![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 113 to 137 of 187. Go back in thread:
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-)
Posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 4:40:21
In reply to Re: THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!!!!!!!!!, posted by barosky on August 3, 2005, at 17:00:53
Hello barosky,
I have noticed a coincidence here so I thought i'd post what the thoughts were on my mind. On this thread it was suggested that perhaps you was the poster 'so' I had already read some of your other posts on the medications board and thought..this doesn't quite seem to be like 'so', that said, I like to keep an open mind to everything which i'm sure you do too, so all I ask is please bear with me in this message as I may be wrong, but there is still a large coincidence that I thought it was worth me posting.
>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 more or less exactly the same as the poster of 'so' which if you have been montioring this board for a long time you will probably be aware of. He/she on several occasions said that he/she had been montinoring/reading the board/archives for a long time. He/she used to comment alot of the administritive practice of this board and Dr Bob policies of such practice.
>Dr. Bob does not learn.
He/she said things of quite a similar nature.
>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.
He/she made very similar analysations like this while he/she was posting too.
>Now that Dr. Bob insists on enforcing his strict rules....
This really does tap in to his/her writing style...
Finally there was just something about this message that caught my eye that was simply different from your other style of posts. Very interesting, but the format was just like that of 'so' Even the detail of not saying "hello .. or signing your name at the end. The format is very similar indeed.
Surely I cannot help but wonder all these things seem so similar and it was only just a short time ago that 'so' was blocked for quite a while so he would be "silenced" so to speak just as his amount of posts was increasing quite abit.
Now just out of pure coincidence, another poster registers, who seems to know the exact same knowledge of how the board works, has been watching for a quite some time and is now venting what he/she feels etc etc
Well, all I can say is what a coincidence.
Kind regards
Nick
Ps And even more of a coincidence is that i'm finding myself, finding the same feelings of interest I had when I used to reply to 'so's messages?! lol
Posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 5:41:36
In reply to Re: THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!!!!!!!!!, posted by barosky on August 3, 2005, at 16:38:35
>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?
Interesting point. But i'd like to express these thoughts not in defence of Dr Bob and this nor against what you are saying.
>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?
The purpose of this board in such extream measures is not for the aid of the last resort measures of a suicidal individual. If someone is reaching out, firstly using the internet, then this site www.dr-bob.org as their last resort, they are held for their own responsibilty whether or not they take their own life at the end of the day. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it remains a fact.
The internet is a 'virtual' world and the rules of this site are not the same rules of that in real life - in actual fact the existance of people here and the very rules themselves equate to a person taping in a keyboard and looking a monitor at text and living by the existance of ''virtual' rules. This site is not intended to treat or diagnose and certainly function as a tool for keeping suicidal people alive who are reaching out. If such people are at such a point in there life where they are willing to base a persons reply, be it that of a member or an administrator's written response or whether or not they live or die - take their own life, they are held fully responsible for their own actions....in the same way if they flip a coin that day and it lands heads, or if the sun don't shine, or if their mother doesnt call, or if she does call but doesnt say 'i love you' before she says good bye, or if they get blocked for an internet forum. At the end of the day they themselves decide whether or not they take their own life.
Afew things to consider would be... you could always try to abide by the rules. The civiliy rules look like there prety much here to stay so you can either fight them or ride the wave with them. If you decide to go along with them you can focus your energy on using the site for the most positive reasons and so avoid conflict where possible.
If you go up against them..remember your voice is limited here which means your only probably end up getting frustrated - then possibly warned - then blocked. Go up against them again and the cycle continues. Not much of 'feel good' factor there I would of thought.
Maybe you feel the rules stink, should be scraped, you'd be a better adminstrator, "you'd run the place far better if you *owned* it" Hey maybe you would. Only thing is you don't *own* it. Options, open your own forum? Or if you can't beat em', join em' Sometimes perhaps its better to work as a team rather than fighting against the 'leader' At the end of the day, what Dr Bob says and what his judgement and final call is - is exactly that...his call.
It is your privilege to post here, you don't pay for membership, but at the same time you can recieve a mass of information for free. It really is quite a bargin when you look at it from some angles. I always think its better to draw positives where possible.
Finally if you really detest the practice and function of this site so badly that you just want to see it shut down and no matter what happens you just don't like what goes on here.....well being a hetrosexual male i'm not into wearing pink knickers, for this reason I dont hang around the places that sell them.
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by 10derHeart on August 4, 2005, at 12:39:46
In reply to Re: THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!!!!!!!!!, posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 5:41:36
Posted by gabbii on August 4, 2005, at 13:12:18
In reply to Great post, Nick. VERY well put :-) (nm) » Nickengland, posted by 10derHeart on August 4, 2005, at 12:39:46
that the civiity rules came into place because of the complaints/suggestions of posters. Had those posters just left, or put up or shut up as is often suggested when complaints against the rules occur, the rules that people now so often defend wouldn't exist.
Posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 14:08:33
In reply to I think it's ironic, posted by gabbii on August 4, 2005, at 13:12:18
Hi Gabbii..
I hear what you are saying and I know there is an ironic sense to that.
I'm not nessasaraly defending the rules of the site and i'm not opposing them either. I really prefer as much as possible to take a neutral stance where I can on these kind of issues, otherwise i'll be taking sides and thats not what I want to do...
Imagine though, you took away the civility rules of the site. Or even took away all rules. I'm sure you'd agree there would be a high level of anarchy?
At one point or another you would have to introduce some kind of rules, all internet forums have them I imagine. The thing is where do you draw the line so that everyone can get along with the rules..the idea of being 'civil' to one another isn't that bad is it?
I think what really opposes people to these rules is what one persons idea of being civil is, to what another persons idea of being civil is, and in this case its Dr Bob. He is judge, jury and executioner so to speak. If you don't agree on what he thinks is civil or not in some cases then you certainly are going to feel hostile if you get blocked or warned or see anyone else blocked or warned when you dont think they did anything wrong.
The civilty rules I guess are not the only way to administor a forum... I guess you can have a hand full of modorators and administrators etc that are always on hand. Perhaps in those cases though, the site owner isn't a psychiatrist with a vested interested in monitoring behaviour, if you know what I mean.
It swings and roundabouts, perhaps some people simply will not ever get along here because they can't agree with the way the civily rules are run....but they will be very, very happy in another mental health forum with different rules?
And then you know...there are some people who just don't like rules ;-)
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 14:09:38
In reply to Great post, Nick. VERY well put :-) (nm) » Nickengland, posted by 10derHeart on August 4, 2005, at 12:39:46
Posted by gabbii on August 4, 2005, at 14:14:28
In reply to Re: THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!!!!!!!!!, posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 5:41:36
\
>
> >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?
>
> The purpose of this board in such extream measures is not for the aid of the last resort measures of a suicidal individual. If someone is reaching out, firstly using the internet, then this site www.dr-bob.org as their last resort, they are held for their own responsibilty whether or not they take their own life at the end of the day. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it remains a fact.
>
I don't think that is a fact. Suicide isn't cause by a negative reaction over the internet, for sure, it's reasons go much deeper. However often people who are suicidal don't have the means to proper treatment, that *is* a fact, there is no help in many cases, as much as people would like to believe otherwise, I can attest to that, because of the isolation and lack of community help the internet is becoming a more common way to reach out.
Is it sensible? No. is someone feeling suicidal likely to be in the mind set to do what is sensible? As a last ditch attempt at reaching out perhaps because it is a place where people have felt some connection, some comfort before, I think perfectly understandable. And a slap at that time isn't the cause of suicide, but there is such a thing as the last straw, something that can tip the scales, many people who've survived suicide attempts talk about that "one last thing that finally did it"
I was, thankfully reminded recently of something I'd said, about being careful how one responds to posters because you never know just how far down someone is. I didn't heed my own advice, and was reminded of it by a friend, and I'm glad she did. We can't stop suicide, of course, but I think being open to the realities, not the just the goals of human interaction, is important in such a sensitive area.
Posted by gabbii on August 4, 2005, at 14:20:18
In reply to Re: I think it's ironic » gabbii, posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 14:08:33
> Hi Gabbii..
>
> I hear what you are saying and I know there is an ironic sense to that.
>
I wasn't suggesting taking away the rules, and the actual subject matter of the criticism wasn't my point. I don't want it to be forgotten that it was that criticism of how the site is run that brought about the rules currently valued by so many, and yet often it's hinted that those who currently criticize the administration (even politely) go somewhere else.
Posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 15:31:30
In reply to Re: THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!!!!!!!!! » Nickengland, posted by gabbii on August 4, 2005, at 14:14:28
If you don't believe someone taking there own life is there own responsibility, that is your opinion. Maybe diminished responsibility is another word.
There are alot of varables.
If someone points a gun at someone else and pulls the trigger and kills the other person. Who is responsible for the death? The person who commits murder is responsible are they not?
If someone points a gun at their own head and pulls the trigger who is responsible for there own death? They can only be responsbile for their death can they not?
Of course you can always say the gun is responsible. The tablets they took or alchohol they took an hour before was.
Or you can say no one was or nothing is responsible.
Maybe responsible is the wrong word to use. But if you plan for weeks or even months to kill yourself can then do the action and complete it -then surely you are resonsible. That is a fact, unless you can explain somehow that it isn't?
I really do not know how you can take away or adapt rules to suide with what was being said in the case that if someone comes here suicide and they get blocked, because they broke some obscure rule...
Does she just kill herself now or what?
My answer to this was as best I could answer. Obviously I was not going to say, y** and at the same time its pointless just saying no.
My point was how do we make rules to account for that question? If a suicidal poster firsts posts - do not block her or PBC in case he/she actually commits suicide? You could never enforce that?
In some respects you may not even know just through reading the texts of a poster whether or not they are at such a desparate stage in their life just as in the case take the most happiest looking poster by reading there message and for all you know they might kill themself.
Suicide is a very delicate and sensitive subject, you're a very right and I whole heatly agree with you there. My Grandfather took his own life so I myself am always fully open to the realities of this subject.
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 15:55:57
In reply to Re: I think it's ironic » Nickengland, posted by gabbii on August 4, 2005, at 14:20:18
>I don't want it to be forgotten that it was that criticism of how the site is run that brought about the rules currently valued by so many
I've only been here afew months, i'm not sure how long you've been around here for. I'm hoping in a nutshell you can explain that sentance for me.
So rules were created, because of criticism previously made before that of how the site was run.
How was the site run before these rules?
Also are you one these many people who value the current rules?
If not, how do you propose the site is run?
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by gabbii on August 4, 2005, at 16:25:34
In reply to Re: I think it's ironic » gabbii, posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 15:55:57
> >I don't want it to be forgotten that it was that criticism of how the site is run that brought about the rules currently valued by so many
>
> I've only been here afew months, i'm not sure how long you've been around here for. I'm hoping in a nutshell you can explain that sentance for me.
>Getting me to explain anything in a nutshell is kind of difficult..
> So rules were created, because of criticism previously made before that of how the site was run.
>Yes, which is why I don't think people who criticize how it is run now should be made to feel as if they should go elsewhere.
> How was the site run before these rules?
There weren't any rules, not as far as civility goes.
> Also are you one these many people who value the current rules?
>Yes, for the most part, though what I see as inconsistancy, and blocks which are out of proportion to the 'crime' bother me.
Posted by barosky on August 4, 2005, at 16:28:04
In reply to Interesting Coincidence » barosky, posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 4:40:21
I found SO'S posts quite intriguing, some of it I agreed with immensly, other stuff I just got a *conspiracy nut* impression. Like I remember posts of his where he said Dr. Bob promoted suicide, and I think at one time he equated Bob with the devil, I am not sure, but if you leave out the radical, extreme messages behind many of SO's post I do agree with him.
So maybe i've been subconsciencely reiterating aspects of SO's posts without knowing it, I do that alot.
I am very open to addressing this issue and it is strange how I have become so much equated with SO, even though I AM NOT THAT USER.
I don't know how I would prove it, maybe Bob could do an i.p. check or ,something , check what email I posted with. ANYTHING I"D BE OPEN TO , because I am NOT SO!
Posted by gabbii on August 4, 2005, at 16:35:54
In reply to Re: THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!!!!!!!!!, posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 5:41:36
>
> The purpose of this board in such extream measures is not for the aid of the last resort measures of a suicidal individual. If someone is reaching out, firstly using the internet, thwhether or not they take their own life at the end of the day.I think I misunderstood that sentence, or applied two meanings to it. Yes of course it is an individuals responsibility whether they commit suicide. I took this line though :
**then this site www.dr-bob.org as their last resort, they are held for their own responsibilty***
As a criticism of how someone's choice in dealing with their feelings.
I was using Barosky's comparison of the P.B.C Theresa got when obviously upset, to someone being highly emotional and suicidal and possibly getting p.b.c'd.
I don't think this site is geared for suicidal people, or should be counted on for that. I do believe that a rebuke when someone is obviously severely distressed could have tragic consequences, yes it is up to the individual to make the final decision, but as this is a site for mental health, I wish there was more leeway when high emotions aren't directed at anyone else.
That's all.
>
> The internet is a 'virtual' world and the rules of this site are not the same rules of that in real life - in actual fact the existance of people here and the very rules themselves equate to a person taping in a keyboard and looking a monitor at text and living by the existance of ''virtual' rules. This site is not intended to treat or diagnose and certainly function as a tool for keeping suicidal people alive who are reaching out. If such people are at such a point in there life where they are willing to base a persons reply, be it that of a member or an administrator's written response or whether or not they live or die - take their own life, they are held fully responsible for their own actions....in the same way if they flip a coin that day and it lands heads, or if the sun don't shine, or if their mother doesnt call, or if she does call but doesnt say 'i love you' before she says good bye, or if they get blocked for an internet forum. At the end of the day they themselves decide whether or not they take their own life.
>
> Afew things to consider would be... you could always try to abide by the rules. The civiliy rules look like there prety much here to stay so you can either fight them or ride the wave with them. If you decide to go along with them you can focus your energy on using the site for the most positive reasons and so avoid conflict where possible.
>
> If you go up against them..remember your voice is limited here which means your only probably end up getting frustrated - then possibly warned - then blocked. Go up against them again and the cycle continues. Not much of 'feel good' factor there I would of thought.
>
> Maybe you feel the rules stink, should be scraped, you'd be a better adminstrator, "you'd run the place far better if you *owned* it" Hey maybe you would. Only thing is you don't *own* it. Options, open your own forum? Or if you can't beat em', join em' Sometimes perhaps its better to work as a team rather than fighting against the 'leader' At the end of the day, what Dr Bob says and what his judgement and final call is - is exactly that...his call.
>
> It is your privilege to post here, you don't pay for membership, but at the same time you can recieve a mass of information for free. It really is quite a bargin when you look at it from some angles. I always think its better to draw positives where possible.
>
> Finally if you really detest the practice and function of this site so badly that you just want to see it shut down and no matter what happens you just don't like what goes on here.....well being a hetrosexual male i'm not into wearing pink knickers, for this reason I dont hang around the places that sell them.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Nick
Posted by gabbii on August 4, 2005, at 16:43:22
In reply to Am I the user *SOO?????, posted by barosky on August 4, 2005, at 16:28:04
> So maybe i've been subconsciencely reiterating aspects of SO's posts without knowing it, I do that alot.
>
> I am very open to addressing this issue and it is strange how I have become so much equated with SO, even though I AM NOT THAT USER.
>
> I don't know how I would prove it, maybe Bob could do an i.p. check or ,something , check what email I posted with. ANYTHING I"D BE OPEN TO , because I am NOT SO!You don't have to, it's clear you're not so, and actually the poster who capitalized So in her post.. as in "SO" familiar" did it inadvertantly, she actually thought you reminded her of someone else, and GG (if you saw her post) wasn't referring to So either. Aside from this latest post no one else has thought you were, or at least if they did they haven't said it on the board.
Over the years, many people have brought up criticisms similar to yours, I don't think they are all incarnations of So.
Posted by crushedout on August 4, 2005, at 17:07:35
In reply to Re: THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!!!!!!!!!, posted by barosky on August 3, 2005, at 17:00:53
why did you misquote me, barosky? you deleted the last line of my post.i think you're preaching to the choir. i've been here for a while and big part of my point was that i don't think the rules are enforced fairly. and if you read some of my recent threads i have been complaining about that. i only made the point that i think the rules *in principle* are not a bad idea. i just wish we had a better enforcement system.
Posted by gabbii on August 4, 2005, at 17:27:42
In reply to Re: THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!!!!!!!!! » barosky, posted by crushedout on August 4, 2005, at 17:07:35
>
i only made the point that i think the rules *in principle* are not a bad idea. i just wish we had a better enforcement system.Yeah. that's it. I wish I'd said that.
Posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 17:29:25
In reply to Am I the user *SOO?????, posted by barosky on August 4, 2005, at 16:28:04
I found it very interesting and like I said a coincidence...i'm sure you understand. Thanks for replying and sorry if any offense was recieved your end.
Of course Dr Bob could do checks..it wasn't my point for him to do such checks or draw him to this message.
The thing is with SO as i'm sure you'll agree he was a very interesting intelligent poster to communicate with - at least I found that anyway...and yes some of it was alittle extream I do agree.
LOL of course without adding anymore confusion and please forgive me as I dont want to sound like Columbo. But obviously for arguments sake if you was 'so' then the last thing you would do, would be to admit that you was as 'so' is currently blocked and if he was to post whilst blocked he would then have to start his block all over. What with 'so' being intelligent that he is the last thing he would do is use the same email address to re-register. As for i.p address there are plenty of programmes you can use you block your i.p address or each time you use your computer you can actually have an i.p address annoymous programme where it shows a different i.p address to the actual one you have....people actually use them specially for blocking there i.p address information from internet forums so I read.
Maybe when 'so' eventually returns you and him will have some interesting discussions...I certainly found my talks with him very interesting.
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 18:17:11
In reply to Re: I think it's ironic » Nickengland, posted by gabbii on August 4, 2005, at 16:25:34
>Yes, which is why I don't think people who criticize how it is run now should be made to feel as if they should go elsewhere.
Thats a very fair point.
Would this equate to..
Before there was no rules as such and people criticized....but what was they criticising?...because there were no rules to criticize?...was that the problem they were criticising - that they wanted rules?
Anyway, rules are made for these people and all is well so to speak for that generation if you like.
This is where I don't quite understand what your saying....the people before had no rules - they get rules.
Now people come along...and they can't fit into the rules, so are you saying the rules should now be changed yet again?
I understand you say, they shouldn't be made to feel they should go elsewhere just because they critisise how it is run. Well before there was no rules and people critisised then and rules were given. So do you feel that these new people, to be treated fairly should be given new rules too?...because they can't get along with the ones given.
With people going elsewhere, I think there is something ironic here too. Correct me if i'm wrong but from what I gather you took a liking to the poster of 'so'. Now the poster of 'so' made one of his intentions very clear indeed and that was this site should be shut down - therefore everyone would have to go elsewhere.
If i'm one of these people who you think gives the impression that people who criticise the site should go elsewhere, then please be rest assured that its only when the threat is first given to me as it was by 'so' that i respond in a such a way in the first place. I know 'so' hasn't even directly entered this discussion, but my post with barosky indirectly included him and is why it brought up the thoughts of what I said in the first place, when I originally posted that message.
That is the only case where I personally will say people might be better off elsewhere, is when someone threatens the whole entire existance of this site and everyone in it, that they could possibly be better off elsewhere.
Lets not have your point be forgotten sure, but lets not forget that what 'so's agenda was that he posted was largescale 'elsewhere-ness' and this is the poeple you are defending. Its like double irony.
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.