![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 50 to 74 of 80. Go back in thread:
Posted by Adam on May 31, 2000, at 20:56:45
In reply to Are we done yet?, posted by boBB on May 31, 2000, at 19:50:51
Well, to move the debate along, boBB, I haven't found your posts to be offensive so much as, at times,
inscrutable and a little in-your-face. More careful reading would have solved some of those problems, and
as for other problems, well, I don't know.I guess the question might go back to the very nature of this board as Dr. Bob's space, ultimately. I have
no problem with that. If he makes the rules, they haven't gotten in my way of making very good use of this
space, primarily gathering and sharing information, and getting or giving a little emotional support now
and then.I suppose philosophical debates and the resultant polemics have sprung up from time to time. It would
appear that the vast majority of such discourse has met the standard of "civility". So again I say, what
cause have we to complain, and what should make us think it is not our privilege but our right to post
whatever we want in any manner we want here?Also, YOU won't reveal your identity. Why should Dr. Bob reveal the identities of those he disagrees with?
You claim to divulge personal information would threaten your life. Fair enough. For Dr. Bob to name
names in this forum might threaten his livelihood, and, by extension, the very existance of this board. We
are taking the rather prodigious leap of faith that you are some kind of vigilante warrior. How big of a
leap is it to suppose some doctors don't see eye to eye, or that their identities should be any of our
business?So, yeah, I'm done debating what should be done with your feelings. Anyway, you seem to be saying that
the best way to be your friend is to go get my ass kicked for the cause. Since I have quite literally
gotten my ass kicked on numerous occasions, sometimes just for standing up for myself, I guess we are
somehow on a similar plain (if I may be so bold), though not in the same echelon.Now, SECURITY: It seems there is a desire not so much to censor as to regulate, rationalize, and protect.
That means when I post, I can't go around spewing hateful filth, whatever I post others know who posted it
to some extent, and that somebody else can't go around using my name to post stuff that I didn't say. I'm
having a difficult time finding anything unreasonable about this. True, I might lose the ability to post
as Eve whenever I wanted, and this might cramp my style a little, but I've endured worse in life, and it's
most readily evident that so have you.Again, lets all not be paranoid, or misplace our trust: A registration system for Psychobabble might
actually IMPROVE our security (if implemented the right way) and make the majority of us happier to post
here without having any negative impact on our ability to express whatever we want. There is an enormous
amount of information out there on us already just waiting for someone to mine it. Given a realistic cost-
benefit analysis, does giving out our name, email address, and a small fee to Psychobabble amount to such
an unacceptable compromise of our security that the idea should be abandoned? After all, the mere fact
that we have posted here may mean that this information is already available to those who wish to look,
depending on how careful we have been to cover our tracks.So, how careful have you been up to now?
> Dr. Bob wrote: “Please try not to say anything that could be taken as accusatory”
>
> Dr. Bob wrote: “And some doctors probably have outdated ideas....”
>
> Dr. Bob wrote: “Some doctors are probably afraid of how their patients would react....”
>
> I ask: Which doctors? Would it be libelous if Dr. Bob named these doctors, and published these allegations of specific licensed physicians? Even so, boBB would likely defend Dr. Bob’s right to criticize. But could we please allow those doctors to respond?
> __________________________________
>
> Someone asked boBB how he feels, and he replied honestly. Someone politely offered further nonjudgmental listening, which boBB declined, attempting instead to briefly explain his personal method of coping, and his personal sense of hope. Succinctly, boBB wrote: “Its not about me.”
>
> boBB wrote, “I find satisfaction sharing their suffering,”
>
> Compassion is derived from words meaning “to suffer with.” It is defined in a modern dictionary as sharing a feeling of sorrow. boBB sincerely related that the best way to show compassion toward him is to direct it elsewhere. That is the ONLY way ANYONE can share boBB’s sorrow, and because boBB does not feel not sorry for himself.
>
> boBB said he is lonely, poor and tired. boBB grew up singing songs every Sunday that said “I am weak, I am poor, I am blind.” Despite this endless thread in reaction to his honesty and to his expression of a growing weariness of living (aging?), boBB is not sorry to have been boBB, to have been human, to have been animal, and to have been muddy, confused dirt writhing with DNA. That is human.
>
> But someone quickly replied again: “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?”
>
> boBB again wrote, more emphatically, but patiently: “It's not about me. Drop it."
>
> After twice being asked to leave it alone, the same person replied: “I was talking about allowing yourself to ...( meet emotional needs, after boBB explicitly explained how he meets his emotional needs)...that if you did so, maybe you would actually have more strength....”
>
> After repeated unwanted analysis of boBB’s needs and his health he wrote “*IF* you don't want to see how I feel *I suggest...*”
>
> That was not a threat by any legal standard. It is an obviously allegorical and impractical suggestion to a person who is either healthy enough to understand it, perhaps too unfamiliar with therapeutic methods to offer qualified advice to an unreceptive client, or determined to impose advice on people even after they repeatedly declined. boBB’s statement is crudely patterned after a category of therapeutic techniques that involve imagined exaggeration of a symptom or a reaction to a symptom. It is expressed in a rhetorical style has been in use for 2,000 years.
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> The resident pharmacist wrote: “I, myself would risk the aggression/violence/suicidal side effects of medications; if only to enjoy a nice sunny day.”
>
> He offered a well qualified analysis that such side effects might result from as many as one in ten administrations of certain psychotropic medications “Yes, I agree that some people (about 10%) do get akasthesia-like or aggression as a side effect of a number of medications.”
>
> Dr. Bob wrote: “please don't suggest that anyone do anything self-destructive.”
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> • a doctor accuses other unnamed doctors of poor judgment
> • a pharmacist says he would risk suicide or violence to enjoy a sunny day.
> • a working journalist sincerely asks a person requesting that a journalist share his worst feelings to direct their sincere concern elsewhere, if only for the purpose of further relieving the journalist’s suffering.
> • another poster, who declines to disclose their occupation, repeatedly posts unwanted personal advice to the journalist, even after the journalist three times says no.
> _____________________________
>
> What the rules now seem to say is “Please, correctly anticipate and adhere to Dr. Bob’s definition of civility. Do not refer to popular culture as a guide to acceptable speech.”
>
> But the rules here also seem to infer that any contributors who do not anticipate Dr. Bob’s definition of civility are not civil. He is saying that his values and his definition of civility is so universal that anyone here should anticipate which accusations are appropriate, which acceptances of suicidal risk or violence are appropriate, and which common rhetorical devices are inappropriate. No doubt, to enforce such a self-styled system, he needs a registration and screening process.
>
> I am saying my statements were typically civil by the standards of many communities I frequent. A registration would do little to prevent someone intent on disrupting this board. If anyone was intent on acting uncivil here, there are disruptive tactics a person could use simply by operating the board as it is now arranged, or with a registration system - by clicking the right buttons, over and over. Obviously, I am not using these tactics, nor continuing to make the kind of statements that seem to violate Dr. Bob’s rules, unless the rules are going to be redefined again next week.
>
> We don’t have concrete barriers down the middle of most highways - we have various yellow and white lines, which most of us understand and follow, even when we are a little upset. We can trust people to generally be civil, if we don’t presume to dictate a narrow definition of civility and if we show some patience while a constantly changing community continually negotiates a common definition.
>
> If Dr. Bob chooses to further restrict use of this board at this time, this archive will remain. Generations of sociology grad students will enjoy the opportunity to analyze the dialogue that preceded such a move.
Posted by Janice on May 31, 2000, at 21:15:25
In reply to Re: Are we done yet?, posted by Adam on May 31, 2000, at 20:56:45
I agree and you spoke for me. Janice
Posted by boBb on June 1, 2000, at 0:04:45
In reply to Re: Are we done yet?, posted by Adam on May 31, 2000, at 20:56:45
One: My brief polemic about which you are now ranting and raving was hardly “spewing hateful filth.” It was very close to what is taught on Sunday morning, an environment where I was forced to spend one of every seven days until I was old enough to know better. If thine eye offend the, pluck it out. It was said in reference to a direct statement to myself, after I had twice asked the person to not concern themself with my personal way of managing my feelings.
Two: no, I never came close to suggesting that you should your ass kicked for anybody. In fact, it was our resident pharmacist who most recently boasted of fighting for sport in martial arts tournaments. What’s with your language anyway. (”Anyway, you seem to be saying that the best way to be your friend is to go get my ass kicked for the cause”) I said, quite plainly, though you choose to twist beyond reason whatever I tried very sincerely, persistently and honestly to say, that one person who offered to listen to me would help me by listening to people who need it far more; that fixing me is not a worthy cause - I’m fine with me, but there is plenty suffering around that does really need attention. Is that too hard to understand? Christ!Three: I never said anything I post here is going to threaten my life. To return to the direct accusations for which I was warned, you, Adam, are demonstrating the worst of insensitive behaviors often demonstrated by mental health workers by twisting my genuine and well considered explanations, you wrote: “You claim to divulge personal information would threaten your life.” Please search my posts and document your allegation. I said, rather obtusely, that to post under my real name might damage my bi-line and to make direct admissions of illegal drug use on the internet could serve as basis for a search warrant. To thicken the plot, if when such a hypothetical search warrant were served, I had as a guest in my house a source in a news story who happend to be in possession of an illegal aminergine, I could be criminally liable. When challenged about how I could possibly know what goes into an affidavit for a warrant, I explained that, as a journalist, I read such documents, and know the basis for many warrants. That was in a discussion in which we were comparing illegal aminergines to legal aminergines.
Four: you wrote that: “We are taking the rather prodigious leap of faith that you are some kind of vigilante warrior” I am exactly what I am. Well, yes, in my state and many others, there are people using the phrase “leaderless resistance.” But I encountered the style many years ago, when Arlo Guthrie, son of the renowned activist/folk singer Woodie Guthrie was touring, yes, in the mid-west. He said in the early 1980’s that mass movements had become so misdirected and watered down, that people need to learn to act on their own. Well, golly jee. But isn’t learning to act on our own - to be self directed, the goal of psychotherapy, and the essential spice of democracy?
Five: I have repeatedly acknowledged that some people know who I am, for what that is worth. I am basically interested in protecting myself from the likes of you, Adam, who apparently are unable or unwilling to accurately represent the substance of what I offer you when you reply. I would have a hard time hiring you in my newsroom. I would have very a hard time trusting you with my identity. Who knows where you might choose to slander me.
Five: you asked "How big of a leap is it to suppose some doctors don't see eye to eye, or that their identities should be any of our business?" Well, I am concerned that one particular psychiatric doctor might use his position of power at a university funded by an unlawful oil monopoly to discourage patients from trusting their family physician when that physician attempts to exercise a lawful obligation to warn patients about contraindications of a procedure. If you really need to fight about it, perhaps I should consider recommending him to his state medical arts licensing board for an ethical review. Then he will be in a forum where someone else gets to make up the rules.
Apparently, those who advocate meds and the medical model enjoy the benefit of a referee here, and the rest of us can expect to be mugged. You, Adam, seem to represent a group of well educated individuals who are unable to manage there personal aggression, and are unable to back off once you smell blood in the water. Get out your credit card, type in the numbers and rule this site. I hope that brings you some satisfaction.The main problem with jumping to another level of restriction now is not that it would insult me. Who the H**l am I, anyway? It is that it demeans the site by diverting the discussion toward one of how things are said rather than what is being said.
Posted by Cam W. on June 1, 2000, at 0:23:33
In reply to Are we done yet?, posted by boBB on May 31, 2000, at 19:50:51
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> The resident pharmacist wrote: “I, myself would risk the aggression/violence/suicidal side effects of medications; if only to enjoy a nice sunny day.”
>
> He offered a well qualified analysis that such side effects might result from as many as one in ten administrations of certain psychotropic medications “Yes, I agree that some people (about 10%) do get akasthesia-like or aggression as a side effect of a number of medications.”
>
> Dr. Bob wrote: “please don't suggest that anyone do anything self-destructive.”
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> • a doctor accuses other unnamed doctors of poor judgment
> • a pharmacist says he would risk suicide or violence to enjoy a sunny day.
> • a working journalist sincerely asks a person requesting that a journalist share his worst feelings to direct their sincere concern elsewhere, if only for the purpose of further relieving the journalist’s suffering.
> • another poster, who declines to disclose their occupation, repeatedly posts unwanted personal advice to the journalist, even after the journalist three times says no.
> _____________________________Your right. It is over. I'm outta here. I don't like your accusations and insinuations. All you do and piss people off. I don't need it. Bye. - Cam
Posted by Adam on June 1, 2000, at 1:54:31
In reply to Get off it. Really! » Adam, posted by boBb on June 1, 2000, at 0:04:45
Goodness!
>
> One: My brief polemic about which you are now ranting and raving was hardly “spewing hateful filth.” It was very close to what is taught on Sunday morning, an environment where I was forced to spend one of every seven days until I was old enough to know better. If thine eye offend the, pluck it out. It was said in reference to a direct statement to myself, after I had twice asked the person to not concern themself with my personal way of managing my feelings.I never said it was. Others have spewed hateful filth here, though, and the posts were removed. I guess the fact that in
the same post I said I wasn't really offended by things you had said would indicate I wasn't accusing you of such transgressions.
>
>
> Two: no, I never came close to suggesting that you should your ass kicked for anybody. In fact, it was our resident pharmacist who most recently boasted of fighting for sport in martial arts tournaments. What’s with your language anyway. (”Anyway, you seem to be saying that the best way to be your friend is to go get my ass kicked for the cause”) I said, quite plainly, though you choose to twist beyond reason whatever I tried very sincerely, persistently and honestly to say, that one person who offered to listen to me would help me by listening to people who need it far more; that fixing me is not a worthy cause - I’m fine with me, but there is plenty suffering around that does really need attention. Is that too hard to understand? Christ!"People die in agony for
just cause - for causes you may not care about, but from which you likely benefit. I find satisfaction sharing their suffering,
and suffering for these “causes” is the best way you could lend me comfort."If this statement doesn't at least imply that one ought to get a can of whoop-ass opened up on
them to relate, I'm not sure what it does, then. All this talk of death and agony and war and
fighting and causes and so on sound like the musings of a self-styled Job, that's all. If all
you meant was to understand this torturous journey we must listen to people who have suffered,
why not just say so? And what's wrong with my language, anyway? Like you never used the F
word or whatever. Please.
>
> Three: I never said anything I post here is going to threaten my life. To return to the direct accusations for which I was warned, you, Adam, are demonstrating the worst of insensitive behaviors often demonstrated by mental health workers by twisting my genuine and well considered explanations, you wrote: “You claim to divulge personal information would threaten your life.” Please search my posts and document your allegation. I said, rather obtusely, that to post under my real name might damage my bi-line and to make direct admissions of illegal drug use on the internet could serve as basis for a search warrant. To thicken the plot, if when such a hypothetical search warrant were served, I had as a guest in my house a source in a news story who happend to be in possession of an illegal aminergine, I could be criminally liable. When challenged about how I could possibly know what goes into an affidavit for a warrant, I explained that, as a journalist, I read such documents, and know the basis for many warrants. That was in a discussion in which we were comparing illegal aminergines to legal aminergines.
>
Here's what you wrote:"I am certain ECHELON, the international electronic intelligence gathering contractor, can identify me. I am not famous, I just
have a certain edge that shows wherever I flash it. If I told you places, you might shudder with recognition. I don't identify
myself here mostly so I won't have to shut up. Otherwise I would be confronted in my daily life by my stances here and
elsewhere. Somebody likely knows. This isn't paranoia, it is low-intensity warfare. If it comes down to it, the daily normal job
goes and this fight over the franchise to medicine and over the human right to have food and safe shelter will always be my
main mission in life. I will give my life in a heartbeat to prosecute that war."I guess all this talk of "low-intensity warfare" and giving your life, alongside this weird ECHELON thing got
me thinking you were afraid the 'Net police were going to hunt you down and do something nasty to you. If you
don't want such misunderstandings to happen in the future, you might want to tone down the language in your
initial posts, to match the mitigated refutations.
> Four: you wrote that: “We are taking the rather prodigious leap of faith that you are some kind of vigilante warrior” I am exactly what I am. Well, yes, in my state and many others, there are people using the phrase “leaderless resistance.” But I encountered the style many years ago, when Arlo Guthrie, son of the renowned activist/folk singer Woodie Guthrie was touring, yes, in the mid-west. He said in the early 1980’s that mass movements had become so misdirected and watered down, that people need to learn to act on their own. Well, golly jee. But isn’t learning to act on our own - to be self directed, the goal of psychotherapy, and the essential spice of democracy?Umm, sure. Why does the fact that Arlo Guthrie said some things make you believable?
>
> Five: I have repeatedly acknowledged that some people know who I am, for what that is worth. I am basically interested in protecting myself from the likes of you, Adam, who apparently are unable or unwilling to accurately represent the substance of what I offer you when you reply. I would have a hard time hiring you in my newsroom. I would have very a hard time trusting you with my identity. Who knows where you might choose to slander me.Why on Earth would I bother to slander you? And like I have said above, I don't think it's an enormous stretch to interpret some
of your posts the way I have. It's the bombastics that are causing the problem, I think. Everything is expressed with such
grandiloquence, I can't resist images of Charlton Heston parting the waters.
>
>
> Five: you asked "How big of a leap is it to suppose some doctors don't see eye to eye, or that their identities should be any of our business?" Well, I am concerned that one particular psychiatric doctor might use his position of power at a university funded by an unlawful oil monopoly to discourage patients from trusting their family physician when that physician attempts to exercise a lawful obligation to warn patients about contraindications of a procedure. If you really need to fight about it, perhaps I should consider recommending him to his state medical arts licensing board for an ethical review. Then he will be in a forum where someone else gets to make up the rules.
>
I'm sorry, but this is almost comical. I think many p-docs feel that the specialty of psychopharmacology
might be best left to psychopharmacologists, just like they're not going to go around claiming to be
experts in nephrology or something. As for where the U of Chicago gets its money, I can't see why that
is necessarily a reflection of the character of someone who works there. Hell, I live in a country stolen
from Native Americans and built with the toil of slaves. I am the direct beneficiary of racism and genocide.
Who is free from guilt by association? At some point you have to just live and do your job and try to be
a good person. Anyway, I'm sure U of C gets all kinds of "legitimate" funds too. What should we focus on?>
> Apparently, those who advocate meds and the medical model enjoy the benefit of a referee here, and the rest of us can expect to be mugged. You, Adam, seem to represent a group of well educated individuals who are unable to manage there personal aggression, and are unable to back off once you smell blood in the water. Get out your credit card, type in the numbers and rule this site. I hope that brings you some satisfaction.
>
Smell blood? What? Anyway, I acknowlege medicine because it finally managed to help me after about ten years
of lackluster results, and some possible exacerbations of my condition. I'm not a blind fanatic, and I have my
share of questions and concerns. I just feel that there are good doctors and not-so-good ones, and that's about
all there is to it. I have been my own advocate in all the times where medicine has helped me. I could hardly
be called an advocate of all medicine. And who said anything about ruling the site? No one is silencing you
as it is, they're just refuting you. The problems registration hopes to address are, I am convinced, not limited
to or even primarily about your behavior. There have been other problems. I think your use of many pseudonyms
just highlights the concern about unrestricted use of names, where confusion and misappropriation of others'
identities would cause confusion and harm. This doesn't seem all that sinister, that's all.> The main problem with jumping to another level of restriction now is not that it would insult me. Who the H**l am I, anyway? It is that it demeans the site by diverting the discussion toward one of how things are said rather than what is being said.
I'm just not following this. There's virtually no restriction now, and no reason to believe things would change in
any radical way. Why not wait and see, or consider some of the benefits of registration? Why be so negative about
it until you see whether or not there really is a problem? I like the idea that certain foul behaviour could be
dealt with (I'm talking the truly caustic stuff, stuff meant only to hurt, not intelligent (or unintelligent) debate
over something.)
Posted by Noa on June 1, 2000, at 7:52:24
In reply to Re: Are we done yet? » boBB, posted by Cam W. on June 1, 2000, at 0:23:33
Cam, I hope you aren't leaving babble altogether.
Posted by Cindy W on June 1, 2000, at 9:53:53
In reply to Re: Are we done yet?--to CAM, posted by Noa on June 1, 2000, at 7:52:24
> Cam, I hope you aren't leaving babble altogether.
Cam, I agree with Noa! Wish everybody would just ignore the "flame wars" some people like to start, just to get a rise out of others. This board is too valuable and everyone on it is too valuable to waste time with that. How about letting this thread lapse and go back to talking about depression and how to live happier lives?--Cindy W
Posted by Janice on June 1, 2000, at 12:02:25
In reply to Re: Are we done yet? » boBB, posted by Cam W. on June 1, 2000, at 0:23:33
I hope you don't mean forever. You've probably helped more people here than any single individual.
take care, Janice
ps Haven't you had experience with the media before?
Hey, Aren't you going on vacation soon?
Posted by shar on June 1, 2000, at 21:18:05
In reply to Re: Are we done yet?--to CAM, posted by Cindy W on June 1, 2000, at 9:53:53
Cam,
Someone signed on as you and wrote that you were "outta here" and scared everyone (well, maybe all but one).Sure would be a different world here without you, and your accurate information, especially to those of us who can't make sense of the small print enclosed with our meds!
S
Posted by bob on June 1, 2000, at 21:28:02
In reply to Re: Get off it. Really!, posted by Adam on June 1, 2000, at 1:54:31
A sentiment I can agree with wholeheartedly.
Pardon my sermonizing, folks, but it takes a minimum of two for a fight, and we've been seeing a rather lop-sided one here lately. As I like to say my grandma told me, when you go pointing a finger, there are three pointing back at you ... and I'm just as guilty as anyone else in this matter.
But how should we expect someone to act when they get pushed into a corner not just by one or two, but by a crowd? I don't care what rationalizations or justifications anyone on anyside has here, the pushing is still going on.
It should not need pointing out, but there is no "ignore" filter built into this (or any) website -- the filter is in your own head.
And it only works when YOU choose to use it.
If someone calls you a horse's ass or worse, you go a far sight better at disproving that accusation by not responding. So if you can't turn the IGNORE switch on and you JUST HAVE TO read that next message -- consider the source (which should works for both/all sides here, given the level of mutual disrespect exhibited), and then perhaps you can walk away with a grin instead of responding with a grimace.
Consider the source and ignore it.
Now, can we please get off of this topic?
If you feel some need to respond to me, you know where my email address is, otherwise, this dead horse has been whipped enough and is in serious need of burial.
If you want to place any bets on whether or not this will be the last response on this thread, you got my email address for that, too. Right now, odds are running 50-to-1 AGAINST.
cheers,
preacher bob, the designated "self-appointed" traffic cop (and bookie) of Babbleland[you know how HARD it is to fit that on a business card?]
Posted by brian on June 1, 2000, at 21:52:57
In reply to Get off it. Really! (and Amen to that!), posted by bob on June 1, 2000, at 21:28:02
> A sentiment I can agree with wholeheartedly.
>
> Pardon my sermonizing, folks, but it takes a minimum of two for a fight, and we've been seeing a rather lop-sided one here lately. As I like to say my grandma told me, when you go pointing a finger, there are three pointing back at you ... and I'm just as guilty as anyone else in this matter.
>
> But how should we expect someone to act when they get pushed into a corner not just by one or two, but by a crowd? I don't care what rationalizations or justifications anyone on anyside has here, the pushing is still going on.
>
> It should not need pointing out, but there is no "ignore" filter built into this (or any) website -- the filter is in your own head.
>
> And it only works when YOU choose to use it.
>> If someone calls you a horse's ass or worse, you go a far sight better at disproving that accusation by not responding. So if you can't turn the IGNORE switch on and you JUST HAVE TO read that next message -- consider the source (which should works for both/all sides here, given the level of mutual disrespect exhibited), and then perhaps you can walk away with a grin instead of responding with a grimace.
>
> Consider the source and ignore it.
>
> Now, can we please get off of this topic?
>
> If you feel some need to respond to me, you know where my email address is, otherwise, this dead horse has been whipped enough and is in serious need of burial.
>
> If you want to place any bets on whether or not this will be the last response on this thread, you got my email address for that, too. Right now, odds are running 50-to-1 AGAINST.
>
> cheers,
> preacher bob, the designated "self-appointed" traffic cop (and bookie) of Babbleland
>
> [you know how HARD it is to fit that on a business card?]
I'll take those odds. ;~)
Posted by Adam on June 2, 2000, at 14:10:16
In reply to Get off it. Really! (and Amen to that!), posted by bob on June 1, 2000, at 21:28:02
OK, BUT, I do think the issue of security and whether or not it is a good idea to have a more involved system of registration is one still worthy of discussion. My concerns about registration actually have nothing to do with boBB, though I'm guessing he has much more that is of value to say on the subject. I'm kind of interested in the nitty-gritty aspects of encryption and its possible utilization here, how much info we've already, perhaps inadvertantly, divulged, etc. Another thread for that? Shall we take a vote?
> A sentiment I can agree with wholeheartedly.
>
> Pardon my sermonizing, folks, but it takes a minimum of two for a fight, and we've been seeing a rather lop-sided one here lately. As I like to say my grandma told me, when you go pointing a finger, there are three pointing back at you ... and I'm just as guilty as anyone else in this matter.
>
> But how should we expect someone to act when they get pushed into a corner not just by one or two, but by a crowd? I don't care what rationalizations or justifications anyone on anyside has here, the pushing is still going on.
>
> It should not need pointing out, but there is no "ignore" filter built into this (or any) website -- the filter is in your own head.
>
> And it only works when YOU choose to use it.
>
> If someone calls you a horse's ass or worse, you go a far sight better at disproving that accusation by not responding. So if you can't turn the IGNORE switch on and you JUST HAVE TO read that next message -- consider the source (which should works for both/all sides here, given the level of mutual disrespect exhibited), and then perhaps you can walk away with a grin instead of responding with a grimace.
>
> Consider the source and ignore it.
>
> Now, can we please get off of this topic?
>
> If you feel some need to respond to me, you know where my email address is, otherwise, this dead horse has been whipped enough and is in serious need of burial.
>
> If you want to place any bets on whether or not this will be the last response on this thread, you got my email address for that, too. Right now, odds are running 50-to-1 AGAINST.
>
> cheers,
> preacher bob, the designated "self-appointed" traffic cop (and bookie) of Babbleland
>
> [you know how HARD it is to fit that on a business card?]
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 3, 2000, at 2:13:19
In reply to Get off it. Really! » Adam, posted by boBb on June 1, 2000, at 0:04:45
> My brief polemic about which you are now ranting and raving...
> you choose to twist beyond reason whatever I tried very sincerely, persistently and honestly to say...
> I would have a hard time hiring you in my newsroom. I would have very a hard time trusting you with my identity. Who knows where you might choose to slander me.
> You, Adam, seem to represent a group of well educated individuals who are unable to manage there personal aggression, and are unable to back off once you smell blood in the water.
I consider the above to go too far. Having already issued a warning before, I'm now going to block this "handle".
> Apparently, those who advocate meds and the medical model enjoy the benefit of a referee here, and the rest of us can expect to be mugged.
Well, that's one interpretation. :-)
Bob
Posted by Elizabeth on June 3, 2000, at 7:08:59
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by Dr. Bob on June 3, 2000, at 2:13:19
> > My brief polemic about which you are now ranting and raving...
>
> > you choose to twist beyond reason whatever I tried very sincerely, persistently and honestly to say...
>
> > I would have a hard time hiring you in my newsroom. I would have very a hard time trusting you with my identity. Who knows where you might choose to slander me.
>
> > You, Adam, seem to represent a group of well educated individuals who are unable to manage there personal aggression, and are unable to back off once you smell blood in the water.
>
> I consider the above to go too far. Having already issued a warning before, I'm now going to block this "handle".
>
> > Apparently, those who advocate meds and the medical model enjoy the benefit of a referee here, and the rest of us can expect to be mugged.
>
> Well, that's one interpretation. :-)
>
> BobBefore I discuss this thread (from an "I seem to have missed this flame war, but boy is it interesting reading" perspective), I'd like to ask a question of Dr. Bob and anyone else who knows more about psychology than I do. "Help-rejecting complaining" is listed among the common defense mechanisms in one of the appendices to DSM-IV (the appendices are definitely the most interesting part of that book). My question is: what purpose does this behavior serve? How does it defend?
On to my thoughts (which you're all of course free not to read if you're sick of this topic - I just found this discussion too interesting not to comment):
Isn't it ironic that bobb accuses Adam (of all people!) of uncontrolled aggression? I think so. I'd go so far as to say it is plain bizarre. Or not: twisting reality so as to style oneself as the downtrodden victim and another as the evil aggressor can sometimes be an effective way to get sympathy, to get people "on one's side." (Attacking someone for being educated also tends to set off my BS alarm.)
Uh-oh, I guess that I've just given bobb license to spew vitriol in my general direction for daring to make observations about his behavior - for focusing on an individual (especially this incredibly deep and complex individual - how dare I, unenlightened scum that I am?) rather than on "larger" problems. Well, that's okay. It has always been a weakness of mine that I am intrigued by the darker side of humanity as exemplified by particular behaviors. And, as someone (Cam, I think?) observed, how can one feel compassion for large groups when one does not recognize the importance of individuals who make up those groups? I think that bobb's focus (obsession?) on political problems is a red herring.
Bobb seems to consider himself especially insightful (e.g., he feels he understands The Truth which others here refuse to see) and thrives on pointing out others' faults (or perceived faults). It's been my observation, though, that "insight" which is directed at others only, never at oneself, is no insight at all.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is that "It" *is* about you, bobb. It is not possible for it to be otherwise, even if "It" is about something else as well.
Posted by Civilla T on June 3, 2000, at 12:40:00
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by Elizabeth on June 3, 2000, at 7:08:59
Remember,three fingers back atcha!;-)
Posted by Lurker on June 3, 2000, at 12:58:52
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by Elizabeth on June 3, 2000, at 7:08:59
Remember, boBB has many identities on this board (and new ones everyday) and some of them are quite useful and informative. We all have alter-egos that allow us to play a bit. Blocking one doesn't necessarily solve your problem. Maybe just letting it go would though.
> > > My brief polemic about which you are now ranting and raving...
> >
> > > you choose to twist beyond reason whatever I tried very sincerely, persistently and honestly to say...
> >
> > > I would have a hard time hiring you in my newsroom. I would have very a hard time trusting you with my identity. Who knows where you might choose to slander me.
> >
> > > You, Adam, seem to represent a group of well educated individuals who are unable to manage there personal aggression, and are unable to back off once you smell blood in the water.
> >
> > I consider the above to go too far. Having already issued a warning before, I'm now going to block this "handle".
> >
> > > Apparently, those who advocate meds and the medical model enjoy the benefit of a referee here, and the rest of us can expect to be mugged.
> >
> > Well, that's one interpretation. :-)
> >
> > Bob
>
> Before I discuss this thread (from an "I seem to have missed this flame war, but boy is it interesting reading" perspective), I'd like to ask a question of Dr. Bob and anyone else who knows more about psychology than I do. "Help-rejecting complaining" is listed among the common defense mechanisms in one of the appendices to DSM-IV (the appendices are definitely the most interesting part of that book). My question is: what purpose does this behavior serve? How does it defend?
>
> On to my thoughts (which you're all of course free not to read if you're sick of this topic - I just found this discussion too interesting not to comment):
>
> Isn't it ironic that bobb accuses Adam (of all people!) of uncontrolled aggression? I think so. I'd go so far as to say it is plain bizarre. Or not: twisting reality so as to style oneself as the downtrodden victim and another as the evil aggressor can sometimes be an effective way to get sympathy, to get people "on one's side." (Attacking someone for being educated also tends to set off my BS alarm.)
>
> Uh-oh, I guess that I've just given bobb license to spew vitriol in my general direction for daring to make observations about his behavior - for focusing on an individual (especially this incredibly deep and complex individual - how dare I, unenlightened scum that I am?) rather than on "larger" problems. Well, that's okay. It has always been a weakness of mine that I am intrigued by the darker side of humanity as exemplified by particular behaviors. And, as someone (Cam, I think?) observed, how can one feel compassion for large groups when one does not recognize the importance of individuals who make up those groups? I think that bobb's focus (obsession?) on political problems is a red herring.
>
> Bobb seems to consider himself especially insightful (e.g., he feels he understands The Truth which others here refuse to see) and thrives on pointing out others' faults (or perceived faults). It's been my observation, though, that "insight" which is directed at others only, never at oneself, is no insight at all.
>
> So I guess what I'm trying to say is that "It" *is* about you, bobb. It is not possible for it to be otherwise, even if "It" is about something else as well.
Posted by Adam on June 3, 2000, at 14:37:58
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by Elizabeth on June 3, 2000, at 7:08:59
Hmm.
I think this represents sage observation. I essentially thought this boiled down to a bias in favor of the noble underdog (both as a self-identity and a community to identify with), coupled with a tenacious, and sometimes untenable desire to conflict with a larger, hostile "establishment", and/or those who appear to represent or defend it. I didn't consider the deeper motivations. Perhaps I could, if I felt victimized, characterize myself as a straw man torched by a firebrand, but I don't feel victimized, just misunderstood, and because I am also a tenacious debator, I can hardly claim total innocence.
I don't make the rules here, and don't presume to tell Dr. Bob what to do, but I was suprised that the boBB handle was silenced. I didn't find the exchange "uncivil" by my definition. I never felt particularly hurt, just irritated and misrepresented. False or mistaken accusations (of which I am guilty, it would appear) can happen, and even if the intent isn't malicious, I guess angry reponses are to be expected until the issue is clarified.
What I consider to be "uncivil" is behaviour that is without any redeeming value whatsoever, and material that is unregenerately hateful and brutal. There are few without sociopathic tendancies who want to be exposed to that.
Not to say I wasn't disturbed, but I don't see any sociopaths here. I could be wrong (given a lack of familiarity with the nuances of psychology), but I don't.
Anyway, I am STILL really curious about the logistics of registration, and real information (not just idle suspicion or overconfidence) about costs and benefits.
> > > My brief polemic about which you are now ranting and raving...
> >
> > > you choose to twist beyond reason whatever I tried very sincerely, persistently and honestly to say...
> >
> > > I would have a hard time hiring you in my newsroom. I would have very a hard time trusting you with my identity. Who knows where you might choose to slander me.
> >
> > > You, Adam, seem to represent a group of well educated individuals who are unable to manage there personal aggression, and are unable to back off once you smell blood in the water.
> >
> > I consider the above to go too far. Having already issued a warning before, I'm now going to block this "handle".
> >
> > > Apparently, those who advocate meds and the medical model enjoy the benefit of a referee here, and the rest of us can expect to be mugged.
> >
> > Well, that's one interpretation. :-)
> >
> > Bob
>
> Before I discuss this thread (from an "I seem to have missed this flame war, but boy is it interesting reading" perspective), I'd like to ask a question of Dr. Bob and anyone else who knows more about psychology than I do. "Help-rejecting complaining" is listed among the common defense mechanisms in one of the appendices to DSM-IV (the appendices are definitely the most interesting part of that book). My question is: what purpose does this behavior serve? How does it defend?
>
> On to my thoughts (which you're all of course free not to read if you're sick of this topic - I just found this discussion too interesting not to comment):
>
> Isn't it ironic that bobb accuses Adam (of all people!) of uncontrolled aggression? I think so. I'd go so far as to say it is plain bizarre. Or not: twisting reality so as to style oneself as the downtrodden victim and another as the evil aggressor can sometimes be an effective way to get sympathy, to get people "on one's side." (Attacking someone for being educated also tends to set off my BS alarm.)
>
> Uh-oh, I guess that I've just given bobb license to spew vitriol in my general direction for daring to make observations about his behavior - for focusing on an individual (especially this incredibly deep and complex individual - how dare I, unenlightened scum that I am?) rather than on "larger" problems. Well, that's okay. It has always been a weakness of mine that I am intrigued by the darker side of humanity as exemplified by particular behaviors. And, as someone (Cam, I think?) observed, how can one feel compassion for large groups when one does not recognize the importance of individuals who make up those groups? I think that bobb's focus (obsession?) on political problems is a red herring.
>
> Bobb seems to consider himself especially insightful (e.g., he feels he understands The Truth which others here refuse to see) and thrives on pointing out others' faults (or perceived faults). It's been my observation, though, that "insight" which is directed at others only, never at oneself, is no insight at all.
>
> So I guess what I'm trying to say is that "It" *is* about you, bobb. It is not possible for it to be otherwise, even if "It" is about something else as well.
Posted by Dr. bobitty-bob_boB_BoBB_BOBB_BOBB_BOB_BOB_BOB!!!! on June 3, 2000, at 17:43:27
In reply to Re: please be civil » Elizabeth, posted by Civilla T on June 3, 2000, at 12:40:00
>
> Remember,three fingers back atcha!
>
> ;-)And don't forget to tune in to comedy central, where the stage guard will keep you from heckling the perfomers!
Really though, I wouldn't let some of these people help my dog, if it lay dying on the highway!
Any profession that claims an indicator that people need its service is that they decline its service is using severely flawed circular logic to sell its service.
boBB consider Mr. Robert Hsuing to be a very dangerous individual, whose aggressive style resembles that of some of the worse despots in recent history.
boBB will contact the Illinois medical arts licensing board in reference to his disparaging other doctors who warn their patients of contraindications to ECT.
Posted by Oddzilla on June 3, 2000, at 18:03:54
In reply to Re: please be what we tell you to be, posted by Dr. bobitty-bob_boB_BoBB_BOBB_BOBB_BOB_BOB_BOB!!!! on June 3, 2000, at 17:46:36
Welcome back bobbitty-bob (if I may be so bold as to use your first name). I missed you and you weren't even gone a whole day.
Oddzilla
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 3, 2000, at 18:18:03
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by Lurker on June 3, 2000, at 12:58:52
> Remember, boBB has many identities on this board (and new ones everyday) and some of them are quite useful and informative. We all have alter-egos that allow us to play a bit. Blocking one doesn't necessarily solve your problem. Maybe just letting it go would though.
I don't want to get obsessed with this, and paying attention to it reinforces it, but:
Identities that are civil are fine. Those that repeatedly cross the line make this community less supportive one.
Bob
PS: If there's a need for a separate forum for alternative forms of discourse, it's easy to set up your own mailing list these days. One site I'm familiar with is:
http://www.egroups.com
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 3, 2000, at 19:02:19
In reply to Re: please be what we tell you to be, posted by Dr. bobitty-bob_boB_BoBB_BOBB_BOBB_BOB_BOB_BOB!!!! on June 3, 2000, at 17:43:27
> boBB consider Mr. Robert Hsuing to be a very dangerous individual, whose aggressive style resembles that of some of the worse despots in recent history.
That's not civil, either.
Bob
PS: Sometimes it's more productive to talk about how you feel instead of what the other person does.
Posted by Snowie on June 3, 2000, at 20:39:24
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by Dr. Bob on June 3, 2000, at 19:02:19
Sorry, guys, but this thread has gone on way too long ... it has become a cosmic joke and a tremendous bore. Can we finally move on to bigger and better things? There are and will always be troublemakers on every BBS. If the powers that be can block or delete the troublemakers, that's great. If not, avoid the temptation to read their posts.
Snowie
Posted by Sal on June 3, 2000, at 20:47:11
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by Dr. Bob on June 3, 2000, at 19:02:19
>
> PS: Sometimes it's more productive to talk about how you feel instead of what the other person does.It seems to me, I mean I feel as if this person "boBB" started this unfortunate thread by daring to talk about his feelings.
As I read the posts here, it seems to me the person is okay with his feelings, even though others seemed to concern themselves with what he dared to feel. It seems he has established clear referants for some of his feelings, which, as I understand it, is a goal of some humanistic therapies. I see other posts that say "your anger is okay." I feel like the boBB's anger is okay. He didn't threaten anybody.
I feel like people might have tried to stigmatize him by calling him bizarre. I feel as if the idea that he is somehow exhibiting evidence of a disorder by involving himself in what kind of help he accepts seems to go against the educational, supportive mission of the site.
Posted by claire 7 on June 3, 2000, at 21:00:47
In reply to feelings, posted by Sal on June 3, 2000, at 20:47:11
> I feel Sal makes some very good points. I feel like maybe Dr Bob is a bit paranoid. I feel like Dr Bob has gone overboard. I feel like nobody has been harmed by boBB. I feel like civility is in the eye of the beholder.
> >
> > PS: Sometimes it's more productive to talk about how you feel instead of what the other person does.
>
> It seems to me, I mean I feel as if this person "boBB" started this unfortunate thread by daring to talk about his feelings.
>
> As I read the posts here, it seems to me the person is okay with his feelings, even though others seemed to concern themselves with what he dared to feel. It seems he has established clear referants for some of his feelings, which, as I understand it, is a goal of some humanistic therapies. I see other posts that say "your anger is okay." I feel like the boBB's anger is okay. He didn't threaten anybody.
>
> I feel like people might have tried to stigmatize him by calling him bizarre. I feel as if the idea that he is somehow exhibiting evidence of a disorder by involving himself in what kind of help he accepts seems to go against the educational, supportive mission of the site.
Posted by gg on June 3, 2000, at 21:20:35
In reply to Re: feelings, posted by claire 7 on June 3, 2000, at 21:00:47
> > I feel Sal makes some very good points. I feel like maybe Dr Bob is a bit paranoid. I feel like Dr Bob has gone overboard. I feel like nobody has been harmed by boBB. I feel like civility is in the eye of the beholder.
> > >
> > > PS: Sometimes it's more productive to talk about how you feel instead of what the other person does.
.
> >
> > I feel like people might have tried to stigmatize him by calling him bizarre. I feel as if the idea that he is somehow exhibiting evidence of a disorder by involving himself in what kind of help he accepts seems to go against the educational, supportive mission of the site.
```````````````````````````````````````
I feel frightened. I feel powerless knowing that
simply being a psychiatrist can give someone the power to label another person abnormal or not fit to be part of society. I realize that this is only a BB but we are talking feelings here and those are the feeling it stirs up. I feel sad. I feel the loss of a place where labeled people might find acceptance. I feel concern for Dr. Bob because if he were a patient rather than doctor he would certainly be accused of exhibiting paranoid tendencies. I feel confused because I don't know if I should be glad for him that he is above suspicion or sad for him because he is in need of psychiatric intervention and I am helpless to help him.
I feel sad for bobbity-bob because the world is sad and we are all going to die and there is nothing anyone can do. I feel afraid because I don't want any well-vocabularied babblers jumping in to jump all over me.
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.