![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 4 to 28 of 60. Go back in thread:
Posted by Solstice on February 26, 2012, at 10:16:35
In reply to Lou's reply-tymwheytzfoarknohwun » ed_uk2010, posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2012, at 9:37:07
Lou
> E. If the administration does not attend to a notification, could that allow one to... have other emotional distress inflicted upon them?
That certainly was my experience when the notifications I sent regarding my thread being hijacked were not attended to.
Solstice
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2012, at 11:04:39
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-tymwheytzfoarknohwun » Lou Pilder, posted by Solstice on February 26, 2012, at 10:16:35
> Lou
>
> > E. If the administration does not attend to a notification, could that allow one to... have other emotional distress inflicted upon them?
>
> That certainly was my experience when the notifications I sent regarding my thread being hijacked were not attended to.
>
> Solstice
>
> Solstice,
You wrote the above.
Now it is my understanding that the concept of "hijacking a thread" is not a part of the TOS here. Instead, the forum allows the freedom to respond to posts here in what the poster wants to post about whatever it is that they are responding to. That freedom is provided to all the members here. If the response posted belongs somewhere else like on another board, the administartion {redirects} it. Sometimes a member can post and not know if it is going to be redirected until after the fact. There is a way in my unnderstanding for a member to redirect a post?
But what is done on other forums about "hijacking a thread", I have never seen invoked here by the administraion, not that because that I have no recolection of such that it has not been done by the administartion.
I do not consider a response posted to a post in the thread to ever be "hijacking" a thread because it could be redirected by the administration here. And if not, it is what it is and other responders could know that what it is ,is what it is. Members could still reply to other members regardless if there is a post that could be redirected but is not done so by the administration.
There is also the concept here of telling another that they can not post in a thread, or dictate the content that the poster can post in the thread. The question is if telling another not to post {whatever} is or is not supportive, for support takes precedence.
Now support is not the same as reinforcement. If a member here wants to advocate that one can drink vodka while taking a benzodiazepine, that does not mean that if a member posts that the combining of those two could cause death is not to be posted in that thread. The warning of death by combining the drugs is supportive in my understnding. Now if one came here and started a thread that the earth is flat, that does not mean that others have to post to reinforce that concept. You see, hijacking a thread does not exist here because support takes precedence which could mean that there could be posts that do not reinforce the initiator's premise, which could be good for the community as a whole because by not supporting the premis, lives could be saved or people could avoid a life-ruining condition or addiction or death.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2012, at 11:24:05
In reply to Lou's reply-kubah » Solstice, posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2012, at 11:04:39
> > Lou
> >
> > > E. If the administration does not attend to a notification, could that allow one to... have other emotional distress inflicted upon them?
> >
> > That certainly was my experience when the notifications I sent regarding my thread being hijacked were not attended to.
> >
> > Solstice
> >
> > Solstice,
> You wrote the above.
> Now it is my understanding that the concept of "hijacking a thread" is not a part of the TOS here. Instead, the forum allows the freedom to respond to posts here in what the poster wants to post about whatever it is that they are responding to. That freedom is provided to all the members here. If the response posted belongs somewhere else like on another board, the administartion {redirects} it. Sometimes a member can post and not know if it is going to be redirected until after the fact. There is a way in my unnderstanding for a member to redirect a post?
> But what is done on other forums about "hijacking a thread", I have never seen invoked here by the administraion, not that because that I have no recolection of such that it has not been done by the administartion.
> I do not consider a response posted to a post in the thread to ever be "hijacking" a thread because it could be redirected by the administration here. And if not, it is what it is and other responders could know that what it is ,is what it is. Members could still reply to other members regardless if there is a post that could be redirected but is not done so by the administration.
> There is also the concept here of telling another that they can not post in a thread, or dictate the content that the poster can post in the thread. The question is if telling another not to post {whatever} is or is not supportive, for support takes precedence.
> Now support is not the same as reinforcement. If a member here wants to advocate that one can drink vodka while taking a benzodiazepine, that does not mean that if a member posts that the combining of those two could cause death is not to be posted in that thread. The warning of death by combining the drugs is supportive in my understnding. Now if one came here and started a thread that the earth is flat, that does not mean that others have to post to reinforce that concept. You see, hijacking a thread does not exist here because support takes precedence which could mean that there could be posts that do not reinforce the initiator's premise, which could be good for the community as a whole because by not supporting the premis, lives could be saved or people could avoid a life-ruining condition or addiction or death.
> Lou
>
> Friends,
The concept of telling others not to post was made here by the owner to be prohibited. I came here on the basis that I thoght that the site was under thhe umbrella of the U of Chicago which meant to me that I would have freedom of speech as others in the forum had and would not be discriminated on as that I would be an equal member here.
Many of you already know of that there are outstending notifications from me here that go back day, weeks, months and years. IMHHO, lives could be saved if the notifications were attended to. And there is much more to this.
But as to "hijacking" a thread, the concept here has been to me that no one here can tell me or anyone else, what I can or can not post. I took Mr. Hsiung at his word at the start of this forum.
Lou
Here is a post by Mr. Hsiung that exemplfies that no one is to tell another to not post, which in my understsnding negates any concept here of "hijacking" a thread for the admin could redirect posts.
Lou
To see this post:
A. Go to the search box at the bottom of this page
B. Type in:
[Dr bob, faith, 338]
usually first
Posted by Dinah on February 26, 2012, at 12:03:23
In reply to Lou's reply-phreedum, posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2012, at 11:24:05
For what it's worth, here's my understanding.
There is no rule about hijacking threads.
There is a "Do not post to me" that can be applied under certain circumstances. But since that doesn't preclude the poster from commenting on one's posts, just of directly addressing the requestor, it is of very limited applicability.
It might well be considered against the rules to ask a particular poster not to post on one's threads.
However, it is possible to for a thread originator tp request that certain types of posts, for example "anti-medication posts" not to be posted on a thread. Or it is possible for people to request that certain things not to be posted to them. These requests will be upheld through a "Please Be Sensitive", which carry the same weight and have the same consequences as a "Please be Civil".
Posts that are negative towards other posters, or leap to conclusions about the motivations of other posters, are still considered uncivil.
Dr. Bob has often held to the principle that two wrongs don't make a right.
This is all supposing that Dr. Bob ever wanders by to administrate - which he still does, however irregularly.
Posted by Solstice on February 26, 2012, at 12:12:38
In reply to Lou's reply-kubah » Solstice, posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2012, at 11:04:39
LouA single post stating your concern about medications causing death and life-ruination is fine, and I have said that. However, when a poster makes multiple (even 4 and 5 in a row) posts promoting their extreme warnings about medications - posting videos, etc.. that's where it becomes hijacking.
If I took the position that Geodon will cure all the world's ills, and I proceeded to make repeated posts - even 4 and 5 in a row and 10 or more in a day to every single person's thread about medications - insisting that Geodon is the only thing that will cure people and those who don't use it are at risk for death and life-ruination, posting even on threads where the originator has said they tried Geodon and had a bad reaction - do you think I would be allowed to continue that behavior? Do you think it would be unreasonable for people to object? Do you think I should have the *right* to behave in a disruptive manner like that? Would it be shocking to hear my behavior was so distressing to the thread authors that some were brought to tears because it was so overwhelming to deal with my dogma that they will all die or ruin their lives if they don't take Geodon?
Solstice
> > Lou
> >
> > > E. If the administration does not attend to a notification, could that allow one to... have other emotional distress inflicted upon them?
> >
> > That certainly was my experience when the notifications I sent regarding my thread being hijacked were not attended to.
> >
> > Solstice
> >
> > Solstice,
> You wrote the above.
> Now it is my understanding that the concept of "hijacking a thread" is not a part of the TOS here. Instead, the forum allows the freedom to respond to posts here in what the poster wants to post about whatever it is that they are responding to. That freedom is provided to all the members here. If the response posted belongs somewhere else like on another board, the administartion {redirects} it. Sometimes a member can post and not know if it is going to be redirected until after the fact. There is a way in my unnderstanding for a member to redirect a post?
> But what is done on other forums about "hijacking a thread", I have never seen invoked here by the administraion, not that because that I have no recolection of such that it has not been done by the administartion.
> I do not consider a response posted to a post in the thread to ever be "hijacking" a thread because it could be redirected by the administration here. And if not, it is what it is and other responders could know that what it is ,is what it is. Members could still reply to other members regardless if there is a post that could be redirected but is not done so by the administration.
> There is also the concept here of telling another that they can not post in a thread, or dictate the content that the poster can post in the thread. The question is if telling another not to post {whatever} is or is not supportive, for support takes precedence.
> Now support is not the same as reinforcement. If a member here wants to advocate that one can drink vodka while taking a benzodiazepine, that does not mean that if a member posts that the combining of those two could cause death is not to be posted in that thread. The warning of death by combining the drugs is supportive in my understnding. Now if one came here and started a thread that the earth is flat, that does not mean that others have to post to reinforce that concept. You see, hijacking a thread does not exist here because support takes precedence which could mean that there could be posts that do not reinforce the initiator's premise, which could be good for the community as a whole because by not supporting the premis, lives could be saved or people could avoid a life-ruining condition or addiction or death.
> Lou
>
>
Posted by Solstice on February 26, 2012, at 12:16:51
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-phreedum, posted by Dinah on February 26, 2012, at 12:03:23
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2012, at 13:07:05
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-kubah » Lou Pilder, posted by Solstice on February 26, 2012, at 12:12:38
>
> Lou
>
> A single post stating your concern about medications causing death and life-ruination is fine, and I have said that. However, when a poster makes multiple (even 4 and 5 in a row) posts promoting their extreme warnings about medications - posting videos, etc.. that's where it becomes hijacking.
>
> If I took the position that Geodon will cure all the world's ills, and I proceeded to make repeated posts - even 4 and 5 in a row and 10 or more in a day to every single person's thread about medications - insisting that Geodon is the only thing that will cure people and those who don't use it are at risk for death and life-ruination, posting even on threads where the originator has said they tried Geodon and had a bad reaction - do you think I would be allowed to continue that behavior? Do you think it would be unreasonable for people to object? Do you think I should have the *right* to behave in a disruptive manner like that? Would it be shocking to hear my behavior was so distressing to the thread authors that some were brought to tears because it was so overwhelming to deal with my dogma that they will all die or ruin their lives if they don't take Geodon?
>
> Solstice
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Lou
> > >
> > > > E. If the administration does not attend to a notification, could that allow one to... have other emotional distress inflicted upon them?
> > >
> > > That certainly was my experience when the notifications I sent regarding my thread being hijacked were not attended to.
> > >
> > > Solstice
> > >
> > > Solstice,
> > You wrote the above.
> > Now it is my understanding that the concept of "hijacking a thread" is not a part of the TOS here. Instead, the forum allows the freedom to respond to posts here in what the poster wants to post about whatever it is that they are responding to. That freedom is provided to all the members here. If the response posted belongs somewhere else like on another board, the administartion {redirects} it. Sometimes a member can post and not know if it is going to be redirected until after the fact. There is a way in my unnderstanding for a member to redirect a post?
> > But what is done on other forums about "hijacking a thread", I have never seen invoked here by the administraion, not that because that I have no recolection of such that it has not been done by the administartion.
> > I do not consider a response posted to a post in the thread to ever be "hijacking" a thread because it could be redirected by the administration here. And if not, it is what it is and other responders could know that what it is ,is what it is. Members could still reply to other members regardless if there is a post that could be redirected but is not done so by the administration.
> > There is also the concept here of telling another that they can not post in a thread, or dictate the content that the poster can post in the thread. The question is if telling another not to post {whatever} is or is not supportive, for support takes precedence.
> > Now support is not the same as reinforcement. If a member here wants to advocate that one can drink vodka while taking a benzodiazepine, that does not mean that if a member posts that the combining of those two could cause death is not to be posted in that thread. The warning of death by combining the drugs is supportive in my understnding. Now if one came here and started a thread that the earth is flat, that does not mean that others have to post to reinforce that concept. You see, hijacking a thread does not exist here because support takes precedence which could mean that there could be posts that do not reinforce the initiator's premise, which could be good for the community as a whole because by not supporting the premis, lives could be saved or people could avoid a life-ruining condition or addiction or death.
> > Lou
> >
> > Sol,
The concept of {keeping count} on what someone says, has historicl paralles that I am prohibited here by Mr. Hsiung to post about.
Sometimes there are more than one post about the same thing because the poster is responding to more than one person at a time. Sometimes I will post a response that could entail having many posts that each bring in something different to the discussion, such as a doctor explaining something in a video that is IMO easier for members to understand and could bring out the point in question in a better light for people to see.
But the forum is for all, it is public. This means that there could be people viewing the posts that are not participants in the thread or even in any thread, they just read the posts and do not post themselves. These people could be looking for information and I am trying to reach those people also. If I could, then they could have the information from me that IMHO could save their life or prevent them from getting a life-ruining condition or addiction.
Now this brings up the concept of keeping count on me as to how many posts I make as to there could be some stopping me from posting after I post whatever amount of posts that you say could be prohibited here. If that happened, then those people wanting answers from me could have the potential IMO be killed because they could not get the answers from me after a particular number of posts by me, for the rule would cut me off. Now I do not consider it supportive to still anyone's voice here or anywhere else. In fact, there could be a situation that if you do get such a rule here implemented, that if someone dies as a result of them not being allowed to see what I could have posted if not stopped, then could not you be held accountable for their death? If not, could you post here why not?
Lou
>
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2012, at 13:30:09
In reply to Lou's reply-pstpdhtguy » Solstice, posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2012, at 13:07:05
> >
> > Lou
> >
> > A single post stating your concern about medications causing death and life-ruination is fine, and I have said that. However, when a poster makes multiple (even 4 and 5 in a row) posts promoting their extreme warnings about medications - posting videos, etc.. that's where it becomes hijacking.
> >
> > If I took the position that Geodon will cure all the world's ills, and I proceeded to make repeated posts - even 4 and 5 in a row and 10 or more in a day to every single person's thread about medications - insisting that Geodon is the only thing that will cure people and those who don't use it are at risk for death and life-ruination, posting even on threads where the originator has said they tried Geodon and had a bad reaction - do you think I would be allowed to continue that behavior? Do you think it would be unreasonable for people to object? Do you think I should have the *right* to behave in a disruptive manner like that? Would it be shocking to hear my behavior was so distressing to the thread authors that some were brought to tears because it was so overwhelming to deal with my dogma that they will all die or ruin their lives if they don't take Geodon?
> >
> > Solstice
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Lou
> > > >
> > > > > E. If the administration does not attend to a notification, could that allow one to... have other emotional distress inflicted upon them?
> > > >
> > > > That certainly was my experience when the notifications I sent regarding my thread being hijacked were not attended to.
> > > >
> > > > Solstice
> > > >
> > > > Solstice,
> > > You wrote the above.
> > > Now it is my understanding that the concept of "hijacking a thread" is not a part of the TOS here. Instead, the forum allows the freedom to respond to posts here in what the poster wants to post about whatever it is that they are responding to. That freedom is provided to all the members here. If the response posted belongs somewhere else like on another board, the administartion {redirects} it. Sometimes a member can post and not know if it is going to be redirected until after the fact. There is a way in my unnderstanding for a member to redirect a post?
> > > But what is done on other forums about "hijacking a thread", I have never seen invoked here by the administraion, not that because that I have no recolection of such that it has not been done by the administartion.
> > > I do not consider a response posted to a post in the thread to ever be "hijacking" a thread because it could be redirected by the administration here. And if not, it is what it is and other responders could know that what it is ,is what it is. Members could still reply to other members regardless if there is a post that could be redirected but is not done so by the administration.
> > > There is also the concept here of telling another that they can not post in a thread, or dictate the content that the poster can post in the thread. The question is if telling another not to post {whatever} is or is not supportive, for support takes precedence.
> > > Now support is not the same as reinforcement. If a member here wants to advocate that one can drink vodka while taking a benzodiazepine, that does not mean that if a member posts that the combining of those two could cause death is not to be posted in that thread. The warning of death by combining the drugs is supportive in my understnding. Now if one came here and started a thread that the earth is flat, that does not mean that others have to post to reinforce that concept. You see, hijacking a thread does not exist here because support takes precedence which could mean that there could be posts that do not reinforce the initiator's premise, which could be good for the community as a whole because by not supporting the premis, lives could be saved or people could avoid a life-ruining condition or addiction or death.
> > > Lou
> > >
> > > Sol,
> The concept of {keeping count} on what someone says, has historicl paralles that I am prohibited here by Mr. Hsiung to post about.
> Sometimes there are more than one post about the same thing because the poster is responding to more than one person at a time. Sometimes I will post a response that could entail having many posts that each bring in something different to the discussion, such as a doctor explaining something in a video that is IMO easier for members to understand and could bring out the point in question in a better light for people to see.
> But the forum is for all, it is public. This means that there could be people viewing the posts that are not participants in the thread or even in any thread, they just read the posts and do not post themselves. These people could be looking for information and I am trying to reach those people also. If I could, then they could have the information from me that IMHO could save their life or prevent them from getting a life-ruining condition or addiction.
> Now this brings up the concept of keeping count on me as to how many posts I make as to there could be some stopping me from posting after I post whatever amount of posts that you say could be prohibited here. If that happened, then those people wanting answers from me could have the potential IMO be killed because they could not get the answers from me after a particular number of posts by me, for the rule would cut me off. Now I do not consider it supportive to still anyone's voice here or anywhere else. In fact, there could be a situation that if you do get such a rule here implemented, that if someone dies as a result of them not being allowed to see what I could have posted if not stopped, then could not you be held accountable for their death? If not, could you post here why not?
> Lou
> >
> > Sol,
Now it is plainly visible that there is a page seen of requests from me to the administration that are outstanding. A lot of these requests are concerning statements that IMHO could arouse antisemitic feelings toward Jewery as a whole or to me as a Jew here. And because these type of statements are allowed to stand, (and I do not consider any defense from the administartion to allow them to stand to be acceptable to me) then the historical record shows that Jews and me as a Jew could be victims of antisemitic violence. This violence could be physical or psychological/emotional. Others could riidicule me, taunt me, defame me and threaten me and think that they are doing what will be good for the community as a whole. After all, Mr. Hsiung says to try to trust him in that he is doing what in his thinking will be good for the community as a whole, so are not the years of outstanding requests from me to him showing something in relation to his thinking about doing what will be good for the community as a whole? And he states here that support takes precedence. Then is what he is doing supportive to the community and could members think that?
This all can be seen in the historical record that Mr. Hsiung has posted to me a prohibition that prevents me from showing the historical parallel here to the outstanding notifications and the rules directed to me here by him. In the case at hand here concerning that you want me to me limited in how many posts of such and such a nature in a thread, is to me (redacted by respondent) and could allow (redacted by respondent)Jews.
Lou
>
>
Posted by Solstice on February 26, 2012, at 13:56:01
In reply to Lou's reply-pstpdhtguy » Solstice, posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2012, at 13:07:05
> Sol,
> The concept of {keeping count} on what someone says, has historicl paralles that I am prohibited here by Mr. Hsiung to post about.
> Sometimes there are more than one post about the same thing because the poster is responding to more than one person at a time. Sometimes I will post a response that could entail having many posts that each bring in something different to the discussion, such as a doctor explaining something in a video that is IMO easier for members to understand and could bring out the point in question in a better light for people to see.
> But the forum is for all, it is public. This means that there could be people viewing the posts that are not participants in the thread or even in any thread, they just read the posts and do not post themselves. These people could be looking for information and I am trying to reach those people also. If I could, then they could have the information from me that IMHO could save their life or prevent them from getting a life-ruining condition or addiction.Lou -
I think this could be solved by you having your own thread - like the "Lou's Little Shoppe" idea, that is ongoing. It could even have some phrase in it that stays in every post you make that would be a tag likely to be found by people searching the internet. In any event, there is nothing stopping you from using this forum to have your own thread (or threads) to post about whatever interests you or that you think will interest others, even those who are not members of psychobabble. Even if you aren't getting much psychobabble participation, you could keep it going. If someone else has a thread about something that alarms you, you could post your one warning about medications, and a link to your own thread where you could re-post what you want to respond to, and you can keep it going for as long as you are happy with it producing what you want. That way, you are still exercising your freedom to post your concerns about medications, without being unduly disruptive to other threads. You very well may attract people outside babble, who could then read what you post, and if they want to find out more than what you have posted, they can join babble and babblemail you. I haven't tried to google you, but it appears you might be using your real name, so people could google you that way as well. If you have a facebook account, perhaps you could set that up as your information-hub about your concerns about medication. Bob would have no control over what you do on facebook.
I think you are placing an undue burden on yourself if you believe that you are responsible for saving the world. You can't possibly do that. If you believe you have good information, then you can make it available, but people generally don't respond well to being forced to swallow massive quantities of information that they are not seeking or are not open to receiving. One anti-med post in a thread is sufficient. Excessive posting about a particular dogma is not going to increase interest in the dogma.. it will likely irritate people and have them skipping over your posts entirely. Regardless, you are not responsible for saving the world.
> Now this brings up the concept of keeping count on me as to how many posts I make as to there could be some stopping me from posting after I post whatever amount of posts that you say could be prohibited here. If that happened, then those people wanting answers from me could have the potential IMO be killed because they could not get the answers from me after a particular number of posts by me, for the rule would cut me off.
That is really extreme, Lou. If you really believe that, then you need to start your own forum that has tags that would draw people searching for information about the dangers of medications. Then you could post a thousand times a day without it being disruptive. But when you are posting within a community of people, there is a social order that comes into play. It really is extreme, Lou, to think that you are responsible for ensuring that every single person out there who takes medications knows what you believe you have discovered about the dangers of medications.
> Now I do not consider it supportive to still anyone's voice here or anywhere else.It's not about 'stilling' your voice, as much as it is about preventing it from drowning out everyone else's. That's why I think you having your own on-going thread would work well. I doubt Bob would take issue with you posting repeatedly in your own thread. He would not allow anyone to be uncivil to you, and people who go there would be interested in discussing what you are interested in discussing, and you could direct them to your own private resources to give them what Bob won't allow you to post here.
Like it or not, belonging to a community requires 'community rules.' You can have whatever opinion you want, but you can't always freely express your opinions, even in a free country. Private groups like this one (it's publicly displayed, but is privately run), do not *have* to allow blanket 'free speech.'
> In fact, there could be a situation that if you do get such a rule here implemented, that if someone dies as a result of them not being allowed to see what I could have posted if not stopped, then could not you be held accountable for their death? If not, could you post here why not?I would absolutely Not be responsible for anyone's death if they failed to receive information as a result of rules that are put in place to protect my thread from being swallowed up by warnings of death and life-ruination if my child takes medications. Everyone is free to make their own choices - whether or not to take meds - and whether or not to seek information. And like I said - if you really want a soapbox that fits your needs, you need to have a facebook account or some other platform that you can link to. I think that what frustrates you is that you aren't eliciting the amount of interest that you want to elicit. But you need to know that overwhelming people with a message they have already heard for years, and have decided they aren't interested in, isn't going to convert them.
Honestly Lou, get your own thread going that focuses on the dangers of medications. People who are seeking information about such dangers would then have a 'one stop shoppe' to find it all right there, including a way to babblemail you for more, or click on a link to your facebook. There might be people out there who would be genuinely interested in what you have to say, but get turned off by all the drama created by some of your posting techniques.
One of your anti-med posts per thread (started by others) is sufficient to serve the purposes you have stated here.
Give it some thought..
Solstice
Posted by Solstice on February 26, 2012, at 13:59:18
In reply to Lou's reply-psehymschd, posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2012, at 13:30:09
> Sol,
> Now it is plainly visible that there is a page seen of requests from me to the administration that are outstanding.Where is this plainly visible page where we can see notifications?
Solstice
Posted by Phillipa on February 26, 2012, at 17:42:57
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-psehymschd » Lou Pilder, posted by Solstice on February 26, 2012, at 13:59:18
Lou's Little Shoppe I like this. Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2012, at 19:17:02
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-pstpdhtguy » Lou Pilder, posted by Solstice on February 26, 2012, at 13:56:01
>
> > Sol,
> > The concept of {keeping count} on what someone says, has historicl paralles that I am prohibited here by Mr. Hsiung to post about.
> > Sometimes there are more than one post about the same thing because the poster is responding to more than one person at a time. Sometimes I will post a response that could entail having many posts that each bring in something different to the discussion, such as a doctor explaining something in a video that is IMO easier for members to understand and could bring out the point in question in a better light for people to see.
> > But the forum is for all, it is public. This means that there could be people viewing the posts that are not participants in the thread or even in any thread, they just read the posts and do not post themselves. These people could be looking for information and I am trying to reach those people also. If I could, then they could have the information from me that IMHO could save their life or prevent them from getting a life-ruining condition or addiction.
>
> Lou -
>
> I think this could be solved by you having your own thread - like the "Lou's Little Shoppe" idea, that is ongoing. It could even have some phrase in it that stays in every post you make that would be a tag likely to be found by people searching the internet. In any event, there is nothing stopping you from using this forum to have your own thread (or threads) to post about whatever interests you or that you think will interest others, even those who are not members of psychobabble. Even if you aren't getting much psychobabble participation, you could keep it going. If someone else has a thread about something that alarms you, you could post your one warning about medications, and a link to your own thread where you could re-post what you want to respond to, and you can keep it going for as long as you are happy with it producing what you want. That way, you are still exercising your freedom to post your concerns about medications, without being unduly disruptive to other threads. You very well may attract people outside babble, who could then read what you post, and if they want to find out more than what you have posted, they can join babble and babblemail you. I haven't tried to google you, but it appears you might be using your real name, so people could google you that way as well. If you have a facebook account, perhaps you could set that up as your information-hub about your concerns about medication. Bob would have no control over what you do on facebook.
>
> I think you are placing an undue burden on yourself if you believe that you are responsible for saving the world. You can't possibly do that. If you believe you have good information, then you can make it available, but people generally don't respond well to being forced to swallow massive quantities of information that they are not seeking or are not open to receiving. One anti-med post in a thread is sufficient. Excessive posting about a particular dogma is not going to increase interest in the dogma.. it will likely irritate people and have them skipping over your posts entirely. Regardless, you are not responsible for saving the world.
>
>
>
> > Now this brings up the concept of keeping count on me as to how many posts I make as to there could be some stopping me from posting after I post whatever amount of posts that you say could be prohibited here. If that happened, then those people wanting answers from me could have the potential IMO be killed because they could not get the answers from me after a particular number of posts by me, for the rule would cut me off.
>
> That is really extreme, Lou. If you really believe that, then you need to start your own forum that has tags that would draw people searching for information about the dangers of medications. Then you could post a thousand times a day without it being disruptive. But when you are posting within a community of people, there is a social order that comes into play. It really is extreme, Lou, to think that you are responsible for ensuring that every single person out there who takes medications knows what you believe you have discovered about the dangers of medications.
>
>
> > Now I do not consider it supportive to still anyone's voice here or anywhere else.
>
> It's not about 'stilling' your voice, as much as it is about preventing it from drowning out everyone else's. That's why I think you having your own on-going thread would work well. I doubt Bob would take issue with you posting repeatedly in your own thread. He would not allow anyone to be uncivil to you, and people who go there would be interested in discussing what you are interested in discussing, and you could direct them to your own private resources to give them what Bob won't allow you to post here.
>
> Like it or not, belonging to a community requires 'community rules.' You can have whatever opinion you want, but you can't always freely express your opinions, even in a free country. Private groups like this one (it's publicly displayed, but is privately run), do not *have* to allow blanket 'free speech.'
>
>
> > In fact, there could be a situation that if you do get such a rule here implemented, that if someone dies as a result of them not being allowed to see what I could have posted if not stopped, then could not you be held accountable for their death? If not, could you post here why not?
>
> I would absolutely Not be responsible for anyone's death if they failed to receive information as a result of rules that are put in place to protect my thread from being swallowed up by warnings of death and life-ruination if my child takes medications. Everyone is free to make their own choices - whether or not to take meds - and whether or not to seek information. And like I said - if you really want a soapbox that fits your needs, you need to have a facebook account or some other platform that you can link to. I think that what frustrates you is that you aren't eliciting the amount of interest that you want to elicit. But you need to know that overwhelming people with a message they have already heard for years, and have decided they aren't interested in, isn't going to convert them.
>
> Honestly Lou, get your own thread going that focuses on the dangers of medications. People who are seeking information about such dangers would then have a 'one stop shoppe' to find it all right there, including a way to babblemail you for more, or click on a link to your facebook. There might be people out there who would be genuinely interested in what you have to say, but get turned off by all the drama created by some of your posting techniques.
>
> One of your anti-med posts per thread (started by others) is sufficient to serve the purposes you have stated here.
>
> Give it some thought..
>
> Solstice
>
Solstice,
You wrote,[...it's not about 'stilling' your voice...].
In my understnding of what you are proposing here about one post concerning anti-med, I could post only one post and then if I was to post another in that thread of the same nature, I could be ostrcized here. So my voice could not be part of he discussion after he one post, for I would not be permitted to add to the discussion if I wanted to further my orignal post or post that something new could also requier me to post. My voice would be 'stilled' after the first post relating to what you call anti-med.
Actually, I am not anti-med, but anti-death and addiction and anti-life -ruinig conditions.
But if I was held to your proposed standard, then would there not be two standards here? For you did not say that your rule proposed would also still the voice after one post , let's say, of a member that was pro-med.
Now the TOS here states that different points of view are welcome. Now would your proposed rule fit that part of the TOS here? And is saparate equal? In 1954, the high court here ruled that "separate is not equal", nor is the requierment for some to sit in the back of the bus allowed to be policy or law.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2012, at 19:26:15
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-psehymschd, posted by Phillipa on February 26, 2012, at 17:42:57
> Lou's Little Shoppe I like this. Phillipa
Phillipa,
Did you not stop in and then leave? Was the heat to high? Stop on in. Could you stay, just a little bit longer?
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on February 26, 2012, at 21:02:54
In reply to Lou's reply-pstehy » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2012, at 19:26:15
I like the idea. Each day a new topic would be nice? Phillipa
Posted by SLS on February 26, 2012, at 22:47:17
In reply to Lou's reply-kubah » Solstice, posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2012, at 11:04:39
> Now it is my understanding that the concept of "hijacking a thread" is not a part of the TOS here.
I am not well-versed in Internet etiquette.What exactly is "hijacking" a thread? How does one go about hijacking a thread? One effective first step might be to change every subject line to insure that my name appeared in it with no reference to the previous posts. It would make the original thread unrecognizable. Thanks for setting a good example.
> Instead, the forum allows the freedom to respond to posts here in what the poster wants to post about whatever it is that they are responding to.
Just because you can doesn't mean that you must. You are certainly in control of to whom, what, where, and why you post your words. Sometimes, it is considerate to take into account the feelings of another, particularly if they have made theirs known. You don't have to, I guess. However, some people might feel pressured or harassed.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on February 26, 2012, at 23:18:43
In reply to Scott's first comment. » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on February 26, 2012, at 22:47:17
> I am not well-versed in Internet etiquette.
>
> What exactly is "hijacking" a thread? How does one go about hijacking a thread? One effective first step might be to change every subject line to insure that my name appeared in it with no reference to the previous posts. It would make the original thread unrecognizable.I would like to learn how to hijack a thread. I could use some help with this.
Does anyone have any suggestions on what I can do to successfully hijack a thread?
What are some of the characteristics of a hijacked thread?
- Scott
Posted by gardenergirl on February 27, 2012, at 0:17:02
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-pstpdhtguy » Lou Pilder, posted by Solstice on February 26, 2012, at 13:56:01
> I would absolutely Not be responsible for anyone's death if they failed to receive information as a result of rules that are put in place to protect my thread from being swallowed up by warnings of death and life-ruination if my child takes medications.I was once told something along the lines that I would be responsible for starting the next Holocaust if I didn't carry out the demands then being made of me. It's exactly that type of escalation that signals to me that further dialog with someone who would make such a statement is of no value to me. I empathize with your predicament, Solstice.
gg
Posted by Solstice on February 27, 2012, at 0:38:56
In reply to Scott's first question., posted by SLS on February 26, 2012, at 23:18:43
> > I am not well-versed in Internet etiquette.
> >
> > What exactly is "hijacking" a thread? How does one go about hijacking a thread? One effective first step might be to change every subject line to insure that my name appeared in it with no reference to the previous posts. It would make the original thread unrecognizable.
>
> I would like to learn how to hijack a thread. I could use some help with this.First thing you need to do is have your own agenda.. then go onto threads and use the originator's subject as a springboard for posting about your agenda. It is especially effective if you change the subject line - and if you put your name in there then all the attention will be focused on you, and hopefully your agenda.
>
> Does anyone have any suggestions on what I can do to successfully hijack a thread?The real key to success is to fill up the other person's thread with multiple posts that have your own subject line related to your agenda. If no one takes the bait, then by all means respond to your own posts to keep it going. Post a minimum of 10 times per day in the threads you want to hijack. And see if you can pack in as many as possible that are successive. You don't have ot change the content. You can just keep responding to your first agenda post, and keep your original post in each successive post. You can always add a few more letters of the alphabet to the subject line to hopefully attract interest.
>
> What are some of the characteristics of a hijacked thread?
>Someone else has monopolized the thread with their own agenda, and the thread originator's subject has gotten lost, or is in danger of getting overwhelmed by the hijacker's agenda. When the whole thread starts to be about the hijacker and their agenda: Mission Accomplished.
Sol
Posted by Solstice on February 27, 2012, at 0:50:34
In reply to Re: » Solstice, posted by gardenergirl on February 27, 2012, at 0:17:02
>
> > I would absolutely Not be responsible for anyone's death if they failed to receive information as a result of rules that are put in place to protect my thread from being swallowed up by warnings of death and life-ruination if my child takes medications.
>
> I was once told something along the lines that I would be responsible for starting the next Holocaust if I didn't carry out the demands then being made of me. It's exactly that type of escalation that signals to me that further dialog with someone who would make such a statement is of no value to me. I empathize with your predicament, Solstice.
>
> gg
Thanks gg.. it means a lot to me to know that you 'get it.' And.. until now, there hasn't been a need to dialogue.. and I haven't. But now, it's like if I want to get help from the community while I go through this difficult situation with my daughter's medication, I have to proactively protect the flow of information to me. It has been very discouraging for it to be so hard, when things are very difficult in my world right now.It's really a shame that behavior that is disruptive to the purpose of the forum is not being addressed by administration.
Solstice
Posted by SLS on February 27, 2012, at 7:15:21
In reply to Re: » gardenergirl, posted by Solstice on February 27, 2012, at 0:50:34
Hi Solstice.
I can't thank you enough for outlining a protocol for how to hijack a thread. I have archived your detailed instructions and valuable insights.
> It's really a shame that behavior that is disruptive to the purpose of the forum is not being addressed by administration.
The thing that is most difficult in developing a policy against hijacking a thread, or any other behavior, is to produce the details of how to define and proscribe unacceptable behaviors without further limiting the posting privileges of others. Some posting behaviors in the past have required such changes in policy.
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on February 27, 2012, at 7:57:04
In reply to Scott's response to Solstice - Hijacking Threads » Solstice, posted by SLS on February 27, 2012, at 7:15:21
I'd hate to see a policy about hijacking threads.
I've seen website where any deviation from concentration on the originating poster is considered a hijacking. Where originating posters jealously guard their thread like a mama bird with just one chick. Where threads aren't allowed to develop as conversations, and the site doesn't feel much like a community at all.
I don't like it.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 27, 2012, at 8:05:37
In reply to Re: Scott's response to Solstice - Hijacking Threads, posted by Dinah on February 27, 2012, at 7:57:04
> I'd hate to see a policy about hijacking threads.
>
> I've seen website where any deviation from concentration on the originating poster is considered a hijacking. Where originating posters jealously guard their thread like a mama bird with just one chick. Where threads aren't allowed to develop as conversations, and the site doesn't feel much like a community at all.
>
> I don't like it.Dinah,
You wrote,[...I'd hate to see..].
Thanks, I think that's good.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on February 27, 2012, at 8:13:40
In reply to Re: » gardenergirl, posted by Solstice on February 27, 2012, at 0:50:34
There are already rules in place, and I've described them. Admittedly a more active administrative presence, at times, would be welcome.
I think once matters start to get complicated, with violations on more than one side, it's harder for Dr. Bob to find the time to deal with it. That's just my observation based on seeing him come deal with minor matters while leaving an all out board war untouched.
I get it too. Or at least I did originally. After a while, the pendulum on the board starts to swing, and with it my sympathy.
I think any comparison to Nazis, any suggestion that one's actions on Babble could lead to death to millions of Jews, or any assertations that any complaints about any one person are the result of that person's ethnic origin (in the absence of any evidence that this is the case) is on the face of it uncivil and accusatory and should be dealt with under existing Babble rules.
But it also upsets me when people act together towards one poster. And I tend to lose any sympathy I had for the original cause when it continues too long or becomes spread over many threads. Particularly when it deals with behaviors Dr. Bob has already explicitly approved. And I don't think Dr. Bob is wrong.
This is a mental health board. There are many posting behaviors by *many* posters that the majority of posters find annoying. If they aren't uncivil, accusatory, or explicitly insensitive to a particular poster or particular group of posters, these behaviors are allowed on Babble. Making it a more inclusive place than the world at large often can be. I would think many of us would appreciate that inclusiveness. I certainly do.
Posted by SLS on February 27, 2012, at 9:05:35
In reply to Re: Scott's response to Solstice - Hijacking Threads, posted by Dinah on February 27, 2012, at 7:57:04
> I'd hate to see a policy about hijacking threads.
>
> I've seen website where any deviation from concentration on the originating poster is considered a hijacking. Where originating posters jealously guard their thread like a mama bird with just one chick. Where threads aren't allowed to develop as conversations, and the site doesn't feel much like a community at all.
>
> I don't like it.
I don't like it either. Up until now, it hasn't been an issue here.Do you think the type of posting described by Solstice would constitute "pressuring" or "harassment"? These things are already proscribed by the rules of civility.
- Scott
Posted by Solstice on February 27, 2012, at 9:19:45
In reply to Re: Scott's response to Solstice - Hijacking Threads, posted by Dinah on February 27, 2012, at 7:57:04
> I'd hate to see a policy about hijacking threads.
>
> I've seen website where any deviation from concentration on the originating poster is considered a hijacking. Where originating posters jealously guard their thread like a mama bird with just one chick. Where threads aren't allowed to develop as conversations, and the site doesn't feel much like a community at all.
>
> I don't like it.
There is a big difference between a thread developing and morphing into things other than the original subject, and hijacking. A thread that evolves into other things happens fairly naturally, and is participated in by the group of people involved in the discussion. The thread originator may or may not be participating as well, but their original purpose has run its course. Hijacking is all about the hijacker. That's where it is rude and uncivil. The hijacker is focused on substituting the original subject with their own agenda, which is usually in opposition to the original poster's subject. People can increase their power by just overwhelming the original poster.I don't think being assertive about not wanting a thread I initiated where I am earnestly seeking information due to a medical crisis in my family is the equivalent of a mama bird jealously guarding a thread. I just didn't want my need to be sidelined by outrageous claims that imply I am killing my daughter. A poster with the characteristics of that mama bird would need to be reigned in just like a hijacker needs to be reigned in.
My therapist told me once about what she called "Sharpeners and Levelers." Fascinating way to look at group dynamics. Anyway, she said I am a 'Sharpener.' Dinah, you seem to be a 'Leveler.' It's characteristic of a 'Sharpener' to see clear distinctions between things, whereas 'Levelers' tend to be more focused on the common ground between things. People are not necessarily one or the other - they just tend to lean more toward being a 'Sharpener' or a 'Leveler.' The world functions best with both :-) One is not more important than the other - and they both keep each other in balance. You keep my sharpening in check, but I have learned to be comfortable with the value of my sharpening, and I see danger in allowing a hijacker to become dominant in threads. That's not a 'conversation'... it's someone who has taken control and has sidelined the person who started a thread to get help on a mental health board.
Solstice
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.