Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 6603

Shown: posts 56 to 80 of 80. Go back in thread:

 

Re: I have posted to Dr. Bob krazy kat

Posted by jane d on July 25, 2002, at 17:31:20

In reply to I have posted to Dr. Bob Lou Pilder, posted by krazy kat on July 25, 2002, at 14:19:02

>You have acted cruelly towards me, Lou. I not.

> And, please, please, consider going elsewhere so this board can a sliver of a chance of getting back to its old self. I, unfortunately, don't think it will be able to recover completely, but it would have a chance if you would leave.

> - Krazy Kat, sad that a place that was a haven, a place to exchange information and ideas, to help each other through REALLY tough times, is no longer there for her and many others...

Krazy Kat,
I'm shocked by your post. You accuse Lou of cruelty but then go on to ask him to leave the board? That is cruel. I understand that maybe you want to turn back time to some earlier point on the board when it had been discovered by fewer people but I don't see how asking someone to leave does that. I don't think this was ever the kind of place where one person could be kicked out because they annoyed (or even infuriated) other people. No matter how important to the board those other people seem to be. Doing something like that would change the nature of this board far more than anything that has happened yet.

I'm sorry that you feel this board can only be a haven to you if you can exclude certain people. One of the things that I value the most about this board is discovering things in common with, and receiving support from, people who are completely different from me. So different, that if I were in charge of creating a private club I might leave them out. I think it makes the support you do get here that much more special. It does not just come from people you have an instant feeling of affinity for. And, if you really need to be a part of a more restricted group there are tons of private groups and it takes only a few minutes to set up another one as was just demonstrated here.

I hope you decide to stay. I've missed you in chat and I will miss you on the board if you do decide to go.

Jane

 

Thank you very much, Jane (nm) jane d

Posted by Lou Pilder on July 25, 2002, at 17:44:38

In reply to Re: I have posted to Dr. Bob krazy kat , posted by jane d on July 25, 2002, at 17:31:20

 

Lou's response to IsoM's post-part 4

Posted by Lou Pilder on July 25, 2002, at 18:00:05

In reply to about your support and encouragement Lou Pilder, posted by IsoM on July 25, 2002, at 16:46:17

IsoM,
I have to tell you , now, that your post directed to me constitutes a "too great of a burden" to answer in one day. Now I will answer the rest of your requests to me , but I think that ,perhaps, this can be done in daily installments. I appreciate your request for clarification and I will answer.
You did ask me about mds and drug companys and such. I once reserched how much BZDs sold for at the users end. I found out that Benzodiazepines sell for $800,000.00 per Kilo. Not on the street. Perhaps you could verify that, for I could not believe it. I will continue, since you have opened the door to this discussion, more about psychotropic drugs.
Lou

 

Re: I have posted to Dr. Bob krazy kat jane d

Posted by krazy kat on July 25, 2002, at 18:38:36

In reply to Re: I have posted to Dr. Bob krazy kat , posted by jane d on July 25, 2002, at 17:31:20

O.K. jane - what if I called you an anti-semite? Don't answer... never mind... if you don't understand, I can't clarify it further. :(

 

Re: Lou's post-part 4 Lou Pilder

Posted by IsoM on July 25, 2002, at 18:52:08

In reply to Lou's response to IsoM's post-part 4, posted by Lou Pilder on July 25, 2002, at 18:00:05

That's not what I asked you about. I, personally, have no interest in hearing about profit, loss, & incentives for marketing regarding medications despite your assuredly wide knowledge of it. I asked you about their intentions - nothing more.

That's what I want to hear about - their intentions. AND not the intentions of the pharmaceutical companies but the people who research & develop new medications, themselves, & the doctors & hospitals that use them.

Again, I will reiterate my questions regarding what your 4th post is trying to answer for yur clarification. Here it is again, broken into three separate questions. It is only this that I'm interested in you answering. If however, you feel you can't answer these three questions without bringing profit & economics into it, I would rather you didn't answer this then. My first question is discussing intentions, not profit - every company has to make some profit in order to stay afloat. And no, the comment "...saved themselves a lot of time & money..." in the second question isn't discussing profit, but intentions again. I would prefer not being side-tracked from a straightforward answer about intentions.

- Are you saying that thousands of well-meaning & trained scientists & doctors who have worked for many, many years to find methods of treating & helping people have not done so out of the goodness of their heart but ONLY with profit in mind?
- Are you saying you question the intentions of all these people & that by experiencing what you've experienced they could've saved themselves a lot of time & money, especially if their intentions were good?
- Do you mean to say that any one who works in conjunction with any pharmaceutical company, or any hospital, or is a doctor, or nurse, or other health practionar who uses psychotropic medications for their patients are doing so to their harm?

 

Re: Kid_A's 'anti-semitic' post Lou Pilder

Posted by kid_A on July 25, 2002, at 20:34:57

In reply to Re: Kid_A's 'anti-semitic' post Lou Pilder krazy kat Lou Pilder krazy kat , posted by Lou Pilder on July 25, 2002, at 13:06:51

Lou,
I haven't been around this board much, do you wonder why? Perhaps you should, perhaps you should consider the ramifications of your very actions on this board. For all intents and purposes you have without question ruined what used to be a welcome community. You have been responsible directly OR indirectly for multiple bans, inclusive of ones wrought upon yourself.

I'm not going to mince words here Lou, I don't think that you are a very healthy individual, I think that you have substituted your instability for a para-religion in a delusional sense of fitness of mind.

Why did you come to this board? Do you have a messiah complex? Do you long to 'save' people from their illnesses by suggesting that they stop their medication? I don't think I'm the first person to say that in this forum that is perhaps one of the most irresponsible and reckless lines of thought that one could posit. Many people here rely on their medications just to get through the day and deep in my heart I truly believe that if they took your path and tried to follow your convoluted eternally unfinished tale of salvation that they would end up suffering worse in the end.

Lou, you play the victim so well, despite the fact that I have told you that I have Jewish relations you still refer to me in so many words as an anti-Semite, laughably you've also said I was anti-Islamic, you got a block for that as well, I recall.

I don't speak for anyone but myself, but many people who I have happily made acquaintance with here have left this board because of its entropic nature as of late. Again, I can say honestly with clear thought that this board has slid down a slippery slope since you have began posting here. I'm sorry if I offend you with those words, well in all actuality Lou, I feel no shame at all in saying those words, they are without question truthful.

Lou, I think you need to evaluate your own mental state. I think that you need to take some time and think about yourself and decide if you have only pulled the wool over your eyes all along, perhaps the emperor wears no clothes, perhaps the doors to heaven and hell are identical and unmarked... What have you unleashed upon this board Lou? The answer is a contrived and meaningless para-cult-religion that has helped no one. In the early stages of your posting, you even questioned people as to why they did not want to hear the rest of your story. The answer is simple Lou, one could pick almost any other religion or para-religion that has some sort of structure and following and it would make miles more sense than your ideals. Yes Lou, I am questioning your beliefs, I am by all rights defaming them.

Your words mean nothing to me Lou, you mean nothing to me, you are a cancer on this community and you should leave. I anticipate being blocked for this post, but It scarcely concerns me, even though I would love to continue to keep in contact here with all I have met, that seems impossible now as most of them have left, though thankfully they reachable elsewhere. Perhaps you have not noticed the mass exodus in the twilight hours of your ramblings; but this does not surprise me, you seem only concerned with your rights on this board, not the feelings or ideals of others, you only look for people to agree with you, not question you, and when something can not be questioned its reduced to meaningless dogma.

At a time when I needed the most help, when I had lost a very dear friend, I had to suffer through your unrelenting attack on this board and consequently it's destruction. I blame no one but you for this Lou. True, the administration, whom I have tried to appease in the realm of civility could have perhaps done things differently, but until you there has never been much need for any such actions to save a dying forum.

I'll leave you with those thoughts Lou, though I doubt they will sink in to your head. Perhaps there is no room left, all that is there is your reality, one you have created to save yourself. Have you considered perhaps, that this reality is your's and your's alone?

~~~~

I do apologize Dr. Bob, I am angry and disappointed that a place I used to take refuge at has fallen apart. My words above are tinged with anger, in truth it comes from my heart.

....

With one long breath, caught and held
in his chest, he fought his sadness over
his solitary life. Don't cry, you idiot!
Live or die, but don't poison everything...
--------from an early draft of Herzog
---------------by Saul Bellow.

 

Re: Kid_A's 'anti-semitic' post Lou Pilder kid_A

Posted by Lou Pilder on July 25, 2002, at 21:59:51

In reply to Re: Kid_A's 'anti-semitic' post Lou Pilder , posted by kid_A on July 25, 2002, at 20:34:57

Kd_A,
I am sorry that you feel the way that you do about me. I have always thought that you contributed to this board and would like you to stay. I believe that all posts are valuable here for edification and support and education.
But I have to object to the posting of a link to an anti-Semitic web site, becaus a reasonable person could conclude that you were trying to arrouse anti-Semitic feelings on the board. The lurkers do not know your intention for the post and even if you say that the post was for some other reason, that does not mean that other people would have to accept it. Also, our young people could be think that the board condoned the site. My position is to be the exempler to our youth here by objecting to posts that ridicule jews, Islamics or anyone else. And I will continue to object to any and all posts of that type or nature, no matter who posts it , no matter how many weeks I am blocked for objecting to it, no matter how many people leave this board over it, no matter how many people say that I am a cancer here, no matter how many people ask me to leave, no matter how many people defame me, for I am not here to please men, but to please God.
Lou

 

a reasonable person -

Posted by krazy kat on July 25, 2002, at 23:16:01

In reply to Re: Kid_A's 'anti-semitic' post Lou Pilder kid_A, posted by Lou Pilder on July 25, 2002, at 21:59:51

Lou:

You are as Unreasonable as they come.

What a bizarre argument for you to use.

Kid:

Thank you. I still light a candle for her every week. One of my email addresses has only her notes. :)

- KK

 

Re: I have posted to Dr. Bob krazy kat jane d

Posted by JANE D on July 25, 2002, at 23:24:05

In reply to Re: I have posted to Dr. Bob krazy kat jane d, posted by krazy kat on July 25, 2002, at 18:38:36

> O.K. jane - what if I called you an anti-semite? Don't answer... never mind... if you don't understand, I can't clarify it further. :(

I wouldn't like it KK. Any more than I like being called anti male, racist, anti psychiatric patient, anti woman, insensitive to people's childhood traumas or any number of accusations I consider unfair. I do try to take into account that someone may have been sensitized by past experience to see these prejudices a little too often before I lose my temper. And I do look at whether people have been provoked (or think they have). You seem to be forgetting that Lou didn't start this latest round of hostility even if, in my opinion, he over reacted after he was attacked.

Why not walk away? I don't think you have any serious accusations you need to answer. I remember the web site in question. I think I looked at it for about 30 seconds and missed the objectionable content too.

Jane

 

The so called anti semitic post Lou Pilder

Posted by jane d on July 25, 2002, at 23:35:17

In reply to Re: Kid_A's 'anti-semitic' post Lou Pilder kid_A, posted by Lou Pilder on July 25, 2002, at 21:59:51

> But I have to object to the posting of a link to an anti-Semitic web site, becaus a reasonable person could conclude that you were trying to arrouse anti-Semitic feelings on the board. The lurkers do not know your intention for the post and even if you say that the post was for some other reason, that does not mean that other people would have to accept it.

Lou,

I believe you should reread the posts in question. As I recall it, and it was a long time ago, there is no way a reasonable person could conclude that any such thing about why that link was posted. There was a discussion at the time of why the link was there, the anti semitic content of the site was not immediately apparent and, as soon as the content was pointed out the link was removed. In other words it was posted for another reason and people did not accept it.

A reasonable person should conclude that the link was posted in error; not that it was an attempt to arouse anti semitic feeling.

Jane

 

Re: Lou's response ----****Dr. Bob***

Posted by kiddo on July 25, 2002, at 23:45:26

In reply to Lou's response to Lini's post-part 3, posted by Lou Pilder on July 25, 2002, at 10:01:12

A last resort? Can you please do something about this on the Admin board?


Thanks-


> Lini,
> There are people here that are, indeed , shakled to their addictions and slsves to their depression. Their psychiatrists have failed them, for their suffering continues right now, their drugs have failed them, for their suffering continues right now, their thrapists have failed them, for their suffering continues right now and , perhaps, since all those things have failed them, then it is those that I am advocating to go on the 7 Gates on the Road to the Crown of Life. The Road is a last resort. That is why it is not proselytising. The road is only for those tht are suffering and I made that clear at te beginning by telling about the Pearl.
> Lou

 

Re: resorting to blocking again :-(

Posted by Dr. Bob on July 26, 2002, at 4:41:14

In reply to Re: Kid_A's 'anti-semitic' post Lou Pilder , posted by kid_A on July 25, 2002, at 20:34:57

> > it is the people here that are shakeled in their addictions and slaves to their depression that have a right to , at least, hear about the seed so that they can make their decision themselves to either walk away or allow the seed to grow.
>
> Please explain to me why this is not an example of proselytizing, and if you agree that it is, why it's ok?
>
> Mair

Well, OK, maybe it is. But if it's considered proselytizing even to post about how your faith has helped you (because that may plant a seed that later grows), then IMO there's not going to be much left to post about there.

But proselytizing per se never made it into the FAQ. Believe it or not, I try to have as few rules as possible, and when it first came up:

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20010718/msgs/1854.html

I thought the issues were that others might feel put down or pressured. So if someone can "proselytize" in a way to doesn't put others down or pressure them, I consider that OK.

----

> > What makes you think these rules are just to address the issue of Lou?
>
> You make think all of the discussions since the origination of the faith board have broader applications and perhaps they do, but in my view they arose because of the unique problems which Lou poses for many posters. The guidelines might have had to have been thrashed out eventually, but it would have been in a different, and probably (albeit speculatively) less hostile climate.
>
> Mair

I think they came up because of Lou, but have broader implications. And that whenever something has to be thrashed out, there's going to be tension in the climate.

----

> I have never advocated that anyone's post here be censored except the one's that defame people like one of your posts with CamW and Kid_A that demened Islamic people. In fact, on that post, there was the advocating of genocide.
>
> Lou

Would you send me the URLs of any posts that defamed Islamic people or advocated genocide? Thanks.

----

> That statement of yours, then to me, indicates that you did see the anti-Semitic rhetoric on the post
>
> Lou

Sorry, but I've asked that people not jump to conclusions about others, so I'm going to block you from posting again, for 8 weeks this time since it was for 4 last time.

----

> You have acted cruelly towards me, Lou. I honestly hope that you are a sincere person, but I must say that it seems at times as if you are not.

Sorry, but I've asked that people not post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, so I'm going to block you from posting again, for 2 weeks this time since it was for 1 last time.

> Lou, you are the problem. I have been asked - is Lou the problem? Yes. Yes, you are. Again, I fear that even without you the board will not be the same, but the downfall is your doing. It is your fault.
>
> - Krazy Kat

Here are a couple quotes from those group dynamics links:

> > The second basic assumption group is Fight/Flight. When this is operative, there will be some [more basic] issue present which will most likely not be articulated, which the team feels to be threatening. It behaves as if this is a threat to its survival which must be fought or run away from. In the fight mode members may be in an uproar fighting amongst themselves, expressing a lot of anger at the organization... Alternatively, in the flight mode they may spend too much time on side issues, and there may be a lot of lateness or absenteeism.

> > Members of the group project their demands on the leader, who is expected to react with demands of fight or flight, and if he does not, he is ignored. His suggestions about finding out what is going on in the group, is easily hindered by counter-suggestions, which are expressions of hate or aggression. In other words the leader will be ignored unless he opens up the fight-flight theme, so he is ignored when he tries to work on the real task.

Am I succumbing by doing all this blocking now? I see it as setting limits, but...

----

> I wish, along with you and I'm sure others, that Lou would 'go away' as well
>
> tina

Sorry, but again, I've asked that people not post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, so I'm going to block you from posting for 1 week.

----

> Could you clarify for every one reading how you possibly could think that posting your experiences, off & on, over a period of 7 months, picking up & retelling many of the same experiences, posting innumerable complaints over what has been perceived by you as slanderous posts, objecting to the choice of words, or paths others have mentioned, & quibbling about other, mostly minor, details has been supportive or encouraging to all, or for that matter, any one else?
>
> IsoM

Sorry, but I've also asked that people not be sarcastic, either, so I'm going to block you from posting for 1 week.

----

> For all intents and purposes you have without question ruined what used to be a welcome community...

Please be civil:

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil

> many people who I have happily made acquaintance with here have left this board because of its entropic nature as of late.

That's my fault, sorry, I think I let this go on too long. Hoping that people could work things out, you know...

Bob

 

And so what will you do about it? Dr. Bob

Posted by beardedlady on July 26, 2002, at 6:12:30

In reply to Re: resorting to blocking again :-(, posted by Dr. Bob on July 26, 2002, at 4:41:14

> > many people who I have happily made acquaintance with here have left this board because of its entropic nature as of late.

> That's my fault, sorry, I think I let this go on too long. Hoping that people could work things out, you know...

And so what will you do about it? Block the folks who have been attacked because FINALLY defended themselves by breaking those few rules because they couldn't take the accusations and badgering and constant clarifications needed for the simplest words and continued tirades against meds and a gazillion posts about something that he, the poster, has "experianced," which is not to be confused with religion or advocacy for one?

I guess you have about eight weeks to figure that out.

I wish you luck. And I hope the board is a little quieter while you're thinking about it.

beardy

P.S. I tried to stay on the sidelines of this one, and I guess I latched on to the grammar aspect of the site as if it were a life raft of sorts. I just don't want it to seem that I place that above people in importance.

 

Oddipus replies to Dr Bob part one ;-)

Posted by OddipusRex on July 26, 2002, at 8:35:57

In reply to Re: resorting to blocking again :-(, posted by Dr. Bob on July 26, 2002, at 4:41:14

>
A couple more quotes from the Group dynamics article


Scapegoating

Scapegoating occurs when certain issues are around in a team that members find difficult to acknowledge and somehow the 'problem' gets located in one person. Other members of the team do not notice any aspect of the problem in themselves, see it in the elected scapegoat and then attempt to solve it by getting the scapegoat to change. If the scapegoat leaves then usually someone else is quickly found to carry these unwanted parts.

Scapegoating usually centers on an issue that is both important and worrying to team members. For instance, the question of competency often lends itself to scapegoating. We all care that we are and are seen to be competent. What can happen is that all the concerns about competency get located in one member, often the newest, least experienced person.....
Scapegoating

The word 'scapegoat' should be avoided. It seems to imply guilt to people and immediately throws them on the defensive. The manager will need to ask herself what function the scapegoat is fulfilling for the team. What is the scapegoat doing that other members are avoiding experiencing in themselves? The first benefit of looking at the problem in this way is that the manager distances herself from the process and immediately gains more empathy with the scapegoat. The second is that the manager may discover what issue is troubling the team so that it can then be addressed in its own right. Thus if the manager identifies that fears about competency may be the issue, then she will want to bring it up and talk about it in a way that people can explore it. To avoid further splitting, she will need to include herself in this issue too, for she will have concerns about competency as much as anyone else.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What do you think the underlying issue is here that people have been avoiding? If it isn't addressed won't this just happen again in some form? Do you think there might have been a little counter-scapegoating going on? That perhaps your lack of intervention on behalf of the majority for so long was actually a little agressive?

> > > Members of the group project their demands on the leader, who is expected to react with demands of fight or flight, and if he does not, he is ignored. His suggestions about finding out what is going on in the group, is easily hindered by counter-suggestions, which are expressions of hate or aggression. In other words the leader will be ignored unless he opens up the fight-flight theme, so he is ignored when he tries to work on the real task.
>
> Am I succumbing by doing all this blocking now? I see it as setting limits, but...


 

Re: resorting to blocking again :-( Dr. Bob

Posted by judy1 on July 26, 2002, at 11:00:33

In reply to Re: resorting to blocking again :-(, posted by Dr. Bob on July 26, 2002, at 4:41:14

I think I let this go on too long. Hoping that people could work things out, you know...

Thank you, thank you, thank you- it has gone on too long. And even though I've never been blocked- I'm emotionally drained (as I imagine you are). I'm confident that you will do what's necessary. Please take care, judy

 

Re: resorting to blocking again :-( Dr. Bob

Posted by Angel Girl on July 26, 2002, at 12:16:05

In reply to Re: resorting to blocking again :-(, posted by Dr. Bob on July 26, 2002, at 4:41:14

I have tried to stay out of this subject but to be honest, I am f'ing tired of it all. This is NEVER going to go away. It seems to me that the majority of voices on this board of 'support' have spoken but they're not being heard.

While Dr Bob sits back and reads these complaints that are falling on his deaf ears, there are people here who need support and are not getting it.

Right now I am in the black hole and I have not gotten one reply of support. I see absolutely NO reason whatsoever to stay on this site. The moderator is so closed minded that he can't hear the cries of the general population and the people who need support are not getting it.

I for one am done with this f'ing site. It's purpose was lost a long time ago because of one poster and Dr Bob refuses to acknowledge that.

So I will be leaving WITHOUT getting the support I desperately need right now.

Angel

 

I'm sorry Angel Girl

Posted by judy1 on July 26, 2002, at 13:09:34

In reply to Re: resorting to blocking again :-( Dr. Bob, posted by Angel Girl on July 26, 2002, at 12:16:05

I couldn't find any messages on PSB or PPB except your leaving post. Can you please post how we can help you over there? Take care, judy

 

P.S. to Dr. Bob

Posted by judy1 on July 26, 2002, at 13:22:34

In reply to Re: resorting to blocking again :-( Dr. Bob, posted by judy1 on July 26, 2002, at 11:00:33

We used to be able to work things out in the past- but honestly I don't think we've ever had a single poster that triggered so many people (good supportive people) and therefore we do need your help. You've certainly blocked disruptive posters in the past, and I can only speak for myself- made me feel safe here. Just because someone isn't overtly disruptive doesn't mean they have that effect anyway and I think that needs to be considered. I've been in psych wards where one patient would have the entire floor in an uproar, including the nurses and doctors. While no one would disagree that this particular individual was very ill, he had to be isolated to bring harmony back to the floor. Sorry, another judy anecdote. Take care.

 

To: kiddo, judy, wendy, Dr Bob, et al

Posted by Angel Girl on July 26, 2002, at 14:16:10

In reply to Re: resorting to blocking again :-( Dr. Bob, posted by Angel Girl on July 26, 2002, at 12:16:05

I would like to clarify my previous comments so that they are not misinterpretted.

First I will quote something said to me on PSB:

I hate to see you be so upset, over what you perveive to be squabbling. Some people are taking the accusations to heart, and some are really trying to say: the board is floundering, and we are concerned. There is one person who baits others, and it hurts, because the site was helpful and necessary to a lot of us... Now it's just a hollowed-out wreck of what it used to be.

<end quote>

I have NEVER considered this situation squabbling. I understand EXACTLY how all the particpants feel and I feel the same. I'm in total agreement. The point I was trying to make is that I DO support the ones that are trying to get themselves heard and are hurt over accusations BUT what I CAN'T understand is WHY Dr. Bob would choose to not see how much damage is been done. I have stayed out of this situation up to this point because I really don't like confrontations or to get blocked. But right now I'm in the black hole and I don't care anymore if I'm blocked.

My point is that so many people are NOT being heard and that one poster seems to be able to post whatever the hell he wants, which totally disrupts the boards and accuses people of being anti-semitic (sp?) and yet gets away with it all. People's feelings are very hurt. Anger has been expressed, good long-standing posters have gone elsewhere and for what????? So that Lou can post about his gates and riders and crowns???

Why does one poster have so much power on this board that he finds a way to get through the loopholes of Dr. Bob's rules and all at the expense of everybody else????

I support you all. I hear what you're saying, I feel what you're feeling and I do NOT understand how Dr Bob can choose to sit there with blinders on and not see what is happening.

At this point I don't care if I get blocked or banned for what I say. I agree with what a couple of others have said, if Lou would leave the board then MAYBE things could get back to normal. I don't see him talking about his gates, crowns, city of peace or his experience as being supportive. I'm sick of listening to the same experience over and over again.

I've seen others being told to not keep repeating what they've already posted but yet that is never said to Lou. Why is that?

And I don't understand Lou. He says that he was told that he would not please everybody by telling of his experience but that God will be pleased (paraphrasing). Would God be happy that he is alienating so many people from getting REAL support and hearing some other approach that would be far more received than the repeated City of Peace experience that is continually told in installments and he is yet to even finish.

My heart goes out to all those who have been accused of something they are not, to those who are hurt and angry and to those who are not getting support and for those who are not being heard.

I choose to leave, not because people are speaking out, because I totally agree with their concerns, heartache and anger, but I choose to leave because Dr. Bob refuses to do anything about it. Instead he chooses to ignore the plights of the majority of posters. Yet he wants this to be a place of support. When will Dr. Bob support those who come here???

So again, please if you have the strength left in you to fight your battle with Dr Bob, I urge you to do so. You have my full support. But I am not going to stay on a board where one person can create so much havoc at the expense of so many others and continue to get away with it because it falls on deaf ears.

I hope you understand where I stand on this issue. I'm on YOUR side.

Angel

 

Re: Tabitha replies to Oddipus

Posted by tabitha on July 27, 2002, at 0:17:15

In reply to Oddipus replies to Dr Bob part one ;-), posted by OddipusRex on July 26, 2002, at 8:35:57

>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What do you think the underlying issue is here that people have been avoiding? If it isn't addressed won't this just happen again in some form? Do you think there might have been a little counter-scapegoating going on? That perhaps your lack of intervention on behalf of the majority for so long was actually a little agressive?


Perhaps the lack of intervention was Dr Bob's way of trying to avoid getting drawn into scapegoating. As to what quality people might want to place entirely on a scapegoat, well, aren't we all struggling mightily to appear normal and not let our "craziness" take over and run rampant?

 

Re: please be civil (nm) Angel Girl

Posted by Dr. Bob on July 27, 2002, at 5:48:54

In reply to To: kiddo, judy, wendy, Dr Bob, et al, posted by Angel Girl on July 26, 2002, at 14:16:10

 

Re: please be civil Dr. Bob

Posted by kiddo on July 27, 2002, at 14:14:57

In reply to Re: please be civil (nm) Angel Girl, posted by Dr. Bob on July 27, 2002, at 5:48:54

Can I ask what part was uncivil?


Thanks-

Kiddo

 

Where please be civil might have been intended

Posted by Mashogr8 on July 29, 2002, at 10:23:25

In reply to Re: please be civil Dr. Bob, posted by kiddo on July 27, 2002, at 14:14:57

I assumed that the post Dr. Bob was referring to occured on July 26, paragraph four(4). It did catch my eye, but then.....

 

Please Be Civil: A Research Project

Posted by CamW. on July 29, 2002, at 14:53:49

In reply to Re: please be civil Dr. Bob, posted by kiddo on July 27, 2002, at 14:14:57

Hmmmm...

With a secondary subtitle?

"The Breaking Point of Posters to a Mental Health Support Group Site: Methods and Conclusions."


... Naw, just another of my delusions.

 

==:%(== .....as long as nobody gits railroaded... (nm) CamW.

Posted by shar on July 29, 2002, at 21:51:35

In reply to Please Be Civil: A Research Project, posted by CamW. on July 29, 2002, at 14:53:49


This is the end of the thread.


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] 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.