![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 11 to 35 of 60. Go back in thread:
Posted by SLS on June 15, 2000, at 9:29:00
In reply to Re: lithium vs. placebo - An opinion, posted by BBob on June 14, 2000, at 22:36:20
Dear Person,
Gee, I must have struck a nerve with you in one of my previous posts.
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 doesn't work for you.
You are no journalist. If you were to keep a journal, 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 someone was kind enough to point out within the contents of the following post that "BoBB has never said he suffers from any "mental illness" that I know of."
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000603/msgs/35974.html
What a carelessly worded piece of evasive rhetoric. Well then, what exactly *does* BoBB say?
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 post might dissuade so much as one person from using lithium 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 battles with depressed people, many of whom find it difficult to think their way out of a paper bag.
You actually suck at rhetoric.
I do not believe you are a journalist.
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 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.
You are curious about nothing except the limits of your own power. Let me help you out here. You are quite limited.
I am not sincere. Stop hurting others on this board by exercising your free speech. 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,
Scott
P.S. Don't bother.
Posted by Oddzilla on June 15, 2000, at 9:56:03
In reply to Re: lithium vs. placebo - An opinion, posted by SLS on June 14, 2000, at 11:02:29
> Dear People,
>
>
> I don't think I am taking much of a risk by making the following statements:
>
>
> 1. Both lithium and Depakote (valproate) are substantially better than placebo in treating bipolar disorder.
>
> 2. Both lithium and Depakote work in the short-term and the long-term. (Depakote may work a bit more quickly in some cases)
>
> 3. People have been kept well on lithium for DECADES.
>
> 4. Many people who have been kept well by lithium for years relapse within 4 months once they discontinued taking it.
>
> - Many of these people respond again to lithium when it is restarted.
>
> - Some of these people never again respond to lithium, regardless of how many times it is restarted, and regardless of how high the dosage is increased.
>
> 5. No single antidepressant works for everyone. Mood stabilizers are no different in this regard.
>
>
> Just because some very important researchers take part in a study, this does not guarantee its reliability. If the design of a study were flawed, even Einstein wouldn't come up with the right results.
>
> > In the only long-term placebo-controlled study in 25 years of a medication used to treat clients diagnosed as bipolar, psychiatrist Charles L. Bowden of the University of Texas Health Science Center found that both lithium chloride and valproate performed about as well as a placebo in long-term treatment of bipolar symptoms, Science News reported in a May 27 edition. The Dr. Bowden's study was also summarized in the May Archives of General Psychiatry.
>
> Study URL:
> http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/issues/v57n5/full/yoa8223.html
>
> I thought it was important to try to rip this study to shreds. I'm not sure I can. However, my conscience urges me to post on this board some evidence that lithium is an effective drug. I don't think it is in the best interests of people reading this thread to assume that the results of this study are accurate. There are some pretty big names associated with this article. However, the authors are bound by a scientific ethic to draw their conclusions based upon the results produced by their study design.
>
> It is commendable that the investigators had the courage to submit this article, despite its obviously flawed outcome. Decades of clinical experience demonstrate that lithium is indeed superior to placebo in the treatment of bipolar disorder. I had a conversation with a scientist over the weekend about this article and its inferences. He thought it likely that it was a "failed" study, and that it shows some potential problems in its designs and results. But that is opinion.
>
> Now, having said this, let me describe why reboxetine, an antidepressant, has not been approved by the FDA for sale in the United States. One of the studies that the FDA was depending on to reach its decision "failed". A study is said to fail when it is determined that the experiment just plain didn't work. The results of such a study can not be deemed reliable. Something went wrong.
>
> In the investigation comparing reboxetine to Prozac to placebo, neither reboxetine nor Prozac were superior to placebo. This was a failed study. If we were to look only at this one study, Prozac should never be used again because it doesn't work. It does.
>
> There are a bazillion other studies that demonstrate that both lithium and Depakote are superior to placebo - many, many of them conducted by these same researchers, including Dr. Bowden. Long-term? Well, one may want to decide for themselves as to the relevance of the Bowden 12-month study to developing a perspective of the "long-term" efficacy these drugs.
>
> I don't feel like trying to pick the study apart and cite the overwhelming evidence demonstrating that lithium works. So I will try something simpler. (I hope it works)
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Questionaire: Looking for success stories only - obviously, no one psychotropic drug works for everyone.
>
> 1. Has anyone found lithium effective for bipolar disorder or know of someone who has.
>
> 2. For how long has lithium helped?
>
> Even a handful of success stories should help allay the fears of many people reading this board that lithium is better than sugar.
>
> Just to help cover my butt on this one, I would want to point out that the population of participants on Psycho-Babble is probably sufficiently biased towards treatment-resistance to skew the statistical rate of success downward. In addition, I would guess that Psycho-Babble attracts far more people whose major complaint is depression rather than mania or hypomania. People who are manic or euthymic may have other things to do. In addition, lithium is not known to be terribly effective when used by itself to treat bipolar depression. It can, however, help prevent future occurrences.
>
> Let's see what happens. I know of too many people whose lives have been changed dramatically by lithium. This contradicts the notion that lithium is no better than placebo over the long-term.
>
> Also, one other thing. The Bowden study was designed to compare the efficacy of Depakote, not lithium. I believe it was initiated and funded by Squibb, the manufacturer of Depakote. Patients were excluded if their manic symptoms were too severe. This might indicate that the majority of patients selected were Bipolar II. Bipolar II is well known not to be particularly responsive to lithium. That Depakote was somewhat superior to lithium seems to be a good indicator of this. Oh well, I guess I started picking. Sorry. I can think of more stuff, though. Again, I am not very objective on this one. Neither am I qualified.
>
> Oh yeah. There is nothing prohibiting the combination of effective mood stabilizers to treat people for whom one single drug is not good enough. It works.
>
>
> - Scott~~~~~~~~
The study was published in a major medical journal , do you think it would have been accepted if the experimental design was so obviously flawed? Wouldn't it have been subjected to "peer review" before it was accepted?How can there be a flawed outcome to a scientific experiment? Isn't that the point of science? To report the results? We all ways had to write in indelible ink in lab books when I took science classes!
I don't see any real point to anecdotal evidence that people have been mania free on lithium-after all the study didn't say it never works, it said it didn't work any better than a placebo.
I certainly think people should take lithium if they want to and think it helps, but I don't think it is necessary to give up one's objectivity about it. I was personally delighted to see a long term study being done. It seems like they are few and far between.
I do understand your concern though. I think it's like the reaction I have to the studies that claim alcoholics can drink moderately again. It may be true at least for some but the destruction to those who weren't able to would be so great-it's a little scary to hear.
What would be so bad if a large percentage of "cures" came from placebos? If it works it works!
Oddzilla
(not any of the bobs, not clare,
not Cam, just odd that's all)
Posted by SLS on June 15, 2000, at 15:03:41
In reply to Re: Another oppinion, posted by Oddzilla on June 15, 2000, at 9:56:03
Dear Odzilla,
I apologize for my use of imprecise phraseology. The term "flawed outcome" is an example of my flawed semantics. I guess we all make mistakes. :-) Good point.
What may be flawed is the possible conclusion that "lithium is never better than placebo" based upon the first post along this thread, which, by the way, was a perfectly objective submission regarding the existence of a published article. It was my concern that this is how the post would be interpreted.
What do you think of lithium? Did it not work for you?
Did you read the article? What did you think?
Like I said, I am neither objective nor qualified. I just happen to think that lithium is more effective than sugar, even for prophylaxis. My belief reflects the overwhelming majority of studies appearing in peer-reviewed medical journals that demonstrate this as their outcome. Check it out.
Lithium works best for pure bipolar I without mixed states in people who have had few previous occurrences of affective episodes. It can work quite well for these presentations. However, this is not what the study was designed to test. Patients who suffered from mixed states were included, and there was no limit to the number of previous episodes experienced.
The goal (I should hope) is to try to successfully treat people while they are still young and have not suffered many episodes. I was hoping the initial post "lithium vs placebo" wouldn't persuade anyone to avoid lithium altogether.
I guess my study failed. I didn't get the results I was hoping for. Perhaps I should design a new one. :-)
It is unfortunate that lithium does not work as well as we would like it to. It does work, though - at least according to scientists, doctors, and many people who continue to take it.
It is no secret that lithium is not the miracle drug that Ronald Fieve hoped it would be. We may just need to be more precise in selecting the patients most likely to respond to it.
I wish I would respond to a placebo. I guess I just need to believe. Believing in the real drugs hasn't worked.
Thanks, Oddzilla.
- Scott
Posted by danf on June 15, 2000, at 16:51:00
In reply to Re: Another oppinion, posted by SLS on June 15, 2000, at 15:03:41
Lithium works for some people, not everyone.
The study was poorly designed. That it is published in a journal means that it was published, nothing else.
All psycho-pseudo-medical scientists know that journal articles are only a sharing of study results. There is no requirement that the study be valid or applicable to real life.
Posted by Oddzilla on June 15, 2000, at 18:02:32
In reply to Re: and Another , posted by danf on June 15, 2000, at 16:51:00
> Lithium works for some people, not everyone.
> You can say that for just about anything including placebos. It's a matter of defining your terms.
> The study was poorly designed. That it is published in a journal means that it was published, nothing else.
It means that it's there for people to read and judge on its own merits. I have never shared the faith some babblers have in peer reviewed journals so I see your point! It may have been poorly designed or it may have just been misrepresented in this thread.
>
> All psycho-pseudo-medical scientists know that journal articles are only a sharing of study results. There is no requirement that the study be valid or applicable to real life.I'm not a psycho-pseudo-medical scientist so I guess I'll just have to take your word for it :)
O.
Posted by Oddzilla on June 15, 2000, at 18:22:51
In reply to Re: lithium vs. placebo - An opinion » BBob, posted by SLS on June 15, 2000, at 9:29:00
Scott this is totally unworthy of you. I like BBob and I appreciate his point of view even if I don't agree. If you don't, *Don't read his posts*. As someone who does reluctantly take medication, I am offended that you use suggesting that someone is in need of medication as a way of discounting his opinions. I don't think he's ignorant or vindictive or any of the other insulting things you say. Please be civil includes everyone even you. As Cam said
Can't we all play nice? O.>
> Gee, I must have struck a nerve with you in one of my previous posts.
>
> 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 doesn't work for you.
>
> You are no journalist. If you were to keep a journal, 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 someone was kind enough to point out within the contents of the following post that "BoBB has never said he suffers from any "mental illness" that I know of."
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000603/msgs/35974.html
>
> What a carelessly worded piece of evasive rhetoric. Well then, what exactly *does* BoBB say?
>
> 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 post might dissuade so much as one person from using lithium 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 battles with depressed people, many of whom find it difficult to think their way out of a paper bag.
>
> You actually suck at rhetoric.
>
> I do not believe you are a journalist.
>
> 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 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.
>
> You are curious about nothing except the limits of your own power. Let me help you out here. You are quite limited.
>
> I am not sincere. Stop hurting others on this board by exercising your free speech. 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,
> Scott
>
>
> P.S. Don't bother.
Posted by Todd on June 15, 2000, at 20:18:34
In reply to DR Bob Please read » SLS, posted by Oddzilla on June 15, 2000, at 18:22:51
This boBB/BBob bashing is getting absolutely ridiculous. I have avoided posting to all previous threads regarding the tone and "civility" of boBB's posts because there was just way too much of a commotion being made. I would have just been adding more wood to an already blazing fire. Finally, just as the embers fade into ashes, and boBB starts to share again, another fire springs up. WHY DOESN'T ANYBODY GET BOBB?
I read quite a few of boBB's posts and find him to be quite articulate and intelligent. He has piqued my imagination on more than one occasion and can be counted on for original, free-thinking feedback. boBB's opinions are most definitely his own. For this alone, he should be respected. He doesn't buy into ANYONE'S prefabricated notions about reality. boBB has thrown out all of the crap and belief systems that he was made to swallow as a child and decided long ago to be HIMSELF no matter what anybody else thinks. His opinions are hard-won after years of self-reflection and hard questioning.
boBB is in the midst of his own process, just as we all are. boBB is HERE because he is refining his views of himself and reality JUST AS YOU ARE. boBB isn't out to offend anybody in the sense that he wants to hurt anyone's feelings. He wants to offend your sensibilites so that you question them and rethink them. I can't believe that so many of you are so put off by that and fail to see what boBB is all about. boBB deliberately plays the devils advocate to keep your minds from closing off. He wants to know how you come to your opinions and offers opposing viewpoints to either strengthen or demolish your own. You can't just believe what you're told to believe or what sounds good to believe. You have to develop your beliefs from personal experience and self-scrutiny, suffering through good times and bad. The minute your mind closes and stops questioning is the moment you begin to stagnate and fail to grow. boBB may be a little stubborn and may seem a bit jaded at times, but I sense in him a lively and caring soul who wants to break through the muck just like the rest of us. He is not going to be spoon-fed ANYONE's opinions without thoroughly challenging them first. That, my babble-landers, is the beauty of personal growth. Nobody can grow for you; you have to do the work yourself. boBB has done and continues to do his work, and as he posts here he helps us do our own.
I don't think this needs to be reiterated, but I am going to say it anyway - If you don't like boBB's style, DON'T READ HIS POSTS! Simple as that. If you do find yourself getting sucked into one of his responses and discover that you are getting angry, perhaps you should turn the finger you are pointing at boBB back at yourself. Anger is a defense mechanism. We only defend that which we feel needs to be protected. Just what is it within you that needs so much protection? If the "it" within you was truly strong, it would need no defense. As far as boBB's own anger is concerned, I would say that most of his initial posts are not malevolent at all. The ones that are are in response to deliberate attacks on his character. If I were that misunderstood by so many, I would be pretty pissed off too. I don't blame him a bit.
Please do not view me as speaking from a saltbox. I am writing this because I am tired of the venom that is getting spit on these pages. I am writing to you all as a fellow human being who feels deeply and in doing so finds that we are ALL the same deep down inside. Rather than point fingers at those who offend you, try to recognize a part of yourself in their words. You would be surprised how much you'll start to learn about yourself. I am constantly amazed as I continue to stumble down my own path.
Peace and Love,
Todd (not affiliated with boBB)
Posted by claire 7 on June 15, 2000, at 20:36:56
In reply to Re: DR Bob Please read, posted by Todd on June 15, 2000, at 20:18:34
Beautifully, articulatly, and intelligently said, Todd. Thank you. (Also much spiritual content in your post..) I was very moved, and made again proud of human beings. Turns out, this CAN be a supportive place.
An aside to SLS. Your post seemed uncharacteristic to me, too. Hope you're O.K.
Posted by Cam W. on June 15, 2000, at 21:01:58
In reply to Re: DR Bob Please read » Todd, posted by claire 7 on June 15, 2000, at 20:36:56
It would really be nice if boBB stuck to one name. Then many of us 'could' be able to respect his opinion even more. As it is now, with his replying to himself, just makes us suspicious of "anything" that is said about, to, or by him. Just my opinion. - Cam
Posted by claire 7 on June 15, 2000, at 22:16:43
In reply to Re: DR Bob Please read » claire 7, posted by Cam W. on June 15, 2000, at 21:01:58
>
If I remember correctly, boBB has a few rules, plainly stated for anyone who cares to pay attention. I, for one believe him, possibly because I'm not boBB. He acknowledges his various handles openly, and he points out that he doesn't reply to himself. He also has a consistent history ,point of view, and voice, which is readily apparent to anyone who is used to reading literature, and who knows what the term "close reading" means. If it makes you feel better to believe there's only one person who thinks boBBity, go for it. As the kids like to say, whatever keeps your boat afloat.....no, whatever rows your boat....no, whatever takes your elevator to the floor you need. Gee, I don't think I know what the kids say, afterall.Best wishes, Cam.
CLAIRE
Posted by Cass on June 16, 2000, at 12:27:31
In reply to DR Bob Please read » SLS, posted by Oddzilla on June 15, 2000, at 18:22:51
I am also offended by the BBob bashing. If someone is earnestly expressing their opinion without being insulting or malicious, we should all be accepting of that person. Scott, your post to BBob was more insulting than anything BBob has ever written to my knowledge. It was full of personal assaults. I agree with claire in that it seemed uncharacteristic of you. BBob does not have to conform to anyone else's opinions. Nor does anyone have to conform to his who doesn't want to. We should exercise mutual respect.
Posted by KarenB on June 16, 2000, at 12:37:14
In reply to Re: DR Bob Please read » claire 7, posted by Cam W. on June 15, 2000, at 21:01:58
>
> It would really be nice if boBB stuck to one name. Then many of us 'could' be able to respect his opinion even more. As it is now, with his replying to himself, just makes us suspicious of "anything" that is said about, to, or by him.> Just my opinion. - Cam
And mine also.Hey, "all of you," let's try to integrate into one personhood, shall we? Then we would all know to whom we are responding. 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. I agree with Cam, that I would most certainly respect to a greater degree someone who owned their own opinions and was not afraid to sign their(one)name to them. Even though we are all anonymous here, it takes a certain amount of courage sometimes to post what I truly feel, under KarenB. My opinions are my own and I am not afraid to own them. How about (all of) you?
Todd, PULEEESE! Do you really think that with all the suffering we have collectively had in our lives, that we are such simpletons, "believing what others have told us to believe?" Do you believe that you and BoBB (etc.) are the only ones who have questioned authority, thought through their own belief system, sought to find what is true? I view that as arrogant in the extreme, which is the problem I personally have with his (and his other self-made fans') posts. Arrogance and grandiosity. A lot of people "get BoBB." There's just not as much to get as he himself believes.
I don't need BoBB to open my eyes. They are already open. Thanks anyway.
Sincerely,
Karen
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
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.