![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 95 to 119 of 187. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on April 8, 2003, at 12:05:48
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dr. Bob's post-LR-3, posted by Dr. Bob on April 8, 2003, at 11:19:20
It might get a bit confusing to remember who has requested me not to speak to them. Can you attach a flowchart or something?
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 12:36:07
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dr. Bob's post-LR-2, posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2003, at 23:23:21
Dr. Bob,
You wrote,[...posters are free to decide whom they ask not to direct posts to them...].
I disagree with your conclusion, for I feel that the aspect of [supportivness and education] is violated by the poster that writes that [so-and- so] is not to ask them something about what they wrote, {even [if]} the statement that the origianal poster wrote was not directed to the poster requesting clarification.
Let us consider the following example:
beardedlady: The best herb for seasickness is licorice
IsoM: I live on the coast and grow some wicked licorice.
Lou: beardedlady, Have you compared licorice with dramamine
beardedlady: I told you, Lou, not to ever write to me, last week. I'm going to get Dr. Bob to block you for writing to me.
Now, is this what you are saying could happen here? The refusal to the request for clarification , in this case, denies support, for the posters accomodation of [their wanting to exclude another poster here from being a {full} participant}] becomes more important than the goal of this site , which is for support and education. If this is so, could you reply and I will reply accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 12:51:29
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dr. Bob's post-LR-2, posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2003, at 23:23:21
Dr. Bob,
You wrote,[...since if {nobody} can post to {anybody}, it won't be very supportive here...].
Could you clarify the above statement of yours? If you could, then I could then incorperate your clarification with the rest of what you wrote.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 13:06:38
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dr. Bob's post-LR-4 » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 12:36:07
Dr. Bob,
Let us consider this example:
beardedlady: The best herb for seasickness is licorice.
IsoM: I grow some wicked licorice. Is it good for diarrhea?
beardedlady: I use other things that are better for diarrhea, IsoM
NikkiT2: Here in the United Kingdom,seasickness is a serious problem.
Lou: How do people in the UK deal with seasickness, Nikki?
NikkiT2: I told you several months ago not to ever reply to me.
Now in the above case, the person requesting clarification is {not} the person that originated the topic. Could you clarify if the policy here would include, or not include, this situation? If you could, then I could respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by OddipusRex on April 8, 2003, at 13:22:02
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dr. Bob's post-LR-3, posted by Dr. Bob on April 8, 2003, at 11:19:20
Dear Bob,
How are you? I am fine. By the way here are some of my thoughts about a post from someone I'm on nospeakers with. Thought you might be interested. (Are you sure this is a good idea?)
>
> Here's what I see:
> Someone wrote a post asking for help because she was addicted to war coverage. She couldn't get going or motivated to do anything and would just sit all day watching the war. I suggested she use the telly as a reward for getting other things done. She absolutely couldn't watch the war coverage unless she accomplished certain things, and then she could allow herself a little bit of time, but she'd have to do other things to get more time.
>
> Oddipus Rex posted something to me that wasn't exactly kind. How could I call watching the war a reward, she wanted to know. It's as if her radar zoomed in on a word without zooming in on a context.
_______________________
I posted that I couldn't imagine anyone using watching the war as a reward. I can't imagine that. Simple statement of fact.
______________________
> A week or so later, on PB, I was talking about how people who are crying for help will usually leave clues about suicide or talk about plans for it. I mentioned that my neighbor didn't do those things, but she tried it in her house and left the stereo blasting so someone would have to come in. I added something to the effect of, "Of course, she tried it with Tylenol." My meaning was that she wouldn't die quickly, so the girl's mom would find her when her mom got home from work.
>
> Oddipus posted that she didn't know what I was "implying" with that "comment."
__________________________________________________________________________
I posted about how dangerous Tylenol ODs were because you need to get help before it becomes obvious that you need help. My point was that although someone may think she will be found in plenty of time there is damage being done from a relatively short time after the OD is taken. My thought was that someone reading the board might take a Tylenol OD and think she was not in any danger because she was not feeling any symptoms. I said in my post that I didn't mean any offense to B as I wasn't sure what she meant by her remark. And I didn't. Was she meaning there was a long window of opportunity for rescue or did she mean exactly what I meant? (That the girl thought she would be rescued undamaged but of course she took Tylenol which is more dangerous than a teenager might realize)She posted back that she never took offense. And "Remark what Remark? I didn't make any Remark. "
I took her at her word that she wasn't offended. I was baffled by the Remark Remark. I looked it up in the dictionary but I still didn't know what she meant. She had posted to me on admin that she was more interested in grammar than ideas so I supposed she was making some arcane point about language usage. I was just trying to convey an idea and wasn't interested in having my grammar/vocabulary critiqued so I didn't respond.
_________________________________________________________________
looking for an apology from Dr. Bob, a man who never apologizes. I'm with her on this, of course. So I say, "You're kidding, right?" because none of us has ever seen Bob go back on or apologize for a PBA or a comment he's made.
>
> And then I'M told not to post to HER again.
______________________________________________________________-
I thought of it as a request. I just didn't think I wanted to defend myself to her. I'm tired. I misinterpreted her remark this time but from the interpretation she's been giving some of my other posts......It was probably an even better idea than I thought at the time. If somebody wants to think the worst of you you just can't stop them can you? And I don't think I'm depriving myself of her wit and wisdom I think of it more as enjoying it from a safe distance. And she'll probably like me better if I don't post to her. At least now I can be pretty sure she won't like me any less.__________________________________________________________________________>
> Maybe I'm the one who doesn't get it. Here I am thinking she constantly accuses me of having some other meaning, of being underhanded, of bei> ng a cheerleader for televised death, of who knows what with Tylenol, and now I'M being told to lay off.>
_________________________________________________
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 8, 2003, at 13:24:01
In reply to Lou's response to Dr. Bob's post-LR-6 » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 13:06:38
> Let us consider the following example:
> beardedlady: The best herb for seasickness is licorice
> IsoM: I live on the coast and grow some wicked licorice.
> Lou: beardedlady, Have you compared licorice with dramamine
> beardedlady: I told you, Lou, not to ever write to me, last week. I'm going to get Dr. Bob to block you for writing to me.
> Now, is this what you are saying could happen here?Yes.
> Let us consider this example:
> beardedlady: The best herb for seasickness is licorice.
> IsoM: I grow some wicked licorice. Is it good for diarrhea?
> beardedlady: I use other things that are better for diarrhea, IsoM
> NikkiT2: Here in the United Kingdom,seasickness is a serious problem.
> Lou: How do people in the UK deal with seasickness, Nikki?
> NikkiT2: I told you several months ago not to ever reply to me.
> Now in the above case, the person requesting clarification is {not} the person that originated the topic.If A asks B not to direct any posts to them, B shouldn't, even in a thread started by C.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 14:14:16
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dr. Bob's post-LR-2, posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2003, at 23:23:21
Dr. Bob,
You wrote,[...posters here can declare that a particular poster is not to reply to them...].
Let's consider the following example;
beadedlady: the best herb for seasickness is licorice.
IsoM: I grow somw wicked licorice.
Lou: Have you compared licorice to dramamine, beadedlady?
beadedlady: I have designated that you can not request an answer from me about what I write.
coral: I would like to know if you have compared licorice with dramamine, beadedlady, for I am going on a sea-cruise.
beadedlady: I'll answer you, coral, but not Lou. The answer is that I am in the process of making that comparison, so I won't know untill I get seasick again.
Are you saying that you will allow this situation here?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 17:09:11
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dr. Bob's post-LR-2, posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2003, at 23:23:21
Dr. Bob,
You wrote,[...a request that no one reply is unreasonable...].
Well, I agre with that, but I also disagree with you in the sense that you say that posters can tell another poster here that they can not respond to them unless they direct a stement to them in particular. The way I feel is that if it is unreasonable for one to invoke that no one replys to them, then I feel it is just as unreasonable for a poster to tell just one poster to not reply to them.
Let us consider the following example:
Jeanie: I have been reading this board and you're all psycho-babble hypocrites. And don't anyone respond to me.
Now the above case, if your policy was followed, would that mean that anyone that replied to Jeanie, would be in violation of your rule?
Now let us consider another case:
Lou: There is a new drug out that will stop depression permanatly and free you from any addiction just by taking one pill, and I am invoking that the following be not allowed to ask me anything:
coral
Jonathan
NikkiT2
beadedlady
shar
noa
IsoM
Dinah
Dr. Bob
St.James
jay
OCDDitty
trouble
CamW
3-beers
lostboy in Boston
paxvox
Fi
rayww
Dena
Miller
Wendy B
Would this type of post be permitted her?
Lou
Posted by coral on April 8, 2003, at 18:12:18
In reply to Lou's response to Dr. Bob's post-LR-8 » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 17:09:11
What Coral says is to please leave my name out of this.
Coral
P.S. I realize there are other Corals in the world but I believe I'm the only one on here.
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 20:21:39
In reply to What Coral says . . . , posted by coral on April 8, 2003, at 18:12:18
coral,
I am always willing to accomodate any reasonable request here. For instance, NikkiT2 wanted me to quote to her instead of paraphrase, and I thought that that was a reasonable request and I have made a note to respond to her in that way that she preferrrs. But I feel that it is grossly unreasonable for someone here to request for me to not ask them to clarify something that they wrote. The example that I gave was to examine it to see if that is a type of post that could be posted here under the proposed policy that this administrative board is discussing. I included your name because I have been in discussions with you and it appears to me that you also agreed with the poster here that wanted to make a policy that, in effect, could deny me the opportunity to respond to another poster when I needed clarification of what they wrote, if the other poster invoked that I could not ask for clarification.
So I asked in my example if I could exclude those in the list, as to whether it would be acceptable here. But I would never even have my mind entertain such a thought as to tell someone that they can't ask me to clarify what I wrote, so you do not have to be concerned about that, if that was a concern of yours. I feel that to tell one to not be involved with me in a discussion on a public forum is an insult to the purpose of the advancement of mental-health and is a cruel and demeaning method that could have the potential to stigmatize and segregate and/or [ostracize] the one that is being told that they can't request clarification from them from what they wrote, and I consider any attempt to ostracize someone, and more so on a mental health board, to be extreamly cruel to the person that is being ostracized.
Lou
Posted by paxvox on April 8, 2003, at 20:44:08
In reply to Re: putting people on the spot, posted by Dr. Bob on April 4, 2003, at 11:33:49
Unless you hold the pen.
PAX
Posted by paxvox on April 8, 2003, at 20:50:47
In reply to Lou's response to Dr. Bob's post-LR-8 » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 17:09:11
Lou, I must say I am damned touched to have made your list. I will further clarify this statement so that even a board could understand it: WHY?
Are you THAT messed up man? I don't think any further clarification would do. You don't WANT clarification, you want amplification and escalation to the degree of exasperation. Sometimes a freaking cigar is just a cigar!
Have a nice day,Your pal
PAX
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 20:53:55
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dr. Bob's post-LR-8, posted by paxvox on April 8, 2003, at 20:50:47
paxvox,
You wrote,[...Why are you that messed up?...]
I was born that way.
Lou
Posted by paxvox on April 8, 2003, at 21:08:52
In reply to Lou's response to paxvox's post-LR-8b » paxvox, posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 20:53:55
At last. A straight response. Now I'll be happy to discuss issues with you. Just don't over-analyze every post for substrata. Some things ARE just black or white. You draw criticism because your comments are perceived by others as attempts to draw them into a mindless spin. You are obviously rather intelligent. Sometimes that means thinking twice and speaking (writing) once. I have no malice for you, but I must admit, you have frustrated me at times. I would gladly respond to your inquiries if I thought they were not just mazes. I don't need more than just A)what's your question and B)here's my response.
I feel that you would be much better received by the boards if you approached things more simply and directly without the circuitous meandering you solicit. Now, I write this without any anger toward you, just as a suggestion. There need not be clarification.
PAX
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 21:21:22
In reply to Re: Lou's response to paxvox's post-LR-8b, posted by paxvox on April 8, 2003, at 21:08:52
paxvox,
You wrote,[...you are criticized by others (because they {perceive} what you wrote as an attempt to draw them into a mindless spin}...].
What would you be baseing that conclusion on, for could there be an alternitive to your thought on why others criticize me ? Perhaps could it be that others criticise me in an attempt to defame me?
Lou
Posted by noa on April 8, 2003, at 22:09:49
In reply to Lou's response to paxvox's post-LR-8c » paxvox, posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 21:21:22
Lou, I honestly don't think anyone is out to defame you. I think that sometimes disagreements happen, and people get mad and nasty exchanges happen. But I don't think the motivation is defamation.
I think that the frustration we see from all the posters who are asking you not to request so much clarification is not about defamation. It is truly frustration, and wanting the conversation to flow more normally and less like being cross examined in a trial.
Let me clarify one thing--by what I've said here, I mean to express my impressions of others' motivations, and I'm generalizing. I am obviously not a mindreader, so I cannot vouch for every single poster's motivations. But I really believe that on the whole, the motivation is not anything like defamation.
For example, if you notice, there is another set of threads here on this admin board lately, that has nothing to do with you, and which clearly involves a lot of angry and hurt feelings and misunderstandings. But I don't think anyone set out to defame anyone else. Sure, in anger, people said things that hurt others. But I really don't see defamation as driving any of it.
Just my impressions.
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 22:22:08
In reply to Re: Lou's response to paxvox's post-LR-8c, posted by noa on April 8, 2003, at 22:09:49
noa,
You wrote,[...I don't think that the motive is defamation ...].
Would you consider the following, as prima facie that the motivation {could} be to defame?
Example:
[..Lou, you disagree with Dr. Bob's rules here and those that disagree with his moderation of the board are troublmakers and have emotional problems...].
Lou
Posted by noa on April 8, 2003, at 22:58:45
In reply to Lou's response to noa's post-LR-8c-d » noa, posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 22:22:08
I can't say what the motivation is, but it certainly seems like a hostile comment. True, it could be that it is somehow out of context, and if so, one clarification question might be able to clear it up.
But once I got a sense of whether i thought the comment was intentionally hostile or totally a mistake, I think I wouldn't press for clarification any more. First of all, if a person isn't going to respond to one clarification request, they seem unlikely to respond to subsequent ones. Second, if it was totally inadvertant, they would like tell you so.
Also, if I determined that the hostile remark was intentional, I would probably not want to be continuing to converse with the person who is hostil toward me. If it was a misunderstanding, I think I'd probably get a response right away if I stated something like,
"Did you mean to imply that I am a trouble maker with emotional problems? First of all, It wouldn't be unique to have emotional problems here--that is what this board is about. but secondly, if you are implying that disagreeing with Dr. Bob's rules means that I'm an emotionally disturbed troublemaker, I don't agree with that and I am hurt and offended by that."
But I wouldn't want to continue a back and forth of hostile posts. I would want to drop it and move on. And, if the person didn't answer me, so be it. It might be hard, but it would be time to let go of that one.
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 23:23:08
In reply to Re: Lou's response to noa's post-LR-8c-d, posted by noa on April 8, 2003, at 22:58:45
noa,
You wrote,[...one clarification question might clear it up...].
I agree with you on that and that is why I ask for clarification, to clear it up, not to {...put people on the spot...]. Generally, they do not respond to my request with an answer to my request for clarification. So ,in general, ther is usually only one request for clarification from me and if there is an answer given that also needs to be clarified, then I usually ask only once for additional clarification which is pretty much as you have written as to what you would do,[...in my shoes...].
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 9, 2003, at 0:25:39
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dr. Bob's post-LR-8, posted by paxvox on April 8, 2003, at 20:50:47
> Are you THAT messed up man?
Please be sensitive to the feelings of others and don't post anything that could lead them to feel accused or put down. This has come up before, so I'm going to block you from posting for two weeks again.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 9, 2003, at 1:02:03
In reply to Lou's respomse to coral's post-LR » coral, posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 20:21:39
> Let's consider the following example;
> beadedlady: the best herb for seasickness is licorice.
> IsoM: I grow somw wicked licorice.
> Lou: Have you compared licorice to dramamine, beadedlady?
> beadedlady: I have designated that you can not request an answer from me about what I write.
> coral: I would like to know if you have compared licorice with dramamine, beadedlady, for I am going on a sea-cruise.
> beadedlady: I'll answer you, coral, but not Lou. The answer is that I am in the process of making that comparison, so I won't know untill I get seasick again.
> Are you saying that you will allow this situation here?Yes.
> > I'd like the requests to be reasonable. Since if nobody can post to anybody, it won't be very supportive here. And I'd consider a request that no one reply to be unreasonable.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030404/msgs/217289.html> Let us consider the following example:
> Jeanie: I have been reading this board and you're all psycho-babble hypocrites. And don't anyone respond to me.
> Now the above case, if your policy was followed, would that mean that anyone that replied to Jeanie, would be in violation of your rule?No, people could respond to her, because I'd consider her request (that people not respond to her) to be unreasonable (and her post to be uncivil).
> Now let us consider another case:
> Lou: There is a new drug out that will stop depression permanatly and free you from any addiction just by taking one pill, and I am invoking that the following be not allowed to ask me anything:
> ...
> Would this type of post be permitted her?Yes, that type of post would be permitted, since it isn't uncivil, but those people could still respond to you, because I'd consider your request also to be unreasonable. Since there's no apparent reason for it.
----
> a policy that, in effect, could deny me the opportunity to respond to another poster when I needed clarification of what they wrote
>
> I feel that to tell one to not be involved with me in a discussion on a public forum is an insult to the purpose of the advancement of mental-health and is a cruel and demeaning method that could have the potential to stigmatize and segregate and/or [ostracize]1. I think it's more important for people not to feel harassed than for people to be able to ask questions.
2. The issue here is one person asking a second person not to post to them, not the first person asking others not to post to the second person.
3. Unfortunately, I do think people who are asked not to post to others could end up stigmatized.
4. For someone who wanted to preserve their freedom to post to someone else -- to maintain their relationship with them -- I think it would go a long way to take into account that person's feelings.
Bob
Posted by OddipusRex on April 9, 2003, at 5:22:22
In reply to Lou's response to paxvox's post-LR-8b » paxvox, posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2003, at 20:53:55
> paxvox,
> You wrote,[...Why are you that messed up?...]
> I was born that way.
> LouYou're not messed up Lou.
Posted by NikkiT2 on April 9, 2003, at 8:17:43
In reply to (((((((((((((((Lou))))))))))))))))) » Lou Pilder, posted by OddipusRex on April 9, 2003, at 5:22:22
This is only from my own personal perspective, so I am not talking for everyone here.. but I think others might share my view.
When you ask fro clarification, you very rarely just post one simple post asking for this. You post a whole list of posts, often asking the same question but in different words. This makes me feel very pressured, and makes me very anxious, which in turn makes me angry. I don't deal very well with pressure at all.
Maybe if you could simplify your requests, into one post, that clearly states which part of a post you wish to be clarified, and just ask "did you mean xxx, as my understanding of it is yyy"Its when you post 4 or 5 replies, asking for one part of apost to be clarified, that my mind just gives in. I also find them very hard to follow, and end up not knowing what it is you're asking.
I think it is also important to remember that we *all* have problems of some kind here, else we wouldn't be posting here.
Your mind obviously works in complex ways, but would it be possible to try and simplify your posts please.. would hopefully cause less problems, and make life easier for everyone.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 9, 2003, at 9:09:28
In reply to Lou, posted by NikkiT2 on April 9, 2003, at 8:17:43
NikkiT2,
You wrote, "When you ask fro clarification, you very rarely just post one simple post asking for this."
Now it would take a great endevor to categorize all of the posts, relevant to your conclusion, to determine the accuracy of your statement. There are two types of requests for clarification in question, one being a one-sentance request, and the other the list of choices. I feel that the [list of choices] is a good way to separate possible things in order to facilllitate clarification, not for any other reason, and I feel that the list makes it simpler for one to reply so that clarification could be given.
However I feel that if I ask for clarification, that the one being asked could ask me to clarify my request for clarification if they need assistance to comprehend the request and then we could continue after that was clarified. My goal in asking for clarification is to further the goals of this forum , which is for support and education, and I feel that clarification is a good way to foster this.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 9, 2003, at 9:58:26
In reply to (((((((((((((((Lou))))))))))))))))) » Lou Pilder, posted by OddipusRex on April 9, 2003, at 5:22:22
OddipusRex,
You wrote,[...you are not messed up, Lou...].
Well, being messed up is in the eye of the bemesseder?
Lou
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.