![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 66 to 90 of 96. Go back in thread:
Posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 17:52:08
In reply to Re: Secret rules? S.L.S » gabbii, posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 15:58:33
>> Sorry. I didn't really understand where you were coming from. I took your words literally.
>Oh Maybe I missed your point then?
No matter, I think we agree on everything.
Of course I'd have to agree with someone who never makes a mistake, otherwise I'd be making a mistake : )> As to whether or not you agree with SO, I think it is pretty clear that the original "creepy" post deserves a reappraisal by the moderator to preserve consistency. As to the other posts you referred to being submitted by Larry Hoover and IsoM, I would not have seen them as I don't frequent the Social board. Nor for that matter do I frequent the Administration board. I am ignorant to what transpired. I am sad that those two people are no longer here, though. They have been very important contributors in my estimation.
>I really Miss IsoMs presence here.
Obviously Lar's too, but I never need to really miss him.> Gabbii, when was the last time you saw Dr. Bob reverse a decision of his? Has he ever admitted a mistake? Has he ever made one? If I never do, perhaps he is just as capable as I am of never being wrong.
He did once, When he accidentally blocked Alex.
He did another time with me, a long time ago when he blocked me for posting under two names,
which I had not.
And another time I read in the archives him saying "Okay I was WRONG, did you hear that I'm WRONG :-)"
>
> > I have never been wrong about anything. Once, I thought I was wrong, but it turned out that I was mistaken.*snort*
Posted by Nickengland on July 17, 2005, at 19:04:13
In reply to Re: I feel put down--And, posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 16:36:39
Hello again So
>When and where have I declared an opposition to psychiatry or psychiatric drugs? Having doubts about efficacy does not imply wholesale opposition. Or does participation in a community interested in mental health --- which is what this site is ostensibly about --- require that one have *faith* in the efficacy of the current pharmacopea of psychiatric drugs?
You havent declared an "opposition" to psychiatry or psychiatric drugs in that post..the exact word you used was a "reluctance" So, are you "for" any psychiatric drugs or psychiatry for the treatment of mental illness?
Let me get this right, you're a Scientologist and because of this you are deeply offended because as you stated, "dont call me creepy" because you're a Scientologist - Thats perfectly understandable within the civility rules here.
Its my understanding (and please correct me if i'm wrong) do people who practice Scientology as a faith - does that faith support the use of psychiatric drugs?...or conversely, does it oppose them and psychiatry? I was under the impression that Scientology did not recommend the use of psychiatric drugs or psychiatry in the practice of its religion. Does Dianetics support psychiatric drugs or psychiatry?
When did you declare your opposistion to psychiatry/drugs? - When you declared that you felt put down because of feeling "creepy", you declared you was a Scientologist. When you declared you was a Scientologist, I then thought you must be lets say, not exactly "pro psychiatry" as your faith (which I take it must mean alot to you) holds the "believes" which are not for psychiatry in general, with regards to mental health - Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. (taken from the church of scientology website)
Which treatment programme do you follow?..The mental health treatment of your relgion or that of psychiatry? Do you possibly use a combination of both?
You see something so controversial as psychiatry and something possibly considered equally controversial as Scientology in similar respects with regards to mental health..Hmmm Muslims and Alcohol, they just dont mix...as in Muslims who follow their faith are not supposed to drink Alcohol. The same way I would have thought, a scientologist was not supposed to touch Psychiatry - Tom Cruise certainly isnt a fan, are you?
However though, the actual question with which you responded to the above was.....how do you gain education and support from this forum?
>Why would a person who does not espouse Scientology ask to be greeted with the same cordiality afforded among adherents in a group of adherents? Maybe because they want to create a reasonable environment where ideas can be explored. Besides, poeple are not always reasonable, which is to say, people don't always have a rational interest in things. Our minds are reactive as were the minds of our ancestors. Our capacity to reason is a recent addition, and reason buffers our reactions, but we are still motivated by unexplained interests. One of those interests, as Maslow posited, is the need for respect among peers. Being called "creepy" can tend to make one feel peers are not ready to recognize that interest.
I can completely understand what you say there, thats a fair comment. Do you feel that it was yourself being called directly, "creepy"? Either way though I guess if it was any other religion a PBC would have been issued. It would be good if you would perhaps post in faith about Scientology..that way maybe people would not think it was "creepy" as you could explain how it isnt. Or offer some kind of education to people, so that they wouldn't perhaps jump to the same conclusion which brought them to use the word "creepy" in the first place.
>If you review this board, you will see that my posts have never before dealt with defending Scientologists against things that are not tolerated in reference to other religions. My posts on this board have generally addressed administration of a site which I read but at which I find little other reason to engage in dialogue.
I have read most, if not all your posts. (and with great interest) I realise you didn't want to answer about your posting name "so" I wonder though, you said you have been lurking, but never mentioned for how long? I also wondered if you have ever posted before under a different name? - I would be interested to read the archives if you do have more posts under previous name(s) ?
>Do you recognize that editors specialize -- some edit content, some edit for slant, some edit design, others simply proof-read. My interest in reading a periodical doesn't mean that I am going to get heavily involved in editing content, though I might get involved in review of how content is selected. I might not care what a periodical writes about, but I might write to the editor about how a particular subject is treated, whether I agree with the slant or not. The reason I do not engage in other dialogue at this site is because any questions I would ask or responses I might post are generally posted by others.
I recognise what you say there and understand why you do not sometimes engage in other posts and subjects.
>I reply because answering questions directed to a person is "civil", though a civil person could as well ignore questions from those not dependant on the person for a response.
Are you suggesting that I should be grateful that you are replying to me in someway? Are you suggesting you could quite easily ignore me - just because that is "civil"
I understand the concept of reading and replying to a message, I think I did at a very early age.
>Are you asking why I reply to your interest?
I wasn't asking this, however you replied to your own question "that easy" I think you find the playful use of words very easy indeed, again especially with that sentance....
"I reply because answering questions directed to a person is "civil", though a civil person could as well ignore questions from those not dependant on the person for a response.
Why would you feel the need to remind me of that at the final part of your message? What was your motive with that?
I like to end the message with "kind regards"
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 19:09:18
In reply to Re: I feel put down--And, posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 16:36:39
Hi So.
I just wanted to compliment you on your clarity of thought and prowess as a writer. You remind me very much of someone who had been posting here by the name of Larry Hoover. That is about as high a compliment as could be paid anyone.
- Scott
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 19:56:30
In reply to Re: I feel put down--And, posted by Nickengland on July 17, 2005, at 19:04:13
> Hello again So
> So, are you "for" any psychiatric drugs or psychiatry for the treatment of mental illness?I am for you making up your own mind and for me making up my own mind about what we will do to get what we want with regards to our subjective mental outlook. Beyond that, I think the collective work of researchers over the course of a century has done quite a lot more than L. Ron Hubbard did to describe the role of life experiences in development of an individual human mind, though Mr. Hubbard did offer some unusual insight for his time, which I believe continues to offer some valuable insight in how our minds work.
>
> Let me get this right, you're a Scientologist and because of this you are deeply offended because as you stated, "dont call me creepy" because you're a Scientologist - Thats perfectly understandable within the civility rules here.Actually, my deep feelings have more to do with some of my most mature, generous, community minded friends being called creepy. Step on my toes, you'll get a hard look, but step on my friends toes and it's Katie bar the doors. That's the warriors' way. However, the administrator has demonstrated more ability to recognize the impact of such statements when one describes how it affects them personally, so I made it obvious that the comment was directed at me individually as a member of a specific group.
> Its my understanding (and please correct me if i'm wrong) do people who practice Scientology as a faith - does that faith support the use of psychiatric drugs?...or conversely, does it oppose them and psychiatry? I was under the impression that Scientology did not recommend the use of psychiatric drugs or psychiatry in the practice of its religion. Does Dianetics support psychiatric drugs or psychiatry?
Generally, Scientology has led the organizational opposition to the administration of psychiatric drugs in the Western world. But individuals who hold faith in Scientology teachings are free to believe or practice anything they choose. Scientology does recognize such conditions as "psychosis" but practitioners offer alternative approaches to treating those conditions. There are spiritual aspects of the approaches, but practically they rely heavily on mega-vitamins and cleansing proceedures such as saunas, which have a basis in some of the most historic systems of medicine in the world.>
>
> Which treatment programme do you follow?..The mental health treatment of your relgion or that of psychiatry? Do you possibly use a combination of both?My understanding of how I developed as a person is informed by concepts espoused by some psychiatrists or psychologists, though for the large part, pscyhiatry today spends far less time exploring social and developmental causes of personal distress than it does dispensing chemicals with the hope of treating the result of those causes.
> You see something so controversial as psychiatry and something possibly considered equally controversial as Scientology in similar respects with regards to mental health..Hmmm Muslims and Alcohol, they just dont mix...as in Muslims who follow their faith are not supposed to drink Alcohol. The same way I would have thought, a scientologist was not supposed to touch Psychiatry - Tom Cruise certainly isnt a fan, are you?If I had no interest in psychiatry, I wouldn't be here. If Tom Cruise had me for a PR hack, he might be less vulnerable in his public appearances. My best Scientology friend drinks more than I do. Some of the WTC bombers, though many don't recognize their loyalty to Islamic faith, were seen drunk in the weeks before the attack. I know Muslims who drink, and cannibas use was widespread in the Islamic world, certainly bfore the 1960s.
>
> However though, the actual question with which you responded to the above was.....how do you gain education and support from this forum?Just like this - by posting and responding to messages from other members.
> >> I can completely understand what you say there, thats a fair comment. Do you feel that it was yourself being called directly, "creepy"?
the statement "they" didn't include any exclusions, so I presume it included me. I wondered if the person who wrote the comment knows any scientologists.
> Either way though I guess if it was any other religion a PBC would have been issued. It would be good if you would perhaps post in faith about Scientology..that way maybe people would not think it was "creepy" as you could explain how it isnt. Or offer some kind of education to people, so that they wouldn't perhaps jump to the same conclusion which brought them to use the word "creepy" in the first place.
Maybe my contribution on this page will have the same effect. I'm not really out to defend Scientology, as a faith, I'm just interested in having my faith and that of my friends treated the same as any other system of faith, or otherwise exposing and educating people about contradictions in administration of this site, if it turns out that people here can call members of any particular faith creepy while they are forbidden from saying the same of other faiths.
>
>> I have read most, if not all your posts. (and with great interest) I realise you didn't want to answer about your posting name "so" I wonder though, you said you have been lurking, but never mentioned for how long?You can presume that, though there are obviously threads I haven't read or don't recall, I am familiar with the entire archive. As can anyone who reads the archives, I have identified when registration process was introduced, and when the administrator started intervening and sanctioning people for their activities here.
> I also wondered if you have ever posted before under a different name? - I would be interested to read the archives if you do have more posts under previous name(s) ?
I had another before I started using this one, but if people get too interested in who I am, I'll change my handle and decline to say who I was previously.
> >I reply because answering questions directed to a person is "civil", though a civil person could as well ignore questions from those not dependant on the person for a response.> Are you suggesting that I should be grateful that you are replying to me in someway? Are you suggesting you could quite easily ignore me - just because that is "civil"
I'm just trying to avoid the insinuation that if someone doesn't reply to a direct question it's not civil. I'm saying I reply because that's what people sometimes do. I don't know that you should feel grateful -- maybe you could feel powerful that you can cause me to write interesting prose. With that skill, maybe you could be an acquisitions editor, or a creative-writing-group leader...
> >Are you asking why I reply to your interest?
>
> I wasn't asking this, however you replied to your own question "that easy" I think you find the playful use of words very easy indeed, again especially with that sentance....I'm just saying, since you asked why I spend so much time, that I do it in part because you asked me to. That gives you something you can work with, because if you were to think I spend too much time at this, you could help by not asking me questions. But I consider it time well spent, though I could be doing something that pays.
> "I reply because answering questions directed to a person is "civil", though a civil person could as well ignore questions from those not dependant on the person for a response.
>
> Why would you feel the need to remind me of that at the final part of your message? What was your motive with that?Well, I got hung up on the implications. It wouldn't be "Civil" for a parent to refuse to answer questions of a child about important subjects, such as safe behavior. Along those lines, I have questions about the merit of an administrator suspending for several days his response to a request that he treat all religions the same. But I was just following the train of thought that developed from your inquiry about why I spend so much time at this. My time is spent because of my interest in psychiatry and in administration of this board, but also as a result of my interest in you, which you implicity requested by asking me questions.
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 20:04:00
In reply to Re: I feel put down--And » so, posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 19:09:18
> Hi So.
>
> I just wanted to compliment you on your clarity of thought and prowess as a writer. You remind me very much of someone who had been posting here by the name of Larry Hoover. That is about as high a compliment as could be paid anyone.
>
>
> - Scott
Larry has a bit more command of chemistry, and would definately be more willing to encourage someone to comply with a doctor's instructions.Thanks for the compliment though. If I really am all that, I hope the administrator doesn't let these things simmer just to create an occassion for writers like me to perform under pressure, thus letting the group learn from my style. We would learn more from seeing an adminstrator working to enforce his own rules on a consistant and timely basis, and perhaps expounding on the difficulties he encounters trying to do so.
Posted by gardenergirl on July 17, 2005, at 23:05:34
In reply to Re: Don't call me creepy, posted by so on July 15, 2005, at 18:57:21
> > Hi,
> > I would not like feeling that someone is calling my spirituality "creepy".
>
> I don't feel someone called Scientolgists creepy. I know they did.Thanks for your attempt to clarify my post. However, please re-read my sentence. I said "I would not like feeling that..." I see nothing in my post that refers to your feelings. Do you?
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on July 17, 2005, at 23:06:04
In reply to Re: Don't call me creepy » gardenergirl, posted by crushedout on July 15, 2005, at 19:25:49
Posted by gardenergirl on July 17, 2005, at 23:14:35
In reply to free your mind, posted by so on July 15, 2005, at 20:40:47
But thanks for entitling your post, and I quote, "Free your mind," with what is grammatically known as a command.
> The last sentence apparently refers to efforts interfere with a personal relationship between Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. This from a person who claims Scientologists "try to separate you from your family."Um, didn't you write the post? And you say your last sentence, which is this, btw: "The ideas taught as Scientology might seem "weird" to some, but as a group, Scientologists have demonstrated considerable legal savy in protecting their ideas against libel" is "apparently" referring to something about two celebrities? Um, if I wrote something, unless I forgot what I meant, I think I would be certain of what something I wrote refers to.
Regardless, one way that last sentence might be interpreted is as a subtle threat to anyone who might "apparently" be engaging in libel regarding Scientologists.
But perhaps I am primed to interpret something you post in that way because of an earlier post you made under the name "RH is a Pr**at*or" in which you posted to me "You've been warned." I couldn't help but interpret that statement based on my gut reaction that it felt like a subtle threat. I recall my reply to that post was flippant.
Well tie me up and call me Shirley, but is my interpretation correct?
gg
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 23:26:20
In reply to Re: Don't call me » so, posted by gardenergirl on July 17, 2005, at 23:05:34
> > > Hi,
> > > I would not like feeling that someone is calling my spirituality "creepy".
> >
> > I don't feel someone called Scientolgists creepy. I know they did.
>
> Thanks for your attempt to clarify my post. However, please re-read my sentence. I said "I would not like feeling that..." I see nothing in my post that refers to your feelings. Do you?
>
> gg
Only by comparative reference. In my reply, I further compared our different experiences, emphasizing the difference between knowledge and feeling.
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 23:55:31
In reply to My mind is not a prisoner... » so, posted by gardenergirl on July 17, 2005, at 23:14:35
> But thanks for entitling your post, and I quote, "Free your mind," with what is grammatically known as a command.
As is the phrase "Be well". I would have to do some research to suggest a proper gramatical classification for commands commonly offered as cordial support.
>
> > The last sentence apparently refers to efforts interfere with a personal relationship between Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. This from a person who claims Scientologists "try to separate you from your family."
>
> Um, didn't you write the post?No. I was responding to questions about a post on the restricted but open-to-readers 2000 board that said something like "there's even a free Katie movement. They're that creepy."
I wrote a post explaining my impression of another post. I obtained the explanation by conducting a google search for the phrase "Free Katie" because two people had asked me to explain the phrase, possibly because they thought I might have unusual insight into terms used in reference to Scientology.
>>And you say your last sentence, which is this,
Back up a minute. You already quoted the full text of the "Free your mind" post, which was...
("The last sentence apparently refers to efforts [to] interfere with a personal relationship between Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. This from a person who claims Scientologists 'try to separate you from your family.'")
... so this citation is from another post...
>>btw: "The ideas taught as Scientology might seem "weird" to some, but as a group, Scientologists have demonstrated considerable legal savy in protecting their ideas against libel" is "apparently" referring to something about two celebrities? Um, if I wrote something, unless I forgot what I meant, I think I would be certain of what something I wrote refers to.
>Reading your citation of my post, which I will stipulate as accurate, I seem to be citing a well-known fact that Scientologists as a group have long battled to defend what is widely recognized as a civil right to enjoy freedom of religion without being the subject of libelous statements. My purpose in citing this history is to explain that as a group, Scientologists - as have members of other religions -- have long struggled to enjoy their civil rights in free societies.
> Regardless, one way that last sentence might be interpreted is as a subtle threat to anyone who might "apparently" be engaging in libel regarding Scientologists.
But for anyone not engaging in potentially libelous statements, it could not be interpreted as any sort of threat to them, right?> But perhaps I am primed to interpret something you post in that way because of an earlier post you made ...
Perhaps. Are there other reasons unrelated to me that you might be primed to interpret a post that way?
>I couldn't help but interpret that statement based on my gut reaction that it felt like a subtle threat. I recall my reply to that post was flippant.
>The way I handle feelings like that is to downplay the value of my feelings in favor of more extensive review of available facts. My guts have a tendency to react based on how well I feed them.
> Well tie me up and call me Shirley, but is my interpretation correct?Shirley McClain?
Anyway, no the statement you quote was written solely as a reference to a particular group's long struggle for civil rights. I can see how a person who doesn't think black people should sit at the front of the bus would consider a discussion of civil rights struggles threatening, but you don't think anything like that, do you?
Posted by crushedout on July 18, 2005, at 0:10:25
In reply to Re: Secret rules? » so, posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 14:20:15
> I have never been wrong about anything. Once, I thought I was wrong, but it turned out that I was mistaken.i gotta remember to use it.
Posted by gardenergirl on July 18, 2005, at 0:18:35
In reply to Re: My mind is my prisoner... » gardenergirl, posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 23:55:31
> > But thanks for entitling your post, and I quote, "Free your mind," with what is grammatically known as a command.
>
> As is the phrase "Be well". I would have to do some research to suggest a proper gramatical classification for commands commonly offered as cordial support.Well, only if you have the time. BTW, busted.
>>
> >>And you say your last sentence, which is this,
>
> Back up a minute. You already quoted the full text of the "Free your mind" post, which was...
>
> ("The last sentence apparently refers to efforts [to] interfere with a personal relationship between Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. This from a person who claims Scientologists 'try to separate you from your family.'")
>
> ... so this citation is from another post...This citation is from the post I originally replied to in this thread. I specifically asked you what your last sentence, which is below, was about. This sentence was contained in the post I directly replied to. A bit later, crushedout pointed out you hadn't answered my question. My question had nothing to do with any post on 2000.
>
> >>btw: "The ideas taught as Scientology might seem "weird" to some, but as a group, Scientologists have demonstrated considerable legal savy in protecting their ideas against libel" is "apparently" referring to something about two celebrities? Um, if I wrote something, unless I forgot what I meant, I think I would be certain of what something I wrote refers to.
> >
>
> Reading your citation of my post, which I will stipulate as accurate, I seem to be citing a well-known fact that Scientologists as a group have long battled to defend what is widely recognized as a civil right to enjoy freedom of religion without being the subject of libelous statements. My purpose in citing this history is to explain that as a group, Scientologists - as have members of other religions -- have long struggled to enjoy their civil rights in free societies.
>
> > Regardless, one way that last sentence might be interpreted is as a subtle threat to anyone who might "apparently" be engaging in libel regarding Scientologists.
>
>
> But for anyone not engaging in potentially libelous statements, it could not be interpreted as any sort of threat to them, right?Interpretations can be made regardless of the categorical status of the interpreter.
>
> > But perhaps I am primed to interpret something you post in that way because of an earlier post you made ...
>
> Perhaps. Are there other reasons unrelated to me that you might be primed to interpret a post that way?None that I've given any thought to. It was an association to your posts under an alter name.
> >I couldn't help but interpret that statement based on my gut reaction that it felt like a subtle threat. I recall my reply to that post was flippant.
> >
>
> The way I handle feelings like that is to downplay the value of my feelings in favor of more extensive review of available facts. My guts have a tendency to react based on how well I feed them.Feelings like what?
>
> > Well tie me up and call me Shirley, but is my interpretation correct?
>
> Shirley McClain?
>
> Anyway, no the statement you quote was written solely as a reference to a particular group's long struggle for civil rights. I can see how a person who doesn't think black people should sit at the front of the bus would consider a discussion of civil rights struggles threatening, but you don't think anything like that, do you?Well thanks for not pulling a Dick Durbin here. As to your comparison, I have no need to comment.
Aaaah, if only I could quote the wise Auntie Mel right now.
gg
Posted by 10derHeart on July 18, 2005, at 0:18:56
In reply to Re: My mind is my prisoner... » gardenergirl, posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 23:55:31
> I can see how a person who doesn't think black people should sit at the front of the bus would consider a discussion of civil rights struggles threatening, but you don't think anything like that, do you?
So, I think merely posing the above question to gg was completely uncalled for and frankly, insulting.
I can't imagine what would have caused you to pull such a "speculation," - or whatever it is - out of thin air. Why did you ask her that?
Posted by 10derHeart on July 18, 2005, at 0:22:41
In reply to Re: Is this a place you had to go? » so, posted by 10derHeart on July 18, 2005, at 0:18:56
Posted by crushedout on July 18, 2005, at 0:26:01
In reply to Re: My mind is my prisoner... » so, posted by gardenergirl on July 18, 2005, at 0:18:35
you show very good babblerestraint, btw, gg. i admire you.
Posted by gardenergirl on July 18, 2005, at 0:34:24
In reply to Re: My mind is my prisoner... » so, posted by gardenergirl on July 18, 2005, at 0:18:35
Well, I believe we already figured out that so was used2b. Used2b posted briefly when blocked as the name I posted above using asterisks. All but one of the posts under that name have been deleted. I wouldn't be surprised if there are more, but memory and/or evidence fails.
And you know, I didn't get a question answered again, did I?
gg
Posted by crushedout on July 18, 2005, at 0:43:49
In reply to What I can remember » gardenergirl, posted by gardenergirl on July 18, 2005, at 0:34:24
> Well, I believe we already figured out that so was used2b.
oh yeah, i think you told me this already and i forgot. sorry.
>Used2b posted briefly when blocked as the name I posted above using asterisks.
hmm, i don't see your post. and why did you use asterisks? is it vulgar?
>All but one of the posts under that name have been deleted.
the asterisked name i guess? can you say why they were deleted?
> And you know, I didn't get a question answered again, did I?
i'm sure you're right, but i can't even follow these conversations when they get this complicated. :)
sometimes i gear up for battle in babbleland but rarely can i find the energy.
what on earth are you doing up so late gg? aren't you a nice girl who goes to bed at a reasonable hour (unlike myself)?
Posted by gardenergirl on July 18, 2005, at 0:56:02
In reply to Re: What I can remember » gardenergirl, posted by crushedout on July 18, 2005, at 0:43:49
>>
> hmm, i don't see your post. and why did you use asterisks? is it vulgar?See this section "...because of an earlier post you made under the name "RH is a..." of this post
http://www.dr-obb.org/babble/admin/20050716/msgs/529345.html
I wouldn't say it was vulgar, per se. But it's not a statement I wish to perpetuate.
>
> > can you say why they were deleted?They were deleted because they were posted while used2b was blocked. Dr. Bob deletes posts made by blocked posters using another name.
>
> > And you know, I didn't get a question answered again, did I?
>
> i'm sure you're right, but i can't even follow these conversations when they get this complicated. :)You know, I can't remember now what I wanted to know, anyway. No biggie.
>
>
> what on earth are you doing up so late gg? aren't you a nice girl who goes to bed at a reasonable hour (unlike myself)?Well, I tend to sleep when I'm a passenger in a car. And I slept almost all the way home from a reunion. And I can be a night owl at times. Bad sleep habits. sigh
'night!
gg
Posted by so on July 18, 2005, at 1:13:49
In reply to Re: My mind is my prisoner... » so, posted by gardenergirl on July 18, 2005, at 0:18:35
> > > But thanks for entitling your post, and I quote, "Free your mind," with what is grammatically known as a command.
> >
> > As is the phrase "Be well". I would have to do some research to suggest a proper gramatical classification for commands commonly offered as cordial support.
>
> Well, only if you have the time. BTW, busted.
Who's busted? and for what? The phrase "free your mind" was in reply to the phrase "Free Katie". i suppose it can be as much a plea as a command. Like "go team go" ... "take care" ... "have a nice day" ... "Let it be"> > This citation is from the post I originally replied to in this thread. I specifically asked you what your last sentence, which is below, was about. This sentence was contained in the post I directly replied to. A bit later, crushedout pointed out you hadn't answered my question. My question had nothing to do with any post on 2000.
Well, that's not the way I read it. Reviewing it now, I can see you were asking about something I wrote, not about the post in 2000. Anyway, now I have explained it. I was referring to Scientologists' sustained struggle to enjoy their civil rights. The point is, they might seem weird, but courts have concluded they are not. If it was a fact that Scientology was weird or whatever else people call it, their libel actions would be dismissed because truth is almost always a defense against libel.>>>Um, if I wrote something, unless I forgot what I meant, I think I would be certain of what something I wrote refers to.
Chances are, my daily word production often outpaces that of the average person several fold, and sometimes I don't recognize my own writing until I see my name on it. My participation here is not among my most memorable writing.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > But for anyone not engaging in potentially libelous statements, it could not be interpreted as any sort of threat to them, right?
>
> Interpretations can be made regardless of the categorical status of the interpreter.yes, and interpretations can be made regardless the accuracy of the interpretation. But even as you say you interpreted it, it could never be interpreted as a threat to someone who doesn't defame the faith of another. and it wasn't written as a threat, it was written as a reference to ... maybe even as a celebration of ... Scientologists accomplishments in defending their civil rights.
> > > But perhaps I am primed to interpret something you post in that way because of an earlier post you made ...
> >
> > Perhaps. Are there other reasons unrelated to me that you might be primed to interpret a post that way?
>
> None that I've given any thought to. It was an association to your posts under an alter name.Having now an opportunity to think about it, are there reasons related to your personal history you might be primed to associate what you can see now with your recollection of what you think I wrote in the past?
>
> > >I couldn't help but interpret that statement based on my gut reaction that it felt like a subtle threat. I recall my reply to that post was flippant.
> > >
> >
> > The way I handle feelings like that is to downplay the value of my feelings in favor of more extensive review of available facts. My guts have a tendency to react based on how well I feed them.
>
> Feelings like what?gut reactions that something feels like a subtle threat
> Well thanks for not pulling a Dick Durbin here. As to your comparison, I have no need to comment.Who's Dick Durbin? Sen. Richard Durbin who spoke of US actions in Guantanamo Bay by saying one might think a description of the events was a description of Nazi methods if they didn't know it was a US investigative team making the description? If so, he is a duly elected US Senator, and to make public statements such as his are not something one "pulls" though mispresentations of his statements might be the subject of fair criticism.
>
Anyway, whether or not you recognize the freedom to practice religion as a civil right comparable to the freedom to participate fully in society regardless one's ethnic origin, I appreciate that you wouldn't like feeling that someone is calling your religion creepy.
Posted by SLS on July 18, 2005, at 1:18:48
In reply to What I can remember » gardenergirl, posted by gardenergirl on July 18, 2005, at 0:34:24
> Well, I believe we already figured out that so was used2b.
I am greatly relieved that I was mistaken yet again. Thanks for figuring it out, GG. I would have been greatly saddened had my guess been right. Now, I am just embarrassed for thinking such a thing. I had to take the shot, though. All I can say is that I had my reasons. Hopefully, I will be forgiven.
> Used2b posted briefly when blocked as the name I posted above using asterisks. All but one of the posts under that name have been deleted. I wouldn't be surprised if there are more, but memory and/or evidence fails.
> And you know, I didn't get a question answered again, did I?Sleep well, GG, and thank you so much for your efforts here.
- Scott
Posted by so on July 18, 2005, at 1:23:02
In reply to Re: Is this a place you had to go? » so, posted by 10derHeart on July 18, 2005, at 0:18:56
> > I can see how a person who doesn't think black people should sit at the front of the bus would consider a discussion of civil rights struggles threatening, but you don't think anything like that, do you?
>
> So, I think merely posing the above question to gg was completely uncalled for and frankly, insulting.
>
> I can't imagine what would have caused you to pull such a "speculation," - or whatever it is - out of thin air. Why did you ask her that?
>
>It wasn't speculation, it was an affirmation. It was a rhetorical question. It is a way of saying "I know you don't think that." I was saying, even if she did somehow interpret what I wrote as a threat, which it wasn't, it couldn't be a threat to GG because she already said she wouldn't like feeling as if someone was calling her spirituality "Creepy".
What came to mind when I wrote it was my recollection of something Robert Hsiung wrote to NickiT2, when he asked her something like "but you know you're not an antisemite, right?" I reflects a tendency to adopt a predominate rhetorical style of communities to which I write. Now that I think about it, some people reacted to Hsiung's question by saying they didn't appreciate his approach, either.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 18, 2005, at 11:41:10
In reply to Re: My mind is my prisoner... » so, posted by gardenergirl on July 18, 2005, at 0:18:35
Whad I say? Whad I say?
never mind. no need to answer.
Posted by Nickengland on July 18, 2005, at 15:14:10
In reply to Re: I feel put down--And » Nickengland, posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 19:56:30
Hello So,
>Generally, Scientology has led the organizational opposition to the administration of psychiatric drugs in the Western world. But individuals who hold faith in Scientology teachings are free to believe or practice anything they choose. Scientology does recognize such conditions as "psychosis" but practitioners offer alternative approaches to treating those conditions. There are spiritual aspects of the approaches, but practically they rely heavily on mega-vitamins and cleansing proceedures such as saunas, which have a basis in some of the most historic systems of medicine in the world.
You mention Mega-Vitamins. This interests me. If we could cross over both subjects of the Scientology approach to the psychiatic illness. Would vitamins be used to treat for example serious mental illness such a schizophrenia or Bipolar? If so, would this be because the practitioners work along the route that there is a vitamin deficiency, and because of this the vitamins are treating the illness directly?
Or, is it just a preferred treatment option as high-dose vitamins would appear to be safer than a pharmaceutical approach? Finally is the diagnostics for recognising a "psychosis" any different than how a psychiatrist would reach his diagnosis of such a condition?
>My understanding of how I developed as a person is informed by concepts espoused by some psychiatrists or psychologists, though for the large part, pscyhiatry today spends far less time exploring social and developmental causes of personal distress than it does dispensing chemicals with the hope of treating the result of those causes.
So do presently still use the assistance of a psychiatrist and any drug treatments that are available through one?
I agree that psychiatry today does spend less time exploring social and developmental causes of personal distress. Would this part of psychiatric care be more to do with the aid of "talking treatments" perhaps they are wondering whether they have gone as far as they can go for now with the different approaches used for this.
>Dispensing chemicals with the hope of treating the result of those causes?
The causes of what? If one is to believe that the causes have even been found then they would be mistaken. I know you havent mentioned the word "cure" (as there isn't one with high-does vitamins or chemicals) but as much as we can agree there is no cure at present - at the same time we could also agree the casues have not been found either... In todays "treatment" that is all it is, "treating" the symtoms of the illness. Genes are being identified though and more treatments are becoming available so at least there is progress. I am neither "pro psychiatry" or a hater of Scientology..I wonder though, if the two know, or claim to no so much about the illness and the symtoms they treat, would we stand a better and quicker chance of finding the "cause" and "cure" if they put their "ideas" together? Just a thought.
>I'm just trying to avoid the insinuation that if someone doesn't reply to a direct question it's not civil. I'm saying I reply because that's what people sometimes do. I don't know that you should feel grateful -- maybe you could feel powerful that you can cause me to write interesting prose. With that skill, maybe you could be an acquisitions editor, or a creative-writing-group leader...
Thank you for the compliment.
>Well, I got hung up on the implications. It wouldn't be "Civil" for a parent to refuse to answer questions of a child about important subjects, such as safe behavior. Along those lines, I have questions about the merit of an administrator suspending for several days his response to a request that he treat all religions the same. But I was just following the train of thought that developed from your inquiry about why I spend so much time at this. My time is spent because of my interest in psychiatry and in administration of this board, but also as a result of my interest in you, which you implicity requested by asking me questions.
Now I am beginning to gain a further insight into why you post here. I thought at first, before we spoke and when I read your messages and also some of them through the archives that you reminded of the style of another poster here on Administration.
Posted by so on July 18, 2005, at 16:03:10
In reply to Re: I feel put down--And, posted by Nickengland on July 18, 2005, at 15:14:10
If you want to know more about how Scientologists approach mental health, you will find a widely available selection of published reading materials. I've made it more than clear I am not here to promote Scientology, regardless what beliefs I might hold or practices I might engage.
Otherwise, you have said nothing to reveal to me any evidence that you understand the first thing about my motives, interests or concerns.
Your accusation that I am motivated by revenge, along with a failure to recognize Hsiungs hostility toward me is evidence you are not trying to understand my perspective. He demonstrated malicious hostility to me in a 13-day delay in responding to a post I identified and he eventually admitted didn't meet his self-styled guidelines, and again in his lengthy refusal to admit the obvious -- that calling anybody "creepy" doesn't any where near conform with his guidelines.
For his efforts, I am giving him exactly what he asked for -- insight into his own malice he can't accept from anyone but a victim he will attempt to destroy. In the process of ignoring a plainly rational citation of his inconsistency, he has opened a door to read about his malice, his bigotry, and his murderous role in a World War where suicide has become the method of choice for provacatuers who want to consolidate their hold on economic and cultural power.
Posted by Nickengland on July 18, 2005, at 16:44:41
In reply to Re: I feel put down--And » Nickengland, posted by so on July 18, 2005, at 16:03:10
>Your accusation that I am motivated by revenge, along with a failure to recognize Hsiungs hostility toward me is evidence you are not trying to understand my perspective. He demonstrated malicious hostility to me in a 13-day delay in responding to a post I identified and he eventually admitted didn't meet his self-styled guidelines, and again in his lengthy refusal to admit the obvious -- that calling anybody "creepy" doesn't any where near conform with his guidelines.
There is no failure that I have not recognised the hostility from Dr Bob toward you.
Just because I have not spoke about these issues, does not mean I have not witnessed them. I have my own thoughts on this, but simply havent wrote them down on here as evidence for you to read.
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.