![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 39. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Racer on August 4, 2005, at 22:58:40
At this point I no longer care if I am blocked or not, and hope that others will at least indicate whether or not they agree with me here.
{deep breath}
Dr Bob, while I think that it's great to have posted guidelines and rules, it seems to me that it is impossible to codify every circumstance in a way that is always effective. I am both concerned and quite upset that the situation here on Admin has gone on so long and upset so many people so deeply without a little more input from you. Although it's wonderful that you are trying to create a "safe" place for us to practice our civility skills, and to work on learning to adjust to the sorts of stressors most of us have to face here and there in Real Life, and all the rest of it. Great, wonderful, just primo.
The fact is, though, that Real Life usually has some protections for us -- if someone stalks me in real life, for example, I can go to the police, who will take a report even if the person in question has not broken any laws per se up to that point. (I know this, because I had to do it in college, back in the 80s. Just to make this perfectly clear: this point is illustrative, not specific to anything that has happened here.)
In the same vein, I really believe that it is time for you to step in and model some reality testing in regards to some of Lou's posts. While it may be that Lou is skirting within the LETTER of the guidelines, and it might be good for us to learn to get along with people we find upsetting, it is also good to set limits -- and sometimes it's just plain best for the group that ONE person is not permitted to continue disrupting the entire group.
For what it's worth, I am very concerned about Nikki. This subject still seems to be upsetting to her, and she has stated numerous times that she feels harrassed by Lou's posts about what she has written. In checking back on some of the other threads involving the two of them, I see that you actually did give what sounded like a pretty clear determination to Lou:
"Lou, it's now up to you to deal in some other way with posts by her, for example, by not even reading them.
Bob "
(http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/410814.html)
Please, Dr Bob. I realize that we all have the right not to read posts we think are likely to upset us. I realize that for some of us this may include all posts by certain posters. I also realize that it means that some of us here might choose not to read any posts by Lou Pilder. In my case, by the way, I really only read those that are either pointed out to me by other posters or those that Babble Buddies of mine are involved in. And when I see that those Babble Buddies are upset by something that is written, I do tend to get a bit het up by it. Please protect us a bit more from behavior that has been so upsetting to so many of us here? Please provide some appropriate limits -- even if they cannot be codified precisely -- and model some reality for ALL of us here?
For the record, I believe that NikkiT has been an extraordinarily valuable member of this community for a very, very long time, and it upsets me that she can be hurt by Lou's posts so many times without your protection. I would hate to see her leave because she feels unsafe, but I hardly blame her for feeling unsafe here at this point.
I believe that it is in everybody's best interest for you to impose some more limits here. Even if they may be considered arbitrary, helping the rest of us feel safe here again -- for many of us it is our most comfortable source of support, literally a life line -- and I believe it would also be good for Lou to be asked to moderate his behavior in order to promote a bit more responsive to other people's feelings. Reality testing, if you want to think of it that way.
Thank you very much for taking the time to read what I have to say.
Posted by Carolina on August 4, 2005, at 23:59:46
In reply to Dr Bob -- yes, Lou, it is about you this time, posted by Racer on August 4, 2005, at 22:58:40
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 5, 2005, at 0:25:53
In reply to Dr Bob -- yes, Lou, it is about you this time, posted by Racer on August 4, 2005, at 22:58:40
Friends,
It is written here,[...ONE person....disrupting the entire group...]and the poster also writes in the subject line that the post is about me (Lou).
I am requesting that you consider the following if you are going to respond to the aspects of this thread.
A. Can posters here write posts to me and when I respond to them that that constitutes disrupting the entire group?
B. Are you understanding of the concept of "scapegoating"?
C. Are you aware that my posts are generally responses to aspects of other posts by other members here?
E. Are you knowlegable about the unconstituional aspects of Ex-post facto and entrapmemt?
F. Are you knowlegable about the concept of stigmatization?
G. If I am supposed to be disrupting the entire group by responding and discussing here, then are others that respopnd and discuss here also disrupting the entire group?
H. In the statement in question ,[...someone here has threatened to sue me for defamation..]is there in your opinion a finger being pointed at someone here? If so, do you think that is a sound mental health practice here?
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on August 5, 2005, at 0:41:57
In reply to Dr Bob -- yes, Lou, it is about you this time, posted by Racer on August 4, 2005, at 22:58:40
Sweetie,
I know this wasn't easy for you to post. I admire your honesty in expressing your concern and your willingness to take responsibility for your words.You're quite a gal.
gg
Posted by Racer on August 5, 2005, at 0:48:23
In reply to Racer, my dear friend » Racer, posted by gardenergirl on August 5, 2005, at 0:41:57
And, for what it's worth, I am trying very hard not to respond to any more posts that upset me tonight. I have said what I really felt needed to be said, and now I'm going to let it stand. I can't see the value in responding to any replies to it that upset me.
Thank you for your support. You mean a lot to me, and I'm glad I have your support in expressing myself on this subject.
Posted by Sarah T. on August 5, 2005, at 0:51:11
In reply to Dr Bob -- yes, Lou, it is about you this time, posted by Racer on August 4, 2005, at 22:58:40
Hi Racer,
I am very appreciative of your message. You wrote what I've been wanting to write for a long time. It is clear that a lot goes on here that is neither supportive nor educational. I do not understand why mental health is so low on Psychobabble's list of priorities. Although Psychobabble is not a therapy board, I believe its ultimate goal should be the encouragement and promotion of mental health, and health in general. Certain behaviors should not only NOT be supported or encouraged; they should be discouraged and/or disciplined. For example, if a severely ill, untreated, unmedicated individual made it his life's mission to ACT OUT his illness on the board rather than seek help via medication and therapy, and if that individual spent nearly all day, every day, month after month, year after year, tormenting and harassing others who struggle valiantly to overcome their afflictions, then that person should be either permanently banned from the board or banned for several years, with the possibility of return being contingent upon his being in, remaining in, and reaching certain goals in psychiatric treatment. Other posters should be actively dissuaded from engaging in what is called "co-dependency" or "enabling" in popular jargon. Psychoanalysts refer to a shared delusion as "Folie a deux." Dr. Bob and Psychobabblers should be doing everything we can to prevent Psychobabble from becoming the "Folly of many."
"Support and education." Support and education to what end? Terrorists support and encourage each other in order to harm those whom they resent and hate. Terrorists educate each other for the purpose of perpetuating EVIL, often in the name of god and religion.
I believe that support and education are devoid of meaning unless they are applied to healthy, constructive goals. Psychobabble members should provide support and education to each other for the purpose of promoting mental HEALTH, NOT mental illness.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 5, 2005, at 1:04:13
In reply to Thank you, Racer, thank you. » Racer, posted by Sarah T. on August 5, 2005, at 0:51:11
Friends,
It is written her,[....tormenting and harassing others...].
I am requesting that you consider the following if you are considering responding to the aspects of this thread.
A. Can the person that is written here that is described as [...tormenting and harassing others...], be identified?
B. if not, could there be any potential for others here to have the potential to think that the person is me (Lou)?
C. If so, it is not my intention to torment or harass others here.
D. If you have an opinion as to who you think the person is that is being described as [...tormenting and harassing others...], could you write your identification here?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 5, 2005, at 1:07:37
In reply to Lou's response to Sarah T's post-whodoyu?, posted by Lou Pilder on August 5, 2005, at 1:04:13
Friends,
I am requesting that you consider the additional aspect in responding to this thread that the subject line initiating the thread writes that this is about me (Lou)
Lou
Posted by partlycloudy on August 5, 2005, at 6:47:28
In reply to Dr Bob -- yes, Lou, it is about you this time, posted by Racer on August 4, 2005, at 22:58:40
You have my support as well.
pc
Posted by Nikkit2 on August 5, 2005, at 7:49:01
In reply to Dr Bob -- yes, Lou, it is about you this time, posted by Racer on August 4, 2005, at 22:58:40
*hugs you in a very non huggy kind of way*
*l*
nikki
Posted by Minnie-Haha on August 5, 2005, at 9:20:08
In reply to Dr Bob -- yes, Lou, it is about you this time, posted by Racer on August 4, 2005, at 22:58:40
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 5, 2005, at 10:30:10
In reply to Dr Bob -- yes, Lou, it is about you this time, posted by Racer on August 4, 2005, at 22:58:40
Friends,
I am requesting that you read the following link if you are going to respond to this thread.
The link has some aspects about scapegoating and how a group uses {blame} and {pointing a finger} and such as propaganda tools to arrouse ill-will toward another. It writes about how blaming another for what another has done is used in scapegoating. The person is blamed on misleading statements, sterotypeing, and statements showing resentment toward the person used as a scapegoat.
The Nazis carried scapegoating to the murder of millions of people. Kristallnacht was a state-sponsored scapegoating.
It is not my intention here to {disrupt the entire forum} by responding to posts here like others here or to request for educational purposes that those that are considering responding to threads that I am a discussant in, take into consideration factors that I think could be relevant in the discussion.
I believe that my requests to those considering responding to read aspects of concern, involve preventative concepts. I believe that my requests could have the potential to thwart any attempt for one to create a hostile environment toward me or another. I believe that my requests could have the potential to thwart any attempt to have a {Badge of Shame} put on me or another here.
I am requesting that you read the following for discussional purposes in this thread if you are considering responding here.
Lou
http://www.united.non-profit.nl/pages/info03n9.htm#01
Posted by AuntieMel on August 5, 2005, at 11:26:52
In reply to Dr Bob -- yes, Lou, it is about you this time, posted by Racer on August 4, 2005, at 22:58:40
I have always been supportive of Lou being able to ask for determinations and say what he needs to say.
But - and I can't completely put my finger on it - there is something about this last exchange that is really troubling me.
Perhaps it is because it is all about one part of one sentence of one post of one conversation and the rest of the conversation is ignored?
Perhaps it is because it comes at a time when Nikki least needs it?
Perhaps because when she asks (no, begs!) to have it stop it doesn't?
Maybe all these rolled into one?
So, thank you Racer.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 5, 2005, at 13:42:17
In reply to Re: Thank you Racer, posted by AuntieMel on August 5, 2005, at 11:26:52
Friends,
I am requesting that you consider the following if you are going to respond to this thread.
A. The poster writes,[...perhaps it is because it is all about one part of one sentence of one post of one conversation...when she (NikkiT2) asks...to have {it} stopped {it} doesn't...].
I am responding to other's posts here. If {it} is to be stopped, could not others here not post statements that have the potential to have the potential for others to write about {it} that I, or anyone else, could respond to?
I am responding now to this post by AM. The poster writes,[...in a time when Nikki least needs it...].
I am asking you to ask yourself the following if you are going to respond to this thread:
A. In your opinion, does the post innitiated by the poster here that I am responding to, honor NikkiT2's request to [...have {it} stopped...]?
B. In your opinion, does the post here innitiated by the poster that I am responding to, have the potential to have others follow with posts that have the potential to not,[...have {it} stopped...]?
C. In your opinion, looking at the statement written here by the poster that innitiated my response here,[...I have always been supportive of Lou being able to ask...and say what he needs to say...],does that statement have an {invitation} in it for me to respond to the statement? And if so, could there be something written by me that could be related to what NikkiT2 has requested to,[..have it stopped...]?
D. If the above is so, could you clarify if you think, in your opinion, if there is the potential for others to have the potential to think that NikkiT2 is requesting that I not respond to other's posts here, but others can post, or , in your opinion, could there be the potential for one to have the potential to think that NikkiT2 is requesting that {all} posts that could have the potential to write about {it}, be stopped or something else?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 5, 2005, at 14:52:26
In reply to Dr Bob -- yes, Lou, it is about you this time, posted by Racer on August 4, 2005, at 22:58:40
Friends,
I am requesting that if you are fgoing to respond to this thread that you read the folllowing link.
The link writes some about fascism and how that type of system of administration uses dehuminizing tactics and scapegoating and the forcible supression of points of view that are opposing to those that have obtained fascist power over others. The link is for discussion purposes and I do not endorse fascism.
Lou
http://remember.org/hist.root.what.html
Posted by NikkiT2 on August 5, 2005, at 15:03:18
In reply to Lou's response to-- yes, Lou, it is about you-fasm, posted by Lou Pilder on August 5, 2005, at 14:52:26
Lou,
are you suggesting that *anyone* here is acting in a fascist manner?
And if not, please explain WHY you would bring it up in this thread?
No one here is scapegoating. People get hurt by your "reuqests for determination / please take into account the following" type posts. Thats a fact, not an attempt at scapegoating.
I don't know how you feel about such words, but many people are shocked and offended when others suggest they could be fascist, or anti-semetic etc.
Please answer this with a real answer, and not further questions that are directed at board members for them to consider.
Nikki
Posted by crushedout on August 5, 2005, at 15:07:04
In reply to Re: Lou's response to-- yes, Lou, it is about you- » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on August 5, 2005, at 15:03:18
just a word of advice: you might want to try banging your head against a brick wall. i find that works better. (i'm just kidding. please don't actually bang your head.)
congrats on your job!
Posted by NikkiT2 on August 5, 2005, at 15:15:37
In reply to hi nikki » NikkiT2, posted by crushedout on August 5, 2005, at 15:07:04
Ah, atleast this way doesn't cause permanent scars *laughing*
And cheers.. its a fab job and a really fantastic opportunity!
Nikki xx
Posted by AuntieMel on August 5, 2005, at 15:39:30
In reply to Re: hi nikki » crushedout, posted by NikkiT2 on August 5, 2005, at 15:15:37
Don't let this ruin your great day.
Sometimes things should just go unacknowledged.
Go celebrate. Babble will be here in the morning.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 5, 2005, at 16:39:22
In reply to Lou's response to-- yes, Lou, it is about you-fasm, posted by Lou Pilder on August 5, 2005, at 14:52:26
Friends,
it is written here something about scapegoating from another member here.
I am requesting that if you are going to reply to this thread that you consider the followin:
Scapegoating is a word that has ancient religious meanings. The ancient Jews had the concept of the scapegoat and then the Christians .
But scapegoating here can be a little different. The aspect of scapegoating used on a person in a group has been used historically as a tactic used by other members of a group to attatch blame on a person, holding that person responsible for something that could either exist or not in the community.
Either way, scapegoating can occur if there is someone calling others in the group to have blame attached to a person in a group by the others in the group.
In fascists countries, scapegoating has been used historically against many persons and groups. Hitler's scapegoating culminated in the holocaust. Millions of people were murdered. In looking at the historical chronology of the Nazi scapegoating of jews and others, there is a succession of things that happen. The first thing is to have someone publish something to arrouse blame to the one, or ones, that are being scapgoated.
In the innitial post in this thread, in your opinion, do you see any indication that any blame for anything in this community is being attempted to be attached to me? In your opinion, is there a statement in the innitial post that could have the potential for some others to think that I (Lou) is having attached blame for ,[...disrupting the entire group...]? And in your opinion, what could be the potential for some others to think that, considering that the poster writes,[...hope that others will at least indicate whether or not they agree with me here..].
There are many others here that have responded to the poster of the innitial post that they agree with that poster. When this happens, there could be the potential for others to {bandwagon} and there could be the potential for {mob rule} to ensue.
I am not ashamed to post responses to other's posts here, or to offer to consider aspects that IMO could be relevant to discussions here, for they are for consideration for discussion only. And I feel that even if I have charactorized as the {Lone Dissenter} here, I feel that I can hold my own and protect my integrity against anything that is written here that could have the potential to be considered an accusation that could have the potential to attach blame to me for anything real or imiagined here in this community.
Lou
Posted by AuntieMel on August 5, 2005, at 17:11:04
In reply to Re: hi nikki » crushedout, posted by NikkiT2 on August 5, 2005, at 15:15:37
Posted by crazy teresa on August 5, 2005, at 17:35:58
In reply to Re: Ack! (nm), posted by AuntieMel on August 5, 2005, at 17:11:04
Posted by 10derHeart on August 5, 2005, at 17:49:53
In reply to Re: hi nikki » crushedout, posted by NikkiT2 on August 5, 2005, at 15:15:37
Posted by AuntieMel on August 5, 2005, at 18:08:16
In reply to Completely hysterical laughter! (nm), posted by crazy teresa on August 5, 2005, at 17:35:58
Posted by AuntieMel on August 5, 2005, at 18:08:46
In reply to Completely hysterical laughter! (nm), posted by crazy teresa on August 5, 2005, at 17:35:58
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.