![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 26 to 50 of 64. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2004, at 16:37:52
In reply to Dr. Bob : Re: Crazymaking admin rules, posted by Atticus on December 3, 2004, at 9:01:54
Atticus,
You wrote,[Freudian...the notion of "colllective unconcious"...].
I am not familiar with that. Could you give some capsal form, if possible, like the Reader's Digest condenced version of such?
Lou
Posted by Larry Hoover on December 3, 2004, at 18:58:03
In reply to Lou's response to Atticus- » Atticus, posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2004, at 16:37:52
> Atticus,
> You wrote,[Freudian...the notion of "colllective unconcious"...].
> I am not familiar with that. Could you give some capsal form, if possible, like the Reader's Digest condenced version of such?
> Lou
>The collective unconscious is Jung's, not Freud's. See:
http://www.lcc.ctc.edu/faculty/dmccarthy/engl204/seven-lecture.htmLar
Posted by Atticus on December 3, 2004, at 19:23:38
In reply to Lou's response to Atticus- » Atticus, posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2004, at 16:37:52
Sorry, Lou, I really can't sum it up in a single post. I believe Freudianism is nonsense, so it's not really worth the effort. There is no more hard empirical scientific evidence to support Freud's and Jung's theories about concepts such as ego, id, superego, and collective unconscious than there is hard empirical scientific evidence to quantify how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. "Collective unconscious" is a bit of what I perceive as pseudo-scientific gobbledegook that was tossed around by Dr. Bob in his post that prompted my original queries to him. Perhaps you should ask him, as he appears to be a true believer. To my way of thinking, Freudian-based psychoanalysis is really more of a kind of secular faith than it is science. Most therapists steer well clear of it these days. Atticus
Posted by Atticus on December 3, 2004, at 19:38:32
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Atticus- » Lou Pilder, posted by Larry Hoover on December 3, 2004, at 18:58:03
True, the notion of a "collective unconscious" is Jung's -- but he was drawing on Freud's notion of the individual "unconscious" and the role it supposedly plays in shaping our behavior. I believe this "unconscious" -- individual or collective -- to be purely a mythical creation, and that what is really going on is the chemical interplay of constantly morphing groups of neurons called "cell assemblies" in the hippocampus portion of the brain, which real hard scientific data strongly suggests controls memory and learning, and therefore affects behavior. If you're interested in pursuing this line of inquiry, see if you can track down the published papers of neuroscientists such as Gyorgy Buzsaki, Mark Gluck, and Catherine Myers for more detailed information (but admittedly a lot of these articles in scholarly journals such as Science can be pretty tough slogs). Atticus
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 3, 2004, at 20:01:58
In reply to Re: Crazymaking admin rules incl poss trigger. » Gabbix2, posted by Larry Hoover on December 3, 2004, at 12:35:28
> No matter how heinous, *first* offences only get a warning.
>
> Unless they've been PBC'd already. And anyone can PBC someone. If Bob sees they've been PBC'd, that big old first offense moves on to a block.Umm, how can it be a first offence if they've been P.B.C'd already?
Posted by Larry Hoover on December 3, 2004, at 22:34:44
In reply to Re: Crazymaking admin rules incl poss trigger. » Larry Hoover, posted by Gabbix2 on December 3, 2004, at 20:01:58
> > No matter how heinous, *first* offences only get a warning.
> >
> > Unless they've been PBC'd already. And anyone can PBC someone. If Bob sees they've been PBC'd, that big old first offense moves on to a block.
>
> Umm, how can it be a first offence if they've been P.B.C'd already?From Bob's perspective, not seeing post after post until he sees them all during a review, it's one offense. But, if in the meantime, someone has admonished the individual to be civil, and he can see the continued incivility, he can block....even though he saw it all for the first time.
Lar
Posted by alesta on December 3, 2004, at 22:54:03
In reply to Re: Crazymaking admin rules » alesta, posted by Tabitha on December 3, 2004, at 13:49:31
hi, tabitha,
IMO, all these rules implemented by bob are frequently unfair and a definite *source* of conflict. and pretty worthless. also, 2 of the biggest arguments/conflicts i've seen on pb were over without any intervention from the moderator!all that is needed is *common sense*. let people have their little quibbles..step in under *extreme* circumstances, eg munster. that's it. simple.
i just wanted to add that i fully respect your opinion, of course, as well. :)
amy :)
Posted by alesta on December 3, 2004, at 22:59:56
In reply to Dr. Bob : Re: Crazymaking admin rules, posted by Atticus on December 3, 2004, at 9:01:54
hi atticus,excellent points! i also appreciate the validation of my views a *lot*..i really needed that. :)
amy :)
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 4, 2004, at 0:33:07
In reply to Re: Crazymaking admin rules incl poss trigger. » Gabbix2, posted by Larry Hoover on December 3, 2004, at 22:34:44
> >
> > Umm, how can it be a first offence if they've been P.B.C'd already?
>
> From Bob's perspective, not seeing post after post until he sees them all during a review, it's one offense. But, if in the meantime, someone has admonished the individual to be civil, and he can see the continued incivility, he can block....even though he saw it all for the first time.
>
> Lar
I realize that, and it's really not that important, all I had said was that the first offence will not recieve more than a warning,
not the first sighting by Bob. You stated the person can be blocked after they have recieved a warning, from Bob, or another poster, yes, in other words, the first offence will only recieve a warning, one way or another.
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 4, 2004, at 0:45:29
In reply to Re: Crazymaking admin rules » Larry Hoover, posted by Gabbix2 on December 4, 2004, at 0:33:07
the communication problem that is.
And why the hell am I posting on the admin board at quarter to eleven on friday night?
Posted by Atticus on December 4, 2004, at 8:18:20
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob : Re: Crazymaking admin rules » Atticus, posted by alesta on December 3, 2004, at 22:59:56
Hi Amy,
Well, no one ever said questioning the establishment was easy. Took a lot of guts for you to make your stand. Figured some back-up wouldn't hurt. Ta. ;) Atticus
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 4, 2004, at 18:27:57
In reply to Re: Crazymaking admin rules » alesta, posted by Tabitha on December 3, 2004, at 13:49:31
> all i have to say to that, dr. bob, is look at Psychcentral. they are a very peaceful community where the members are treated with respect. they have no civility guidelines or blocks. (the only rule they have is no political discussions.)
>
> amy> It's true Psychcentral appears peaceful, but it might not be an entirely fair comparison. I think some of the moderating there goes on behind the scenes through private messages, and in the past I've seen heated threads get locked and/or deleted. I'm not exactly sure what the rules are there for the moderators. At this site, it's all out in the open, which IMO has both advantages and disadvantages.
>
> TabithaI'm interested in how to keep it peaceful. The key is not to have civility guidelines? Not to have political discussions? Maybe there's more than one way, each having its advantages and disadvantages...
--
> Your civility guidelines did absolutely nothing to deter HermanMunster; rather, it appears to me that he/she either simply lost interest in teasing mentally ill people for a laugh or is taking a breather before he comes back for more. In any case, the system failed miserably. How many posts will he get onto the board next time before you get around to doing something?
>
> AtticusThe system isn't perfect. If he comes back, and if something needs to be done, I don't know how many posts he'll get onto the board first.
Bob
Posted by alesta on December 4, 2004, at 22:30:06
In reply to Re: Crazymaking admin rules, posted by Dr. Bob on December 4, 2004, at 18:27:57
<The key is not to have civility guidelines? Not to have political discussions?maybe the key is no political discussions. it's better than political discussions biased toward republicans. another alternative is to alter your civility guidelines concerning politics, as has been said already!
for answers to your other questions/comments, they're all in my previous posts. i guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, as i see you aren't going to budge.
amie
Posted by rainy on December 5, 2004, at 6:02:03
In reply to Re: Crazymaking admin rules » Dr. Bob, posted by alesta on December 4, 2004, at 22:30:06
Explain, please how blocking works. If someone like HM who has "appeared" to have been seriously unsupportive or "seemed" to have been less than civil attempts to post, can't his/her registration jingle or something? It appears like one could get quite a few more licks in before a block takes over.
And how is that the "apparently" cruel (in this case) post remains on the board as a welcome signal for all future posters? Perhaps to show them first hand the risk to which they expose themselves again and yet again?
rainy
Posted by verne on December 5, 2004, at 9:57:24
In reply to Re: Crazymaking admin rules, posted by Dr. Bob on December 4, 2004, at 18:27:57
Perhaps posts that recommend suicide, harming oneself, and violence against others could be deleted - in addition to a block.
verne
Posted by alesta on December 5, 2004, at 11:50:52
In reply to Re: Crazymaking admin rules » alesta, posted by rainy on December 5, 2004, at 6:02:03
hi rainy,:)
glad to meet you!:)
> "can't his/her registration jingle or something?"
sorry, could you rephrase that for me? i don't quite understand what you mean. what do you mean by jingle?
> And how is that the "apparently" cruel (in this case) post remains on the board as a welcome signal for all future posters? Perhaps to show them first hand the risk to which they expose themselves again and yet again?
very good point, rainy. i think you might be onto something here. deleting cruel posts sounds like a good idea..posts such as munster's suicide suggestion and the one where he calls someone an idiot. i think it might cut down on some humiliation on the victim's part. i'd start a thread on this topic if you like, or direct this issue to dr. bob right now. just put his name in the subject line. great suggestion, rainy! :)
amy
Posted by rainy on December 5, 2004, at 12:56:26
In reply to Re: Crazymaking admin rules » rainy, posted by alesta on December 5, 2004, at 11:50:52
> hi rainy,:)
>
> glad to meet you!:)
>
> > "can't his/her registration jingle or something?"
>
> sorry, could you rephrase that for me? i don't quite understand what you mean. what do you mean by jingle?
>
Well, I don't know what happens when when we post. I guess I had the fantasy of a big board in a big room flashing lights or buzzers each time some miscreant attempted a post after he/she screwed up the first time. > >And how is that the "apparently" cruel (in this case) post remains on the board as a welcome signal for all future posters? Perhaps to show them first hand the risk to which they expose themselves again and yet again?
>
> very good point, rainy. i think you might be onto something here. deleting cruel posts sounds like a good idea..posts such as munster's suicide suggestion and the one where he calls someone an idiot. i think it might cut down on some humiliation on the victim's part. i'd start a thread on this topic if you like, or direct this issue to dr. bob right now. just put his name in the subject line. great suggestion, rainy! :)
>
> amy
>
> I've already babbled him about it but maybe another jog wouldn't hurt. Thanks. I was assuming, that it would be an automatic delete at detection and 2nd, that perhaps some of our comments would have prompted deletion. I haven't been off the psycho-babble board so I'm hearing the other strikes are still there too? My goodness.
Please Amy, start another thread if you want. And I'll consider a direst post to Bob later today. Nice to meet you, too!
rainyWhy don't you start the thread?
Don't know how. Tell me again
Posted by alesta on December 5, 2004, at 13:18:57
In reply to Re: Crazymaking admin rules, posted by rainy on December 5, 2004, at 12:56:26
all rightie. to start a new thread, just go to the bottom of this web page and you'll see a bunch of categories. click on "Start New Thread". and then you just type in your subject and your message.i'll go ahead and direct dr. bob's attention to this thread, so you don't need to start a new one (unless you want to). :-)
take care rainy,
ami
Posted by alesta on December 5, 2004, at 13:30:13
In reply to Re: Crazymaking admin rules, posted by rainy on December 5, 2004, at 12:56:26
Dr. Bob, on behalf of Rainy and myself, I would like to ask you if you might consider a policy of deleting cruel posts, such as a few of those posted by HermanMunster? We feel this would spare the victims further humiliation and pain, as well as restore a more positive environment.
Amy
Posted by rainy on December 5, 2004, at 14:37:16
In reply to Re: Crazymaking admin rules » rainy, posted by alesta on December 5, 2004, at 13:18:57
Gotcha. Thanks for the direct to Dr. Bob. I was thinking of titles to a thread, and censorship, something I'm totally p.c. against, came to mind. But then for me, "*ss" is not at all offensive but almosy any racial slur is. That on could go on forever without any resolution. I think I feel what's the use?
And we'll probably get redirected to social except that there's a rat here somewhere. Oh boy, time to quit.
rainy.
Posted by rainy on December 5, 2004, at 14:48:17
In reply to Re: Crazymaking admin rules » alesta, posted by rainy on December 5, 2004, at 14:37:16
I second Amy's proposal--she's a step ahead of me. I don't understand the policy of letting what appear to be hurtful or significantly inappropriate posts sitting there for all to review days (or minutes) after they have been detected.
Perhaps there's a policy behind this practice? If so, please tell us what it is.
Thanks,
rainy
Posted by Dinah on December 5, 2004, at 16:12:29
In reply to to doctor Bob, posted by rainy on December 5, 2004, at 14:48:17
When Dr. Bob declined to remove hurtful posts, he did indeed say that posts like that were an occasional but real part of participating in Babble, and he *did* want to leave them up so that people would realize that. I'm paraphrasing.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 5, 2004, at 17:03:49
In reply to Re: Crazymaking admin rules » rainy, posted by alesta on December 5, 2004, at 11:50:52
alesta,
You wrote,[...where he calls someone an "idiot"....].
Is there a post by Herman Munster that uses that word, or is this in referrence to another poster where the word is used toward someone?
Lou
Posted by verne on December 5, 2004, at 18:10:16
In reply to In the past, posted by Dinah on December 5, 2004, at 16:12:29
This reminds me of the time I lived in a university's housing complex and complained about my neighbors who had set aside an entire room for a band-size drum set for their 2 year old. They were told by administration that this wouldn't be tolerated yet I was asked to move to another unit. The burden was on me, the victim.
If harmful posts are not removed it is an encouragement to those wishing to do harm. If a message is being made, why not to them and not to the victims? Or is this part of the experiment?
Imagine a police department allowing crime, reasoning that this is part of the real world and people need to be more aware of it. Sure it hurts now but you'll thank us later.
verne
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 5, 2004, at 19:28:01
In reply to Lou's response to alesta's post-HMidi » alesta, posted by Lou Pilder on December 5, 2004, at 17:03:49
> alesta,
> You wrote,[...where he calls someone an "idiot"....].
> Is there a post by Herman Munster that uses that word, or is this in referrence to another poster where the word is used toward someone?
> Lou
>
Alesta,
I found the post by Herman Munster.
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.