![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 19 to 43 of 45. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 18, 2011, at 14:41:22
In reply to Re: Lou's response-lohndizntr » Lou Pilder, posted by 10derheart on June 17, 2011, at 18:40:05
> >>What is important to me is that someone other than me has posted about some of my concerns.
>
> Naturally.
>
> Something else in the post was important to me. Naturally.
>
> >I do not see how anyine could know who the tot is.
>
> They could ask instead of assuming. Or, choose to keep up with this board, The picture was put up 4 months ago and I posted who it was:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20110117/msgs/979448.html
>
> >>And IMHO,some could reasonably think that since the owner of the site has posted his pic before, that the pic of the tot was in some way possible to be a child that the owner chose in some way.
>
> Dr. Bob chooses all the photos - it is his site. It has not been unusual over the years for them to be submitted by Babblers. As I said, all jussayin had to do was ask.
>
> >>Now as to if the posting of the tot's pic could have repercussions to the tot in the future, there are child psychiatrists that could answer that.
>
> I don't think that's necessary.
>
> >>I do not see the poster implying anything by asking if the picture is related to the thread's question.
>
> I do.
>
> >>Since there is not an explanation of the pic,
>
> But, there was. Jussayin could have opted to try and discover the explanation with one simple question.
>
> >>then there could be projection by viewers.
>
> Yes, clearly.
>
> Lou, if you do not find any negative implications in statements about "owning" our children and choosing to use a term such as "bath clothes" and speculate that she is sure to "appreciate" "that" when she's old enough to "know what happened," then perhaps you are a far better person than I - good for you. If you truly believe posting a beautiful child's picture because I love her and love for others to enjoy the beauty of all children because they **are** children, and you want to link it somehow to why posting is down on Babble, that is your prerogative. I don't understand the connection.
>
> You be well, Lou. We all have our priorities and lens through which we view everything.
>
>
10,
You wrote,[...they could ask instead of...Or, choose to keep up with this board...pic was put up 4 months ago...could have opted to try and discover...].
The members here are not requierd to read all the posts going back 4 months before they post about something. As to the photo in question of the child with a towel draped over her, the photo does not have a {caption}. Without a caption, the interpretation of anything concerning the photo could be left to the viewer.
Now tthe photo of the child could be different to different people here in relation to what they feel when they view the photo of the child. The towel is something in the photo and could conjure up to different people different meanings and feelings. Since there are members here taking mind-altering drugs that have conditions listed in the manual of psychiatry, and there are conditions that people have in that manual that receive sexual stimulation from viewing photos of children even if the photos are non-provocative. I think that the poster of the post in question could have deep feelings about a psychiatrist allowing such a photo without a caption to be prominatly posted at the top of each of the forums here. There could be IMHO, the potential of others having the potential ofthinking as to why the photo is placed there and with the towel draped over the child. Without a caption from the poster of the photo, the towel could represent possibly something to a pedophile, if one views the photo of the child.
Now if someone has a great understanding of pedophilia, IMHO there is the question as to if that person could have the potential to want to leave this community after seeing the photo of the child on the top of all the boards here.
Then there is incest as a condition listed in the manual of psychiatry. If we have a viewer here that has a great understanding of incest, could there be the potential for that person to want to leave this community after viewing the photo of the child with a towel wrapped around her? The person could wonder what the psychiatrist that posted it without a caption had in mind.
Then there is the facial expression of the child to be considerd. This is the part about projection. Different people could think different things when the view the facial expression of the child. And that there are many members here disclosing their psychiatric conditions, the taking of mind-altering drugs by them could have the potential IMHO to induce a mind-alterd state that could be dangerous, to think different things when they view the photo of the young girl. And then why have the picture at all if that could be dangerous?
Lou
Posted by sigismund on June 18, 2011, at 15:54:30
In reply to Lou's reply-peadoh » 10derheart, posted by Lou Pilder on June 18, 2011, at 14:41:22
Lou, everyone knows that the photo at the top is either of Bob or of someone or something with a connection to the people here.
At least I thought so.
For the record, I agreed with some of the sentiments expressed, but the photo thing was easily the weakest part of the argument.
Posted by sigismund on June 18, 2011, at 16:00:10
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-peadoh » Lou Pilder, posted by sigismund on June 18, 2011, at 15:54:30
I missed the point a bit there.
But I do not recall Bob ever putting up photos of any relatives.
There were those South African photos of animals, which for some reason would never give rise to the suggestion that he was enabling bestiality.
And I think the other is as ridiculous. Surely?
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 18, 2011, at 16:38:25
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-peadoh » Lou Pilder, posted by sigismund on June 18, 2011, at 15:54:30
> Lou, everyone knows that the photo at the top is either of Bob or of someone or something with a connection to the people here.
>
> At least I thought so.
>
> For the record, I agreed with some of the sentiments expressed, but the photo thing was easily the weakest part of the argument.Sigismund,
I tend to lean to that there are posters coming here daily that could not know about the picture as it being of Bob or a relation or such. If there was a caption to the photo, that coud go a long way to dispel any doubts as to who the person is in the photo and why it is posted.
I think that the argument by the poster is well-researched and presented in a scholarly manner and that the poster has a deep knowledge of the historical record along with a knowledge of the effects that unrespnded to requests to the administration could have on the emotional/psychlogical parts of a human as to how emotional distress can cause harm to one. The poster may even have a knowledge of the legl aspects of that the administative team is allowing requests and notifications to go unanswerd for days ,weeks, months and years. I have to say that in the interest in humanity itself, the poster could be given praise.
One of the arguments concerns the photo. You see, there is a deep understanding that could be seen when one knows some things that may be unbeknownst to them. You see, Mr Hsiung has made a rule here that one can not post more than 3 consecutive posts, with some excptions. His rationale is posted and it has to do in some way that there could be a person that he calls a {less-confident} poster and for the reasons he has posted there could be something to them if one posts more than 3 consecutive posts and that by doing so, sharing the board in some way comes into this.
The point here is that Mr. Hsiung has made a rule to accommodate a particular type of person, the less-confident, so that they would not have whatever from someone posting more than 3 consecutive posts. Could then there be a rule here to accomodate pedophiles or people struggling with incest, that one could not post a photo of young child? Could the photo not trigger the pedophile or the person struggling with incest, to go and molest a child or have sex with a family member?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 18, 2011, at 16:38:58
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-peadoh » Lou Pilder, posted by sigismund on June 18, 2011, at 15:54:30
> Lou, everyone knows that the photo at the top is either of Bob or of someone or something with a connection to the people here.
>
> At least I thought so.
>
> For the record, I agreed with some of the sentiments expressed, but the photo thing was easily the weakest part of the argument.Sigismund,
I tend to lean to that there are posters coming here daily that could not know about the picture as it being of Bob or a relation or such. If there was a caption to the photo, that coud go a long way to dispel any doubts as to who the person is in the photo and why it is posted.
I think that the argument by the poster is well-researched and presented in a scholarly manner and that the poster has a deep knowledge of the historical record along with a knowledge of the effects that unrespnded to requests to the administration could have on the emotional/psychlogical parts of a human as to how emotional distress can cause harm to one. The poster may even have a knowledge of the legl aspects of that the administative team is allowing requests and notifications to go unanswerd for days ,weeks, months and years. I have to say that in the interest in humanity itself, the poster could be given praise.
One of the arguments concerns the photo. You see, there is a deep understanding that could be seen when one knows some things that may be unbeknownst to them. You see, Mr Hsiung has made a rule here that one can not post more than 3 consecutive posts, with some excptions. His rationale is posted and it has to do in some way that there could be a person that he calls a {less-confident} poster and for the reasons he has posted there could be something to them if one posts more than 3 consecutive posts and that by doing so, sharing the board in some way comes into this.
The point here is that Mr. Hsiung has made a rule to accommodate a particular type of person, the less-confident, so that they would not have whatever from someone posting more than 3 consecutive posts. Could then there be a rule here to accomodate pedophiles or people struggling with incest, that one could not post a photo of young child? Could the photo not trigger the pedophile or the person struggling with incest, to go and molest a child or have sex with a family member?
Lou
Posted by sigismund on June 18, 2011, at 16:47:48
In reply to Lou's reply-lezkon » sigismund, posted by Lou Pilder on June 18, 2011, at 16:38:25
> the poster has a deep knowledge of the historical record along with a knowledge of the effects that unrespnded to requests to the administration could have on the emotional/psychlogical parts of a human as to how emotional distress can cause harm to one.
I think the poster knew this site well, and that was what made me feel that the remark about the photo was a bit cheap.
Of course the photo might conceivably encourage paedophiles, but since we know where that kind of logic leads it is better to drop it. That kind of thinking has been immensely damaging, IMO, in recent years. I suppose there were paedophiles when I was growing up? Many of my teachers, actually. It was not a huge deal. It would just have been embarrassing to have the hard word put on you. I feel sorry for some boys in the Catholic system. That was the real deal.
Posted by 10derheart on June 18, 2011, at 16:50:40
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-peadoh » sigismund, posted by sigismund on June 18, 2011, at 16:00:10
Thanks for a bit of perspective, balance, sigi.
Sincerely.
I was beginning to feel so alone....or something.
I don't even know what to say to that last theory but I am very sorry I ever put up her picture since any time I see it in the future I may not be able to *not* think of what was just brought up here....<big sigh>
I *know* neither I, nor any Babbler, nor even Dr. Bob can possibly anticipate or be responsible for what any given individuals think or feel when they see photos. MH site or otherwise. Your analogy about enabling bestiality is exactly on point. I'm wondering if that theory were used if *any* photo would be benign.....a brick wall? But then I saw a promo on TV the other day about a show that profiles a woman who is obsessed and [her words] in love with (including sexually) with....yes, you guessed it, a wall. So, who can know?
Things here can go in incredible directions.
Anyway.....thanks for posting.
Posted by 10derheart on June 18, 2011, at 16:55:34
In reply to Lou's reply-lezkon » sigismund, posted by Lou Pilder on June 18, 2011, at 16:38:25
Alright, Lou. Please, no more.
Thanks a lot for the mental images. Really, really appreciate those.
I will report myself for sarcasm now, so you won't have to.
I give up.
:-(
Posted by sigismund on June 18, 2011, at 16:55:44
In reply to Lou's reply-lezkon » sigismund, posted by Lou Pilder on June 18, 2011, at 16:38:58
Lou, this is silly.
I have always assumed....in fact I have jumped to the conclusion.....how else was I to arrive at it?......that the 3 post rule had nothing to do with less confident posters.
It was a rule designed with you in mind.
I realise I have broken a rule by saying this, but can't see the harm in it.
You believe it, surely? I do too. But we are not allowed to say it.
But maybe it was necessary? (Now we're back to the good of the community and organic notions of society and Nazi Germany.)
I wasn't here then, so I don't have an opinion.
Anyway, people are often prepared to help out with a response so you can keep posting. I do it.
Posted by sigismund on June 18, 2011, at 17:02:33
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-peadoh » sigismund, posted by 10derheart on June 18, 2011, at 16:50:40
>I am very sorry I ever put up her picture since any time I see it in the future I may not be able to *not* think of what was just brought up here....<big sigh>
Look. She's a sweet little girl who has been swept up into an entirely different argument. This is too silly.
Really, I don't think you should be sorry. And actually, if we have problems with the administration, we should try to leave individual people out of it.
This society is full of moral panics.
Posted by 10derheart on June 18, 2011, at 17:06:24
In reply to Lou's reply-lezkon » sigismund, posted by Lou Pilder on June 18, 2011, at 16:38:25
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 18, 2011, at 17:14:31
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-lezkon » Lou Pilder, posted by sigismund on June 18, 2011, at 16:55:44
> Lou, this is silly.
>
> I have always assumed....in fact I have jumped to the conclusion.....how else was I to arrive at it?......that the 3 post rule had nothing to do with less confident posters.
>
> It was a rule designed with you in mind.
>
> I realise I have broken a rule by saying this, but can't see the harm in it.
>
> You believe it, surely? I do too. But we are not allowed to say it.
>
> But maybe it was necessary? (Now we're back to the good of the community and organic notions of society and Nazi Germany.)
>
> I wasn't here then, so I don't have an opinion.
>
> Anyway, people are often prepared to help out with a response so you can keep posting. I do it.Sigismund,
You wrote,[...the 3 consecutive post rule had nothing to do with less confident posters...it was a rule designed (redacted by respondent...].
Now the rule stops me from teaching in my style. I had posted that I did not want anyone to just post to start the consecutive posts over unless one had a want to be a discussant in the thread.
Now can you see some of the rest of this? If not, could you do a search about the Nuremburg Laws and see what is in those laws about teaching?
You see, if I was allowed to post more than 3 consecutive posts here, I could teach others what IMHHO could save their lives or prevent then from getting a life-ruining condition. That is support, is it not? And the forum is for support and education, is it not?
Lou
Posted by floatingbridge on June 18, 2011, at 17:33:27
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-peadoh » sigismund, posted by 10derheart on June 18, 2011, at 16:50:40
Once someone puts the word 'pink' next to 'elephant', we all see of sense that pink elephant. I hope the juxtaposition of a soridi topic with a lovely, lively picture will not ruin the picture for you or the knowledge that I have loved looking at that sweet picture.
As sigi said, there was abuse before the internet and w/o it.
Let's end this thread as you politely requested.
fb
Posted by floatingbridge on June 18, 2011, at 17:38:09
In reply to Lou's reply-knurehm » sigismund, posted by Lou Pilder on June 18, 2011, at 17:14:31
Hi Lou,
I saw that 10derheart requested this particular discussion end.
Do you think you could continue conversing with sigi and others in a new thread?
I'm asking you, out of respect, to initiate your own thread.
I'll read it.
Thank you.
fb
Posted by Phillipa on June 18, 2011, at 21:57:28
In reply to To Lou: a request » Lou Pilder, posted by floatingbridge on June 18, 2011, at 17:38:09
I'm not going to read anymore of this. l0der my sincerest empathy that you read any of this. Love Phillipa
Posted by 10derheart on June 18, 2011, at 23:55:20
In reply to Re: To Lou: a request, posted by Phillipa on June 18, 2011, at 21:57:28
It's ok. I'll forget it, I'm sure. Ot think of another way to look at it.
This was directed at Dr. Bob anyway, not me, I know that. I just would have appreciated more restraint, thoughtfulness and sensitivity, but we can't always get what we want, right?
Thanks, Phillipa.
Posted by SLS on June 19, 2011, at 6:08:01
In reply to Re: To Lou: a request » Phillipa, posted by 10derheart on June 18, 2011, at 23:55:20
> It's ok. I'll forget it, I'm sure. Ot think of another way to look at it.
I am very happy that you asserted yourself so convincingly. I think it was very important that you verbalized your concerns using the interjection of facts. I would not recommend to you that you ignore anyone's posts in particular. As for me, I tend to disconnect myself from posts and posters whom have consistently upset me. In other words, I usually ignore these people and offer very little respect for their words. I usually avoid emotional entanglement this way.
Re: 3-post rule:
The need for a 3-post rule was flushed out by the behavior of one person. It occurs often that one person will demonstrate a weakness in a system such that change becomes necessary. What's wrong with that?
- Scott
Posted by Phillipa on June 19, 2011, at 19:04:13
In reply to Re: To Lou: a request » 10derheart, posted by SLS on June 19, 2011, at 6:08:01
Not a darn thing in my opinion!!!! Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 20, 2011, at 16:20:19
In reply to Re: To Lou: a request » 10derheart, posted by SLS on June 19, 2011, at 6:08:01
> > It's ok. I'll forget it, I'm sure. Ot think of another way to look at it.
>
> I am very happy that you asserted yourself so convincingly. I think it was very important that you verbalized your concerns using the interjection of facts. I would not recommend to you that you ignore anyone's posts in particular. As for me, I tend to disconnect myself from posts and posters whom have consistently upset me. In other words, I usually ignore these people and offer very little respect for their words. I usually avoid emotional entanglement this way.
>
> Re: 3-post rule:
>
> The need for a 3-post rule was flushed out by the behavior of one person. It occurs often that one person will demonstrate a weakness in a system such that change becomes necessary. What's wrong with that?
>
>
> - ScottScott,
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean in some of your post here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A. What are you wanting to mean by {flushed out}?
B. What was the behavior of the one person?
C. What was the weakness in the system?
D. In {what's wrong with that}, what is the {that}?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 20, 2011, at 16:30:06
In reply to Re: To Lou: a request » SLS, posted by Phillipa on June 19, 2011, at 19:04:13
> Not a darn thing in my opinion!!!! Phillipa
Phillipa,
If you could look at the questions that I have for Scott here, could you post here the answers from your perspective as to what is your understanding of what the {that} is, and what is your understanding of what {flushed out} means to you, and what your understanding of what the bahavior was of the one person, and who the one person was?
If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by sigismund on June 20, 2011, at 18:25:47
In reply to Lou's request-phluzedowed » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on June 20, 2011, at 16:20:19
I vote for question D.
Posted by Phillipa on June 20, 2011, at 20:21:05
In reply to Lou's request-ehykunsenzous » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on June 20, 2011, at 16:30:06
Some could continuously post responses and not stop and that to me is the reason for three post rule. Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 20, 2011, at 20:54:27
In reply to Re: Lou's request-ehykunsenzous » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on June 20, 2011, at 20:21:05
> Some could continuously post responses and not stop and that to me is the reason for three post rule. Phillipa
Phillipa,
You wrote,[...could continuously post responses and not stop...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by that. If you could post answers to the following, then I cold have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
The 3 post rule is concerning {consecutive}posts. There is not a limit here to the number of posts by a poster or the number of posts in a thread.
So a poster could have a partner post something after the 3 consecutive posts and contimue. I have asked here for members to not do that for me unless they were wanting to be a discusssant in the thread. The reasoning from Mr. Hsiung for the rule is posted.
A. Do you know the reasoning that Mr. Hsiung has posted for the rule?
B. If so, do you think the rule facilitates support? If so, how?
C. If so, do you think the rule facilitates education? If so, how?
D. Do members here have to be in all threads?
E. If a rule has to be made to accommodate the {less confident} member, whatever that is, so that they can easily join the thread, do other rules have to be made to accommodate, lets say, the {less able to understand language above the 6th grade level}? If not, why not?
Lou
Posted by sigismund on June 21, 2011, at 1:07:55
In reply to Lou's request-lazkonphedent » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on June 20, 2011, at 20:54:27
>I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by that
Are you sure you are unsure?
Posted by SLS on June 21, 2011, at 5:35:17
In reply to Re: Lou's request-phluzedowed, posted by sigismund on June 20, 2011, at 18:25:47
> I vote for question D.
You vote for question D to be addressed by me?
- Scott
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.