![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 23 to 47 of 60. Go back in thread:
Posted by Cass on June 16, 2000, at 13:18:55
In reply to Re: I agree Cam/note to ToDD, posted by KarenB on June 16, 2000, at 12:37:14
This posting under one name, then agreeing with said post under another, then complimenting your own "wisdom and insight" under another is making me a little ill.
Perhaps people are too quick to assume that because BBob has more than one handle that it is he who agrees with his own posts and compliments himself.
Posted by claire 7 on June 16, 2000, at 14:00:38
In reply to Re: I agree Cam/note to ToDD, posted by KarenB on June 16, 2000, at 12:37:14
>
Have you ever even considered that you may be wrong about the number of boBB identities? I ask seriously, not snidely. I'm honestly trying to figure out why it is so important for you to believe that anyone who doesn't boBB-bash is boBB.
I think I've expressed at least one of my theories about it, but a new one occurs to me. I wonder if you aren't overly concerned about being "tricked", or taken for a fool. Have you felt tricked in some profound way by an important figure in your life? This must be a pretty significant fear if you (and shar, and Janice) would rather respond with cruelty to a fellow human being than risk being taken for a fool.
The fear of appearing foolish is a major disabler. It limits your ability to experience life,it limits your ability to enjoy life, and it limits the depth of self-perception you can achieve. I've gotten over the frustration of being called boBB's alter-ego, and for a while I even found it amusing, (actually, I still do, from my side of things),but I think from YOUR side of things, it's not so funny. If you were able to allow yourself to seriously think about your reaction to this situation, you might gain some insight that could be useful in your struggle against depression.
I take everyone's struggle against depression seriously, including yours, though I doubt you will believe it.
Posted by Oddzilla on June 16, 2000, at 14:00:42
In reply to Re: I agree Cam/note to ToDD » KarenB, posted by Cass on June 16, 2000, at 13:18:55
> This posting under one name, then agreeing with said post under another, then complimenting your own "wisdom and insight" under another is making me a little ill.
>
> Perhaps people are too quick to assume that because BBob has more than one handle that it is he who agrees with his own posts and compliments himself.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
To Whoever you may be:I'm not BBob. I'm a person who believes that respect includes respecting people you don't agree with. I'm not a BBob disciple. He hasn't changed my life. I don't think he is any wiser, more courageous, more insightful, or more humane than anyone else here. But- I also don't think he's any less. IF he's making you ill,by all means stop reading his posts!!!! There are one or two frequent posters I found a little pretentious and full of themselves and I quit reading their posts. And I didn't feel any need to publicly announce it. It doesn't take any courage, just a little self-discipline.
I think it does require moral courage to impose the same requirement for civility on all posters
reguardless of their opinions. I called this post to Dr. Bob's attention for that reason. I think it takes courage to post one's true feelings even knowing the risk of being accused,discounted and ridiculed by some. O.
Posted by KarenB on June 16, 2000, at 14:52:51
In reply to Courageous Oddzilla (not Sybilla) speaks, posted by Oddzilla on June 16, 2000, at 14:00:42
> I'm not BBob.
I believe that's true, Oddzilla. But are you boBB? (Just kidding).
>IF he's making you ill, by all means stop reading his posts!!!!
I'd love to and therein lies my point: Just how do I discern who is BoBB and who isn't? A solitary individual is at a serious disadvantage when the one with whom they disagree comes back at them as several other alter egos, some confronting, some cheering on the others for doing so, etc., etc. To me, it seems a slightly sick and twisted little game he plays. He owns up to some "handles," others not. And BTW, I don't think everyone who agrees with BoBB IS in fact, BoBB. But I will have to agree with Scott on one item: he is no journalist;^)
Still...KarenB
Posted by Cam W. on June 16, 2000, at 15:04:10
In reply to Re: DR Bob Please read » Cam W., posted by claire 7 on June 15, 2000, at 22:16:43
Claire - It does seem that lines are being drawn in the sand on this issue (which should actually should be kept a neutral discussion). I do "think" that not all of boBB's "backers" (for lack of a better word - I do not necessarily mean that they side with his views, just his right to say what he feels) are boBB, but it seems impossible to separate the two. When I see characteristic writing styles, third person scenarios sounding like first person, posting times of different "backers" all being posted near similar times, etc.) it makes me pause and be skeptical of the poster's true identity.These "boBB backing" posts, coming from a couple of different names, never are accompanied by a return e-mail address. I am not saying that the posting of an e-mail address would make any difference. There are a lot of e-mail websites that could be used by the same person wanting to be someone else. Perhaps, since Dr.Bob knows if the posts come from the same machine (computer) perhaps an identifying number could accompany posts with different names from the same computer. Or a disclaimer saying that this post came from a computer where another another person has posted from. This is not fool-proof either. My wife and I have both posted from the same computer and I am pretty sure that we are separate entities. Also, someone with more than one computer could get around this.
Case in point, Claire: You mention that anyone who is familiar with reading literature knows what "close reading" means. Is this a mutual exclusive thing, that us science people cannot closely read something because we do not have English degrees? This actually sounds like something boBB would say. So, you see, I cannot separate you from boBB
More than once boBB (or perhaps one of his alter egos) has flamed a person on this board. Some of the flaming posts seemed irrelevant to the gist of the thread and seemed to be written just to hurt someone's emotions. boBB (or other posters) seems to get great joy out of hurting someone with a twisting of words. They seem to know which buttons to push to elicit a reaction. If you do "read closely" some of the replies to some of his posts, you do get the feeling that he is reveling in the attention and that he feels that hurting feelings is the only way to get his point across (as opposed to posting logical arguements backed by research).
Also, we have been told that boBB has done this on other websites, as well. Whether this is true or not, I really cannot comment, outside of it makes me more resistant to believing boBB is not replying to his own posts (we have basically been told that boBB "is" replying to his own posts by Dr.Bob). Posting styles are fairly individualized.
All of the above make me hesitant to say that these are different writers. Sometimes I feel that they are different people, other times I am sure they are not (and I could be wrong on both accounts). This is why I hesitate to believe anything that is written in favor of boBB.
Sorry to all for adding another irrevelant post. Sincerely - Cam
Posted by claire 7 on June 16, 2000, at 16:32:39
In reply to Re: DR Bob Please read » claire 7, posted by Cam W. on June 16, 2000, at 15:04:10
>
Cam, you bring up some very interesting points. I am not sure what you mean by "we"have been told boBB has done "this" on other sites. Who told you, and who is "we"? Also, you say "we" have been told by dr bob that boBB is replying to his own posts. I missed that revelation. Maybe it came before I did. I'm really ignorant about computers, so I'm also interested to learn that dr bob can tell if posts are coming from the same computers....is that true? If it is, then why doesn't he step in here and reassure everyone that I am not Oddz or Civilla T or Cass or Todd or Tom or whoever else (I lose track) is suspect?
I don't post my e-mail address for the same reason many others don't. Is there going to be a different standard for people who hold a minority view? Minorities must submit e-mail addresses?
I must admit, I was a little freaked to see that Oddzilla and I posted within 4 minutes of one another, but that's one of those wild and wooly coincidences of life, I guess. Not too long ago, Civilla T and I (I think it was C.T) posted within minutes of one another, too. I think it was even on the subject of our being "EQUALIZED" (x=Y=A=B, etc.),and I felt decidedly odd. (Oh, God. Since I said "odd" is my credibility shot even further to hades?)
The point is, how about making a stab at erring on the side of human decency? What do you really lose by giving me the benefit of the doubt? If you're duped, the shame lies with the duper, not you. (Actually, I see I don't mean a lot of this to be directed at you specifically, Cam. I think you really are trying to make sense of this; I think you're giving it honest consideration, and are willing to admit you don't really know for sure.) Hell, I don't know for sure!! The only thing I know is that I've never claimed to be anyone but myself, and everythng I've written has been true for me and me alone.
I also know I'm not boBB, or ODZ or any other of the usual suspects.
Oh, dear. What a mess. In my more optimistic moments I try to think, "But this is certainly an interesting aspect of human behavior that I never would have come across if I hadn't stumbled onto this forum." Another useful positive thought is:
"But notice how creative these people are being in trying to ....".(I'll leave blank what they seem to be trying to do).
Thanks for an honest response, Cam. I hope you and your family are coping---I know that "doing well" is probably not possible yet.
Sincerely, Claire
Posted by Todd on June 16, 2000, at 19:34:43
In reply to Re: I agree Cam/note to ToDD, posted by KarenB on June 16, 2000, at 12:37:14
Hi, Karen. I must say I don't recall reading any of your posts, so I have no idea where you are coming from and what your struggles are. Again, I am writing as a human being who is struggling to unearth his beauty so that it may shine, and in doing so, I recognize that you are also struggling with the same task. That task can be an absolute bitch, and I write these words to you only because I hold myself to the same standards. If I didn't, then my words would be empty, self-serving, and truly arrogant.
Nowhere in my previous post did I ever suggest that anyone posting on this board was small-minded and incapable of forming their own opinions. Nor did I state that boBB was the only free-thinker on this board or the only one who has opinions of his own. I was merely stating what I consider to be the obvious, as I see it. The obvious meaning that boBB, despite his shortcomings, is a human being just like the rest of us who is worthy of respect.
It is almost impossible to convey tone in the written word. That said, it is human nature to read tone into a page of words. It's almost impossible not to in some way or another. But the tone we read into each other's posts comes not from the writer, but from within us - the readers. You read my post and call me arrogant; you read boBB's posts and call him arrogant. I can tell you that I am most sincere and speak from the heart. I can't tell you if boBB can say the same, because I am not boBB. But no matter how arrogant boBB's posts may come off, and I can see why you may get that impression, we are the perceivers and our perceptions are colored by the very belief systems that we must allow to be challenged. If I or boBB is hitting a nerve and upsetting your sensibilities, one of the best things you can do is ask yourself why you feel that way. You could gain a deeper understanding of yourself if you give yourself permission to ask that question.
None of us is better than another, and none is worse than another. Deep down inside, we are all the same. I have to constantly remind myself of that. A final thought - You may consider boBB to be arrogant, and he may very well be. But arrogance is just another shield against insecurity. Remember that once boBB hits the "submit" button, boBB is the one who has to live with boBB, warts and all. He is the one who has to battle his insecurities, as much as he may try to hide them from the rest of the world. HE knows they are there.
Peace and Love, Karen. From the heart.
Posted by michael on June 16, 2000, at 19:39:57
In reply to Re: I agree Cam/note to ToDD, posted by KarenB on June 16, 2000, at 12:37:14
Hello All –
Against my better judgement, I’m going to open my big mouth and toss my two cents’ worth into this miserable excuse for an adult discussion (please don’t be offended – I am being sarcastic... but if you do look back through these threads, you’ve got to agree that it looks like the kind of ‘distinguished’ discourse one might hear out on the playground, near the ‘monkey bars’ – except with bigger words) So anyway, here’s my contibution (preaching?)...
I. Hey boBB-
Some of the above posts note that you have not only acknowledged that you have posted under different "handles", but that you have identified which other handles belong to you.
[from claire7's second post of 6-15: ...He acknowledges his various handles openly...:]
a) If that's right, just wondering if you could reiterate/summarise for me which of the "handles" on this board belong to you?
b) assuming you reply to the above (I’m hoping you do), what's the point?
If I recall correctly, at one point you said that you do so to express different points of view... or something to that effect...? -sorry, I'm sure that you probably phrased it differently, but that was the gist that I got from it...
Even if that's the case, once again, what's the point? It's quite easy to play devil’s advocate, or even to point out opposing points of view within a single post. Others here and elsewhere certainly do so. I would think that would be the more accepted route even in the journalistic world.
I don’t mean to be difficult, but if you would stick to a single persona, it would probably even help your “creditablility” , since then, the posts in support of you/your positon would not automatically be labeled as another one of your multiple “personae”. (although perhaps creditability on this board isn’t a big enough concern to you to bother doning so?)
Okay – here’s the real surmony part:
II. As for the rest of us (including boBB and me)-I know it sounds simplistic or child-like (as opposed to childish), and I certainly got tired of hearing it growing up, however, here it is again anyway: IF YOU CAN’T SAY ANYTHING NICE (or at least insightful?), then don’t bother to say anything at all. [my dad never mentioned the insightful part – I added that]
Corallary: don’t read a post/thread if it’s from someone who you know tends to upset/bother/annoy you or push your buttons. [Hence item I. a) above]
It’s pretty straight forward, and just requires a little peronal restraint/common sense. People expect kids to act that way – I’d like to think we “psycho’s” (or we “babbler’s?) can manage it too. It’s the classic ‘don’t reinforce/encourage what you may perceive as 'negative' behavior by paying attention/replying to it – no matter who ‘starts it’.
I know this is all obvious/simplistic – and I don’t meant to talk down to anyone. Sorry if it seems like I did anyway.
Okay, preaching finished - sermon done. I hope you all enjoyed that as mcuh as I did! I haven’t seen bob (not to be confused w/boBB) jumping in as self-appointed referee, or whatever he’s appointed himself in the past, so I thought I’d step in for him & give him a hand.
I guess this has been more like two bits, rather than two cents.... but I’m done now. Bye.
Posted by Oddzilla on June 16, 2000, at 20:29:09
In reply to boBB et al - a couple quick q's and pleas (please), posted by michael on June 16, 2000, at 19:39:57
Hello michael/bob/danf/scott
>
> Against my better judgement, I’m going to open my big mouth and toss my two cents’ worth into this miserable excuse for an adult discussion (please don’t be offended – I am being sarcastic... but if you do look back through these threads, you’ve got to agree that it looks like the kind of ‘distinguished’ discourse one might hear out on the playground, near the ‘monkey bars’ – except with bigger words) So anyway, here’s my contibution (preaching?)...
>
I'M RUBBER YOU'RE GLUEEVERYTHING BAD YOU SAY BOUNCES OFF ME
AND STICKS ON YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!
So there:-p
Posted by claire 7 on June 16, 2000, at 22:54:14
In reply to boBB et al - a couple quick q's and pleas (please), posted by michael on June 16, 2000, at 19:39:57
Questions of identity are anything but childish, though they begin in childhood. And the attempt to destroy another's identity is anything but innocent playfulness. This is serious business. Don't mess around with it if you are not willing to suffer the justified guilt that may result.
.
Posted by shar on June 17, 2000, at 4:21:28
In reply to Re: I agree Cam/note to ToDD, posted by claire 7 on June 16, 2000, at 14:00:38
>
This must be a pretty significant fear if you (and shar, and Janice) would rather respond with cruelty to a fellow human being than risk being taken for a fool.
> The fear of appearing foolish is a major disabler.C -
While I do not agree with your interpretation of the BoBB's situation, I have wondered what his/her/??? actions stimulates in me. What buttons get pushed and why.What I'm writing here are my opinions, thoughts, ideas, and such--to which I am supremely entitled and would prefer not to be "BoBBed on" for them. If anyone disagrees with an idea, and they can write about the idea (not the person), feel free!
RE: Fear. I have already told BoBB himself I am afraid of him. That means--at the very least-- I don't trust him to stick to the topic and keep his vitriol to himself; I don't want to be the target of it. I have an abundance of vitriol in my life, and that isn't what I hope for when I post here.
I may be wrong about the particulars of BoBB's tribe, ie, who is or isn't an actual member; but the general idea that he has a tribe, I believe. If it is not true I won't feel fooled or tricked, I will think that my interpretation was very interesting. How I put the evidence together and reached my conclusion would seem worthy of reflection.
I'm always the one in class who will ask the stupid questions. It doesn't bother me if every-one else gets it, but it bothers me if I don't get it, and I have to pass a test on it (I learned this important lesson my first semester of grad school). So much for fear/humiliation in this setting.
I also wonder why BoBB bothers to do all this (expend all this energy) on this particular site, where people come to learn and share and create sort of a generally supportive "don't kill yourself today" atmosphere. His posts are very "in your face" and aggressive, and I wonder what he gets out of that behavior with this group (many of whom are exhausted, worried, anxious, dealing with very upsetting problems).
Then, I'm curious if he really would like to be a part of the group, instead of being on the outside looking in, or disagreeing with things or taking great pains to provide scathing content analysis over semantics in other posts? I wonder if below the surface he could stand some comforting.
Unfortunately, I don't know. He's not saying. Although some of his other voices hint at that. I only have his words on this board to learn about him.
It seems quite chaotic to me (the whole "who's who" thing) and maybe he experiences internal chaos that he doesn't want to reveal here. Who knows?
Some people get satisfaction from attention gained by causing disruption, and that's the unidimensional (words on paper) feeling I get about BoBB. There may be felt power in being able to get angry reactions from people he has shredded (with seemingly no constructive point). Maybe not. Who knows?
The Shadow knows. Maybe BoBB et. al. knows. I don't know but I have opinions based on what he chooses to reveal here.
If he were talking with anger about his own loss or grief or being betrayed, I think I could honor that much more than the spew he usually sends. If he wants to connect with some of this group, he could always add to the tribe and ask for what he wants (encouragement, advice, technical information) in a civil manner. I wonder how he would feel if he got a positive response from someone who cares.
Finally, I haven't been cruel, in my own estimation, to BoBB or his minions. I have made it plain what I think of it. How young it seems, how thinly veiled some of his motives are, etc. I didn't say he was awful as a person. What he writes is sometimes pretty fully awful.
Shar
Posted by SLS on June 17, 2000, at 9:29:07
In reply to Re: lithium vs. placebo - An opinion, posted by BBob on June 14, 2000, at 22:36:20
Hi Folks.
I had decided not to submit any more posts along this thread until I woke up this morning and saw how long it had become. What a waste.I would just like to return people's attention to the post that provoked such an angry outburst on my part.
I included part of the post that provoked my anger below. I took out everything I had written in the post prior to it, hopefully to expose what I thought was obvious. This person did not direct a single comment towards lithium. He directed all of his comments at me personally. His post was nothing more than a compendium of personal attacks upon me. Is this still invisible?
Of course I got pissed off. He ran out into a productive forum and made a playground out of it. He picked a fight. I have a right to get angry. I have a right to have an opinion about him. I have a right to want this person never to post here again. I have my reasons. I also had the privilege of being able to do something about it by submitting a post. My anger was less the result of his personal attacks upon me, for I do not suffer from a fragmented ego, as it was the result of his insistence to continue behaviors that I deem to be deleterious to the health of a community I care about. That is nothing more than my opinion, as was the post that I clearly labelled as such. This person decided that it was more important to comment on the character of the writer who offered that opinion (me) than to comment on the opinion itself. Clearly, he had no tolerance for my expressing it. I find it ironic that those people who defend his right to have an opinion fail to recognize his lack of respect for others to have theirs.
My one regret is that I focused too heavily on the notion that he may have a biological mental disorder for which a mood stabilizer would be an appropriate treatment. I doubt he has. Perhaps it is me who has a characterological liability for sociopathic tendencies. Either way, I make no apologies for my decision not to walk on egg shells. This person was looking to pick a child's fight. I guess he was successful. Right now, I have little compassion for him. It is my right not to.
I chose to read his post. I chose to respond to it. Was my response uncharacteristic of me? Perhaps not. However, I find this person's behavior to be uncharacteristic of this board, and I'm not afraid to state that as my opinion. Genius is no excuse for destructive behavior. I guess neither is my lack of it.
I realize that my displays of anger and targeted opinions about this person have most likely relieved me of any respectability or credibility I may have had here, which were questionable to begin with. For some reason, I don't seem to care that much. I guess I have managed to remain respectable and credible to myself.
I still think lithium is an important and effective tool to treat both bipolar AND unipolar depression. In this instance, salt is more effective than sugar.
- Scott
------------------------------------------------------------
> Unsubstantiated declarative statement, the logical foundation of which is based on the presumed authoritI of the speaker.> IBID
> IBID
> Niether "many" nor "some" are relational to a specific quantity, apparently reverting to previous unsubstantiated argument of authority
> "Works" "everyone" and other terms undefined. Ignore statement.
> Growing evidence of need to rebut findings. What is the writer defending? A popular drug?
> Obvious? Kindly submit evidence, please, refering to sources other than personal authority.
> Indeed. Opinions previal.
> "Plain"? "Work?" Are these terms defined?
> Something? What? What does the writer mean by wrong? Per chance does that mean does not concur with personal perceptions of personal experience?
> How does a stude the show Prozack "works" differ from a study that shows Prozak is associated with increased suicidal or violent ideation?
> Bazillion is an absurd term. The writer reverts to ridicule. Argument failed.
> Ridicule is indeed simple.
> another writer posted: would not it be intersting if lithium worked because of placebo affect (paraphrase)
> Just another opionion, reflecting curiosity rather than conviction.
> (boBB is not Todd!!!)
> Oops! experiment design obviously excludes well documented evidence of toxic effect. More positive results of the UT study were excluded because many subjects dropped out after experiencing negative side effects. No similar effects were reported from placebo group.
Posted by shar on June 17, 2000, at 16:40:35
In reply to Re:, posted by SLS on June 17, 2000, at 9:29:07
SLS
I am very happy to hear you will continue to post here. I find your information useful and your insights valuable, and would miss those very much.
I share your sentiments about the aggressive or maybe regressed tendencies of some posters. I get angry at attacks on others, especially on this board.
There seems to be no purpose to these posts except to attack. It has and does seem like very young behavior to me. Your playground comment is a good fit.
Shar
Posted by Oddzilla on June 17, 2000, at 17:31:02
In reply to Re: lithium vs. placebo - An opinion » BBob, posted by SLS on June 15, 2000, at 9:29:00
> Dear Dr.Bob
>
> Gee, I must have struck a nerve with you in one of my previous posts you seem to be neglecting your censorship duties..
>
> Perhaps it might be productive for you to try to prove your point by taking 1200mg of lithium for four weeks and see how well it does or doesn't work for you.
>
> You are no psychiatrist. If you were to practice medicine, you would have given careful consideration to sentence #2 a long time ago. I wouldn't presume to diagnose you. I would, however, presume to suggest that you find someone who can. You are quite sick. You know it. You are not happy. Get help. Meanwhile, let others continue to get theirs without vindictively using your ignorance to get in their way.
>
I believe in a previous post you said namecalling and accusations were uncivil.
>
> What a carelessly worded piece of evasive rhetoric. Well then, what exactly *does* Dr. Bob say about Scott vilifying BBob?
>
> If you have no mental illness, then just what the hell are you doing here? Do you really manage to fool yourself into thinking you exercise any altruism by writing such garbage posts? They really are garbage. You are such a weak writer. Did you even bother to entertain the idea that your lack of fairness might dissuade so much as one person from using this board to help put his life back together? But I guess that is your mission. What is your mission? I presume to suggest that you want others to pay dearly for the injustices that the world has placed upon you. Maybe a little lithium might clear things up. Zyprexa even better.
>
> Maybe you have no biological mental illness. If you don't, you have a hell of a lot of work ahead of you. You better get moving. You only have the rest of your life to live. Don't waste it.
>
> Can't you find some other sandbox to play in, or have you already been kicked out of the rest of them? It doesn't take much of a charlatan to win verbal censorship battles with depressed people, many of whom find it difficult to think their way out of a paper bag.
>
> You actually suck at psychiatry.
>
> I do not believe you are a medical doctor.
>
> If it is so important to you to offer opinions, why don't you get up off your ass and do some research. I have. You are so ignorant. If you notice, I have not offered a single point of debate regarding the important issue regarding the efficacy of censorship. I wouldn't waste a single storage granule debating someone like you. I would need to spend months educating you just to be able to.
>
> You are curious about nothing except the limits of your own power. Let me help you out here. You are quite limited.
>
> I am sincere. Stop hurting others on this board by not exercising your censorship powers fairly and equally. Surely, no one would pay for it.
>
> IBID you farewell. Hit the road. Get help. I know you won't. You have neither the intelligence nor the courage. There's my altruism. Use it wisely.
>
>
> Your Friend,
> Oddzilla
>
>
> P.S. Don't bother.Adapted with thanks to SLS
Posted by shar on June 17, 2000, at 18:02:41
In reply to To DR BOB, posted by Oddzilla on June 17, 2000, at 17:31:02
x
Posted by Oddzilla on June 17, 2000, at 18:03:11
In reply to Re:, posted by SLS on June 17, 2000, at 9:29:07
All I heard BBob saying (and not too politely) was that you were offering personalized "feeling " responses to something that should be discussed rationally. This board says "support and information" and personally I want information rationally challenged. But then, support, at least for people in this therapy drenched culture involves "validating" peoples feelings just because they feel them. There is definately a conflict there.
My reaction to the study at first was purely emotional too-though in a more positive light. I was happy that long term studies were being done and happy to see something published that went against common wisdom which I was sort of interpreting as proof that all researchers weren't on the drug companies payroll ( I know I know the Depakote people-but that was my first reaction). I was also a little afraid for people that were stabilized on lithium. Of course the study was not as generalized as the headlines "lithium no better than placebo".
Anyway,I'm not mad at you I'm mad at Dr. Bob who is so ready to try and block people he doesn't agree with and so indifferent to attacks on others no matter how justified they may have felt.
>
I'm tired of being accused of being someone I'm not and I'm not willing to ignore anybody just so I can be accepted by the "community". Just posting on the same thread with BBob or Claire or who knows who by now brings on slurs. No Oddzilla is not my real name but I'm familiar with being the odd person out and I'm not doing that to anyone!
> I like you Scott and you're certainly as close to being a genius as anyone else on this board (closer than most I suspect). Sorry I posted the silly paragon of maturity post. I'm tired of this. I went back and read the paper but I'm not up to discussing it rationally or any other way.Hope you have a good rest of the weekend. O.
> I had decided not to submit any more posts along this thread until I woke up this morning and saw how long it had become. What a waste.
>
> I would just like to return people's attention to the post that provoked such an angry outburst on my part.
>
> I included part of the post that provoked my anger below. I took out everything I had written in the post prior to it, hopefully to expose what I thought was obvious. This person did not direct a single comment towards lithium. He directed all of his comments at me personally. His post was nothing more than a compendium of personal attacks upon me. Is this still invisible?
>
> Of course I got pissed off. He ran out into a productive forum and made a playground out of it. He picked a fight. I have a right to get angry. I have a right to have an opinion about him. I have a right to want this person never to post here again. I have my reasons. I also had the privilege of being able to do something about it by submitting a post. My anger was less the result of his personal attacks upon me, for I do not suffer from a fragmented ego, as it was the result of his insistence to continue behaviors that I deem to be deleterious to the health of a community I care about. That is nothing more than my opinion, as was the post that I clearly labelled as such. This person decided that it was more important to comment on the character of the writer who offered that opinion (me) than to comment on the opinion itself. Clearly, he had no tolerance for my expressing it. I find it ironic that those people who defend his right to have an opinion fail to recognize his lack of respect for others to have theirs.
>
> My one regret is that I focused too heavily on the notion that he may have a biological mental disorder for which a mood stabilizer would be an appropriate treatment. I doubt he has. Perhaps it is me who has a characterological liability for sociopathic tendencies. Either way, I make no apologies for my decision not to walk on egg shells. This person was looking to pick a child's fight. I guess he was successful. Right now, I have little compassion for him. It is my right not to.
>
> I chose to read his post. I chose to respond to it. Was my response uncharacteristic of me? Perhaps not. However, I find this person's behavior to be uncharacteristic of this board, and I'm not afraid to state that as my opinion. Genius is no excuse for destructive behavior. I guess neither is my lack of it.
>
> I realize that my displays of anger and targeted opinions about this person have most likely relieved me of any respectability or credibility I may have had here, which were questionable to begin with. For some reason, I don't seem to care that much. I guess I have managed to remain respectable and credible to myself.
>
> I still think lithium is an important and effective tool to treat both bipolar AND unipolar depression. In this instance, salt is more effective than sugar.
>
>
> - Scott
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> > Unsubstantiated declarative statement, the logical foundation of which is based on the presumed authoritI of the speaker.
>
> > IBID
>
> > IBID
>
> > Niether "many" nor "some" are relational to a specific quantity, apparently reverting to previous unsubstantiated argument of authority
>
> > "Works" "everyone" and other terms undefined. Ignore statement.
>
> > Growing evidence of need to rebut findings. What is the writer defending? A popular drug?
>
> > Obvious? Kindly submit evidence, please, refering to sources other than personal authority.
>
> > Indeed. Opinions previal.
>
> > "Plain"? "Work?" Are these terms defined?
>
> > Something? What? What does the writer mean by wrong? Per chance does that mean does not concur with personal perceptions of personal experience?
>
> > How does a stude the show Prozack "works" differ from a study that shows Prozak is associated with increased suicidal or violent ideation?
>
> > Bazillion is an absurd term. The writer reverts to ridicule. Argument failed.
>
> > Ridicule is indeed simple.
>
> > another writer posted: would not it be intersting if lithium worked because of placebo affect (paraphrase)
>
> > Just another opionion, reflecting curiosity rather than conviction.
>
> > (boBB is not Todd!!!)
>
> > Oops! experiment design obviously excludes well documented evidence of toxic effect. More positive results of the UT study were excluded because many subjects dropped out after experiencing negative side effects. No similar effects were reported from placebo group.
Posted by Oddzilla on June 17, 2000, at 18:40:52
In reply to RU boBB's Sister, Perhaps? (np) » Oddzilla, posted by shar on June 17, 2000, at 18:02:41
> > I share your sentiments about the aggressive or maybe regressed tendencies of some posters. I get angry at attacks on others, especially on this board.
>
> There seems to be no purpose to these posts except to attack. It has and does seem like very young behavior to me. Your playground comment is a good fit.
>
> SharAs bob's grandma says when you point a finger at someone there's always 3 fingers pointing back at you. :o) (that's bob not BBob!)
Posted by shar on June 17, 2000, at 20:03:35
In reply to Re: RU boBB's Sister, Perhaps? NO :o) » shar, posted by Oddzilla on June 17, 2000, at 18:40:52
> As bob's grandma says when you point a finger at someone there's always 3 fingers pointing back at you. :o) (that's bob not BBob!)
>I would like to hear more from bob's grandma, or perhaps your interpretation of her sentiments.
Apparently someone believes that "pointing a finger" is always doing so in judgement (as in I am more worthy than X for whatever reason). I guess, disliking nastiness and saying so is perceived the same way? Otherwise, I don't get the saying.
S
Posted by Janice on June 18, 2000, at 17:09:26
In reply to Lithium success stories - Are there any?, posted by SLS on June 14, 2000, at 12:30:43
If I were answering 6 weeks ago, I'm sure I'd be saying lithium is MY miracle pill (I remember doing a posting like this and you type a happy face back at me - thanks). But since that time a few things have changed, namely some more depression.
So what lithium has undeniably done for me:
•stopped all mania and hypomania
•stopped the lowest of the lows of my depression (where I can't wake up for days or get out of bed)
•stopped almost all suicidal urgesSo for now, I'm cycling (or so it seems) between a moderate low to just over average mood. My pdoc assured me that rapid cycling takes 6 months to a year to settle sometime. My personal fortune telling (cognitive therapy sin #7) leads me to believe Lithium will do about 75% of the stabilizing job for me.
Lithium has been very, very good to me. I definately recommend the salt pill and not the sugar pill to fellow bipolars,
Janice
Sorry Scott, I meant to respond to your post earlier about my experiences with lithium, but then boBB and himselves jumped in.
Posted by Peter C on June 18, 2000, at 19:14:34
In reply to Bipolar:Salt's better than Sugar…read all about it, posted by Janice on June 18, 2000, at 17:09:26
Whew - that is a lot of vitriol, unfounded accusation, hatred and bullying.
For the record, the only posts on this thread created by the creator of boBB are the posts by Peter C. and the boBB posts.
On the matter of "pushing buttons," Robert Hsuing misleads his fans when he suggests that the creator of BBob is responsible for anyone else's feelings. Most clinicians endeavor to help clients become responsible for their own feelings. Robert Hsuing does not seem to hold contributors of this board responsible for boBB's feelings. Instead he seems to perceive correctly that (the creator of) boBB tries to hold himself responsible for his own feelings. Perhaps boBB is foolish to think others here are mature enough to do the same, but believes failure to own one's feelings reflects more of a muturity problem than a mental disease.
the PeterC data about the lithium study was posted as a public service. Bobb (Peter C)graciously posted bare-bones information and omitted intelligent criticisms of the study to leave room for intelligent replies by so-called experts on this board. The style of the origninal post reflected an intent to avoid "pushing buttons." An intelligent discussion also could have broached the placebo question, to consider how the promise of help might effect unsettled novelty assessment networks in the brain. Instead, some of the replies seemed to reflect deficits in the respondents neurocircuits that faciltitate novelty assessment.
(I suspect that assessment will be "going to far" in Robert Hsuings arbitrary court, whereas a week of hatred and unquailfied diagnosis against bobB will go unquestioned)
Bobb does not participate more actively in this discussion now because:
* some people are allowed to call names and make but others are not.
* contributors who masquerade as psychopharmacology experts resort to emotional abuse when challenged, violating protocols of scientific discussion.
* anonymous posting is prohibited. Unless a contributor's server logs an ISP number into the University of Chicago computer that serves this site, the board will not accept a contribution.
* we suspect Robert Hsuing and his cabal of student interns have used this web site to selectively deliver destructive viruses to contributors with whom he disagrees.Also for the record, many here are wrongly attempting to diagnose the author of boBB as a sufferer of some multipersonality condition. They forget that their is a rich history of misdiagnosis of multipersonality disorder. The error was largeley caused by a small group of clinical psychologists and by popular authors of psychobabble books (not the board - the genre). Those concerned with stigmas associated with mental disease would do well not to perpetuate the myth of "split personality." Further reading on the topic is available in the medical folklore section of health sciences libraries. Also, remember that psuedonymic writing has been a common practice in Western literary history.
Robert Hsuing could easily debunk the malicious myth of boBB being some of the other regulars on this board, but has apparently chosen instead to encourage the myth. The university of chicago professor is well aware of the limited number of ISP's associated with the pseudonyms associated with boBB, which do not include ISP numbers used by Odzilla, Cass, Claire7, todd, janice, shar, Cam W or SLS.
As for boBB not being a journalist, that is correct. He is not. Bobb is a fictitous psuedonym created by a journalist. The creator of boBB enjoys taking inspirational breaks from his tedious job of hacking out routine community news to read such misguided and ill-informed speculation that he is not employed as a writer. the Creator of boBB might someday appear in one of your favorite publications as the author of a work you truly admire. Remember the king who wore pauper's clothing....
And as for boBB (or his creator) being an English major, no... his spellling should offer sufficient evidence to the contrary. BoBB is a high school drop-out who learned about reportin, journalism, writing, neruoscience and logic as an autodidat, relying on books acquired in used book stores and libraries, as well as personal consultation with working professionals and by participating in such challenging forums as this one.
This post was contributed from a more secure server, which will suffer less damage if Robert Hsuing is in fact delivering destructive programs from his web site. The matter of maliciuos programs possibly being distributed by the creators of this board is the subject of an ongoing investigation.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2000, at 21:31:16
In reply to Re: lithium vs. placebo - An opinion » BBob, posted by SLS on June 15, 2000, at 9:29:00
> You are quite sick... let others continue to get theirs without vindictively using your ignorance to get in their way.
> What a carelessly worded piece of evasive rhetoric.
> Do you really manage to fool yourself into thinking you exercise any altruism by writing such garbage posts? They really are garbage. You are such a weak writer.
> You actually suck at rhetoric.
> You are so ignorant. If you notice, I have not offered a single point of debate regarding the important issue regarding the efficacy of lithium. I wouldn't waste a single storage granule debating someone like you. I would need to spend months educating you just to be able to.
> Get help. I know you won't. You have neither the intelligence nor the courage.
Sorry to take so long to get to this...
Comments like the above aren't civil. I'm sorry, but being provoked isn't an excuse. If a post makes you angry, wait to respond to it -- or don't respond to it at all. Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2000, at 21:31:36
In reply to Re:Hi Scott, posted by Oddzilla on June 17, 2000, at 18:03:11
> This board says "support and information" and personally I want information rationally challenged. But then, support, at least for people in this therapy drenched culture involves "validating" peoples feelings just because they feel them. There is definately a conflict there.
I disagree. I think it's possible to have different points of view, yet still to be civil.
> Anyway,I'm not mad at you I'm mad at Dr. Bob who is so ready to try and block people he doesn't agree with and so indifferent to attacks on others no matter how justified they may have felt.
Sorry about the delay, I'm just not able to follow the board very closely now. It wasn't favoritism.
> I'm tired of being accused of being someone I'm not and I'm not willing to ignore anybody just so I can be accepted by the "community". Just posting on the same thread with BBob or Claire or who knows who by now brings on slurs.
1. I consider multiple identities a problem here. FYI, an email address will soon be required to register (but still won't have to be listed on any posts). Stay tuned for details.
2. Sometimes it's best to ignore things.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2000, at 21:31:45
In reply to jees...., posted by Peter C on June 18, 2000, at 19:14:34
> a week of hatred and unquailfied diagnosis against bobB will go unquestioned
Again, I apologize for that. See my previous post.
> Robert Hsuing could easily debunk the malicious myth of boBB being some of the other regulars on this board, but has apparently chosen instead to encourage the myth.
1. I've intended neither to encourage nor to discourage it. I just raised it as a possibility. (Also, other identities wouldn't need to be regulars.)
2. With the current system, I don't think it's so easy to debunk (or to bunk). That's why I'm working on the registration system.
> * we suspect Robert Hsuing and his cabal of student interns have used this web site to selectively deliver destructive viruses to contributors with whom he disagrees.
I haven't done that, and I have no cabal. If I were to do something, I'd just block this handle, too!
It's interesting, your use of "we". That's another possibility: multiple individuals posting under the same name...
Bob
Posted by claire 7 on June 18, 2000, at 21:47:00
In reply to jees...., posted by Peter C on June 18, 2000, at 19:14:34
>
I knew that Peter C was the only pseudonym for the boBB character in this thread. Knew it immediately. It seemed to me there was no attempt to disguise that fact. What I can't understand is why it is so difficult for some other (very vocal) people here to comprehend the obvious. I come back to the notion that these few vocal persons need to read literature!! Or read philosophy. Or read something!!! I'm not, Cam, an "English major" (what a terrible thing to be accused of). You seem every bit as capable of putting 2 sentences together as I do, so I don't buy the poor inarticulate scientist thing, or whatever it is you're saying. (Since when are scientists inarticulate, anyway? I honestly don't understand this theme.) I've gone off track again, I see.
I do think there is an important issue here, about Dr. Husing's conduct. (I don't like the cute dr bob handle. Reminds me too much of my M.D. uncle whom everyone in his small town, including his WIFE, called dr freddy.) It seems to me that Dr Hsuing is relishing and fostering the present discomfort on this board. His well-chosen intrusions, and his well-chosen silences,
strike me as manipulative. I keep suspecting one day we'll read a book all about it. I find him a suspect character, and I wouldn't trust him with my e-mail address for anything. (But apparently, this is naive of me, the dumb computer idiot, the dumb dr god idiot.)
Posted by claire 7 on June 18, 2000, at 22:25:39
In reply to Re: multiple identities, posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2000, at 21:31:45
> Started to think I owed you an apology, but further posts proved I didn't. Since I am computer illiterate, though, could somebody tell me if Dr. Hsuing has the capability to end the question of multiple identities? If he does, but choses the e-mail registration route instead, and continues to sting in little suspicions about multiple identities, then shame on him.
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.