![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 31 to 55 of 55. Go back in thread:
Posted by AuntieMel on February 22, 2005, at 16:27:36
In reply to Re: multiple posting names » AuntieMel, posted by fires on February 22, 2005, at 12:04:43
That's the only one that I know of that truly was someone using multiple names.
If you could babblemail me (so you don't get in trouble for accusing anyone) I can tell you if you were on the right or wrong track.
You will have to enable babblemail yourself first. This is done by modifying your registration to enable it.
Of course the civility rules apply for babblemail, too.
Is it still raining there? If it keeps it up the terrain will be as flat as gulf coast Texas.
Posted by AuntieMel on February 22, 2005, at 16:37:10
In reply to Re: why I'm surprised you are surprised » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on February 22, 2005, at 15:56:18
<<<<<<<<Yeah, I dare say I would have felt pretty defensive being on the receiving end of the posts he got. But then my response would be to go back through them and try to see what I did (if anything) to prompt such responses.
<<<<<<<<<<Not just say 'oh well, thats what you get for trying to talk rationally with mentally ill people'.
I'm, not pointing any fingers at you. It's just that you're the only one listening to me right now. I thank you for that, more than you know.It just seems to me that fires always gets less than a kind welcome. Even from the beginning of his posting.
I think people deserve a second chance. And maybe a third and a fourth if it looks like they're trying. And I've never seen any malice in anything fires has posted.
the neverending battle.
Posted by fires on February 22, 2005, at 22:53:55
In reply to Re: multiple posting names » fires, posted by AuntieMel on February 22, 2005, at 16:27:36
> That's the only one that I know of that truly was someone using multiple names.
>
> If you could babblemail me (so you don't get in trouble for accusing anyone) I can tell you if you were on the right or wrong track.
>
> You will have to enable babblemail yourself first. This is done by modifying your registration to enable it.
>
> Of course the civility rules apply for babblemail, too.
>
> Is it still raining there? If it keeps it up the terrain will be as flat as gulf coast Texas.
Maybe I'll search down the posts when/if time allows. Since I already posted them, I don't see how I could be banned now. The statute of limitations is up. ;) Intermittent heavy rain, funnel clouds near the beach, mudslides, etc...
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 22, 2005, at 22:54:28
In reply to Re: working things out, posted by Toph on February 22, 2005, at 1:49:28
> as we mature (on PB)we integrate this belief system as our own thereby reducing the need for an idealized other. We incrimentally through a system of rewards and punishments (maybe I'm unwittingly talking about behaviorism) into better citizens as the separation struggle is ameliorated.
I wouldn't call anyone immature, or a worse citizen :-) but I do think something like that might be nice, see:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/300134.html
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on February 22, 2005, at 23:17:34
In reply to Re: why I'm surprised you are surprised » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on February 22, 2005, at 16:37:10
> I'm, not pointing any fingers at you.
I know that - I never thought you were.
>It's just that you're the only one listening to me right now. I thank you for that, more than you know.
Oh, I think I understand. I am often very pleased when people seem to be listening to me too. You are most welcome.
> It just seems to me that fires always gets less than a kind welcome. Even from the beginning of his posting.Yeah. He does seem to go around hitting nerves. If I were stronger it wouldn't bug me as much. But the implications are too much for me. I get the urge to be uncivil and that doesn't help anyone. Different people seem to find that with different posters. Interesting...
> I think people deserve a second chance. And maybe a third and a fourth if it looks like they're trying. And I've never seen any malice in anything fires has posted.No, I don't think there is malice. There just seems to me to be an insensitivity to how people are likely to respond. I hope I don't get a blocking for that one...
> the neverending battle.:-)
I appreciate your comparatively objective stance on this one.Really.
Posted by fires on February 22, 2005, at 23:38:43
In reply to Re: why I'm surprised you are surprised » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on February 22, 2005, at 23:17:34
"Criticism is something we can avoid easily - by saying nothing, doing nothing and being nothing." - Aristotle
Posted by alexandra_k on February 23, 2005, at 1:13:50
In reply to An applicable quote, posted by fires on February 22, 2005, at 23:38:43
But he didn't think of everything.
More of a Plato fan myself ;-)
I wasn't so much thinking of avoidance of criticism as avoidance of hurting others unnecessarily...
I too like to argue...
But there must be another way...By the way, I would like to apoligise and retract my 'do not post to me' request. Sorry that I have done that on two occasions now.
I do feel hurt and indignant and annoyed by things that I take to be implied by quite a few of your posts. To be fair I have only followed maybe four of the threads you have posted to. But I have felt all those things in response to all of those threads.
My issue?? Perhaps. I know that everyone doesn't feel that way. AuntieMel, for instance does very well indeed. But I do think that the way in which you go about prompting (or perhaps even provoking) argument or discussion leaves a lot to be desired.
And I don't think that you respond to others telling you they felt hurt or offended very well at all. If you do respond it seems to be to talk about your own ailments. But as I have said before, I do think people would be a lot more sympathetic to your hurts if you showed a little more sympathy (or at least some sort of aknowledgement) of theirs.
But enough of the lecture... And you did say something about maybe being able to word it better... And so I shall choose to take that as an apology for having upset anyone (which isn't to acknowledge fault or blame it is just to say that you are sorry they are hurting) And so that is great. And I feel a bit better now.
Anyways. This has been a hard week for me. I shan't request that you not post to me again - okay? If I feel too upset then I shall simply ignore you - fair enough ;-)
But I do not believe you are malicious.
Truce?
Posted by fires on February 23, 2005, at 10:44:52
In reply to Aristotle is great... » fires, posted by alexandra_k on February 23, 2005, at 1:13:50
Posted by alexandra_k on February 23, 2005, at 15:56:17
In reply to Re: Aristotle is great... (nm) » alexandra_k, posted by fires on February 23, 2005, at 10:44:52
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 23, 2005, at 22:43:51
In reply to Aristotle is great... » fires, posted by alexandra_k on February 23, 2005, at 1:13:50
> He does seem to go around hitting nerves.
>
> There just seems to me to be an insensitivity to how people are likely to respond.> the way in which you go about prompting (or perhaps even provoking) argument or discussion leaves a lot to be desired.
>
> And I don't think that you respond to others telling you they felt hurt or offended very well at all.Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
> I get the urge to be uncivil and that doesn't help anyone.
Is there something else you can do then?
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on February 23, 2005, at 22:52:08
In reply to Re: please be civil » alexandra_k, posted by Dr. Bob on February 23, 2005, at 22:43:51
Posted by alexandra_k on February 24, 2005, at 0:27:23
In reply to Re: please be civil » alexandra_k, posted by Dr. Bob on February 23, 2005, at 22:43:51
Posted by AuntieMel on February 24, 2005, at 8:56:10
In reply to Re: multiple posting names » AuntieMel, posted by fires on February 22, 2005, at 22:53:55
Sounds like typical south texas weather. Except for the mud slides - we've already slid to flat.
Right, Dr. Bob. 'let's keep it administrative'
smile?
Posted by Larry Hoover on February 25, 2005, at 18:23:02
In reply to Civility or censorship?, posted by fires on February 21, 2005, at 11:07:43
> I'm coming off my 3rd (?) banning. I find it almost impossible to state my opinions without getting banned. Seems some opinions are by their very nature considered uncivil, no matter how carefully they are stated. I've always been careful to attack ideas only -- not people -- but I still get banned.
>
> Also, It seems to me that some folks get away with uncivil behavior by asking me rhetorical questions -- analagous to : "When did you stop beating your wife?"
>
> Anyone else share my views? All comments welcome.
> Please -- no rhetorical questions. :)Perhaps your difficulties lie in that evolving realm of nonsupportive postings, rather than uncivil ones, in the classic sense?
I wanted to review the actual blocking incidents, but I didn't find them using the search feature. Do you have links to them, or the threads?
Lar
Posted by fires on February 25, 2005, at 19:46:12
In reply to Re: Civility or censorship? » fires, posted by Larry Hoover on February 25, 2005, at 18:23:02
I don't have links to the posts, and currently no time to search them down.
Some things to consider:
1) "Support" can sometimes take the form of informing people of their misconceptions.
2) It seems that PB allows posters to be uncivil in a somewhat disguised mode: use of the rhetorical question. In fact you just used one:
"Perhaps your difficulties lie in that evolving realm of nonsupportive postings, rather than uncivil ones, in the classic sense?"
Placing "perhaps" in front of the statement, and making it a question allows it to appear civil. (I'm using the PB definition of civil -- I don't find your rhetorical question uncivil).
I may have to try that technique. I've complained about the use of rhetorical questions several times to no avail, which I find very curious.
Posted by Larry Hoover on February 25, 2005, at 22:03:28
In reply to Re: Civility or censorship? » Larry Hoover, posted by fires on February 25, 2005, at 19:46:12
> 1) "Support" can sometimes take the form of informing people of their misconceptions.
I think that "informing people of their misconceptions" is considered uncivil, based on my own observations of Bob's reactions.
> 2) It seems that PB allows posters to be uncivil in a somewhat disguised mode: use of the rhetorical question. In fact you just used one:
>
> "Perhaps your difficulties lie in that evolving realm of nonsupportive postings, rather than uncivil ones, in the classic sense?"I wasn't intending anything at all uncivil. You stated your belief that you had not been uncivil. I was simply suggesting the alternative reason for a block. I don't clearly remember any of your blocking incidents, so I was speculating.
Lar
Posted by AuntieMel on February 26, 2005, at 9:42:33
In reply to Re: Civility or censorship? » Larry Hoover, posted by fires on February 25, 2005, at 19:46:12
<<<<<<1) "Support" can sometimes take the form of informing people of their misconceptions.
Like you I tend to be more science oriented than emotion oriented. But because I tend to use logic more than feeling I wouldn't dream of "informing people of their misconceptions" because I don't know for absolute cast-in-concrete sure that they *are* misconceptions.
Without hard proof that I can see with my own eyes I don't feel I can make a judgement. I know what *I* believe, based on what I've seen, but I can't be sure there isn't somewhere evidence to the contrary.
This is especially true of psychology (which, if you notice is also the board that has very sensitive participants) - and in my opinion it doesn't really matter if the method is valid or not as long as it isn't causing any harm. Because even if it is time, or meds, or placebo effect it just doesn't matter to me. What matters is that people are either getting better, or are comforted by it.
But - this isn't administrative. I'd love to discuss the various methods of therapy and their pros and cons. On the politics board.
Posted by fires on February 26, 2005, at 13:22:28
In reply to Re: Civility or censorship? » fires, posted by Larry Hoover on February 25, 2005, at 22:03:28
> > 1) "Support" can sometimes take the form of informing people of their misconceptions.
>
> I think that "informing people of their misconceptions" is considered uncivil, based on my own observations of Bob's reactions.
>
> > 2) It seems that PB allows posters to be uncivil in a somewhat disguised mode: use of the rhetorical question. In fact you just used one:
> >
> > "Perhaps your difficulties lie in that evolving realm of nonsupportive postings, rather than uncivil ones, in the classic sense?"
>
> I wasn't intending anything at all uncivil. You stated your belief that you had not been uncivil. I was simply suggesting the alternative reason for a block. I don't clearly remember any of your blocking incidents, so I was speculating.
>
> LarI don't think you were being uncivil, according to my definition, but I do think you made a statement in the form of a question. Many months ago, there were people here who who ask me: "What is your real problem?"/ "What do you really feel?". While those questions may not be uncivil they are annoying because they are presumptive and rhetorical.
Posted by fires on February 26, 2005, at 14:53:51
In reply to Re: another thing to ponder » fires, posted by AuntieMel on February 26, 2005, at 9:42:33
> <<<<<<1) "Support" can sometimes take the form of informing people of their misconceptions.
>
> Like you I tend to be more science oriented than emotion oriented. But because I tend to use logic more than feeling I wouldn't dream of "informing people of their misconceptions" because I don't know for absolute cast-in-concrete sure that they *are* misconceptions.
>
> Without hard proof that I can see with my own eyes I don't feel I can make a judgement. I know what *I* believe, based on what I've seen, but I can't be sure there isn't somewhere evidence to the contrary.
>
> This is especially true of psychology (which, if you notice is also the board that has very sensitive participants) - and in my opinion it doesn't really matter if the method is valid or not as long as it isn't causing any harm. Because even if it is time, or meds, or placebo effect it just doesn't matter to me. What matters is that people are either getting better, or are comforted by it.
>
> But - this isn't administrative. I'd love to discuss the various methods of therapy and their pros and cons. On the politics board.
I can provide many links from scientific sources that state that certain therapies are not founded on scientific principles. The harm is that patients forgo real treatments. I posted several good books on the Book site. You can proboably find post by searching : pseudoscience.My health is touch and go right now: BP up, ears ringing, and rare episodes of very brief -- but very strong palpitations. I don't feel like starting any new debates right now. Maybe in a few days.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 26, 2005, at 15:41:20
In reply to Re: another thing to ponder » AuntieMel, posted by fires on February 26, 2005, at 14:53:51
> I can provide many links from scientific sources that state that certain therapies are not founded on scientific principles.
'Certain therapies' may not be. But it is a huge jump from 'certain therapies' to 'all therapies' (just in case you are tempted. There is also the point that for every scientific book that says that something is a pseudo-science there is probably another scientific book that says that that same thing isn't a pseudo-science.
We can only look critically at their reasons.
It may be too much to expect there to be a cut and dried 'fact of the matter' for us to be able to inform people of. And in the absence of fact all we have is opinion and reasons.I have also replied to you on Books
Posted by AuntieMel on February 26, 2005, at 15:43:08
In reply to Re: another thing to ponder » AuntieMel, posted by fires on February 26, 2005, at 14:53:51
I know you've had health problems - and I never did hear from you after that visit to the cardio.
Take care of yourself. But when you get to feeling better don't forget me. I'll be waiting with (de)bated breath.
Posted by fires on February 26, 2005, at 17:16:20
In reply to Re: another thing to ponder » fires, posted by alexandra_k on February 26, 2005, at 15:41:20
>>There is also the point that for every scientific book that says that something is a pseudo-science there is probably another scientific book that says that that same thing isn't a pseudo-science.
Maybe with some "border" things, but I've found that books that support pseudoscience are generall y psuedoscientific.
I'm not feeling too well, I may stop posting without further notice.
Posted by fires on February 26, 2005, at 17:33:56
In reply to Re: later then for sure » fires, posted by AuntieMel on February 26, 2005, at 15:43:08
Posted by alexandra_k on February 26, 2005, at 23:25:34
In reply to Re: another thing to ponder » alexandra_k, posted by fires on February 26, 2005, at 17:16:20
>Maybe with some "border" things, but I've found that books that support pseudoscience are generally psuedoscientific.
Hmm. What is the difference between ‘science’ and ‘pseudoscience’?
It may be helpful for me to understand what you are talking about if you could attempt a definition of what you mean by the terms. Or, if you could list some characteristics of each so that I can come to understand the terms as you are using them by comparing and contrasting them with one another.
The terms ‘science’ and ‘pseudoscience’ are often bandied about but with no clear meaning assigned to them it is difficult if not impossible to assess what someone means when they label certain claims or theories as being ‘scientific’ or ‘pseudoscientific’.
I am sorry that you are not feeling well.
Just post when you are up to it.
I hope you feel better soon.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 17:17:35
In reply to Re: another thing to ponder » fires, posted by alexandra_k on February 26, 2005, at 23:25:34
I am not trying to trip you up or anything. Just trying to understand what you are saying.
What is it about certain books that leads you to conclude that they are 'scientific' and how do the books that you conclude are 'pseudoscientific' differ from those??
I am trying to understand...
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.