![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 23 to 47 of 156. Go back in thread:
Posted by shar on February 21, 2003, at 12:45:22
In reply to Re: Shutting down the Babbles » shar, posted by Dinah on February 21, 2003, at 10:16:48
> I have to be completely honest here, Shar. There was a time when my participation was harmful to me in the way you describe.
> But I don't think it could be said that there is *no* potential for harm by participating in these boards.
I agree, Dinah, and wasn't trying to say there is no potential for harm. I was trying to get clarification on what someone meant when they said "this board is harming people." I just wasn't able to, on my own, think of a way that the Babbles were harming people.
(If you're willing to share this info...) When you felt harmed here, did you consider it an adverse event, and file an adverse event report? I would be interested in what that process required in terms of describing the nature of the event, if you are willing to share it.
If you didn't file, was there a reason you chose not to? Or, maybe you didn't realize you could, and would have if you'd known?
Please don't feel pressured to share any of the info I asked about, as I understand it's very personal stuff, and it is only my curiosity that leads me to ask. I don't know what they look for in an adverse event report.
Shar
Posted by Dinah on February 21, 2003, at 17:38:02
In reply to Re: Shutting down the Babbles » Dinah, posted by shar on February 21, 2003, at 12:45:22
This was a while back, Shar. But even if it had been more recent, after the adverse event info, I doubt I would have filed a report.
I emailed Dr. Bob a few times about it and explained the problem as best I could, so that he would have the information for his research. I trusted and do trust Dr. Bob to take the information seriously.
Psycho-Babble can be a powerful force, and powerful forces can have a positive or negative influence. Overall it's been positive for me.
But it had nothing to do with Dr. Bob being authoritarian. :)
Posted by kara lynne on February 22, 2003, at 23:28:35
In reply to Re: blocked for week » Simcha, posted by Dr. Bob on February 19, 2003, at 20:12:04
I'm a little confused. I don't want to read through all of these posts, so maybe my response will be too uninformed to be valid. But what I'm getting is that if someone's being tyrannical we're not supposed to say that it's tyrannical because that's uncivil? So to call the uncivil "uncivil" is uncivil?
Posted by stjames on February 23, 2003, at 2:35:31
In reply to To call the uncivil uncivil is uncivil?, posted by kara lynne on February 22, 2003, at 23:28:35
>But what I'm getting is that if someone's being >tyrannical we're not supposed to say that it's >tyrannical because that's uncivil? So to call >the uncivil "uncivil" is uncivil?
yes and no. Just because someone is uncivil
does not allow you to be uncivil. I suspect
"tyrannical" would be uncivil but "I notice you have alot of anger and it is difficult for me to take" or "I feel putdown by some of your statements" ect would be civil.It is not always easy to hold back when buttons are pushed. I have gotten blocked for letting someone have it from time to time. I have never disagreed with bobs blocking of myself. But, tempting though it be to lash back, it is really a much more powerful stance to return I statements; "When you say these
things is feel .....". Some just want to come here
a cause trouble, an I statement is not what they want to here. For others, it is a chance to see how the effect others.
Posted by kara lynne on February 23, 2003, at 13:54:38
In reply to Re: To call the uncivil uncivil is uncivil?, posted by stjames on February 23, 2003, at 2:35:31
I find it best not to respond at all most of the time; not to give certain people any more juice for whatever it is they're doing. And I guess you can call the uncivil uncivil--as long as you're civil about it--but it does get to be a bit sketchy as to who's calling what what sometimes.
Posted by kara lynne on February 23, 2003, at 16:16:45
In reply to Re: To call the uncivil uncivil is uncivil?, posted by stjames on February 23, 2003, at 2:35:31
...also, some people *are* tyrannical-- it doesnt seem like *calling* them tyrannical is uncivil. Would calling Hitler a tyrant be uncivil? I don't think so.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2003, at 16:50:10
In reply to Re: To call the uncivil uncivil is uncivil?, posted by kara lynne on February 23, 2003, at 16:16:45
kara lynne,
You wrote,[...would calling Hitler a tyrant be {uncivil}?]
It would depend on who the person was that called him a tyrant, or would it not?
Lou
Posted by kara lynne on February 23, 2003, at 19:16:12
In reply to Re: To call the uncivil uncivil is uncivil? » kara lynne, posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2003, at 16:50:10
Well that may be a different issue. Both could be tyrants, I suppose-- it doesn't mean Hitler isn't a tyrant.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2003, at 19:21:09
In reply to Re: To call the uncivil uncivil is uncivil?, posted by kara lynne on February 23, 2003, at 19:16:12
KL,
Consider this: Would a person in Nazi Germany that called Hitler a tyrant , be uncivil, according to the Nazi athorities?
Now would a person in England durring that era be considerd uncivil by the English authorities if they called Hitler a tyrant?
Lou
Posted by kara lynne on February 23, 2003, at 19:32:25
In reply to Re: To call the uncivil uncivil is uncivil? » kara lynne, posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2003, at 19:21:09
Lou,
I don't really understand where you're going with this, sorry. K.L.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2003, at 21:04:16
In reply to Re: To call the uncivil uncivil is uncivil?, posted by kara lynne on February 23, 2003, at 19:32:25
KL,
Well, I was trying to respond to your querry,[...to call the uncivil uncivil is uncivil...] and attempt to separate who was the one calling who as being uncivil. Uncivilness is relevant and , in a sense, [in the eye of the one that determines uncivilness.]. Now I do not understand where I am going with this either.
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by kara lynne on February 23, 2003, at 22:12:35
In reply to Re: To call the uncivil uncivil is uncivil? » kara lynne, posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2003, at 21:04:16
Well, I think I see. Of course there would be those who would say Hitler was not a tyrant; in my opinion that would also make them tyrants. I don't think it does any good to argue with someone who is being uncivil, and I don't believe in attacking, but I don't think we should have to deny it, or sacrifice our own truth for politically correct style or em, psychobabble. And by nature of this design, politically correct here depends on someone else's interpretation or determination, and sometimes seems arbitrary or doesn't make sense. I guess we really have to keep our opinions about other posters to ourselves (or take them here) and leave the judgement calls to Dr.Bob. It would be chaos if this forum weren't monitored at all, and since it's Dr. Bob's baby, it's his to decide who is being uncivil and what uncivil is. That's tricky at times. There is also the element (that I think was pointed out somewhere else) of having to stucture around an approving or disapproving authority (dad, dr.bob) figure. Some of us didn't have great experiences with that, or authority figures who were fair (or civil), and projections enter in as well. In any event I would argue in favor of this site being up and open for business.
Posted by stjames on February 24, 2003, at 10:42:04
In reply to Re: To call the uncivil uncivil is uncivil?, posted by kara lynne on February 23, 2003, at 16:16:45
> ...also, some people *are* tyrannical-- it doesnt seem like *calling* them tyrannical is uncivil. Would calling Hitler a tyrant be uncivil? I don't think so.
Well is is not really up to you or me to deside what is or is not civil, is it. You and I singed and agreed to conditions when you started on this board. If we don't like them, we don't post.
It is Bob call on what is civil.
Posted by kara lynne on February 24, 2003, at 12:45:43
In reply to Re: To call the uncivil uncivil is uncivil?, posted by stjames on February 24, 2003, at 10:42:04
Posted by gabbix2 on February 27, 2003, at 16:55:35
In reply to To call the uncivil uncivil is uncivil?, posted by kara lynne on February 22, 2003, at 23:28:35
Posted by kara lynne on February 28, 2003, at 12:52:38
In reply to Re: To call the uncivil uncivil is uncivil?, posted by kara lynne on February 23, 2003, at 22:12:35
Posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 11:25:43
In reply to Re: Shutting down the Babbles » shar, posted by Dinah on February 21, 2003, at 10:16:48
Dinah, I haven't read anyone else's response to your post, but I was perusing the thread concerning Dr. Bob's administration of this board and the use of blocking people, and as a researcher, I wanted to offer my opinion that perhaps stymies the average user of this board:
First of all, I think it was another post of yours in which you said you were looking at the message boards of a news site and you implied that the lack of moderation makes it difficult to bear. I have had the same problem, to where I've notified the FCC about some of those sites because of the filthy and hateful language that can be seen by anyone. You are right that Dr. Bob's civility standards make this a much more pleasant board.
To answer your question in this thread, though, Dr. Bob IS conducting research. It is counter-productive to the researcher when people just start name-calling and arguing. He is looking for specific information, and that information is obscured by incivility. He did not set up these boards so that people can verbally abuse others, he is looking at the psychology behind interactions of people who are supposedly under psychiatric care of some kind. If he wasn't conducting this research, my guess is that hosting a board like this would not be productive to his career, as it seems to take a lot of his time and patience just to moderate this board.
I am perplexed by those people who do not agree with Dr. Bob's moderation, and who submit posts criticizing him. They have the choice of just not reading this board ever again, and why they insist on being troublemakers instead is beyond me. Their meds may not be working! Or they are not on them, and may need to be. This is not a public forum, though people may think it is because it is on the Internet. It is really a private forum, we "sign" agreements to use this board according to Dr. Bob's rules, and anyone who ends up disagreeing with those rules just needs to un-bookmark this site from their browser.
In addition to moderating this site, Dr. Bob and his staff still need to evaluate every post for the research information they are seeking, which I always assumed was much more about medication and psychiatric care than about the administration of this site.
I commend Dr. Bob for conducting this kind of research, because it is the hardest to evaluate yet is probably going to be very helpful to the psychiatric community as a whole.
Posted by lou pilder on March 23, 2003, at 11:53:14
In reply to Re: Shutting down the Babbles » Dinah, posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 11:25:43
ayuda,
You wrote,[...those that criticize Dr. Bob...have the choice of not reading...why they insist on being {troublemakers}instead is beyond me...].
Could you clarify if you are saying that those that criticize Dr. Bob are thearfore {troublemakers}? If you are concluding that those that criticize Dr. Bob are troublemakers, then could you clarify what your rational is to make that conclusion? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of what you wrote, for it is my understanding that no one is infallible and that different points of view about the administration of this site, as well as other topics, is welcomed by Dr. Bob in the administrative board.
Lou
Posted by Lou pilder on March 23, 2003, at 13:24:29
In reply to Re: Shutting down the Babbles » Dinah, posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 11:25:43
ayuda,
You wrote,[...as a {researcher},I wanted to offer my {opinion}...].
Are you saying that you are presenting yourself with some type of credential, as being a researcher, so that a degree of credibility would be projected to the content of your post? If so, could you identify the credential that you have to purport that you are a {researcher}? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of the credential and how, if at all, it gives more credibility to this discussion vs. someone else's post that is not presenting themselves with a credential, and be better able to respond to your post.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2003, at 13:38:22
In reply to Re: Shutting down the Babbles » Dinah, posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 11:25:43
Hi Ayuda,
Good heavens! I had forgotten making that post. And reading it over, I am almost embarassed. A clarification. When I said that Dr. Bob did as good a job as anyone could, I am sure I meant that no one could do a perfect job, and his errors were no greater or less than anyone would make. I didn't mean to puff Dr. Bob up there. :)
But I still can't imagine that Dr. Bob gets nearly enough research material to justify the trouble involved in running this site. And in that I'm not commenting on his research. I'm saying that I can see the not inconsiderable trouble and headaches.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 13:40:32
In reply to Re: Shutting down the Babbles » Dinah, posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 11:25:43
ayuda,
You wrote,[...their meds are not working...or are not on them...and may need to be...]. You associated the people that [...do not agree with Dr. Bob's moderation...] with the people who may need to be on {med}s, and are the meds that you are referring to, psychotropic drugs?
If so,are you implying that:
A. People that do not agree, may need to be on psychotropic drugs?
B. Just people that do not agree with Dr. Bob's moderation of this board, may need to be on psychotropic drugs?
C. The only way to treat these afflictions is with neuroleptic or psychotropic drugs?
D. some combination of the above which is___
E. none of the above
F. something different which is_____
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 13:44:43
In reply to Re: Shutting down the Babbles » ayuda, posted by Dinah on March 23, 2003, at 13:38:22
Dinah,
You wrote,[...I can not see the {not}...trouble and...].
Could you write that statement over again with ,perhaps, a correction to it? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of the statement.
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2003, at 13:49:49
In reply to Lou's question to Dinah » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 13:44:43
Sorry Lou. I'm rather fond of double negatives used with purpose. I meant that it is apparent that running this site is a lot of trouble and headaches. I really can't be more clear than that.
And if you don't think this site is a lot of trouble to administrate, I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Best wishes to you Lou.
Dinah
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 14:00:39
In reply to Re: Lou's question to Dinah, posted by Dinah on March 23, 2003, at 13:49:49
Dinah,
Thanks for the clarification by rewriting your statement so that the {not}, as it was placed in your original statement, was taken out so that I could have the understanding that I requested.
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2003, at 14:05:48
In reply to Re: Lou's question to Dinah » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 14:00:39
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.