![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 36. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by crushedout on June 28, 2004, at 7:33:47
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20040624/msgs/361238.htmlExplain this one to me. I get a PBC (for a statement you took completely out of context -- I said that other people *said* it was hurtful to them, which is just true) and you don't PBC fires?????
What are you thinking? Is fires your buddy or something? I don't get it.
Posted by TofuEmmy on June 28, 2004, at 8:46:44
In reply to you've got to be kidding me, Dr. Bob, posted by crushedout on June 28, 2004, at 7:33:47
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20040624/msgs/361001.html
"It is illegal to practice psychotherapy without a license"
That is from fires, accusing Shadows of trying to practice psychotherapy without a license. She was simply offering support. This is not being uncivil?
Emmy
Also known as Emily4040 at http://forums.grohol.com/
Posted by TofuEmmy on June 28, 2004, at 9:16:01
In reply to Re: ditto, Dr. Bob. This is so discouraging, posted by TofuEmmy on June 28, 2004, at 8:46:44
Bob - The PCB to Crushed, after all we went through with Fires, feels SO uncalled for, SO unnecessary. It feels like you WANT to piss us off. Seriously, it does feel that way to me. It feels to me like a move in some game you are playing.
Are you trying to weed out the unruly instigators so we will leave Babble? I'm seriously at a loss to understand the method behind your...um...decision making process.
Emmy
Also known as Emily4040 at http://forums.grohol.com/
Posted by Dinah on June 28, 2004, at 11:13:04
In reply to ditto, Dr. Bob. This is so discouraging Part II, posted by TofuEmmy on June 28, 2004, at 9:16:01
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20040624/msgs/361306.html
Posted by Dinah on June 28, 2004, at 13:11:01
In reply to ditto, Dr. Bob. This is so discouraging Part II, posted by TofuEmmy on June 28, 2004, at 9:16:01
Posters X and Y were not considered uncivil, no matter how hurt posters felt at their comments, because they were speaking clinically not personally.
No matter how much pain a clinical description or observation may cause, it's not considered uncivil. I don't have clarity on whether or not the clinical description has to have any support or whether it can just be pure speculation or brand new theory. Nor am I completely clear on whether a poster has to admit to a diagnosis before the clinical descriptions can be used, or if the would be clinician can just speculate on a poster's diagnosis.
That's it. That's the rule. Period.
The only allowable recourse on this board is a do not post to me request. Dr. Bob will not provide any other sort of protection or administrative action.
Dr. Bob, do I have the basics right?
Posted by gardenergirl on June 28, 2004, at 13:58:56
In reply to Ok. I get the civility guideline in effect now., posted by Dinah on June 28, 2004, at 13:11:01
> Nor am I completely clear on whether a poster has to admit to a diagnosis before the clinical descriptions can be used, or if the would be clinician can just speculate on a poster's diagnosis.
Dinah, I don't know if part of the above is referring to a post directed to me, but I feel this gives me a chance to express a hurt which I have not expressed directly before on this board. And since it still bugs me and is not acknowledged otherwise, as in a PBC, I feel like I have to dredge it up. (sorry if you were not referring to this, but I'm taking the opportunity anyway.) :)
I felt extremely offended and outraged when a poster suggested that perhaps I don't really have a specific diagnosis, and that perhaps I was attempting to gather a potential caseload of clients with that diagnosis. First, I have never posted or suggested I had that diagnosis. So, it would seem that by suggesting I may be "faking it," I felt diagnosed by the said poster. I do not believe this is appropriate in any circumstances on this board.
In addition, the poster suggested that my posts could be made in order to gain a future financial reward via what I would consider to be unethical activities. I again felt highly offended by the implications suggested.
On the other hand, I am willing to consider the possiblity that said poster felt hurt or threatened by something I had posted prior. Still, responding with an uncivil post, and I know in MY head and heart it was not civil, should not go unacknowledged. So I am acknowledging it here.
I believe crushed was doing the same thing, but unfortunately left out the words "others have stated they have been" hurt.
Why not a please rephrase anywhere on the thread? I saw what could be considered to be
ample opportunities.gg
Posted by crushedout on June 28, 2004, at 16:57:44
In reply to Re: Ok. I get the civility guideline in effect now., posted by gardenergirl on June 28, 2004, at 13:58:56
I didn't? Well, I believe you, gg, if you say it's true. That's what I meant to say, anyway, as you point out. I don't think it's an attack in any case, just a statement of fact about the effect fires' posts had on many (most? all?) babblers.
Posted by Dinah on June 28, 2004, at 21:28:51
In reply to Re: Ok. I get the civility guideline in effect now., posted by gardenergirl on June 28, 2004, at 13:58:56
I don't know where the post to you fit in to the idea of comments that hurt being ok as long as they are clinical. I don't think it fits at all. Dr. Bob must have made that part of the ruling on another subset of the civility code. Perhaps he thought the poster was joking, or perhaps it's because the poster put in a maybe.
I just wanted to explain the one part of this business that I now understand Dr. Bob's position on and now realize that discussion with him is fruitless on.
I'm really sorry that you were hurt. If it makes any difference, I don't think the poster in question actually knows any of us, and I doubt knew that you were anything other than a therapy client, and probably guessed you had been diagnosed with DID. After all, the poster didn't even know what DID was a week ago. So his remark wasn't made to *you* Gardenergirl, but just to an anonymous "person who falsely believed they had the fraudulent diagnosis of DID." That probably doesn't make it hurt less though.
((((Gardenergirl))))
Posted by Shar on June 28, 2004, at 23:28:25
In reply to Ok. I get the civility guideline in effect now., posted by Dinah on June 28, 2004, at 13:11:01
ooooohh!! All I have to do is be clinical?!
Hey! I can do that!! I'm overeducated, and that might as well go to some good!!
Shar
Posted by shadows721 on June 29, 2004, at 0:07:23
In reply to Alrighty, then!!, posted by Shar on June 28, 2004, at 23:28:25
Shar,
Please send me some of your educated mind. I feel this is already way over my current brain power. Maybe, I am poster X & Y. I do have that illness.
Posted by gardenergirl on June 29, 2004, at 2:32:31
In reply to I thought I said others have said... blah blah, posted by crushedout on June 28, 2004, at 16:57:44
You know what? You are right. I was just going on what Dr. Bob had cut and pasted from your post. When i went back to your original post, I found this:
>>...I mean, other than "helping" people who keep making clear that your "help" is hurtful to them?
So you are correct. You DID say that it was coming from others that they were hurt. To me, that is not uncivil, you are summarizing what was on the thread.
Sorry for not checking things out before posting. Although I was trying to agree with you and the others. Oops. I'll go to the original source first next time.
Thanks,
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on June 29, 2004, at 2:38:21
In reply to Re: Ok. I get the civility guideline in effect now. » gardenergirl, posted by Dinah on June 28, 2004, at 21:28:51
Dinah,
Thanks for listening to me vent. It was this statement in your post that I related to:>>...or if the would be clinician can just speculate on a poster's diagnosis.
And thanks for the reassurance about it not being personal. It does feel that way. But that is part of my sensitivity. :)
And of course I don't agree that hurt if okay as long as it is clinical. Ugh, imagine what therapy would be like (and unfortunately, probably is sometimes with some T's.)
You know, at times like this, I tend to have the Serenity Prayer pop into my head. Definitely need to work on the wisdom part for me. Seems like you are doing a good job with that. :)
take care,
gg
Posted by Dinah on June 29, 2004, at 6:02:59
In reply to Re: Ok. I get the civility guideline in effect now. » Dinah, posted by gardenergirl on June 29, 2004, at 2:38:21
Oh, sorry, the would be clinician certainly didn't refer to you, it referred posters x and y. :)
For some reason I can't fathom, yet will probably need to work on in therapy, knowing the precise rules, even if they cause me pain, is somehow comforting. In case that was true of anyone else, I just wanted to share.
Posted by Dinah on June 29, 2004, at 6:04:34
In reply to Re: Alrighty, then!!, posted by shadows721 on June 29, 2004, at 0:07:23
I'm sorry if my use of X and Y caused anyone to believe I was speaking of them. I certainly didn't mean you. I actually am not sure why I can't just say their names since Dr. Bob has ruled that they are not uncivil. If it's ok with Bob, I will.
Posted by shadows721 on June 29, 2004, at 11:22:17
In reply to Re: Alrighty, then!! » shadows721, posted by Dinah on June 29, 2004, at 6:04:34
Oh, no, I thought your analygy was awesome. I think that was very thoughtful. Personally, I feel that I am the one that still remains ignorant.
I mean if someone went on some medicine support board and did a topic like this DIRECTLY. It would look sorta like this (REMEMBER, THIS IS ONLY ANALOGY)......
You know what people? All your meds will not make you any better. I know this for a fact, because I did that med trip for years. In fact, all your meds will make you worse. I can tell from your posts that these meds aren't helping you anyway. Oh, by the way, you guys dx with Z, you are fakers. You are just upping business of med reps. Yeah, to you guys with dx Z, I would like to see a movie on one of you for the fun of it. I saw someone dx with Z in the hosp once and you didn't look real to me. Ha Ha. Oh, and to the faker talking about your pain, I don't understand what you are saying Man? Help??? Hey, fakers, look at these websites about you. Oh, a long time ago, I went to some big seminar and this expert on you guys said your symptoms are as real as snow on the Sun. Of course, you people with dx Z get worse with tx. He He. Oh, to the Dude that told me what I was doing was wrong, well I was done anyway. Now, everyone listen to me. You have to stop talking and you can't talk anymore about this topic, because I am done dudes. Ha Ha. Later people. Thanks for being so nice. I have enjoyed this. Ha Ha.
Of course, this doesn't look like a clinical debate and a direct attack. Dr. Bob would have intervened immediately on this person. But can't one say the same thing indirectly? As I said in a post way up the line here, indirect attacks are just as hurtful as direct to me. I don't have thick skin and never did.
I do feel someone giving these types of messages indirectly or directly should have gotten a warning. But, I am the one that still remains in the dark. I am really sorry that anyone has to be subjected to this type of abuse directly or indirectly. I feel there is always an aftermath from abuse.
Posted by Dinah on June 29, 2004, at 15:41:41
In reply to Indirect messages are as hurtful to me., posted by shadows721 on June 29, 2004, at 11:22:17
I agree with you entirely. However, I fear we've hit a brick wall here and pounding our heads on it further will only hurt *us*. At least I have found that true in the past when Dr. Bob has decided on a viewpoint.
I don't understand this one *at all*, and I can only imagine that it is a result of some professional blindness (as a most charitable conclusion) on Dr. Bob's part. Perhaps he's so used to sitting around with other professionals and discussing clients impersonally that he isn't able to grasp the difference between a clinical discussion among peers and the same discussion among non-professionals on a site that *we* at least feel is primarily for support. Or perhaps Dr. Bob's view of Babble is a bit different from ours, and the supportive nature of Psychological Babble is a bit different than his vision of what it should be. Maybe he envisions it more along the lines of the medication board? And doesn't understand the difference between medication and chemical compositions and side effects and the therapy board and relationships and philosophy.
All of which is just speculation as I try to make Dr. Bob's stance palatable enough for me to be able to continue to post.
Posted by crushedout on June 29, 2004, at 16:52:28
In reply to Re: I thought I said others have said... blah blah » crushedout, posted by gardenergirl on June 29, 2004, at 2:32:31
You're entirely forgiven, gg. Thanks for clearing that up. I'm glad my memory served me well. And this whole thing is so infuriating, I could scream.
Posted by shadows721 on June 29, 2004, at 17:14:36
In reply to Re: I thought I said others have said... blah blah » gardenergirl, posted by crushedout on June 29, 2004, at 16:52:28
I can truly understand your feelings crushedout. I mean that.
Posted by tabitha on June 29, 2004, at 23:42:21
In reply to Indirect messages are as hurtful to me., posted by shadows721 on June 29, 2004, at 11:22:17
> You know what people? All your meds will not make you any better. I know this for a fact, because I did that med trip for years. In fact, all your meds will make you worse. ...
Wow, what a tidy summary of the message you're hearing. I tried to think of what I'm hearing. Of course this is just my filter, and may not be the message that anyone is intending to send at all. It probably shows a lot more about me than about anyone else, but here's how it goes:
'Hi everyone, I'm new here. I had some really bad experiences with therapy. It didn't help me at all, then I got some meds and I'm so much better. I'm really mad at those therapists for not helping me and not giving me the meds I needed. I don't like feeling helpless and hurt by therapists. Feeling hurt is scary-- it feels better to be mad at them. Here are a whole bunch of websites about how therapists are frauds and don't know what they're talking about. I feel better and better the more I can find reasons to look down on those therapists who didn't give me the help I needed. I'd feel even better if I could get some more people to agree with me and help me stay mad at therapists. Maybe I can even help other people avoid getting hurt by therapists. Yeah, that's what I'll do!
... Hey, what's happening here on this website? Why doesn't anyone appreciate my efforts to protect them from being hurt the way I was? Somebody said *I* was the one hurting people. That is so unfair, I'm just trying to help! I get really hurt and mad when I'm mistrusted and misunderstood like that. It's scary to tell people I'm hurt and mad, so I won't. It feels better to turn the tables on them and show them how I feel by saying things to try and make them feel the same way.
... And why do these people keep asking me about my feelings? They sound just like those therapists! No way am I going to tell these people about my feelings. When people ask about your feelings they are just trying to take advantage of you or confuse you or trick you. I'm not falling for that one. Besides, I don't need to think about my feelings. It's more important to use logical reasoning anyway. Wow, these people really aren't very scientific are they? They are talking gobbeldegook just like those therapists. I don't understand a bit of it.
... I don't understand why this didn't go the way I wanted it to. Oh well, at least arguing with these people gives me energy and keeps me from thinking about other things that don't feel good in my life right now.'
Posted by Dinah on June 29, 2004, at 23:46:30
In reply to Re: Indirect messages, posted by tabitha on June 29, 2004, at 23:42:21
Posted by Dinah on June 30, 2004, at 0:12:11
In reply to Re: Indirect messages, posted by tabitha on June 29, 2004, at 23:42:21
But...
If I were to name myself Flame, and enter a website proclaiming that I had been attacked at other websites for saying XXXXX, and took the time to look up a subject that I had absolutely no familiarity with but that another poster had expressed vulnerability to, I don't think that bewilderment would be my first response at posters' anger or expressed hurt to my saying XXXXX, YYYYYY, or even ZZZZZ. And even if I were bewildered or surprised, I'd kind of catch on when a whole lot of posters register pain at my words.
Perhaps without a lot of therapy those things aren't intuitively obvious, but I dunno....
Or maybe I'm just a cynic.
It really is kind of you to look at it that way, though, Tabitha. I admire that in you.
Posted by shadows721 on June 30, 2004, at 0:27:27
In reply to Re: Indirect messages » tabitha, posted by Dinah on June 30, 2004, at 0:12:11
Oh, I just loved your posts (Tabitha and Dinah)! Hey, I like that name= Flame. Now, you have spark.;-)
Posted by Dinah on June 30, 2004, at 0:32:34
In reply to Re: Indirect messages, posted by tabitha on June 29, 2004, at 23:42:21
Since Tabitha inspired me...
Perhaps some people feel that they can only be heard if they evoke strong feelings in others. That if they want to put out a message, for example, that therapy is bad (perhaps because they derived no benefit from therapy, perhaps because they were hurt by a therapist, perhaps because they were accused falsely of abuse through recovered memories), they don't think that merely saying so would reap a benefit. They think that people must be shocked into awareness. They think that only by making people angry can they make people think.
Ok, that's my own attempt at charity. Yet even so, it doesn't change my conclusion. That while such behavior is considered appropriate by Dr. Bob, I question its appropriateness on a support board.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 30, 2004, at 4:39:49
In reply to Re: My own attempt at a kind interpretation, posted by Dinah on June 30, 2004, at 0:32:34
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20040624/msgs/361238.html
>
> Explain this one to me. I get a PBC (for a statement you took completely out of context -- I said that other people *said* it was hurtful to them, which is just true)
>
> crushedoutSorry, but the idea is not to post anything that could lead others to feel accused -- even if you're quoting someone else:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
--
> If I were to name myself Flame, and enter a website proclaiming that I had been attacked at other websites...
>
> DinahI just want to thank everyone again for not attacking them here...
Bob
Posted by Racer on June 30, 2004, at 11:56:12
In reply to Alrighty, then!!, posted by Shar on June 28, 2004, at 23:28:25
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.