![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 17 to 41 of 41. Go back in thread:
Posted by Phil on April 22, 2002, at 22:33:28
In reply to Re: Exclusionary?? Phil and » tinaboo, posted by Zo on April 22, 2002, at 21:34:40
If we weren't all suffering from treatment resistant depression, bipolar that's treatment resistant, etc. we wouldn't even be here!
I don't think people with mental illness should argue too much. I don't think any of us handle the repercussions of anger very well.
That's why I'm letting this one go. It's not the board that's the problem, it's the anger.
Being on the geezer board doesn't give me a boost.
What am I going to do? Go to work tomorrow and tell everyone I'm in the upper echelons of an internet mental illness board.
Could y'all imagine explaining this to a judge.
~~~~~~~~~
Well, the older mentally ill people got their own screen to write on and newer m.i. people can only read it and have to comment on it on another screen. But there are a lot of screens and any of us can write whatever we want unless the guy in the white robe, carrying a surfboard, he's our doctor, tells us that we're uncivil. Then we can't write on the screen for a few weeks..you know, any screen. We're screened out, we're in the penalty box. After we're out of the box, we're out for blood. We have to be more subtle in trying to tell the other m.i. person to eat shit and die, meanwhile avoiding the PBC. Too many PBC's and you are SOL at PB or PSB. Then you have to go to PBA where all the other PBC's are telling the surfer DOC he got the wrong guy.
........
Posted by Janelle on April 22, 2002, at 23:21:48
In reply to Re: Exclusionary?? Phil and, posted by Phil on April 22, 2002, at 22:33:28
Posted by Zo on April 23, 2002, at 3:18:27
In reply to Re: Exclusionary?? Phil and, posted by Phil on April 22, 2002, at 22:33:28
Lighten up, kid. That was meant to be ironic. I *hate* little smiley faces, but I guess I'm gonna have to invent one.
Zo
Posted by trouble on April 23, 2002, at 6:09:53
In reply to Re: Exclusionary?? Phil and » tinaboo, posted by Zo on April 22, 2002, at 21:34:40
> Well of *course* you wouldn't think it's exclusionary. .. You're included!
>
> ZoZoZo,
why are'nt you running the world woman?!!
How come these pithy one-liners of yours and Dr. bob's never occur to me, is it the learning disability, or what Bettelheim called "THE ART OF THE OBVIOUS"?
Where do I sign up for the class?
It's always just out of reach and I'm gettin sick of it.love, trouble
Posted by trouble on April 23, 2002, at 6:16:20
In reply to Re: Exclusionary?? Phil and, posted by Phil on April 22, 2002, at 22:33:28
Phil,
You are funny.
Does the arguing make you that funny? If so I'd say it's worth it.
Anyway, I've been reading all this stuff, for hours, and the only angry person I find so far is, well, uh....But the night is young yet.
take care,trouble
Posted by Phil on April 23, 2002, at 6:38:49
In reply to Phil, Tina: Look up EXCLUSIONARY in dictionary! (nm), posted by Janelle on April 22, 2002, at 23:21:48
Posted by Phil on April 23, 2002, at 6:43:39
In reply to go ahead, ignore me » Phil, posted by trouble on April 23, 2002, at 6:16:20
Good to see you out tha clink. I think pain and insecurity make me funny(to some).
I couldn't stay in group, I was always looking for a one-liner. In group, there's an opportunity everytime somebody talks.
Posted by tina on April 23, 2002, at 8:19:52
In reply to Phil, Tina: Look up EXCLUSIONARY in dictionary! (nm), posted by Janelle on April 22, 2002, at 23:21:48
Don't have to. I'M and old-timer, they taught me proper english when I went to school.
I swear you new people aren't happy unless you're stirring the sh*t and that's precisely why us old timers didn't post on YOUR social board. I felt extremely EXcluded from your social board for over a year and now that we oldies have our own board, you guys have to whine about it. Jeez......Look, ya can't make everyone happy all the time.
Why is this such a big deal?
Posted by DinahM on April 23, 2002, at 8:24:29
In reply to Re: Phil, Tina: Look up EXCLUSIONARY in dictionary!, posted by tina on April 23, 2002, at 8:19:52
I thought I had always tried to be supportive of you and your posts. I'm sorry it didn't come across that way. I hope you find what you're looking for on the new board.
Dinah
Posted by tina on April 23, 2002, at 8:32:18
In reply to Re: I'm sorry » tina, posted by DinahM on April 23, 2002, at 8:24:29
I do recall your posts Dinah and they were very supportive. I didn't mean to imply that they weren't. It just occurred to me that most of the 'support' got lost in the arguing and rude behaviour of some posters and I didn't want to be around that kind of hostility so stopped frequenting that board. YOu have nothing to be sorry for. The old timers know eachother very well and aren't offended by eachother because we know how certain things are worded - either to be funny or sarcastic or serious etc - the offense just doesn't happen when you know how something is meant and no one jumps down your throat. For some reason I found the social board just so ignorant and disrespectful of others and the world has too much of that in it already. If I'm looking for support, that's the last place I want to look for it, you know??
No worries Dinah. I hope all is well.
take care
tina
Posted by tina on April 23, 2002, at 8:33:45
In reply to You're right, Janelle. There was a picture of me (nm), posted by Phil on April 23, 2002, at 6:38:49
You've always got the perfect answer. YOu're so cool..........hehe :)
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2002, at 8:41:56
In reply to Re: Phil, Tina: Look up EXCLUSIONARY in dictionary!, posted by tina on April 23, 2002, at 8:19:52
> I swear you new people aren't happy unless you're stirring the sh*t ... now that we oldies have our own board, you guys have to whine about it.
Please don't post anything that others could take as accusatory or put them down, thanks.
Bob
Posted by tina on April 23, 2002, at 8:48:13
In reply to Re: please be civil » tina, posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2002, at 8:41:56
I just knew you'd smack me for that one. Sorry Doc. It just popped out. Won't happen again.
T
Posted by Krazy Kat on April 23, 2002, at 15:14:34
In reply to Re: Phil, Tina: Look up EXCLUSIONARY in dictionary!, posted by tina on April 23, 2002, at 8:19:52
tina:
the tone of the board has changed for me as well. and i find it difficult to handle at times.
you're right - the longer we post and get to know each other, the easier it is to "read" what's really being said. and perhaps the concept of "support" becomes more important than debate.
i still think it's better on chat or yahoo where others aren't specifically excluded from dr. b's site, but that's just my opinion.
- kk
Posted by Krazy Kat on April 23, 2002, at 22:13:34
In reply to Re: Phil, Tina: Look up EXCLUSIONARY in dictionary! » tina, posted by Krazy Kat on April 23, 2002, at 15:14:34
as usual i did not change the subject for my former post so that it relayed what it is truly about.
sorry.
- kk
Posted by Shar on April 24, 2002, at 1:07:53
In reply to Re: Exclusionary?? Phil and, posted by Phil on April 22, 2002, at 22:33:28
Posted by Shar on April 24, 2002, at 1:13:09
In reply to Re: please be civil » tina, posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2002, at 8:41:56
Posted by Janelle on April 24, 2002, at 2:55:41
In reply to Re: Phil, Tina: Look up EXCLUSIONARY in dictionary!, posted by tina on April 23, 2002, at 8:19:52
> Don't have to. I'M and old-timer, they taught me proper english when I went to school.
Hmmm ... if they taught you proper English, it doesn't appear that way in your original post. And perhaps they didn't teach you to proof read. Heck, I make typos and mistakes too! :-)
Anyway, I am deeply offended and hurt by your comment that "you new people aren't happy unless you're stirring the sh*t" -- This certainly does NOT describe me -- It took me a long time to compose the first thread I did way above and I was a nervous wreck when I hit the "confirm" button to post it. All I wanted to do was EXPRESS my FEELINGS, nothing more, nothing less. The LAST thing I wanted to do was what you said (I won't even repeat it).
I also resent your sweeping generality about "you new people" -- excuse me, but we are INDIVIDUALS, separate beings. Please don't lump us into one mass group.
I also wonder about your sweeping generality about "us old timers didn't post on YOUR social board." I see PLENTY of Old Timers' names on the social board and again the old timers, heck, EVERYONE who posts, is an INDIVIDUAL, a separate being.
Furthermore, I didn't even know that it is "OUR" (whoever that is supposed to refer to, I am guessing that you mean newbies) social board. I had no idea why the social board was created.
Now that we've ruffled each other's feathers, how about peace, PLEASE? Thank you.
Posted by Janelle on April 24, 2002, at 3:06:35
In reply to Tina, whoa, peace ... was that necessary? » tina, posted by Janelle on April 24, 2002, at 2:55:41
Tina,
Since you're an OT and I'm new, could you please tell me why the social board was created? I get the impression from your previous thread that back at the time it was created, it was done for then-newcomers? Is this true?
If so, that's interesting because judging by the name "social board" and the way it's described on the top of the page, it sounds like it was/is intended for everyone (not for newbies) as a non-med discussion forum.
Thanks in advance for answering. If you're not sure, just let me know and I'll refer the question to Dr. Bob!
Posted by Janelle on April 24, 2002, at 4:20:16
In reply to Tina - a question for you!, posted by Janelle on April 24, 2002, at 3:06:35
Sorry to have to make yet another thread to you - I'm a bit disorganized at this time. Sorry.
Anyway, you had asked at one point "Why is this such a big deal?"
I'd like to offer my perspective (jmvho) which is simply that the issue (as I see it) is that the new boards literally BLOCK people, PREVENT people from posting on them, whereas the social board you had referred to does not. The social board is ACCESSIBLE to EVERYONE. It does NOT BLOCK or PREVENT anyone from posting on it.
If a person does not wish to post on the social board and therefore does not, this is THEIR CHOICE, it's VOLUNTARY. However, being blocked from posting on the new boards is NOT a person's choice; it's NOT voluntary.
It is this difference which bothers me, plain and simple!
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 24, 2002, at 8:29:31
In reply to Tina, whoa, peace ... was that necessary? » tina, posted by Janelle on April 24, 2002, at 2:55:41
> if they taught you proper English, it doesn't appear that way in your original post. And perhaps they didn't teach you to proof read.
Please don't put others down, thanks.
Bob
Posted by tina on April 24, 2002, at 9:00:04
In reply to Tina - answer to YOUR question!, posted by Janelle on April 24, 2002, at 4:20:16
The social board is ACCESSIBLE to EVERYONE. It does NOT BLOCK or PREVENT anyone from posting on it.
> If a person does not wish to post on the social board and therefore does not, this is THEIR CHOICE, it's VOLUNTARY.
Firstly, the "I'M" in my original post was typed that way on purpose. It was not a typo, it was an emphasis. Secondly, as per what you said above, there is a med board AND a social board AND an admin board for 'everyone.' What's the problem with having a couple of extra ones for oldies and newies. I tried to post to the 2001 board and couldn't but I don't feel excluded. I simply KNOW that I do not fall into the category established by Dr. Bob. I think you're making way too big a deal out of this. IMO
This is the last I will say on this subject. I'm off to the 'exclusive' board now.
best wishes
tina
Posted by Janelle on April 24, 2002, at 17:22:16
In reply to Re: Tina - answer to YOUR question! » Janelle, posted by tina on April 24, 2002, at 9:00:04
Posted by Janelle on April 24, 2002, at 17:44:45
In reply to Re: Tina - answer to YOUR question! » Janelle, posted by tina on April 24, 2002, at 9:00:04
Hi,
I wasn't referring to your "I'M" in the original post - I understood that you had typed it that way for emphasis. But I'm not allowed to specify further what I'd observed.
Sorry for any misunderstanding or confusion. End of discussion! :-)
Posted by Janelle on April 24, 2002, at 17:46:55
In reply to Re: please be civil » Janelle, posted by Dr. Bob on April 24, 2002, at 8:29:31
I didn't intend what appears below as a put-down and I am sorry that it came across that way.
> > if they taught you proper English, it doesn't appear that way in your original post. And perhaps they didn't teach you to proof read.
>
> Please don't put others down, thanks.
>
> Bob
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.