provide
personal information? No, thanks. My comfort
level here would be lost. Users would be less
willing to post pleas for help or speak of sensitive
issues.Many people find and turn to this board in crisis
or near crisis situations, I know I did. Are we
going to turn them away? Are we going to say to
them "give Dr. Bob your silver and your identity,
then you may post and we will offer succor?"boBB can post under any name he chooses, I don't
have a problem with that.
Posted by Noa on May 31, 2000, at 15:01:29
In reply to Re: boBB-type issues and registration, posted by harry b. on May 31, 2000, at 9:49:59
Gee, Dr. Bob, it would seem a shame to require personal info or a registration fee. I am fairly certain I never would have begun to participate here if that had been required at the time that I joined. I don't like to buy anything online, give credit info or anything. I know to a more cybersavvy person this sounds a bit neanderthal, but that is how I am. The anonymity here is part of what makes it safe.
As for folks who are determined to stir things up and execute identity pranks, well, I am not happy about that either, but perhaps there are other ways to deal with it.
Posted by Greg on May 31, 2000, at 16:20:07
In reply to Re: boBB is so..., posted by Dr. Bob on May 30, 2000, at 1:12:06
Nice to see that some things haven't changed since I went on vacation.....
> > I am not excusing myself. I am saying your definition of civility excludes me from your civilization. I do not consider exclusion to be civil.
>
> Well, I do. In some cases.
>
> > I am considering retiring this moniker from use at this site... If more dishonesty on my part would make me seem more civilized, I can divide myself into any number of anonymous identities. But there seems to be too much recurring interest in my perspective to abandon those who are lurking and who sometimes show interest in my contributions.
>
> 1. If you could restrict your incivility to one moniker, then we'd be all set, I could just block it and we could move on. :-)
>
> 2. One consequence of how this site currently works is that it's possible that some "recurring interest" is from other "identities" of your own.
>
> Bob
Go forward in 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.