![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 31 to 55 of 80. Go back in thread:
Posted by brian on May 28, 2000, at 13:26:19
In reply to Re: Thanks for the reminder, Kathie..., posted by claire 7 on May 27, 2000, at 17:23:19
First off, I feel that boBB performs a great service. By shaking up the discussion, he is (whether this is your goal or not, boBB) urging us to question the homogeneity of beliefs and opinions that sometimes dominate such discussion boards.
I first respond emotionally to beliefs that contrast with my own. Why? It's unsettling, I guess. Some of what boBB, and others, have written have shaken me a little. And the stakes can be a little higher when those contrasting beliefs threaten my definition of mental illness. After all, it's human to want to label something - to believe you understand that thing - in order to deal with it.
We see that in psychology all the time. The psychoanalyst scoffs at cognitive therapy. The behaviorist discredits psychopharmacology. Others have beliefs that question psychology as a whole. There are strong adherents to various schools of thought. They don't always play well together.
Once entrenched in a belief, it's painful to have that belief shaken. But I think it's healthy to have those beliefs shaken. Some of my professors in college said: religion is harmful. Religion excludes. Religion promotes unthinking faith. Many of those same professors had their own religion, but they called it humanism, or fatalism, or liberalism, or conservatism, etc. I'd even had a professor or two who graded based upon a student's adherence to the professor's beliefs. The professors took those believes as TRUTHS.
Well, if a belief is the same as a truth, then dissention shouldn't offend. You can't ridicule a tautology. But truths are few and far between. By listening to those beliefs that contrast with out own, we are given a valuable opportunity to question, and to grow. However, promoting an environment that stultifies those with divergent opinions is stagnating. To paraphrase Blake, you can't have creation without destruction. This is where the iconoclast performs a critical service.
On the other hand, this is a forum for support. And, boBB, when you post here, you should expect people to want to help you. If you are satisfied with your particular beliefs, why be so visibly shaken when someone challenges them? Why be so indignant when someone dares to "presume" to understand you? This is a HELP forum. That's why people come here. It's the nature of this discussion board. You have the right to use this as a soapbox (which I am doing now) but should you attack people when they attempt to offer insight? "You should gouge out your eye with a fork?" Are you hiding behind the bible to justify such violent words? Isn't this the same bible that has been used to justify the violence and exclusion you seem to oppose so strongly?
I defend the right to express any opinion, no matter how uncomfortable it might be to others. But I am against emotionally charged attacks, and especially threats. It's far too easy and safe to threaten others on the Internet. And either I'm way off base here, boBB, or you have offered threats to those you feel have imposed their belief system on you.
I swore off boBB's posts awhile ago, but got sucked back in with his (subject) "feelings" post.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It is interesting to me that so many people seem baffled by boBB's response. Though his particular reasons are his particular reasons, and mine are mine, I find I often respond negatively to "compassion". To some people "compassion" can feel demeaning, diminishing. I understand many of the reasons why this is true for me, and they are not all that surprising. Since it is obvious that most people on this site are sincerely interested in expanding their understanding of human behavior, dismissing boBB's response could represent a missed opportunity for such expansion. I'm suggesting that a negative response to what some would call compassion is not as aberrant as you may believe, and could be interesting to think about. It could also be profitable to think about our own styles of expressing compassion, as well as the content of that expression.
> P.S. I was just reminded of that cliched, popular complaint women were said to make about men a few years back. It was said that when women expressed their frustrations, fears, problems to males, the males invariably offered "solutions". Women, said those in the know, just wanted the guys to listen. (I always thought the gender issue was bogus, because both men and women seem to make this mistake with equal frequency, but I do believe it is usually a mistake.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I should have known that he wouldn't want any kind-hearted responses to his 'soul bearing'. What I can't figure out is why he bothered to answer Tina's question in the first place. Why would he want us to know how he feels, if he doesn't want us to care? I don't understand, he wants us to care about the "causes" he cares about, but he gets offended if we care about him.
> > ......whatever....I'm done...CarolAnn
Posted by boBB on May 28, 2000, at 18:05:14
In reply to Re: Thanks for the reminder, Kathie..., posted by brian on May 28, 2000, at 13:26:19
Thanks, claire 7 and brian, I figured some people would get it, eventually. Some of the responses to my self-expression were not supportive, they questioned the wisdom of my having learned to abide emotional pain.
The gouge your eyes comment was not strictly parrallel to the Bible's "If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out" passage. I take the biblical passage to refer to a wandering, lustful eye - at least that is the way most preachers explain the popular translation of the greek phrase. I choose that form of stark speech because it gets to the heart of the matter most effectively. The pseudobiblical choice of language provided me with an easy way to defend a style of speech that has been accepted (more or less, depending on who is the speaker) for centuries. Indeed, my rough paraphrase turned a pedantic Sunday morning platitude into a hard-hitting literary device. I could have said "if you don't like what you see don't look," but I was responding between tasks at work, and the person who was responding to my posts seemed to be just as swift. This all happend in a few hours time.
The issues here were deep and it was about all I could do to express the depth of my feelings, I needed somebody else to jump in and say its okay to be who I am - not so much for my sake but for the sake of people who are like me. Until the tide of battle turned against me, it was not likely that any one else would stand with me - the people likely to defend me in this are probably not likely to step into someone else's battle unneccessarily. I had a hunch emotional escalation would serve to let people deride my manner of speech in a futile effort to avoid confronting the content, and that others would stand up then to clarify the content.
I was not looking for therapy by answering Tina's question. I was trying to explain as succinctly as possible that I feel just as bad as many of the people on this board. In as much as accepting these feelings and sublimating them to a constructive social purpose is therapuetic, I was attempting to support anyone who might feel as I do, that they are suffering long term sadness for a reason, not because it is a disease but because things are very very wrong in our world. It would not be fair of me to constantly say to people wrought with distress that they should live with it. If they want to take drugs and be happy, more power to them. Maybe I did that or will do that sometime. But it is indeed very supportive of me to publicly share my way of coping, which has been practiced by billions more people throughout history than the few million who have experimented with psych drugs. Those who disagree with me would be less likely to get bitten if they discuss the matter in third person terms.
For tina, thanks for your sincere apology, but this kind of conflict is nothing new to me. I can handle it, and if I can't, I am prepared to suffer the consequences. In the end, a few more people are talking more supportively of me, and there are probably people reading who don't chime in that feel like I do. Your question served a purpose.
If I could share the whole story, another dramatic development occured related to one of the list of pains I shared - and it had nothing to do with me changing things in my life. If it had to do with anything here, it might have been when someone or someones secretly used the power of their own minds to push things along. Magical thinking might not sell well here, and correlation does not prove causation. I don't want to be more specific about what happened, but I did not in anyway try to make it happen. It doesn't solve anything either - this development opens a whole new set of difficulties for me and for others. But it happened. Pray hard, people.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 30, 2000, at 1:12:06
In reply to Re: boBB is so wrong, posted by boBB on May 27, 2000, at 14:06:23
> I am not excusing myself. I am saying your definition of civility excludes me from your civilization. I do not consider exclusion to be civil.
Well, I do. In some cases.
> I am considering retiring this moniker from use at this site... If more dishonesty on my part would make me seem more civilized, I can divide myself into any number of anonymous identities. But there seems to be too much recurring interest in my perspective to abandon those who are lurking and who sometimes show interest in my contributions.
1. If you could restrict your incivility to one moniker, then we'd be all set, I could just block it and we could move on. :-)
2. One consequence of how this site currently works is that it's possible that some "recurring interest" is from other "identities" of your own.
Bob
Posted by boBB on May 30, 2000, at 10:35:10
In reply to Re: boBB is so..., posted by Dr. Bob on May 30, 2000, at 1:12:06
> 2. One consequence of how this site currently works is that it's possible that some "recurring interest" is from other "identities" of your own.
>
> BobThat could be an effective tactic, but it is not one I am using on this site. You can check ISP numbers associated with this boBB perona on your server and you will see that my posts under a few other identies do not talk back to each other. I am not so impassioned with this at this point to bother masking my ISP number, either.
I looked back through several months of archives and I notice the dialogue recently has taken some new directions. The "drug-related violence" posts by Cam and Scott Schofield are exactly what I wanted to hear. Some of bob's posts on the nature of science, disease, meds and language are making a lot of sense to. Many of the respondants are regulars here, and don't always support me, but sometimes explain what I am trying to understand in better terms than I can find. Sorry it takes so much writhing to provoke this sort of discussion, but I never know what is going to work and what is not.
I don't mean to interfere with the "effexor makes me groggy" nature of this board, but I am watching some very disturbing things here in real life, and I am not afraid to kick a few doors in an effort to get to the bottom of it. I've said to you in private e-mail, I realize how this tests your professional obligations. Obviously, I consider these topics to be very critical problems. Do what you have to do, but don't write me off as someone who is not a very serious, gravely concerned player.
Maybe we can see how "boBB" does, but its the same "software" no matter what name I use. I am using that name less just because I think it causes a bit of an adrenaline reaction now in some readers.
Posted by claire 7 on May 30, 2000, at 12:47:27
In reply to Re: boBB is so..., posted by Dr. Bob on May 30, 2000, at 1:12:06
I hope we're not going to have to start proving we're not boBB whenever we agree with him, or say things that boBB might conceivably agree with.
Posted by claire 7 on May 30, 2000, at 14:04:14
In reply to Re: boBB is so..., posted by Dr. Bob on May 30, 2000, at 1:12:06
Despite your qualifiers, this tends to invalidate the posts of people who indicate an interest in boBB's perceptions. Perhaps you could reassure me that that was not your intention.
> 2. One consequence of how this site currently works is that it's possible that some "recurring interest" is from other "identities" of your own.
>
> Bob
Posted by firstfred on May 30, 2000, at 14:34:56
In reply to Re: boBB is so..., posted by Dr. Bob on May 30, 2000, at 1:12:06
> > I am not excusing myself. I am saying your definition of civility excludes me from your civilization. I do not consider exclusion to be civil.
>
> Well, I do. In some cases.
>
> > I am considering retiring this moniker from use at this site... If more dishonesty on my part would make me seem more civilized, I can divide myself into any number of anonymous identities. But there seems to be too much recurring interest in my perspective to abandon those who are lurking and who sometimes show interest in my contributions.
>
> 1. If you could restrict your incivility to one moniker, then we'd be all set, I could just block it and we could move on. :-)
>
Can all my monikers but fred come back through my blocked
computer?
> 2. One consequence of how this site currently works is that it's possible that some "recurring interest" is from other "identities" of your own.But you don't have any proof of that , so is it civil
to keep posting your unsupported speculations?>
fred
>PS I'm not boBB. Are you noa? The simplest
way to straighten these things out is just to
ask. ;-)
Posted by Noa on May 30, 2000, at 15:02:56
In reply to Re:A Vast Babbling Conspiracy, Dr B?, posted by firstfred on May 30, 2000, at 14:34:56
I am me. I am unsure of lots of things but of this I am sure.
Posted by claire 7 on May 30, 2000, at 20:22:26
In reply to Re: boBB is so..., posted by Dr. Bob on May 30, 2000, at 1:12:06
I'm not kidding, and I'm not boBB. This is very weird, surreal, and I think, a serious issue. Let's face it, we're not the most stable people in the world, and to have our identities questioned, and to know that our opinions might be dismissed because they might not be our opinions---this is unsettling to say the least.
boBB, though I don't blame you for this weirdness, I think maybe it would be a generous gesture if you collapsed your identities into one for a while, till this gets cleared up.
Posted by allisonm on May 30, 2000, at 20:58:10
In reply to Re: boBB is so..., posted by claire 7 on May 30, 2000, at 20:22:26
> I'm not kidding, and I'm not boBB. This is very weird, surreal, and I think, a serious issue. Let's face it, we're not the most stable people in the world, and to have our identities questioned, and to know that our opinions might be dismissed because they might not be our opinions---this is unsettling to say the least.
This is cyberspace. No one may be as they seem. Everyone one can be anyone and it's not the first time someone has used more than one moniker here. It's up to the reader to decide what and whom to believe. As Dr. Bob says at the top of the page, don't (necessarily) believe everything you hear.Until Bill Gates comes up with some software that makes it even easier for anyone and everyone to track anyone and everyone else, we'll have to rely upon and trust others' good intentions. Personally, I prefer more anonymity. I hate cookies et al.
Further, boBB's posts under other names are rather apparent. Or at least some of them are to me. See, for example, clever Aunt B's reply in the Jung thread. Reads like classic boBB to me. People have certain writing styles. It takes some effort to change them. If boBB wants to take the time to sound like someone else, that's his problem and wasted time. I don't really care.
Just my $.03.
Allison M. (absolutely not boBB)
Posted by boBB on May 31, 2000, at 0:05:28
In reply to boBB is so...boBB, posted by allisonm on May 30, 2000, at 20:58:10
Thanks allison. That is the way I saw it. This is an opportune time, and I intend to do my best to use it well.
claire7 is really kind too, though, and I don't want to do wrong by her. There is a sense of community here I don't want to upset.
But I don't want an apparently open discussion to subtly or covertly exclude some viewpoints. allison wasn't warned for bumping James Watt with a hammered dulcimer. Dr. Bob's defense of ECT a while back seemed rather accusatory of some doctors.
I'm really not out to get Dr. Bob by any means, either. Referees get yelled at in lots of games. Players get thrown out. We'll see how it goes. Referees get thrown out of the ring in WWF.
I'm gonna try to include my e-mail address more, then any private stuff might be more likely to happen off-board. No promises - verbal jujitsu can get rough, but it doesn't have to be. I'm definately not here to beat up anyone, or to prove I'm tough, and I don't want to dominate the board. But I am definately not just here to have fun, and I don't want to be feeble in my support of people who might not be getting any other support. I am really interested in Cam's and Scott's perspective in this drug-related violence thread, not for THEIR perspective (whoever they are) but to better understand who WE are, as a people. That is why I am here. There are people who can't articulate their concerns, for various reasons, and they need support, too.
Aunt B? obviously boBBesque.
andrew? definately, but I forgot there is Andrew B, who apparently is not suffering from boBB disorder.
rupert? yep. me.
but I am not william. Don't know what's up with that. What tangled Webs we weave. I have seen blank-post and repeat posts cascade until they propelled other sites to the top of common search engines. But that would break the flow, here.
fred, or firstfred? absolutely not.
Fred Stone? oops - maybe, or maybe it is a friend of boBB. There I go again. I'll hang with boBB for a while and see how it goes. Maybe try to hang back a little. (yeh, right!)
I'll *try* not to make Dr. feel like he needs to grab his referee shirt.
> > I'm not kidding, and I'm not boBB. This is very weird, surreal, and I think, a serious issue. Let's face it, we're not the most stable people in the world, and to have our identities questioned, and to know that our opinions might be dismissed because they might not be our opinions---this is unsettling to say the least.
>
>
> This is cyberspace. No one may be as they seem. Everyone one can be anyone and it's not the first time someone has used more than one moniker here. It's up to the reader to decide what and whom to believe. As Dr. Bob says at the top of the page, don't (necessarily) believe everything you hear.
>
> Until Bill Gates comes up with some software that makes it even easier for anyone and everyone to track anyone and everyone else, we'll have to rely upon and trust others' good intentions. Personally, I prefer more anonymity. I hate cookies et al.
>
> Further, boBB's posts under other names are rather apparent. Or at least some of them are to me. See, for example, clever Aunt B's reply in the Jung thread. Reads like classic boBB to me. People have certain writing styles. It takes some effort to change them. If boBB wants to take the time to sound like someone else, that's his problem and wasted time. I don't really care.
>
> Just my $.03.
>
> Allison M. (absolutely not boBB)
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 31, 2000, at 0:06:06
In reply to Re: boBB is so..., posted by claire 7 on May 30, 2000, at 20:22:26
> I'm not kidding, and I'm not boBB. This is very weird, surreal, and I think, a serious issue.
I agree, and this is one reason for the registration system.
The more information you provide when you register, the less anonymous and more distinct you are. I hope to move registration to a secure connection so people will be more comfortable providing more information (to me, at least).
I think I'd like to discourage multiple identities. I know it's controversial, but a registration fee would do that. Not everyone would be willing to pay, but I wonder if the tradeoff might be worth it.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 31, 2000, at 0:16:51
In reply to Re:A Vast Babbling Conspiracy, Dr B?, posted by firstfred on May 30, 2000, at 14:34:56
> > 2. One consequence of how this site currently works is that it's possible that some "recurring interest" is from other "identities" of your own.
>
> But you don't have any proof of that , so is it civil
> to keep posting your unsupported speculations?There, I was just pointing out the possibility. At other times, I do have evidence for my "speculations".
One reason I'd like to discourage multiple identities is that then this won't make me so paranoid.
Bob
Posted by claire 7 on May 31, 2000, at 0:55:30
In reply to Re: boBB-type issues and registration, posted by Dr. Bob on May 31, 2000, at 0:06:06
Dr Bob's solutions are not at all what I had in mind. I think a fee is a terrible idea, and anonymity and privacy (revelation of e-mail address a choice, not a requirement) are necessary. What I was really objecting to was Dr Bob's earlier suggestion that some of the recurring interest in boBB's perceptions may be a sham perpetrated by boBB. I felt this tended, intentionally or not, to devalue boBB's posts as well as posts supporting boBB. Of course it was obvious that AuntandAndrewb were boBB, so I didn't think Dr Bob's comment was entirely helpful.
Posted by harry b. on May 31, 2000, at 9:49:59
In reply to Re: boBB-type issues and registration, posted by claire 7 on May 31, 2000, at 0:55:30
Registration fees AND a requirement to provide
personal information? No, thanks. My comfort
level here would be lost. Users would be less
willing to post pleas for help or speak of sensitive
issues.Many people find and turn to this board in crisis
or near crisis situations, I know I did. Are we
going to turn them away? Are we going to say to
them "give Dr. Bob your silver and your identity,
then you may post and we will offer succor?"boBB can post under any name he chooses, I don't
have a problem with that.
Posted by Noa on May 31, 2000, at 15:01:29
In reply to Re: boBB-type issues and registration, posted by harry b. on May 31, 2000, at 9:49:59
Gee, Dr. Bob, it would seem a shame to require personal info or a registration fee. I am fairly certain I never would have begun to participate here if that had been required at the time that I joined. I don't like to buy anything online, give credit info or anything. I know to a more cybersavvy person this sounds a bit neanderthal, but that is how I am. The anonymity here is part of what makes it safe.
As for folks who are determined to stir things up and execute identity pranks, well, I am not happy about that either, but perhaps there are other ways to deal with it.
Posted by Greg on May 31, 2000, at 16:20:07
In reply to Re: boBB is so..., posted by Dr. Bob on May 30, 2000, at 1:12:06
Nice to see that some things haven't changed since I went on vacation.....
> > I am not excusing myself. I am saying your definition of civility excludes me from your civilization. I do not consider exclusion to be civil.
>
> Well, I do. In some cases.
>
> > I am considering retiring this moniker from use at this site... If more dishonesty on my part would make me seem more civilized, I can divide myself into any number of anonymous identities. But there seems to be too much recurring interest in my perspective to abandon those who are lurking and who sometimes show interest in my contributions.
>
> 1. If you could restrict your incivility to one moniker, then we'd be all set, I could just block it and we could move on. :-)
>
> 2. One consequence of how this site currently works is that it's possible that some "recurring interest" is from other "identities" of your own.
>
> Bob
Posted by Adam on May 31, 2000, at 16:24:12
In reply to Re: boBB-type issues and registration, posted by Noa on May 31, 2000, at 15:01:29
Of course people want to protect their identities, and registration that requires some personal information be divulged would compromise that to some extent.But let's not be naive about the level of anonymity we think we enjoy. Do none of us post from work? Do we all use encryption and web-proxies to cover our tracks?
I am guessing that the mere posting of information to an unsecure board such as this using our personal internet accounts from our own PCs leaves enough of a trail of information to allow anyone savvy and interested enough to learn much about us that we do not wish them to know. There is, as far as I know, no solution yet for this problem WITHOUT a registration system and possible future security enhancements added to the site.
An encryption-enabled registration form, as well as similar secure transfer of username and password information when logging on is many times more safe than the system we already use. The only problem we cannot help is what Dr. Bob or someone in his organization connected to 'Babble might do with what personal information we would have to divulge for user privileges. Quite frankly, this doesn't concern me that much. I'm sure Dr. Bob would apply the same professional discression to this information he applies to his clinical work. So I would be as safe here as anywhere. The other reason it doesn't concern me is that, as I have gotten educated, I realise that normal use of the internet is so unsecure, and the contents of our browser's caches and "cookie sheets" so easily accessed, if there is damage to be done, it has already been done. If anybody cares that much about my use of 'Babble to really dig for it, then everything they need is already out there. This is totally ignoring all my health and insurance records, precriptions, employer records about extended leave, book and med. purchases made with credit cards, literature requests, personal letters I no longer have control over, and on and on.
I choose not to worry about this, because it's water under the bridge at this point, and because I assume I have no real privacy anyway, in this info-hungry world. What I hope is that I am simply not interesting enough for anyone to go through the trouble to dig dirt up on me.
This doesn't mean I wouldn't like to take precautions in the future, so as not to compound the damage. I think we shouldn't ignore the possibilites for security that a robust registration system might provide.
Posted by boBB on May 31, 2000, at 19:50:51
In reply to Re: registration, posted by Adam on May 31, 2000, at 16:24:12
Dr. Bob wrote: “Please try not to say anything that could be taken as accusatory”
Dr. Bob wrote: “And some doctors probably have outdated ideas....”
Dr. Bob wrote: “Some doctors are probably afraid of how their patients would react....”
I ask: Which doctors? Would it be libelous if Dr. Bob named these doctors, and published these allegations of specific licensed physicians? Even so, boBB would likely defend Dr. Bob’s right to criticize. But could we please allow those doctors to respond?
__________________________________Someone asked boBB how he feels, and he replied honestly. Someone politely offered further nonjudgmental listening, which boBB declined, attempting instead to briefly explain his personal method of coping, and his personal sense of hope. Succinctly, boBB wrote: “Its not about me.”
boBB wrote, “I find satisfaction sharing their suffering,”
Compassion is derived from words meaning “to suffer with.” It is defined in a modern dictionary as sharing a feeling of sorrow. boBB sincerely related that the best way to show compassion toward him is to direct it elsewhere. That is the ONLY way ANYONE can share boBB’s sorrow, and because boBB does not feel not sorry for himself.
boBB said he is lonely, poor and tired. boBB grew up singing songs every Sunday that said “I am weak, I am poor, I am blind.” Despite this endless thread in reaction to his honesty and to his expression of a growing weariness of living (aging?), boBB is not sorry to have been boBB, to have been human, to have been animal, and to have been muddy, confused dirt writhing with DNA. That is human.
But someone quickly replied again: “wouldn't you be more effective as an advocate of the downtrodden if you were relieved of some of your suffering....if you were healthy and strong and could mobilize your convictions and anger more effectively?”
boBB again wrote, more emphatically, but patiently: “It's not about me. Drop it."
After twice being asked to leave it alone, the same person replied: “I was talking about allowing yourself to ...( meet emotional needs, after boBB explicitly explained how he meets his emotional needs)...that if you did so, maybe you would actually have more strength....”
After repeated unwanted analysis of boBB’s needs and his health he wrote “*IF* you don't want to see how I feel *I suggest...*”
That was not a threat by any legal standard. It is an obviously allegorical and impractical suggestion to a person who is either healthy enough to understand it, perhaps too unfamiliar with therapeutic methods to offer qualified advice to an unreceptive client, or determined to impose advice on people even after they repeatedly declined. boBB’s statement is crudely patterned after a category of therapeutic techniques that involve imagined exaggeration of a symptom or a reaction to a symptom. It is expressed in a rhetorical style has been in use for 2,000 years.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The resident pharmacist wrote: “I, myself would risk the aggression/violence/suicidal side effects of medications; if only to enjoy a nice sunny day.”He offered a well qualified analysis that such side effects might result from as many as one in ten administrations of certain psychotropic medications “Yes, I agree that some people (about 10%) do get akasthesia-like or aggression as a side effect of a number of medications.”
Dr. Bob wrote: “please don't suggest that anyone do anything self-destructive.”
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *• a doctor accuses other unnamed doctors of poor judgment
• a pharmacist says he would risk suicide or violence to enjoy a sunny day.
• a working journalist sincerely asks a person requesting that a journalist share his worst feelings to direct their sincere concern elsewhere, if only for the purpose of further relieving the journalist’s suffering.
• another poster, who declines to disclose their occupation, repeatedly posts unwanted personal advice to the journalist, even after the journalist three times says no.
_____________________________What the rules now seem to say is “Please, correctly anticipate and adhere to Dr. Bob’s definition of civility. Do not refer to popular culture as a guide to acceptable speech.”
But the rules here also seem to infer that any contributors who do not anticipate Dr. Bob’s definition of civility are not civil. He is saying that his values and his definition of civility is so universal that anyone here should anticipate which accusations are appropriate, which acceptances of suicidal risk or violence are appropriate, and which common rhetorical devices are inappropriate. No doubt, to enforce such a self-styled system, he needs a registration and screening process.
I am saying my statements were typically civil by the standards of many communities I frequent. A registration would do little to prevent someone intent on disrupting this board. If anyone was intent on acting uncivil here, there are disruptive tactics a person could use simply by operating the board as it is now arranged, or with a registration system - by clicking the right buttons, over and over. Obviously, I am not using these tactics, nor continuing to make the kind of statements that seem to violate Dr. Bob’s rules, unless the rules are going to be redefined again next week.
We don’t have concrete barriers down the middle of most highways - we have various yellow and white lines, which most of us understand and follow, even when we are a little upset. We can trust people to generally be civil, if we don’t presume to dictate a narrow definition of civility and if we show some patience while a constantly changing community continually negotiates a common definition.
If Dr. Bob chooses to further restrict use of this board at this time, this archive will remain. Generations of sociology grad students will enjoy the opportunity to analyze the dialogue that preceded such a move.
Posted by Adam on May 31, 2000, at 20:56:45
In reply to Are we done yet?, posted by boBB on May 31, 2000, at 19:50:51
Well, to move the debate along, boBB, I haven't found your posts to be offensive so much as, at times,
inscrutable and a little in-your-face. More careful reading would have solved some of those problems, and
as for other problems, well, I don't know.I guess the question might go back to the very nature of this board as Dr. Bob's space, ultimately. I have
no problem with that. If he makes the rules, they haven't gotten in my way of making very good use of this
space, primarily gathering and sharing information, and getting or giving a little emotional support now
and then.I suppose philosophical debates and the resultant polemics have sprung up from time to time. It would
appear that the vast majority of such discourse has met the standard of "civility". So again I say, what
cause have we to complain, and what should make us think it is not our privilege but our right to post
whatever we want in any manner we want here?Also, YOU won't reveal your identity. Why should Dr. Bob reveal the identities of those he disagrees with?
You claim to divulge personal information would threaten your life. Fair enough. For Dr. Bob to name
names in this forum might threaten his livelihood, and, by extension, the very existance of this board. We
are taking the rather prodigious leap of faith that you are some kind of vigilante warrior. How big of a
leap is it to suppose some doctors don't see eye to eye, or that their identities should be any of our
business?So, yeah, I'm done debating what should be done with your feelings. Anyway, you seem to be saying that
the best way to be your friend is to go get my ass kicked for the cause. Since I have quite literally
gotten my ass kicked on numerous occasions, sometimes just for standing up for myself, I guess we are
somehow on a similar plain (if I may be so bold), though not in the same echelon.Now, SECURITY: It seems there is a desire not so much to censor as to regulate, rationalize, and protect.
That means when I post, I can't go around spewing hateful filth, whatever I post others know who posted it
to some extent, and that somebody else can't go around using my name to post stuff that I didn't say. I'm
having a difficult time finding anything unreasonable about this. True, I might lose the ability to post
as Eve whenever I wanted, and this might cramp my style a little, but I've endured worse in life, and it's
most readily evident that so have you.Again, lets all not be paranoid, or misplace our trust: A registration system for Psychobabble might
actually IMPROVE our security (if implemented the right way) and make the majority of us happier to post
here without having any negative impact on our ability to express whatever we want. There is an enormous
amount of information out there on us already just waiting for someone to mine it. Given a realistic cost-
benefit analysis, does giving out our name, email address, and a small fee to Psychobabble amount to such
an unacceptable compromise of our security that the idea should be abandoned? After all, the mere fact
that we have posted here may mean that this information is already available to those who wish to look,
depending on how careful we have been to cover our tracks.So, how careful have you been up to now?
> Dr. Bob wrote: “Please try not to say anything that could be taken as accusatory”
>
> Dr. Bob wrote: “And some doctors probably have outdated ideas....”
>
> Dr. Bob wrote: “Some doctors are probably afraid of how their patients would react....”
>
> I ask: Which doctors? Would it be libelous if Dr. Bob named these doctors, and published these allegations of specific licensed physicians? Even so, boBB would likely defend Dr. Bob’s right to criticize. But could we please allow those doctors to respond?
> __________________________________
>
> Someone asked boBB how he feels, and he replied honestly. Someone politely offered further nonjudgmental listening, which boBB declined, attempting instead to briefly explain his personal method of coping, and his personal sense of hope. Succinctly, boBB wrote: “Its not about me.”
>
> boBB wrote, “I find satisfaction sharing their suffering,”
>
> Compassion is derived from words meaning “to suffer with.” It is defined in a modern dictionary as sharing a feeling of sorrow. boBB sincerely related that the best way to show compassion toward him is to direct it elsewhere. That is the ONLY way ANYONE can share boBB’s sorrow, and because boBB does not feel not sorry for himself.
>
> boBB said he is lonely, poor and tired. boBB grew up singing songs every Sunday that said “I am weak, I am poor, I am blind.” Despite this endless thread in reaction to his honesty and to his expression of a growing weariness of living (aging?), boBB is not sorry to have been boBB, to have been human, to have been animal, and to have been muddy, confused dirt writhing with DNA. That is human.
>
> But someone quickly replied again: “wouldn't you be more effective as an advocate of the downtrodden if you were relieved of some of your suffering....if you were healthy and strong and could mobilize your convictions and anger more effectively?”
>
> boBB again wrote, more emphatically, but patiently: “It's not about me. Drop it."
>
> After twice being asked to leave it alone, the same person replied: “I was talking about allowing yourself to ...( meet emotional needs, after boBB explicitly explained how he meets his emotional needs)...that if you did so, maybe you would actually have more strength....”
>
> After repeated unwanted analysis of boBB’s needs and his health he wrote “*IF* you don't want to see how I feel *I suggest...*”
>
> That was not a threat by any legal standard. It is an obviously allegorical and impractical suggestion to a person who is either healthy enough to understand it, perhaps too unfamiliar with therapeutic methods to offer qualified advice to an unreceptive client, or determined to impose advice on people even after they repeatedly declined. boBB’s statement is crudely patterned after a category of therapeutic techniques that involve imagined exaggeration of a symptom or a reaction to a symptom. It is expressed in a rhetorical style has been in use for 2,000 years.
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> The resident pharmacist wrote: “I, myself would risk the aggression/violence/suicidal side effects of medications; if only to enjoy a nice sunny day.”
>
> He offered a well qualified analysis that such side effects might result from as many as one in ten administrations of certain psychotropic medications “Yes, I agree that some people (about 10%) do get akasthesia-like or aggression as a side effect of a number of medications.”
>
> Dr. Bob wrote: “please don't suggest that anyone do anything self-destructive.”
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> • a doctor accuses other unnamed doctors of poor judgment
> • a pharmacist says he would risk suicide or violence to enjoy a sunny day.
> • a working journalist sincerely asks a person requesting that a journalist share his worst feelings to direct their sincere concern elsewhere, if only for the purpose of further relieving the journalist’s suffering.
> • another poster, who declines to disclose their occupation, repeatedly posts unwanted personal advice to the journalist, even after the journalist three times says no.
> _____________________________
>
> What the rules now seem to say is “Please, correctly anticipate and adhere to Dr. Bob’s definition of civility. Do not refer to popular culture as a guide to acceptable speech.”
>
> But the rules here also seem to infer that any contributors who do not anticipate Dr. Bob’s definition of civility are not civil. He is saying that his values and his definition of civility is so universal that anyone here should anticipate which accusations are appropriate, which acceptances of suicidal risk or violence are appropriate, and which common rhetorical devices are inappropriate. No doubt, to enforce such a self-styled system, he needs a registration and screening process.
>
> I am saying my statements were typically civil by the standards of many communities I frequent. A registration would do little to prevent someone intent on disrupting this board. If anyone was intent on acting uncivil here, there are disruptive tactics a person could use simply by operating the board as it is now arranged, or with a registration system - by clicking the right buttons, over and over. Obviously, I am not using these tactics, nor continuing to make the kind of statements that seem to violate Dr. Bob’s rules, unless the rules are going to be redefined again next week.
>
> We don’t have concrete barriers down the middle of most highways - we have various yellow and white lines, which most of us understand and follow, even when we are a little upset. We can trust people to generally be civil, if we don’t presume to dictate a narrow definition of civility and if we show some patience while a constantly changing community continually negotiates a common definition.
>
> If Dr. Bob chooses to further restrict use of this board at this time, this archive will remain. Generations of sociology grad students will enjoy the opportunity to analyze the dialogue that preceded such a move.
Posted by Janice on May 31, 2000, at 21:15:25
In reply to Re: Are we done yet?, posted by Adam on May 31, 2000, at 20:56:45
I agree and you spoke for me. Janice
Posted by boBb on June 1, 2000, at 0:04:45
In reply to Re: Are we done yet?, posted by Adam on May 31, 2000, at 20:56:45
One: My brief polemic about which you are now ranting and raving was hardly “spewing hateful filth.” It was very close to what is taught on Sunday morning, an environment where I was forced to spend one of every seven days until I was old enough to know better. If thine eye offend the, pluck it out. It was said in reference to a direct statement to myself, after I had twice asked the person to not concern themself with my personal way of managing my feelings.
Two: no, I never came close to suggesting that you should your ass kicked for anybody. In fact, it was our resident pharmacist who most recently boasted of fighting for sport in martial arts tournaments. What’s with your language anyway. (”Anyway, you seem to be saying that the best way to be your friend is to go get my ass kicked for the cause”) I said, quite plainly, though you choose to twist beyond reason whatever I tried very sincerely, persistently and honestly to say, that one person who offered to listen to me would help me by listening to people who need it far more; that fixing me is not a worthy cause - I’m fine with me, but there is plenty suffering around that does really need attention. Is that too hard to understand? Christ!Three: I never said anything I post here is going to threaten my life. To return to the direct accusations for which I was warned, you, Adam, are demonstrating the worst of insensitive behaviors often demonstrated by mental health workers by twisting my genuine and well considered explanations, you wrote: “You claim to divulge personal information would threaten your life.” Please search my posts and document your allegation. I said, rather obtusely, that to post under my real name might damage my bi-line and to make direct admissions of illegal drug use on the internet could serve as basis for a search warrant. To thicken the plot, if when such a hypothetical search warrant were served, I had as a guest in my house a source in a news story who happend to be in possession of an illegal aminergine, I could be criminally liable. When challenged about how I could possibly know what goes into an affidavit for a warrant, I explained that, as a journalist, I read such documents, and know the basis for many warrants. That was in a discussion in which we were comparing illegal aminergines to legal aminergines.
Four: you wrote that: “We are taking the rather prodigious leap of faith that you are some kind of vigilante warrior” I am exactly what I am. Well, yes, in my state and many others, there are people using the phrase “leaderless resistance.” But I encountered the style many years ago, when Arlo Guthrie, son of the renowned activist/folk singer Woodie Guthrie was touring, yes, in the mid-west. He said in the early 1980’s that mass movements had become so misdirected and watered down, that people need to learn to act on their own. Well, golly jee. But isn’t learning to act on our own - to be self directed, the goal of psychotherapy, and the essential spice of democracy?
Five: I have repeatedly acknowledged that some people know who I am, for what that is worth. I am basically interested in protecting myself from the likes of you, Adam, who apparently are unable or unwilling to accurately represent the substance of what I offer you when you reply. I would have a hard time hiring you in my newsroom. I would have very a hard time trusting you with my identity. Who knows where you might choose to slander me.
Five: you asked "How big of a leap is it to suppose some doctors don't see eye to eye, or that their identities should be any of our business?" Well, I am concerned that one particular psychiatric doctor might use his position of power at a university funded by an unlawful oil monopoly to discourage patients from trusting their family physician when that physician attempts to exercise a lawful obligation to warn patients about contraindications of a procedure. If you really need to fight about it, perhaps I should consider recommending him to his state medical arts licensing board for an ethical review. Then he will be in a forum where someone else gets to make up the rules.
Apparently, those who advocate meds and the medical model enjoy the benefit of a referee here, and the rest of us can expect to be mugged. You, Adam, seem to represent a group of well educated individuals who are unable to manage there personal aggression, and are unable to back off once you smell blood in the water. Get out your credit card, type in the numbers and rule this site. I hope that brings you some satisfaction.The main problem with jumping to another level of restriction now is not that it would insult me. Who the H**l am I, anyway? It is that it demeans the site by diverting the discussion toward one of how things are said rather than what is being said.
Posted by Cam W. on June 1, 2000, at 0:23:33
In reply to Are we done yet?, posted by boBB on May 31, 2000, at 19:50:51
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> The resident pharmacist wrote: “I, myself would risk the aggression/violence/suicidal side effects of medications; if only to enjoy a nice sunny day.”
>
> He offered a well qualified analysis that such side effects might result from as many as one in ten administrations of certain psychotropic medications “Yes, I agree that some people (about 10%) do get akasthesia-like or aggression as a side effect of a number of medications.”
>
> Dr. Bob wrote: “please don't suggest that anyone do anything self-destructive.”
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> • a doctor accuses other unnamed doctors of poor judgment
> • a pharmacist says he would risk suicide or violence to enjoy a sunny day.
> • a working journalist sincerely asks a person requesting that a journalist share his worst feelings to direct their sincere concern elsewhere, if only for the purpose of further relieving the journalist’s suffering.
> • another poster, who declines to disclose their occupation, repeatedly posts unwanted personal advice to the journalist, even after the journalist three times says no.
> _____________________________Your right. It is over. I'm outta here. I don't like your accusations and insinuations. All you do and piss people off. I don't need it. Bye. - Cam
Posted by Adam on June 1, 2000, at 1:54:31
In reply to Get off it. Really! » Adam, posted by boBb on June 1, 2000, at 0:04:45
Goodness!
>
> One: My brief polemic about which you are now ranting and raving was hardly “spewing hateful filth.” It was very close to what is taught on Sunday morning, an environment where I was forced to spend one of every seven days until I was old enough to know better. If thine eye offend the, pluck it out. It was said in reference to a direct statement to myself, after I had twice asked the person to not concern themself with my personal way of managing my feelings.I never said it was. Others have spewed hateful filth here, though, and the posts were removed. I guess the fact that in
the same post I said I wasn't really offended by things you had said would indicate I wasn't accusing you of such transgressions.
>
>
> Two: no, I never came close to suggesting that you should your ass kicked for anybody. In fact, it was our resident pharmacist who most recently boasted of fighting for sport in martial arts tournaments. What’s with your language anyway. (”Anyway, you seem to be saying that the best way to be your friend is to go get my ass kicked for the cause”) I said, quite plainly, though you choose to twist beyond reason whatever I tried very sincerely, persistently and honestly to say, that one person who offered to listen to me would help me by listening to people who need it far more; that fixing me is not a worthy cause - I’m fine with me, but there is plenty suffering around that does really need attention. Is that too hard to understand? Christ!"People die in agony for
just cause - for causes you may not care about, but from which you likely benefit. I find satisfaction sharing their suffering,
and suffering for these “causes” is the best way you could lend me comfort."If this statement doesn't at least imply that one ought to get a can of whoop-ass opened up on
them to relate, I'm not sure what it does, then. All this talk of death and agony and war and
fighting and causes and so on sound like the musings of a self-styled Job, that's all. If all
you meant was to understand this torturous journey we must listen to people who have suffered,
why not just say so? And what's wrong with my language, anyway? Like you never used the F
word or whatever. Please.
>
> Three: I never said anything I post here is going to threaten my life. To return to the direct accusations for which I was warned, you, Adam, are demonstrating the worst of insensitive behaviors often demonstrated by mental health workers by twisting my genuine and well considered explanations, you wrote: “You claim to divulge personal information would threaten your life.” Please search my posts and document your allegation. I said, rather obtusely, that to post under my real name might damage my bi-line and to make direct admissions of illegal drug use on the internet could serve as basis for a search warrant. To thicken the plot, if when such a hypothetical search warrant were served, I had as a guest in my house a source in a news story who happend to be in possession of an illegal aminergine, I could be criminally liable. When challenged about how I could possibly know what goes into an affidavit for a warrant, I explained that, as a journalist, I read such documents, and know the basis for many warrants. That was in a discussion in which we were comparing illegal aminergines to legal aminergines.
>
Here's what you wrote:"I am certain ECHELON, the international electronic intelligence gathering contractor, can identify me. I am not famous, I just
have a certain edge that shows wherever I flash it. If I told you places, you might shudder with recognition. I don't identify
myself here mostly so I won't have to shut up. Otherwise I would be confronted in my daily life by my stances here and
elsewhere. Somebody likely knows. This isn't paranoia, it is low-intensity warfare. If it comes down to it, the daily normal job
goes and this fight over the franchise to medicine and over the human right to have food and safe shelter will always be my
main mission in life. I will give my life in a heartbeat to prosecute that war."I guess all this talk of "low-intensity warfare" and giving your life, alongside this weird ECHELON thing got
me thinking you were afraid the 'Net police were going to hunt you down and do something nasty to you. If you
don't want such misunderstandings to happen in the future, you might want to tone down the language in your
initial posts, to match the mitigated refutations.
> Four: you wrote that: “We are taking the rather prodigious leap of faith that you are some kind of vigilante warrior” I am exactly what I am. Well, yes, in my state and many others, there are people using the phrase “leaderless resistance.” But I encountered the style many years ago, when Arlo Guthrie, son of the renowned activist/folk singer Woodie Guthrie was touring, yes, in the mid-west. He said in the early 1980’s that mass movements had become so misdirected and watered down, that people need to learn to act on their own. Well, golly jee. But isn’t learning to act on our own - to be self directed, the goal of psychotherapy, and the essential spice of democracy?Umm, sure. Why does the fact that Arlo Guthrie said some things make you believable?
>
> Five: I have repeatedly acknowledged that some people know who I am, for what that is worth. I am basically interested in protecting myself from the likes of you, Adam, who apparently are unable or unwilling to accurately represent the substance of what I offer you when you reply. I would have a hard time hiring you in my newsroom. I would have very a hard time trusting you with my identity. Who knows where you might choose to slander me.Why on Earth would I bother to slander you? And like I have said above, I don't think it's an enormous stretch to interpret some
of your posts the way I have. It's the bombastics that are causing the problem, I think. Everything is expressed with such
grandiloquence, I can't resist images of Charlton Heston parting the waters.
>
>
> Five: you asked "How big of a leap is it to suppose some doctors don't see eye to eye, or that their identities should be any of our business?" Well, I am concerned that one particular psychiatric doctor might use his position of power at a university funded by an unlawful oil monopoly to discourage patients from trusting their family physician when that physician attempts to exercise a lawful obligation to warn patients about contraindications of a procedure. If you really need to fight about it, perhaps I should consider recommending him to his state medical arts licensing board for an ethical review. Then he will be in a forum where someone else gets to make up the rules.
>
I'm sorry, but this is almost comical. I think many p-docs feel that the specialty of psychopharmacology
might be best left to psychopharmacologists, just like they're not going to go around claiming to be
experts in nephrology or something. As for where the U of Chicago gets its money, I can't see why that
is necessarily a reflection of the character of someone who works there. Hell, I live in a country stolen
from Native Americans and built with the toil of slaves. I am the direct beneficiary of racism and genocide.
Who is free from guilt by association? At some point you have to just live and do your job and try to be
a good person. Anyway, I'm sure U of C gets all kinds of "legitimate" funds too. What should we focus on?>
> Apparently, those who advocate meds and the medical model enjoy the benefit of a referee here, and the rest of us can expect to be mugged. You, Adam, seem to represent a group of well educated individuals who are unable to manage there personal aggression, and are unable to back off once you smell blood in the water. Get out your credit card, type in the numbers and rule this site. I hope that brings you some satisfaction.
>
Smell blood? What? Anyway, I acknowlege medicine because it finally managed to help me after about ten years
of lackluster results, and some possible exacerbations of my condition. I'm not a blind fanatic, and I have my
share of questions and concerns. I just feel that there are good doctors and not-so-good ones, and that's about
all there is to it. I have been my own advocate in all the times where medicine has helped me. I could hardly
be called an advocate of all medicine. And who said anything about ruling the site? No one is silencing you
as it is, they're just refuting you. The problems registration hopes to address are, I am convinced, not limited
to or even primarily about your behavior. There have been other problems. I think your use of many pseudonyms
just highlights the concern about unrestricted use of names, where confusion and misappropriation of others'
identities would cause confusion and harm. This doesn't seem all that sinister, that's all.> The main problem with jumping to another level of restriction now is not that it would insult me. Who the H**l am I, anyway? It is that it demeans the site by diverting the discussion toward one of how things are said rather than what is being said.
I'm just not following this. There's virtually no restriction now, and no reason to believe things would change in
any radical way. Why not wait and see, or consider some of the benefits of registration? Why be so negative about
it until you see whether or not there really is a problem? I like the idea that certain foul behaviour could be
dealt with (I'm talking the truly caustic stuff, stuff meant only to hurt, not intelligent (or unintelligent) debate
over something.)
Posted by Noa on June 1, 2000, at 7:52:24
In reply to Re: Are we done yet? » boBB, posted by Cam W. on June 1, 2000, at 0:23:33
Cam, I hope you aren't leaving babble altogether.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | 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.