![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 124 to 148 of 187. Go back in thread:
Posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 14:08:33
In reply to I think it's ironic, posted by gabbii on August 4, 2005, at 13:12:18
Hi Gabbii..
I hear what you are saying and I know there is an ironic sense to that.
I'm not nessasaraly defending the rules of the site and i'm not opposing them either. I really prefer as much as possible to take a neutral stance where I can on these kind of issues, otherwise i'll be taking sides and thats not what I want to do...
Imagine though, you took away the civility rules of the site. Or even took away all rules. I'm sure you'd agree there would be a high level of anarchy?
At one point or another you would have to introduce some kind of rules, all internet forums have them I imagine. The thing is where do you draw the line so that everyone can get along with the rules..the idea of being 'civil' to one another isn't that bad is it?
I think what really opposes people to these rules is what one persons idea of being civil is, to what another persons idea of being civil is, and in this case its Dr Bob. He is judge, jury and executioner so to speak. If you don't agree on what he thinks is civil or not in some cases then you certainly are going to feel hostile if you get blocked or warned or see anyone else blocked or warned when you dont think they did anything wrong.
The civilty rules I guess are not the only way to administor a forum... I guess you can have a hand full of modorators and administrators etc that are always on hand. Perhaps in those cases though, the site owner isn't a psychiatrist with a vested interested in monitoring behaviour, if you know what I mean.
It swings and roundabouts, perhaps some people simply will not ever get along here because they can't agree with the way the civily rules are run....but they will be very, very happy in another mental health forum with different rules?
And then you know...there are some people who just don't like rules ;-)
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 14:09:38
In reply to Great post, Nick. VERY well put :-) (nm) » Nickengland, posted by 10derHeart on August 4, 2005, at 12:39:46
Posted by gabbii on August 4, 2005, at 14:14:28
In reply to Re: THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!!!!!!!!!, posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 5:41:36
\
>
> >As you stated in the post, what if someone is suicidal, comes to this board for a final attempt at reaching out and is blocked because she broke some obscure rule. Does she just kill herself now or what?
>
> The purpose of this board in such extream measures is not for the aid of the last resort measures of a suicidal individual. If someone is reaching out, firstly using the internet, then this site www.dr-bob.org as their last resort, they are held for their own responsibilty whether or not they take their own life at the end of the day. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it remains a fact.
>
I don't think that is a fact. Suicide isn't cause by a negative reaction over the internet, for sure, it's reasons go much deeper. However often people who are suicidal don't have the means to proper treatment, that *is* a fact, there is no help in many cases, as much as people would like to believe otherwise, I can attest to that, because of the isolation and lack of community help the internet is becoming a more common way to reach out.
Is it sensible? No. is someone feeling suicidal likely to be in the mind set to do what is sensible? As a last ditch attempt at reaching out perhaps because it is a place where people have felt some connection, some comfort before, I think perfectly understandable. And a slap at that time isn't the cause of suicide, but there is such a thing as the last straw, something that can tip the scales, many people who've survived suicide attempts talk about that "one last thing that finally did it"
I was, thankfully reminded recently of something I'd said, about being careful how one responds to posters because you never know just how far down someone is. I didn't heed my own advice, and was reminded of it by a friend, and I'm glad she did. We can't stop suicide, of course, but I think being open to the realities, not the just the goals of human interaction, is important in such a sensitive area.
Posted by gabbii on August 4, 2005, at 14:20:18
In reply to Re: I think it's ironic » gabbii, posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 14:08:33
> Hi Gabbii..
>
> I hear what you are saying and I know there is an ironic sense to that.
>
I wasn't suggesting taking away the rules, and the actual subject matter of the criticism wasn't my point. I don't want it to be forgotten that it was that criticism of how the site is run that brought about the rules currently valued by so many, and yet often it's hinted that those who currently criticize the administration (even politely) go somewhere else.
Posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 15:31:30
In reply to Re: THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!!!!!!!!! » Nickengland, posted by gabbii on August 4, 2005, at 14:14:28
If you don't believe someone taking there own life is there own responsibility, that is your opinion. Maybe diminished responsibility is another word.
There are alot of varables.
If someone points a gun at someone else and pulls the trigger and kills the other person. Who is responsible for the death? The person who commits murder is responsible are they not?
If someone points a gun at their own head and pulls the trigger who is responsible for there own death? They can only be responsbile for their death can they not?
Of course you can always say the gun is responsible. The tablets they took or alchohol they took an hour before was.
Or you can say no one was or nothing is responsible.
Maybe responsible is the wrong word to use. But if you plan for weeks or even months to kill yourself can then do the action and complete it -then surely you are resonsible. That is a fact, unless you can explain somehow that it isn't?
I really do not know how you can take away or adapt rules to suide with what was being said in the case that if someone comes here suicide and they get blocked, because they broke some obscure rule...
Does she just kill herself now or what?
My answer to this was as best I could answer. Obviously I was not going to say, y** and at the same time its pointless just saying no.
My point was how do we make rules to account for that question? If a suicidal poster firsts posts - do not block her or PBC in case he/she actually commits suicide? You could never enforce that?
In some respects you may not even know just through reading the texts of a poster whether or not they are at such a desparate stage in their life just as in the case take the most happiest looking poster by reading there message and for all you know they might kill themself.
Suicide is a very delicate and sensitive subject, you're a very right and I whole heatly agree with you there. My Grandfather took his own life so I myself am always fully open to the realities of this subject.
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 15:55:57
In reply to Re: I think it's ironic » Nickengland, posted by gabbii on August 4, 2005, at 14:20:18
>I don't want it to be forgotten that it was that criticism of how the site is run that brought about the rules currently valued by so many
I've only been here afew months, i'm not sure how long you've been around here for. I'm hoping in a nutshell you can explain that sentance for me.
So rules were created, because of criticism previously made before that of how the site was run.
How was the site run before these rules?
Also are you one these many people who value the current rules?
If not, how do you propose the site is run?
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by gabbii on August 4, 2005, at 16:25:34
In reply to Re: I think it's ironic » gabbii, posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 15:55:57
> >I don't want it to be forgotten that it was that criticism of how the site is run that brought about the rules currently valued by so many
>
> I've only been here afew months, i'm not sure how long you've been around here for. I'm hoping in a nutshell you can explain that sentance for me.
>Getting me to explain anything in a nutshell is kind of difficult..
> So rules were created, because of criticism previously made before that of how the site was run.
>Yes, which is why I don't think people who criticize how it is run now should be made to feel as if they should go elsewhere.
> How was the site run before these rules?
There weren't any rules, not as far as civility goes.
> Also are you one these many people who value the current rules?
>Yes, for the most part, though what I see as inconsistancy, and blocks which are out of proportion to the 'crime' bother me.
Posted by barosky on August 4, 2005, at 16:28:04
In reply to Interesting Coincidence » barosky, posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 4:40:21
I found SO'S posts quite intriguing, some of it I agreed with immensly, other stuff I just got a *conspiracy nut* impression. Like I remember posts of his where he said Dr. Bob promoted suicide, and I think at one time he equated Bob with the devil, I am not sure, but if you leave out the radical, extreme messages behind many of SO's post I do agree with him.
So maybe i've been subconsciencely reiterating aspects of SO's posts without knowing it, I do that alot.
I am very open to addressing this issue and it is strange how I have become so much equated with SO, even though I AM NOT THAT USER.
I don't know how I would prove it, maybe Bob could do an i.p. check or ,something , check what email I posted with. ANYTHING I"D BE OPEN TO , because I am NOT SO!
Posted by gabbii on August 4, 2005, at 16:35:54
In reply to Re: THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!!!!!!!!!, posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 5:41:36
>
> The purpose of this board in such extream measures is not for the aid of the last resort measures of a suicidal individual. If someone is reaching out, firstly using the internet, thwhether or not they take their own life at the end of the day.I think I misunderstood that sentence, or applied two meanings to it. Yes of course it is an individuals responsibility whether they commit suicide. I took this line though :
**then this site www.dr-bob.org as their last resort, they are held for their own responsibilty***
As a criticism of how someone's choice in dealing with their feelings.
I was using Barosky's comparison of the P.B.C Theresa got when obviously upset, to someone being highly emotional and suicidal and possibly getting p.b.c'd.
I don't think this site is geared for suicidal people, or should be counted on for that. I do believe that a rebuke when someone is obviously severely distressed could have tragic consequences, yes it is up to the individual to make the final decision, but as this is a site for mental health, I wish there was more leeway when high emotions aren't directed at anyone else.
That's all.
>
> The internet is a 'virtual' world and the rules of this site are not the same rules of that in real life - in actual fact the existance of people here and the very rules themselves equate to a person taping in a keyboard and looking a monitor at text and living by the existance of ''virtual' rules. This site is not intended to treat or diagnose and certainly function as a tool for keeping suicidal people alive who are reaching out. If such people are at such a point in there life where they are willing to base a persons reply, be it that of a member or an administrator's written response or whether or not they live or die - take their own life, they are held fully responsible for their own actions....in the same way if they flip a coin that day and it lands heads, or if the sun don't shine, or if their mother doesnt call, or if she does call but doesnt say 'i love you' before she says good bye, or if they get blocked for an internet forum. At the end of the day they themselves decide whether or not they take their own life.
>
> Afew things to consider would be... you could always try to abide by the rules. The civiliy rules look like there prety much here to stay so you can either fight them or ride the wave with them. If you decide to go along with them you can focus your energy on using the site for the most positive reasons and so avoid conflict where possible.
>
> If you go up against them..remember your voice is limited here which means your only probably end up getting frustrated - then possibly warned - then blocked. Go up against them again and the cycle continues. Not much of 'feel good' factor there I would of thought.
>
> Maybe you feel the rules stink, should be scraped, you'd be a better adminstrator, "you'd run the place far better if you *owned* it" Hey maybe you would. Only thing is you don't *own* it. Options, open your own forum? Or if you can't beat em', join em' Sometimes perhaps its better to work as a team rather than fighting against the 'leader' At the end of the day, what Dr Bob says and what his judgement and final call is - is exactly that...his call.
>
> It is your privilege to post here, you don't pay for membership, but at the same time you can recieve a mass of information for free. It really is quite a bargin when you look at it from some angles. I always think its better to draw positives where possible.
>
> Finally if you really detest the practice and function of this site so badly that you just want to see it shut down and no matter what happens you just don't like what goes on here.....well being a hetrosexual male i'm not into wearing pink knickers, for this reason I dont hang around the places that sell them.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Nick
Posted by gabbii on August 4, 2005, at 16:43:22
In reply to Am I the user *SOO?????, posted by barosky on August 4, 2005, at 16:28:04
> So maybe i've been subconsciencely reiterating aspects of SO's posts without knowing it, I do that alot.
>
> I am very open to addressing this issue and it is strange how I have become so much equated with SO, even though I AM NOT THAT USER.
>
> I don't know how I would prove it, maybe Bob could do an i.p. check or ,something , check what email I posted with. ANYTHING I"D BE OPEN TO , because I am NOT SO!You don't have to, it's clear you're not so, and actually the poster who capitalized So in her post.. as in "SO" familiar" did it inadvertantly, she actually thought you reminded her of someone else, and GG (if you saw her post) wasn't referring to So either. Aside from this latest post no one else has thought you were, or at least if they did they haven't said it on the board.
Over the years, many people have brought up criticisms similar to yours, I don't think they are all incarnations of So.
Posted by crushedout on August 4, 2005, at 17:07:35
In reply to Re: THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!!!!!!!!!, posted by barosky on August 3, 2005, at 17:00:53
why did you misquote me, barosky? you deleted the last line of my post.i think you're preaching to the choir. i've been here for a while and big part of my point was that i don't think the rules are enforced fairly. and if you read some of my recent threads i have been complaining about that. i only made the point that i think the rules *in principle* are not a bad idea. i just wish we had a better enforcement system.
Posted by gabbii on August 4, 2005, at 17:27:42
In reply to Re: THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!!!!!!!!! » barosky, posted by crushedout on August 4, 2005, at 17:07:35
>
i only made the point that i think the rules *in principle* are not a bad idea. i just wish we had a better enforcement system.Yeah. that's it. I wish I'd said that.
Posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 17:29:25
In reply to Am I the user *SOO?????, posted by barosky on August 4, 2005, at 16:28:04
I found it very interesting and like I said a coincidence...i'm sure you understand. Thanks for replying and sorry if any offense was recieved your end.
Of course Dr Bob could do checks..it wasn't my point for him to do such checks or draw him to this message.
The thing is with SO as i'm sure you'll agree he was a very interesting intelligent poster to communicate with - at least I found that anyway...and yes some of it was alittle extream I do agree.
LOL of course without adding anymore confusion and please forgive me as I dont want to sound like Columbo. But obviously for arguments sake if you was 'so' then the last thing you would do, would be to admit that you was as 'so' is currently blocked and if he was to post whilst blocked he would then have to start his block all over. What with 'so' being intelligent that he is the last thing he would do is use the same email address to re-register. As for i.p address there are plenty of programmes you can use you block your i.p address or each time you use your computer you can actually have an i.p address annoymous programme where it shows a different i.p address to the actual one you have....people actually use them specially for blocking there i.p address information from internet forums so I read.
Maybe when 'so' eventually returns you and him will have some interesting discussions...I certainly found my talks with him very interesting.
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 18:17:11
In reply to Re: I think it's ironic » Nickengland, posted by gabbii on August 4, 2005, at 16:25:34
>Yes, which is why I don't think people who criticize how it is run now should be made to feel as if they should go elsewhere.
Thats a very fair point.
Would this equate to..
Before there was no rules as such and people criticized....but what was they criticising?...because there were no rules to criticize?...was that the problem they were criticising - that they wanted rules?
Anyway, rules are made for these people and all is well so to speak for that generation if you like.
This is where I don't quite understand what your saying....the people before had no rules - they get rules.
Now people come along...and they can't fit into the rules, so are you saying the rules should now be changed yet again?
I understand you say, they shouldn't be made to feel they should go elsewhere just because they critisise how it is run. Well before there was no rules and people critisised then and rules were given. So do you feel that these new people, to be treated fairly should be given new rules too?...because they can't get along with the ones given.
With people going elsewhere, I think there is something ironic here too. Correct me if i'm wrong but from what I gather you took a liking to the poster of 'so'. Now the poster of 'so' made one of his intentions very clear indeed and that was this site should be shut down - therefore everyone would have to go elsewhere.
If i'm one of these people who you think gives the impression that people who criticise the site should go elsewhere, then please be rest assured that its only when the threat is first given to me as it was by 'so' that i respond in a such a way in the first place. I know 'so' hasn't even directly entered this discussion, but my post with barosky indirectly included him and is why it brought up the thoughts of what I said in the first place, when I originally posted that message.
That is the only case where I personally will say people might be better off elsewhere, is when someone threatens the whole entire existance of this site and everyone in it, that they could possibly be better off elsewhere.
Lets not have your point be forgotten sure, but lets not forget that what 'so's agenda was that he posted was largescale 'elsewhere-ness' and this is the poeple you are defending. Its like double irony.
Posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 19:53:57
In reply to Re: I think it's ironic, posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 18:17:11
Posted by crazy teresa on August 4, 2005, at 20:06:34
In reply to Above for gabbii (nm), posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 19:53:57
If you have anything else to post about my block or PBC, please babblemail me. I won't be coming back here to look; this board makes me a nervous wreck!
crazy t
Posted by crazy teresa on August 4, 2005, at 20:09:30
In reply to Am I watching Jerry Springer?????? » Nickengland, posted by crazy teresa on August 4, 2005, at 20:06:34
Sorry, Nickengland.
The above post was not specifically for you.
crazy t
Posted by MCK on August 4, 2005, at 20:30:46
In reply to Re: Am I the user *SOO????? » barosky, posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 17:29:25
What is Barosky supposed to say -- he can't win.
Another option is that YOU could be so and deflecting suspicion by accusing another poster of being him or maybe you're Barosky too!
Or maybe Gabby is SO after all she "took a liking to him" If you'd paid the attention you should before making assumptions you'd have seen that he appreciated her kindness, although he said "she maintained her own person by not having to agree or side with him"Placing "bear with me, forgive me, and kind regards around your statements doesn't hide your intent.
And Gabby post more would you?
This lurker is besotted.
> LOL of course without adding anymore confusion and please forgive me as I dont want to sound like Columbo. But obviously for arguments sake if you was 'so' then the last thing you would do, would be to admit that you was as 'so' is currently blocked and if he was to post whilst blocked he would then have to start his block all over. What with 'so' being intelligent that he is the last thing he would do is use the same email address to re-register. As for i.p address there are plenty of programmes you can use you block your i.p address or each time you use your computer you can actually have an i.p address annoymous programme where it shows a different i.p address to the actual one you have....people actually use them specially for blocking there i.p address information from internet forums so I read.
>
> Maybe when 'so' eventually returns you and him will have some interesting discussions...I certainly found my talks with him very interesting.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Nick
Posted by MCK on August 4, 2005, at 20:36:27
In reply to Re: I think it's ironic, posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 18:17:11
> >Yes, which is why I don't think people who criticize how it is run now should be made to feel as if they should go elsewhere.
>
> Thats a very fair point.
>
> Would this equate to..
>
> Before there was no rules as such and people criticized....but what was they criticising?...because there were no rules to criticize?...was that the problem they were criticising - that they wanted rules?
>
> Anyway, rules are made for these people and all is well so to speak for that generation if you like.
>
> This is where I don't quite understand what your saying....the people before had no rules - they get rules.
>
> Now people come along...and they can't fit into the rules, so are you saying the rules should now be changed yet again?
>
> I understand you say, they shouldn't be made to feel they should go elsewhere just because they critisise how it is run. Well before there was no rules and people critisised then and rules were given. So do you feel that these new people, to be treated fairly should be given new rules too?...because they can't get along with the ones given.
>
> With people going elsewhere, I think there is something ironic here too. Correct me if i'm wrong but from what I gather you took a liking to the poster of 'so'. Now the poster of 'so' made one of his intentions very clear indeed and that was this site should be shut down - therefore everyone would have to go elsewhere.
>
> If i'm one of these people who you think gives the impression that people who criticise the site should go elsewhere, then please be rest assured that its only when the threat is first given to me as it was by 'so' that i respond in a such a way in the first place. I know 'so' hasn't even directly entered this discussion, but my post with barosky indirectly included him and is why it brought up the thoughts of what I said in the first place, when I originally posted that message.
>
> That is the only case where I personally will say people might be better off elsewhere, is when someone threatens the whole entire existance of this site and everyone in it, that they could possibly be better off elsewhere.
>
No, you indirectly gave the same message to Barosky, but of course anyone who has similar criticisms to SO must be SO therefore I guess according to your standards it's okay for you to infer that they all should go elsewhere.
Posted by gabbii on August 4, 2005, at 21:26:59
In reply to Re: I think it's ironic, posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 18:17:11
> >Yes, which is why I don't think people who criticize how it is run now should be made to feel as if they should go elsewhere.
>
> Thats a very fair point.
>
> Would this equate to..
>
> Before there was no rules as such and people criticized....but what was they criticising?...because there were no rules to criticize?...was that the problem they were criticising - that they wanted rules?
>Yes, rules, reasons for implementing, poster behaviour, limitations, consequences for breaking rules,
> Anyway, rules are made for these people and all is well so to speak for that generation if you like.
>
> This is where I don't quite understand what your saying....the people before had no rules - they get rules.
>
> Now people come along...and they can't fit into the rules, so are you saying the rules should now be changed yet again?
>It's not static, people have different ideas, thing continue to evolve, as is the case for almost everything. Dr. Bob has actually encouraged it. To say as much as "We are going to do it this way because this is the way we've been doing it" isn't everyone's idea of what is best.
> I understand you say, they shouldn't be made to feel they should go elsewhere just because they critisise how it is run. Well before there was no rules and people critisised then and rules were given. So do you feel that these new people, to be treated fairly should be given new rules too?...because they can't get along with the ones given.
>
> With people going elsewhere, I think there is something ironic here too. Correct me if i'm wrong but from what I gather you took a liking to the poster of 'so'. Now the poster of 'so' made one of his intentions very clear indeed and that was this site should be shut down - therefore everyone would have to go elsewhere.
>There is no relevence in that statement to this discussion at all.
If you (as you inferred) "like" a poster does that mean you and their opinions are interchangeable?
That was So's preference and you were welcome to take it up with him. What it has to do with me simply because I didn't attack him is beyond me. Had I agreed with it (his intent) I could almost see how it's germaine to the topic.
As it is, I'll say this. I like and dislike people, I agree and disagree with ideologies. How much one's ideas influence my "liking" them depend of course on my passions.
I'm quite capable of 'liking' someone and disagreeing with them, as well as the opposite. I respond to what is being said, not what other things may influence my feelings about the poster, as much as is humanly possible anyway.And that's it for me on this topic.
influences the other
> If i'm one of these people who you think gives the impression that people who criticise the site should go elsewhere, then please be rest assured that its only when the threat is first given to me as it was by 'so' that i respond in a such a way in the first place. I know 'so' hasn't even directly entered this discussion, but my post with barosky indirectly included him and is why it brought up the thoughts of what I said in the first place, when I originally posted that message.
>
> That is the only case where I personally will say people might be better off elsewhere, is when someone threatens the whole entire existance of this site and everyone in it, that they could possibly be better off elsewhere.
>
> Lets not have your point be forgotten sure, but lets not forget that what 'so's agenda was that he posted was largescale 'elsewhere-ness' and this is the poeple you are defending. Its like double irony.
Posted by gabbii on August 4, 2005, at 21:33:15
In reply to Springer it is » Nickengland, posted by MCK on August 4, 2005, at 20:30:46
> Or maybe Gabby is SO after all she "took a liking to him" If you'd paid the attention you should before making assumptions you'd have seen that he appreciated her kindness, although he said "she maintained her own person by not having to agree or side with him"
>
Thank you MCK for pointing that out, it's kind a nice to know I can talk to someone and still be known for what I've actually said.Besotted eh?
SMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTH
You know it kind of freaks me out how you pop out of nowhere..
Posted by gardenergirl on August 5, 2005, at 0:55:15
In reply to Re: THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!!!!!!!!! » gardenergirl, posted by 10derHeart on August 4, 2005, at 0:12:12
Posted by barosky on August 5, 2005, at 3:04:15
In reply to Re: THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!!!!!!!!! » barosky, posted by crushedout on August 4, 2005, at 17:07:35
>
> why did you misquote me, barosky? you deleted the last line of my post.
>
> i think you're preaching to the choir. i've been here for a while and big part of my point was that i don't think the rules are enforced fairly. and if you read some of my recent threads i have been complaining about that. i only made the point that i think the rules *in principle* are not a bad idea. i just wish we had a better enforcement system.The only reason I delete parts of ones post when replying is so that one doesen't have to scroll through an abundance of text that they most likely already read ,
Posted by Nickengland on August 5, 2005, at 5:18:15
In reply to Springer it is » Nickengland, posted by MCK on August 4, 2005, at 20:30:46
>What is Barosky supposed to say -- he can't win.
I'm not here to point score and i'm glad Barosky was open to what I said like he stated in his message to me. I was simply seeing and posting what I saw was a coincidence and then posting my thoughts on the matter.
>Another option is that YOU could be so and deflecting suspicion by accusing another poster of being him or maybe you're Barosky too!
Or maybe Gabby is SO after all she "took a liking to him" If you'd paid the attention you should before making assumptions you'd have seen that he appreciated her kindness, although he said "she maintained her own person by not having to agree or side with him"
LOL An another option is your SO - but then come on, I was kind of making a light hearted joke about being Columbo, thats all I was doing there back in that post, just like I did with that.If you want to take it further and start using block capitals to shout "YOU" at me, thats perfectly up to you, i'm afriad thats not my style to start shouting back though, so I won't be rising to that kind of message.
>Placing "bear with me, forgive me, and kind regards around your statements doesn't hide your intent.
Lets get one thing crystal clear MCK. Firsly placing "bear with me" means exactly that, as this is Administration after all and all i'm trying to do is ask that readers bear with what I have to say - more importantly I was asking Barosky to bear with me. Which judging from his reply I think he did.
Secondly, forgive means exactly that again, because this is administration and people emotions normally run high here, I was stating in advance, to basically forgive me if I offend anyone. You have been offened I see that quite obviously and I appologise profusely for that.
Kind regards - means exactly that. I have mannors and i'm a pretty friendly person in real life. This relects on how I am in an internet forum too. I hate arguments of any kind, if you must really know. So I always try and use kind words whenever I can. Have an argument with me in real life and you'll know i'll never end it on a bad word. I hope I don't have to do that here either.
My intent was to show that I saw a coincidence, one that perhaps you did not see yourself. The other words I used are not 'cover ups' as you are suggesting to hide my acutal intent. If you have any problem believing that, seach my name in google, I would be willing to bet as much as 98% of my posts whether about medications, which used to be the majoirty of them always start with hello - to the posters name and end with kind regards. Its just respect and mannors. Thats all.
Kind regards - In your case, i'll be willing not to use this if you request otherwise. Just out of respect for you. I'm not here to call cause trouble or wind people up.
Nick
Posted by Nickengland on August 5, 2005, at 5:50:47
In reply to Re: I think it's Ridiculous Nick » Nickengland, posted by MCK on August 4, 2005, at 20:36:27
Hello again MCK - And please like I say before if you prefer I do not use mannors to address you to say 'hello' request otherwise and i'll jump straght into the message.
>No, you indirectly gave the same message to Barosky, but of course anyone who has similar criticisms to SO must be SO therefore I guess according to your standards it's okay for you to infer that they all should go elsewhere.This I think is what is called jumping to the wrong conclusions.
"of course anyone who has similar criticisms to SO must be SO therefore I guess according to your standards it's okay for you to infer that they all should go elsewhere."
No, I have never before and should not be proven guilty for the future of my actions that I will accuse 'anyone' in the future that if they have similar criticisms they must be 'so'
I did indeed say in that message you replyed too..
>That is the only case where I personally will say people might be better off elsewhere, is when someone threatens the whole entire existance of this site and everyone in it, that they could possibly be better off elsewhere.
Hence "this is the only case"
If you want to know more about my standards i'll tell you this. I was in mid conversation with 'so' when he/she got blocked and he/she never got the chance to answer some of my questions. There was certain things that stuck in my mind with what 'so' said upon his return.
i.e 'so' said something along the lines of, upon his return he will not make himself known that 'he' has returned...he knows covert ways to hide himself etc etc I can't remember the exact words but it was more or less something along the lines that he wasn't exactly going to post back with "hi, im 'so', im back from from block how is everyone?" You get what I mean. Now when I saw what I thought barosky's post was similar and he more or less agreed some parts of it were as well too. I posted that I thought it was a coincidence.
I asked Gabbi a similar question eariler on as she said that it could not be 'so' that is incorrect. I asked how she would know, but she prefered not to comment on how she could be certain it was not. I'm still left with curosity and for the record I look forward to speaking with 'so' again as he really got me thinking when I coresponded with him, with regards to some areas of discussion we had together.
This does not mean that now i'm going to accuse everyone that they are 'so' so please don't jump to conclusions about my standards, as I am not judging yours.
Kind regards
Nick
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.