![[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 AuntieMel on August 1, 2005, at 8:24:48
In reply to Re: good point gabs. » AuntieMel, posted by gabbii on July 30, 2005, at 11:47:47
I agree with it being horrifying. There is no argument there. I also agree that a PBC was harsh under the circumstances.
She just asked if there was a p.c. name for them. So I was responding to that.
Posted by Carolina on August 1, 2005, at 8:29:04
In reply to Re: DNP above » JenStar, posted by gardenergirl on July 30, 2005, at 13:17:25
>
> >
> > Have you been posting here long?
> > JenStar
>
> I had the same question. There's something faintly familiar to me, but there are not many posts under the screen name Barosky as of yet, so I don't know why that familiarity is there.
>
> Oh, and I think you are right about there not being the opportunity to DNP Dr. Bob. Imagine the consequences! Yikes!
>
> ;)
>
>
> gg
>---thats odd gg b/c i also though something seemed SO familiar but cant place it just yet???
Posted by gabbii on August 1, 2005, at 9:33:39
In reply to Re: DNP above, posted by Carolina on August 1, 2005, at 8:29:04
> >
> > >
> > > Have you been posting here long?
> > > JenStar
> >
> > I had the same question. There's something faintly familiar to me, but there are not many posts under the screen name Barosky as of yet, so I don't know why that familiarity is there.
> >
> > Oh, and I think you are right about there not being the opportunity to DNP Dr. Bob. Imagine the consequences! Yikes!
> >
> > ;)
> >
> >
> > gg
> >
>
> ---thats odd gg b/c i also though something seemed SO familiar but cant place it just yet???*Wrong*
Posted by gabbii on August 1, 2005, at 9:40:30
In reply to Re: good point gabs. » gabbii, posted by AuntieMel on August 1, 2005, at 8:24:48
> I agree with it being horrifying. There is no argument there. I also agree that a PBC was harsh under the circumstances.
>
> She just asked if there was a p.c. name for them. So I was responding to that.Oh, that had been part of my post originally so I wasn't sure, I didn't really understand why the mention of war tactics by different groups though, as she (T) hadn't made any generalizations that way, I guess it was just free association. Sorry Auntie Mel
The fact that it was directed to Caroline should have clued me in.
Posted by Carolina on August 1, 2005, at 9:53:45
In reply to Re: good point gabs. » AuntieMel, posted by gabbii on August 1, 2005, at 9:40:30
what was directed at me? i must have missed something??? havn't slept in going on 4 days so i prob. am just braindead rt. now. anyone want to fill me in??? Pls?
Posted by gabbii on August 1, 2005, at 11:31:37
In reply to Re: DNP above » Carolina, posted by gabbii on August 1, 2005, at 9:33:39
The inference from your post was pretty obvious, but it's incorrect, that's all I was saying.
> > ---thats odd gg b/c i also though something seemed SO familiar but cant place it just yet???
Posted by gabbii on August 1, 2005, at 11:35:14
In reply to Re: DNP above » gabbii, posted by gabbii on August 1, 2005, at 11:31:37
Posted by Carolina on August 1, 2005, at 13:00:47
In reply to Re: DNP above » gabbii, posted by gabbii on August 1, 2005, at 11:31:37
ok...still lost but have better idea now that i have read everything. i'll just leave this alone-don't wanna step on any toes! take care-carolina
Posted by gabbii on August 1, 2005, at 13:55:37
In reply to RE:ABOVE » gabbii, posted by Carolina on August 1, 2005, at 13:00:47
> ok...still lost but have better idea now that i have read everything. i'll just leave this alone-don't wanna step on any toes! take care-carolina
Well if you didn't mean anything by the capitalized "SO" then I apologize for my assumption.
Posted by Nickengland on August 1, 2005, at 14:32:34
In reply to Re: DNP above, posted by Carolina on August 1, 2005, at 8:29:04
>---thats odd gg b/c i also though something seemed SO familiar but cant place it just yet???
Are you refering to the previous poster of 'so' who was blocked?
Lots of people have said things about 'so' using his name in such a way like you have with hightlighting SO.
Gabbii definately thought you was refering to the poster 'so' When I read your post it seemed that way to me too...
I wonder if barosky will comment....
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by Nickengland on August 1, 2005, at 15:05:34
In reply to Re: DNP above » gabbii, posted by gabbii on August 1, 2005, at 11:31:37
>The inference from your post was pretty obvious, but it's incorrect, that's all I was saying.
Hi Gabbii,
Just out of curosity, how would you know if its incorrect?
I do remember 'so' saying that when he returns he something along the lines of, he will not make himself known i.e we will not recognise that 'he/she' has even returned...
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by gabbii on August 1, 2005, at 15:40:25
In reply to Re: DNP above » gabbii, posted by Nickengland on August 1, 2005, at 15:05:34
> >The inference from your post was pretty obvious, but it's incorrect, that's all I was saying.
>
> Hi Gabbii,
>
> Just out of curosity, how would you know if its incorrect?
>
Hi Nick!I can't blame you for asking, ( I suppose I asked for it : ) I don't really want to add any more fuel to the situation though.
Posted by Nickengland on August 1, 2005, at 16:05:42
In reply to Re: DNP above » Nickengland, posted by gabbii on August 1, 2005, at 15:40:25
Hi Gabbii!
I didn't realise there was a situation occuring, but I respect your wishes.
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by Nickengland on August 1, 2005, at 16:21:00
In reply to Re: DNP above » Nickengland, posted by gabbii on August 1, 2005, at 15:40:25
Ahhhh....through reading other posts I now realise there was something escalating..
Posted by gabbii on August 1, 2005, at 16:27:57
In reply to Re: DNP above » gabbii, posted by Nickengland on August 1, 2005, at 16:21:00
Posted by Carolina on August 1, 2005, at 22:54:31
In reply to Re: DNP above » gabbii, posted by Nickengland on August 1, 2005, at 15:05:34
Posted by barosky on August 2, 2005, at 3:20:43
In reply to Re: DNP above, posted by Carolina on August 1, 2005, at 8:29:04
I don't think I phrase my posts in the same way SO does do you? Or is it just the way I act, I think *SO* is quite eccentric and interesting at the same time, you can check IP'S, if you want, I am not *SO* Personally I thought that LOU guy was SO, I mean come on "I request for SO's reinstatement"
Posted by crazy teresa on August 3, 2005, at 12:26:10
In reply to *SO* familiar HAHAHHAHAHAH, posted by barosky on August 2, 2005, at 3:20:43
I was very touched and greatly surprised to read the many supportive posts regarding my block. I had no intentions of creating such a stir, but am very gratified by your comments. Thank you very, very much!
Dr. Bob has not responded to email, so I am left with questions: Hypothetically, if a person comes to this site who was very distraught (suicidal) over an issue or occurance in his/her life, feeling this was the last (or even first) place he/she could get support (for whatever reason), has a rant to express his/her feelings, waits for a reply of support or encouragement, but instead is met with block for not being politically correct enough in the expression of those feelings, what is the point of the existence of this website? Can we even consider feelings politically correct/incorrect, as your feelings might not agree with my feelings and this could result in someone's feelings getting hurt? Could then depression be considered a politically incorrect disease since we're dealing with the way we feel? Should we discuss being abused here since we could possibly offend the abusers, now that we know we shouldn't offend murderers? At which point does the need for political correctness overcome the need to be human? Who decided political correctness was more important than the display of emotion, no matter how human?
crazy teresa
Posted by crushedout on August 3, 2005, at 16:11:50
In reply to THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!!!!!!!!!, posted by crazy teresa on August 3, 2005, at 12:26:10
teresa,welcome back!
well, in general, despite our mental challenges, we're required on this site to respect certain rules which are there for a reason (to protect other people the site from getting hurt). i agree with that in principle. however, in the case of your PBC (for the dragging/beheading "rant"), I think Dr. Bob clearly made a mistake (and he even concedes that he might have asked you to rephrase instead of PBC'ing you). personally, i think you said nothing that could be offensive to anyone here (other than someone who thinks murdering, etc. is good), and that you needn't have even rephrased. unfortunately, my thoughts don't count for much with dr. bob. but there you have it.
as for your block, i don't much agree with that either but i feel less strongly that he was wrong as i do with your pbc.
basically, my point is that we have to live within rules here and i think it's good that we do (even though it can often be challenging). the unfortunate piece is that they don't always get enforced in a way that seems to me to be logical or fair. i'm sorry that you were chastised for expressing your very understandable feelings in a perfectly appropriate way.
crushedout
Posted by barosky on August 3, 2005, at 16:38:35
In reply to THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!!!!!!!!!, posted by crazy teresa on August 3, 2005, at 12:26:10
> I was very touched and greatly surprised to read the many supportive posts regarding my block. I had no intentions of creating such a stir, but am very gratified by your comments. Thank you very, very much!
>
> Dr. Bob has not responded to email, so I am left with questions: Hypothetically, if a person comes to this site who was very distraught (suicidal) over an issue or occurance in his/her life, feeling this was the last (or even first) place he/she could get support (for whatever reason), has a rant to express his/her feelings, waits for a reply of support or encouragement, but instead is met with block for not being politically correct enough in the expression of those feelings, what is the point of the existence of this website? Can we even consider feelings politically correct/incorrect, as your feelings might not agree with my feelings and this could result in someone's feelings getting hurt? Could then depression be considered a politically incorrect disease since we're dealing with the way we feel? Should we discuss being abused here since we could possibly offend the abusers, now that we know we shouldn't offend murderers? At which point does the need for political correctness overcome the need to be human? Who decided political correctness was more important than the display of emotion, no matter how human?
>
> crazy teresa
I agree completely and that is why I am vehemently opposed to Dr. Bob's strict policies, I believe they do more harm then good. As you stated in the post, what if someone is suicidal, comes to this board for a final attempt at reaching out and is blocked because she broke some obscure rule. Does she just kill herself now or what?Think about it, the persons last attempt to reach out was thwarted, that person takes it as a sign as her efforts being pointless, and that she was destined for her fate, the person tried, and takes what she sees as the only other alternative. It just puts emphasis on the persons hopelessness.
(I tried to put He/she ,instead of just she in the post, but I just couldn't get it to sound right so I just put she for matter of fluency and convience)
Posted by barosky on August 3, 2005, at 17:00:53
In reply to Re: THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!!!!!!!!! » crazy teresa, posted by crushedout on August 3, 2005, at 16:11:50
>
> teresa,
>
> welcome back!
>
> well, in general, despite our mental challenges, we're required on this site to respect certain rules which are there for a reason (to protect other people the site from getting hurt). i agree with that in principle. however, in the case of your PBC (for the dragging/beheading "rant"), I think Dr. Bob clearly made a mistake (and he even concedes that he might have asked you to rephrase instead of PBC'ing you). personally, i think you said nothing that could be offensive to anyone here (other than someone who thinks murdering, etc. is good), and that you needn't have even rephrased. unfortunately, my thoughts don't count for much with dr. bob. but there you have it.
>
> as for your block, i don't much agree with that either but i feel less strongly that he was wrong as i do with your pbc.
>
> basically, my point is that we have to live within rules here and i think it's good that we do (even though it can often be challenging).
> crushedout
I don't know how long you've been here, but I have been monitoring this board for a long time (though I just registered recently) And have seen many, many threads on this administrative board disputing dr. bob's overly strict policy. Usually it was because a very knowledgable individual was banned under the same circumstances crazy t was banned under. Dr. Bob does not learn.This is how it works, a thread ensues after a poor decision was made by Dr. bob. After a chain of about 100 posts urging Dr. Bob to reverse the decision, Bob steps in with some, one sentence response, he may do something like apologize for the poor decision, or whatever, but will just ban someone else for another ridiculous reason the next day, and the cycle repeats itself, it never stops.
His strict policies are a detriment to the community especially when people like CHEMIST and Larry Hoover, become blocked from the community, because of this forums insane guidelines.
Lets be real, noone was offended by anything they did, the violations were so in line with what happened to crazy-t. You have to ask yourself if it was worth losing such a valuable source of information, for a reason most everyone disagreed with. Bob is suppose to be doing what's best for the community, and alot of the times the community rails against Bob for his decisions.
Now that Dr. Bob insists on enforcing his strict rules we don't have the benefit of having people like chemist and larry hoover around. This is ridiculous, it feels like a dictatorship, you can't express yourself at all. In my opinion Dr. Bob is biased against certain members, especially those who may have an outstanding amount of knowledge about meds and such. Just about all the members who knew anything here have been banned, it's really a shame.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 3, 2005, at 21:00:22
In reply to Re: THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!!!!!!!!!, posted by barosky on August 3, 2005, at 17:00:53
Friends,
It is written here,[...Just about all of the members that knew anything here have been banned...]
I am requesting that if you are going to respond to this aspect of this thread that you ask yourself the following:
A. In your opinion, could the statement have the potential to mean that there are now only a few members here that know anything?
B. If so, is it possible to identify these members? And if so, by what,in your opinion, criteria?
C. In your opinion, does the statement in question have the potential to mean that there is a corrolation between knowlege of a member with unsuitableness to the community? If so, what is your opinion of what the number could be of the corrolation coefficient?
D. In your opinion, does the statement in question have the potential to mean that those here now are not likly to be banned?
E. If someone here has never been banned, in your opinion, could the statement in question have the potential to mean that they are likly to not know anything?
F. In your opinion, does the statement in question have the potential to mean that the more one knows the more likely it is that the member will be banned? If so, what is your opinion as to why that is?
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on August 3, 2005, at 21:41:53
In reply to THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!!!!!!!!!, posted by crazy teresa on August 3, 2005, at 12:26:10
> Hypothetically, if a person comes to this site who was very distraught (suicidal) over an issue or occurance in his/her life, feeling this was the last (or even first) place he/she could get support (for whatever reason), has a rant to express his/her feelings, waits for a reply of support or encouragement, but instead is met with block for not being politically correct enough in the expression of those feelings, what is the point of the existence of this website?
Your hypothetical situation certainly would be distressing; however, I believe that the scope of support this site is set up for would not necessarily include keeping someone from imminent suicide. Not to say that people with suicidal thoughts and feelings have not been helped by posting here and gaining support. But I really do not think that the site can be faulted or that rules can be amended just because a poster might be in a more fragile state. Anyone who is such imminent danger of suicide needs much more direct and in person intervention than any website can provide.
>Can we even consider feelings politically correct/incorrect, as your feelings might not agree with my feelings and this could result in someone's feelings getting hurt? Could then depression be considered a politically incorrect disease since we're dealing with the way we feel? Should we discuss being abused here since we could possibly offend the abusers, now that we know we shouldn't offend murderers? At which point does the need for political correctness overcome the need to be human? Who decided political correctness was more important than the display of emotion, no matter how human?
I think these are good questions. There certainly needs to be some guidelines about posting, especially if one is posting potentially sensitive material. But I find you can post a great deal about sensitive subjects if you post from a stance of owning your own feelings and thoughts. There is a definite skill to this, and it is more than just using the word "I". It's tricky in this medium, as well, because you cannot control how a message will be received. I guess that's why discoursing from a stance of owning your feelings, beliefs, and thoughts while recognizing that other individuals have their own feelings, thoughts, and beliefs as well is a safer way to go in order to avoid offending someone, even unintentionally.
And now that I've rambled all of that, I'm not sure what my message is. I tend to babble on at times and think "out loud".
I guess I'm just saying that you ask good questions, and I think we have a great deal of freedom in posting if we not only master "I" statements, but also actually communicate from the stance of "I".
Ack. I know what I mean. Too bad I can't just do an interpretive dance to express it. ;)
glad you came back.
gg
>
> crazy teresa
Posted by barosky on August 3, 2005, at 23:25:13
In reply to Lou's response to barosky's post-sofew?, posted by Lou Pilder on August 3, 2005, at 21:00:22
> A. In your opinion, could the statement have the potential to mean that there are now only a >few members here that know anything?Yes it could, but I didn't intend to promote that message, I meant there were few members who had the outstanding amount of knowledge that chemist, larry hoover and , etc had.
> criteria?Criteria would be the amount of knowledge exhibited about a subject, it is pretty much understood who are the extraoridinarily knowledgable members of this board, and I think almost all of them have been banned
> C. In your opinion, does the statement in question have the potential to mean that there is a corrolation between knowlege of a member >with unsuitableness to the community? If so, what is your opinion of what the number could be >of the corrolation coefficient?
There is a correlation between knoweledgable members, and getting banned, many of the members that were banned just happened to be the *go to* person on this board.
> D. In your opinion, does the statement in question have the potential to mean that those >here now are not likly to be banned?
Yes, I wouldn't be surprised.> E. If someone here has never been banned, in your opinion, could the statement in question have the potential to mean that they are likly >to not know anything?
sigh,
No, it means they don't have the amount of impressive knolwedge that certain highly regarded members had.
> F. In your opinion, does the statement in question have the potential to mean that the more one knows the more likely it is that the member will be banned? If so, what is your opinion as to why that is?
> LouI don't know Dr. Bob's intentions, jelously?? Who knows, I really don't know what drives him..
Posted by 10derHeart on August 4, 2005, at 0:12:12
In reply to Re: THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!!!!!!!!! » crazy teresa, posted by gardenergirl on August 3, 2005, at 21:41:53
>> Too bad I can't just do an interpretive dance to express it. ;)
It's okay, gg, go right ahead and dance...I'm watching! 8-)
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.