![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 34 to 58 of 60. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 21, 2005, at 21:59:08
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung, posted by Lou Pilder on April 18, 2005, at 14:50:42
> In the following post, the poster writes
> > I believe strongly that western medicine does more harm than good, and that more holistic approaches like the one you've found make much more sense, both physically, emotionally, and spiritually.
> I am requesting that you write what the difference is that could allow that statement to be acceptable here, if it is acceptable here, in relation to the guidlines of the forum, while the ststement
> > > I may have had situational/atypical depression when I was young, but I took strong anti-depressants.
> >
> > Personally, I do not believe that it is a "problem," with "symptoms" or "a diagnosis."> has been written by you as to be unacceptable here
One difference is that in the former, the other poster's being supported, while in the latter, she isn't...
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 22, 2005, at 6:03:43
In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on April 21, 2005, at 21:59:08
> > In the following post, the poster writes
>
> > > I believe strongly that western medicine does more harm than good, and that more holistic approaches like the one you've found make much more sense, both physically, emotionally, and spiritually.
>
> > I am requesting that you write what the difference is that could allow that statement to be acceptable here, if it is acceptable here, in relation to the guidlines of the forum, while the ststement
>
> > > > I may have had situational/atypical depression when I was young, but I took strong anti-depressants.
> > >
> > > Personally, I do not believe that it is a "problem," with "symptoms" or "a diagnosis."
>
> > has been written by you as to be unacceptable here
>
> One difference is that in the former, the other poster's being supported, while in the latter, she isn't...
>
> BobDR. Hsiung,
In your above reply, you wrote that one of the statements in question supports the other poster while the other does not.
The goals of the forum are for support and education. Your FAQ writes that,[...different points of view are encouraged...].
Is not, then, a different point of view supportive by the nature of the goals of the forum?
Are you saying that reinforcment is the same as support? If so, then are you saying that different points of view are not supportive unless they are the same point of view?
Lou Pilder
Posted by AuntieMel on April 22, 2005, at 14:12:28
In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on April 21, 2005, at 21:59:08
I don't see any difference in language, and you've mentioned before it's difficult to judge intent.
The one you found uncivil:
>>> Personally, I do not believe that it is a "problem," with "symptoms" or "a diagnosis."
was taken out of context. It was followed by
>>>I believe that this is and always has been a part of being alive. There are tears and laughter in every life. It is very recent to treat these tears as if they were a problem, though I'm not opposed to finding cures for things.
This was in response to:
>>>A person w/ situational/atypical depression is sad, cries, or grieves for a situation in their life, that may be fleeting, and not necessarily a situation in their brain.
So - I didn't think that saying she thought that crying and grieving in response to a life situation was a problem or needed a diagnosis was unsupportive at all. I would even venture to guess most people on the planet would agree.....
Not trying to be a pain, but I would like to understand the difference, too.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 22, 2005, at 15:04:44
In reply to Please be civil » Aryan Soldier, posted by Dinah on April 19, 2005, at 19:22:26
You know it cracks me up when someone whose posting name is "Aryan Soldier" asks someone else if they have mental problems..
Posted by Sarah T. on April 23, 2005, at 0:25:32
In reply to Re: Please be civil-Aryan Soldier, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 22, 2005, at 15:04:44
The word "Aryan" has several different meanings, not just the one meaning "Nordic" that was exploited by Nazis.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 23, 2005, at 0:28:01
In reply to Re: Please be civil-Aryan Soldier » Gabbi-x-2, posted by Sarah T. on April 23, 2005, at 0:25:32
> The word "Aryan" has several different meanings, not just the one meaning "Nordic" that was exploited by Nazis.
I'm aware of that, ( I know about the swaztika too!) I was referring to it in the context in which it was used.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 23, 2005, at 0:31:25
In reply to Re: Please be civil-Aryan Soldier » Gabbi-x-2, posted by Sarah T. on April 23, 2005, at 0:25:32
> The word "Aryan" has several different meanings, not just the one meaning "Nordic" that was exploited by Nazis.
Members of the Aryan Nations, the white supremist group refer to fellow klansmen as "aryan soldiers"
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2005, at 16:30:39
In reply to Re: I don't see a difference » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on April 22, 2005, at 14:12:28
> I didn't think that saying she thought that crying and grieving in response to a life situation was a problem ... was unsupportive at all.
But she said she thought it was *not* a problem, didn't she?
Bob
Posted by 10derHeart on April 23, 2005, at 16:52:07
In reply to Re: I don't see a difference, posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2005, at 16:30:39
> But she said she thought it was *not* a problem, didn't she?
>
> Bob
Just my 2 cents...that's also how I read it - as her saying those behaviors are *not* a problem.
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 23, 2005, at 17:22:22
In reply to Re: I don't see a difference, posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2005, at 16:30:39
Dr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...she said she thought it was not a problem...].
Are you saying that a person here can not write that they think it is not a problem?
Here is the whole statement by dancingstar.
She wrote,[...Personally, I do not believe that it is a "problem" with "symptoms" or a "diagnosis"...]
Is it not that statement by dancingstar saying that it is her point of view? I think that there is the potential to think that dancingstar wrote a sincere post about her point of view that she thinks that there is evidence that psychotropic drugs cause a premature death and that there is evidence that these drugs cause ill health and that there is evidence that these drugs are poisonous to our bodies.
She went on to write,[...if the "cures" are likely to cause ill health and lead to an earlier...death for having taken something that proves to be poisonous to our bodies, though, I think it's a bad idea to pursue them no matter who tells us that they are terrific...].
If the policy here in your FAQ is that different points of view are encouraged, then I think that there is the potential to think that dancingstar responded to your FAQ in writing her point of view. I have read many research articles confirming what dancingstar wrote about psychotropic drugs, many by notable doctors and psychiatrists. Now if you are restricting people here to have only one point of view as to the nature of psychtropic drugs, then could you put that in your FAQ?
Lou pIlder
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 23, 2005, at 18:01:19
In reply to Lou's response to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Auntie Mel » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 23, 2005, at 17:22:22
Dr. Hsiung,
You also wrote that you[... had a fear that others...] in relation to what dancingstar wrote.
Was it your fear that others might think that psychotropic drugs do cause premature death and ill health and could be poisonous to our bodies?
If so, the other post in question writes about western medicine in a particular light that IMO has the potential to be in the same catagory as dancingstar's statement and does not another poster here think that there is not a difference?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Minnie-Haha on April 23, 2005, at 18:23:27
In reply to Re: I don't see a difference, posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2005, at 16:30:39
Well, I think there *is* a fine line here, but one thing that stands out in dancingstar's remark -- "Personally, I do not believe that it is a 'problem,' with 'symptoms' or 'a diagnosis.'" -- are the quotation marks.
Punctuation can affect meaning. So whether or not we use it properly, or whether it's use has more than one meaning, makes a big difference.
In addition to marking a quotation, quotation marks can also denote irony, which is a form of sarcasm. For example (from the Associated Press Stylebook), "The 'debate' turned into a free-for-all." They can be used to introduce an unfamiliar term too. (Again from the AP guide) "Broadcast frequencies are measured in 'kilohertz.'"
However, I think an informal use (especially in email and on message boards) is to use quotation marks to emphasize a word, but that's pretty close to using them for irony. Generally, I think people (myself included, especially if I'm in a hurry) just aren't as careful with composition in electronic messages, so you have to keep that in mind. I guess you have to look at the context. Myself, if I don't understand, I might ask the author, or if it doesn't involve me personally, defer to Dr. Bob's judgment.
Posted by Phillipa on April 23, 2005, at 21:38:57
In reply to Re: I don't see a difference, posted by Minnie-Haha on April 23, 2005, at 18:23:27
This has been an interesting discussion. I do believe Lou came to the defense of dancingstar. I also agree with Minniehaha that when we post it is sometimes not done with the scrutiny that you would use if let's say it were a letter or a paper that we were being graded on both emotionally and intellectually. In other words you don't get an A or an F. Let's just agree to disagree at times. This is a great place to come and I'm always amazed at the knowledge I gain here. Some of it I may not like or agree with, but it is food for thought. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Phillipa on April 23, 2005, at 23:01:22
In reply to Re: I don't see a difference, posted by Phillipa on April 23, 2005, at 21:38:57
I would like to add that if a poster is ridiculed by others that he loses his ability to laugh and this is very unfortunate. Let's work together as a team to continue to keep this the type of safe place where all can air their differences without fear of ridicule. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Sarah T. on April 24, 2005, at 1:28:54
In reply to To clarify » Sarah T., posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 23, 2005, at 0:31:25
Hello Gabbi x 2,
Thanks for the information. I didn't know that about the klansmen. Your original post now makes much more sense to me!
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 24, 2005, at 1:38:35
In reply to Re: To clarify » Gabbi-x-2, posted by Sarah T. on April 24, 2005, at 1:28:54
> Hello Gabbi x 2,
>
> Thanks for the information. I didn't know that about the klansmen. Your original post now makes much more sense to me!Oh, you're welcome. Really, how much about the klansmen does one want to know? : )
Posted by Sarah T. on April 24, 2005, at 1:56:20
In reply to Re: To clarify » Sarah T., posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 24, 2005, at 1:38:35
> > > > > >> Oh, you're welcome. Really, how much about the klansmen does one want to know? : )>
Well, on the one hand, I don't want to know anything about them. On the other hand, I think it's important to be as well-informed as possible, even if that information is about things we oppose.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 24, 2005, at 2:13:59
In reply to Re: To clarify » Gabbi-x-2, posted by Sarah T. on April 24, 2005, at 1:56:20
> > > > > > >> Oh, you're welcome. Really, how much about the klansmen does one want to know? : )>
>
> Well, on the one hand, I don't want to know anything about them. On the other hand, I think it's important to be as well-informed as possible, even if that information is about things we oppose.Yes that's very true. I think like that somedays, other days I'm just as likely to think "ahh they're a bunch of inbred thugs claiming they are superior because they came from the same culture that invented Cheese in a can and Wonderbread?!..spare me"
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 24, 2005, at 2:29:41
In reply to Re: To clarify » Sarah T., posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 24, 2005, at 2:13:59
I'm as white as you can get. So that previous comment wasn't me being racist, I was just poking fun at my own "Proud White Heritage" that (according to them) must be preserved I know we have some things to be very proud of.
Tang
Polyester leisure suits..
(kidding)
Posted by Minnie-Haha on April 24, 2005, at 15:31:47
In reply to Re: I don't see a difference, posted by Minnie-Haha on April 23, 2005, at 18:23:27
> ... Punctuation can affect meaning. So whether or not we use it properly, or whether it's use has more than one meaning, makes a big difference...
Ha! I just realized I put an apostrophe in "it's" above that doesn't belong there! There might be other errors too, but I think I made my point anyway.
Posted by AuntieMel on April 25, 2005, at 11:29:58
In reply to Re: I don't see a difference, posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2005, at 16:30:39
Sorry - I meant not a problem.
In context, I thought what she was saying that if there is an upsetting situation in life and you get upset by it that it is *not* a problem - and that it is a natural normal human response.
I still don't see that as non-supportive.
Posted by Phillipa on April 25, 2005, at 17:05:13
In reply to Re: I don't see a difference » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on April 25, 2005, at 11:29:58
Yes, it's not a problem if you get upset over a problem in life. You would be almost expected to get upset. That's the way I read it. Fondly,Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 26, 2005, at 0:15:36
In reply to Re: I don't see a difference » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on April 25, 2005, at 11:29:58
> The one you found uncivil:
>
> > Personally, I do not believe that it is a "problem," with "symptoms" or "a diagnosis."
>
> was in response to:
>
> > > A person w/ situational/atypical depression is sad, cries, or grieves for a situation in their life, that may be fleeting, and not necessarily a situation in their brain.
>
> So - I didn't think that saying she thought that crying and grieving in response to a life situation was [not] a problem or needed a diagnosis was unsupportive at all.1. I think there's a difference between saying something isn't necessarily a situation in the brain and it isn't a problem.
2. Regarding being supportive, it was also in response to:
> > > I may have had situational/atypical depression when I was young, but I took strong anti-depressants.
and I didn't think it was supportive to tell someone who had taken strong antidepressants that they hadn't had a problem.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 26, 2005, at 17:12:26
In reply to Re: I don't see a difference, posted by Dr. Bob on April 26, 2005, at 0:15:36
Dr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...tell someone that they hadn't had a problem...].
I do not see that dancinstar wrote that. What was written was:
[...Personally, I do not believe that it is a "problem" {with}...].
By leaving out the word,"with" there is, IMO, an incomplete meaning. Because with the "with" the sentence leads to that dancingstar wrote that she didn't think that there [...was a problem with {symptoms or a diagnosis}...], which I think is different. I see her statement as a point of view about the taking of psychotropic drugs ,perhaps, unnecessarrily, and that the taking of those chemicals into one's body can have an adverse effect upon one, for she wrote that [...are likely to cause ill health and lead to an earlier... death for having taken something that proves poisonous to our bodies...]. This is different, IMO, from writing that the other poster hadn't had a problem. I do not see that dancingstar wrote that the other poster hadn't had a problem. Dancingstar's post is about a problem. But it goes on to write that she personally did not believe that it is a prblem {with a diagnosis or symptoms}. Could not the problem been something different? And is that not a point of view ?
If your FAQ writes that different points of view are encouraged here, then I think that dancingstar responded to your invitation to write her point of view about ,perhaps, that there could be an alternative to taking psychotropic drugs for a problem, not that there is not a problem, because dancingstar did write that she did not believe that it was a problem with symptoms or a disagnosis and she goes on to write,[...It is...recent to treat...as if they were a problem,though I am not opposed to finding a cure for things...]. Here dancingstar writes that it is a problem. She writes that it is recent to treat as a problem, not that there is not a problem. She aknowleges that there is a problem and goes on to write,[...I'm not opposed to finding cures...]. Can there be a cure to something that is not a problem?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Phillipa on April 26, 2005, at 18:33:36
In reply to LOu's response to Dr. Hsiung's replty to Auntie Me » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 26, 2005, at 17:12:26
That's a good question. Fondly, Phillipa
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.