![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 38 to 62 of 65. Go back in thread:
Posted by christophrejmc on May 23, 2002, at 21:22:49
In reply to Re: Lou's answer to Kid-A's question. » kid_A, posted by lou pilder on May 23, 2002, at 20:42:24
> First, someone expressed that some posters post excessivly. Now the 10 posts per day rule that I am advocating would address that concern.
I thought you were against blocking people? Wouldn't this be discrimination against frequent posters?
> Second, some posters are in fear of being blocked and that causes inhibition in expressing themselves. My suggestion alleviates that concern.
Only for people with $2 USD to spare...
> Third, posters could recieve bonuses in the form of extra posts for posting an inspirational post, like your poetry. these would be accumlative.
Who judges what is inspirational and what is not?
> Fourth, this system is automatically "fair" for there is no controversy anymore.
Fair? How can you compare the addition of a "religious" board with segregation and then come up with this? The discrimination is still there, it's just obscured by a set of complex "rules."
Posted by lou pilder on May 23, 2002, at 21:36:12
In reply to on formally undecidable propositions » lou pilder, posted by christophrejmc on May 23, 2002, at 21:22:49
Chris,
The judges wou;d be posters like in the Olympics. Kid A cou;d be the poety judge, Cam W. could judge the meds, Beadedlady could judge digestive posts, etc. etc.
Now there could be qulifications for judgship and judges would havwe to be the final determination, like the Olympics.
Lou
Posted by IsoM on May 24, 2002, at 0:08:41
In reply to Here's What I Don't Understand, posted by mair on May 23, 2002, at 15:12:30
Bless you, Mair. That's why you don't see my response on those threads. I ignore them, hoping they'll go away.
Posted by IsoM on May 24, 2002, at 0:13:02
In reply to Friday, I'm in Love... » kid_A, posted by krazy kat on May 23, 2002, at 19:34:27
Posted by IsoM on May 24, 2002, at 0:15:23
In reply to The judges » christophrejmc, posted by lou pilder on May 23, 2002, at 21:36:12
Posted by Zo on May 24, 2002, at 4:20:12
In reply to I'm losing my mind..., posted by krazy kat on May 23, 2002, at 10:16:29
Posted by BeARdEdLaDY on May 24, 2002, at 6:04:55
In reply to The judges » christophrejmc, posted by lou pilder on May 23, 2002, at 21:36:12
> The judges wou;d be posters like in the Olympics.
You mean the Special Olympics.
> Kid A cou;d be the poety judge, Cam W. could judge the meds, Beadedlady could judge digestive posts, etc. etc.
See, this is the Lou that Rocks.
needabeerdy : )>
Posted by NikkiT2 on May 24, 2002, at 7:03:37
In reply to I imagine I'll be blocked soon... » NikkiT2, posted by krazy kat on May 23, 2002, at 16:11:04
I'm a 2000 person... but I'm not happy about posting there... I hate the idea of the segragation, and decided, rather than whinging about it, I'd just ignore it!!!
Are 2000 people allowed to talk to 2001 people??!! ;)
Nikki x
Posted by NikkiT2 on May 24, 2002, at 7:06:50
In reply to Re: Clarification » kiddo, posted by Ron Hill on May 23, 2002, at 16:47:54
This is all getting a bit stupid.
No one is asking that Lou himself is segragated, just setting up a new board for discussion of theological issues. two other boards I'm a member of have a seperate page for theological issues, just to keep it ouot of the main stream.
We were segragating people when we asked that social and med issues stay seperate. No..
This is all getting blown out of all proportion. Personally I never read any of Lou's posts as I think its a load of rubbish... surely it would be better for the health of PSB that there be a seperate board for such issues.
Nikki
Posted by Fi on May 24, 2002, at 7:20:32
In reply to Re: Why the derogatory tone of voice? » Ron Hill, posted by kid_A on May 23, 2002, at 18:19:28
Posted by krazy kat on May 24, 2002, at 11:38:28
In reply to nah, you'll be here for ever!! » krazy kat, posted by NikkiT2 on May 24, 2002, at 7:03:37
The old timers' boards are mutually exclusive, but I requested to be switched from 2000 (I joined really late in 2000) to 2001 because I know folks better there.
I don't know - weather is better, I'm a little more stabilized, feeling guilty about spending too much time away from family -- I may actually limit my self this time. ;)
- kk
Posted by krazy kat on May 24, 2002, at 12:04:27
In reply to And the problem here is what???, posted by NikkiT2 on May 24, 2002, at 7:06:50
Absolutely. The only problem I had with the old timers boards was that not everyone could post to them.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 24, 2002, at 17:33:59
In reply to And the problem here is what???, posted by NikkiT2 on May 24, 2002, at 7:06:50
> Personally, I'm offended by constant religious preaching, I grew up with enough of that at home... But I don't supose that my opinion is valid for some reason.
>
> I hope you can see some of my points of view, and that I am simply trying to protect and better a board I find of great use and service to me.
>
> kid_AYour opinion is valid, and I appreciate your efforts and believe I see your points of view. But we might still disagree...
----
> Personally I never read any of Lou's posts as I think its a load of rubbish...
>
> NikkiPlease don't post anything that others could take as accusatory or put them down, thanks.
Bob
Posted by Zo on May 24, 2002, at 18:58:07
In reply to Re: trying to protect and better the boards, posted by Dr. Bob on May 24, 2002, at 17:33:59
I think, in the end, people feel pretty darn put down and accused, and that this is a normal reaction. when someone campaigns for a single point, over and over again.
It's normal to be turned off. . and it's normal to feel put down when you are stonewalled. People have put a lot of effort and thought into their posts in this pretty great thread, into working with someone whose posting bothers them.
And for whatever reason, these efforts by and large are not reciprocated. I think there's an immense amount to be learned from non-reciprocation; it opens the way to compassion--and it also can indicate, very simply, that the people involved are simply barking up two different trees.
Forget the religion part--it's *normal* to want us all to be barking up pretty much the same tree. That's the purpose of PB. That's why we're log on!
I wonde, too, whether any poster who consistently fails to observe the stated purpose of the boards. .. can they be said to be supportive of others?
Although it is true that posts and threads can be ignored, there is a valid concern here, a valid source of ill-feeling, one that has grown over time. People are questioning the source of that ill-feeling, and I'm wondering if it source might prove to be an administrative issue.
I am certain, as Kid_A suggested, that if I responded to every post extolling Republicanism (perish the thought) (<--joke) (if true) . . I would soon be asked to go find a Republican board. (Is there such a thing?) (<---joke v.2)
This seems only reasonable--and just, and fair, to all concerned. The fact that it is religion that is being offered shouldn't hold any special sway. And I do not respect *any* poster who hides behind that issue, should that be the case. Fair's fair, all around.
I have no personal problem about the poster under discussion. One even develops a certain fondness. At times. But fondness shouldn't obscure the issue any more than should religion. What matters is, Is this disruptive? Divisive? Supportive? More stress? More alienation?
As you know, this board provides a very significant refuge. It's important to take a look at things that diminish that quality or diverge from the stated purpose.
This is the very essence of administration, don't you think?
Zo
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 24, 2002, at 20:07:29
In reply to Re: Accusatory and Put Downs questions » Dr. Bob, posted by Zo on May 24, 2002, at 18:58:07
> As you know, this board provides a very significant refuge. It's important to take a look at things that diminish that quality or diverge from the stated purpose.
In fact, I'd like, as much as possible, for this board to provide a refuge even to those with unpopular points of view. I liked Dinah's proposal:
> > perhaps as an exercise, you could cut and paste a few [posts by others] to Word, substitute your name for Lou's and [something you care about] for religion. Then wait a couple of days before reading over them. If they don't hurt your feelings, then perhaps I am [reacting the way I am] due to my own issues.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020510/msgs/5260.htmlBob
Posted by Zo on May 24, 2002, at 23:17:56
In reply to Support for opinions, etc., posted by BeARdEdLaDY on May 23, 2002, at 11:33:57
Magnificent post, Beardy. Really. I think.> something I promised myself would not happen <
Ahem. AH-Hem.
Zo
Posted by Cam W. on May 25, 2002, at 3:35:47
In reply to Support for opinions, etc., posted by BeARdEdLaDY on May 23, 2002, at 11:33:57
Wow!
Posted by NikkiT2 on May 25, 2002, at 7:18:19
In reply to Re: trying to protect and better the boards, posted by Dr. Bob on May 24, 2002, at 17:33:59
bad choice of words.. I meant the whole.. well, upsetting nature of the "everyone" arguing as not very healthy and upsetting.
who knows why that word sprang out of me - I have no reccolection of posting it!!!
nikki
Posted by Zo on May 25, 2002, at 20:50:13
In reply to Re: Accusatory and Put Downs questions, posted by Dr. Bob on May 24, 2002, at 20:07:29
> In fact, I'd like, as much as possible, for this board to provide a refuge even to those with unpopular points of view.
But isn't the question really not one of popularity, but whether the poster accepts and participates in the shared purpose of the boards?
Maybe let us know if this has changed?*
And couldn't you ask any such poster to be more sensitive to the shared purpose, and if that person is unable or unwilling, ask them to find a more suitable board?
Seems like clear policy on that would spare people lot of anguish.
Thanks,
Zo*This is a message board for mutual support and education. It focuses on medication-related issues.
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 25, 2002, at 21:46:27
In reply to Re: The Joy of Policy » Dr. Bob, posted by Zo on May 25, 2002, at 20:50:13
Zo,
Medication issues encompasses all of the medication issues, not just taking them. The question as to whether to take them or not to take them is also an issue of medication. There is a growing body of evidence that what I have been saying on this board is also accepted by notable psychiatrists. They even agree that there could be an alternative to drugs to treat these conditions. There are many in the field that have shown that drugs can be counterproductive. There are meny people all over the world thst have experianced dreadfull consequenses from these drugs. I know, personally, of thousands of people, and that number is not an exaggeration, that have overcome these afflictions without drugs. I have met them in conventions and meetings and other places. They share an experiance like the one that I am telling here and have had their lives changed. They then had a new power to overcome their affliction. It didn't happen overnight, but it happenened. You may see some of these people. The world thinks that they are "crazy". In fact, a poster here said that anyone ranting and raving about religion must be (expletive). Now I know that evryone here thinks that I am talking about the world's jesus. But I am not a member of any religion. I have found that a person could be transformed without knowing anything about the bible or any other book or religion. What happenend to me was what I experianced. And it is open to anyone and without price. I have nothing to sell and no religion to tell others to join. You can be of any race, religion , or anything else and still recieve the Crown of Life. I have known jews, catholics, protostants, Islamics, Hindus, and all other religious people and people with no religion at all recieve the Crown of Life.
You can still take your drugs. I am not advising anyone to discard them untill they have the powere to do so. And some will have to stay on their drug for life. But they still can become a whole new creature.
Lou
Posted by Zo on May 26, 2002, at 2:51:47
In reply to Lou's answer to Zo » Zo, posted by Lou Pilder on May 25, 2002, at 21:46:27
Lou,
I have read your clear and well-written post, and am sorry your point of view is not the shared purpose here---but it is not.
That is the whole story. Your thinking is well-developed--I am certain there are boards where people want to hear exactly what you have to say!
This is not that place.
You are certainly free to redefine *for yourself* what the discussion of medication encompasses--but that issue has already been defined, here. Nobody asked you to fix it. In fact, the assumption that it needed fixing, the idea that our discussion needed to be broadened by Lou Pilder. . .
You know what that says to people? It says loud and clear: Lou Pilder knows what is good for you--and even if you don’t want it , he's going to tell you anyway!
I don't know anyone here who like to be treated that way. There could be someone, but I don't know them.
The question whether or not to take medications—Lou, that is not my question.
To my knowledge, not a single soul has asked, "Lou, what do you think? Is there a better way? Will you advise me?”
Lou. No one asked.
Zo
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 26, 2002, at 7:28:09
In reply to Re: Zo asks Lou if he shouldn't leave., posted by Zo on May 26, 2002, at 2:51:47
Zo,
Your asking me to leave is uncivil on any internet board.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 26, 2002, at 9:22:46
In reply to Re: Zo asks Lou if he shouldn't leave., posted by Zo on May 26, 2002, at 2:51:47
Zo,
You say that this is not the place for me to give my views.
For anyone to say that their views are "not the shared purpose here" is, IMHO, is an uncivil statement. For there are more people just reading these posts than there are people actually posting. Those people are silent, but they are looking at this board for answers and my views ,to them, could have input also for them to make an informed decision. You see, I am not just being read, and niether are you, by just the posters here. I have asked many people to look at the messages on this board and none of them have ever posted. That doesn't mean that they are not participants. I venture to say that for each poster here, there are, perhaps, 500 people that read but don't post. If anyone knows the actuall ratio, plese let me know. My views may not be your views, but that doesn't mean that they should be put on a separate board,, or that I should be asked to leave this board.
Lou
Posted by Zo on May 26, 2002, at 15:09:53
In reply to Re: Zo asks Lou if he shouldn't leave. » Zo, posted by Lou Pilder on May 26, 2002, at 9:22:46
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 27, 2002, at 1:15:42
In reply to Re: Zo asks Lou if he shouldn't leave., posted by Zo on May 26, 2002, at 2:51:47
> I am certain there are boards where people want to hear exactly what you have to say!
>
> This is not that place.I know it's been rough here lately, but as I've said before, different points of view are fine, and in fact encouraged. And of course one of the goals of this site is to offer support.
Bob
Go forward in 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.