![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 83 to 107 of 157. Go back in thread:
Posted by gardenergirl on December 27, 2006, at 12:50:37
In reply to Re: Reminder, posted by Happyflower on December 27, 2006, at 10:47:05
> The only person talked about was directly violations of "don't post to me" , in which a paticular poster violated twice with 2 different babblers, in this exact thread...Please don't post anything that could lead others to accused. Concerns about whether a poster's behavior is civil are to be communicated via the "Notifiy the administrator" form at the bottom of every post. Since you've been asked before to be civil, I'm blocking you from posting. I've asked Dr. Bob to determine the length of the block.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should of course be civil. Dr. Bob has oversight over deputy decisions. Thus, you can always appeal this decision to him, and he may choose a different action.Regards,
gg acting as deputy
Posted by Maxime on December 27, 2006, at 13:45:22
In reply to Good Bye Posts, posted by Maxime on December 24, 2006, at 1:18:05
I have to say that I did not expect this thread to explode the way it has. I didn't think it was going to turn into a battle ground.
But all the posts are making feel very unsafe here at PB.
Time for a long break.
Maxime
Posted by Farkus on December 27, 2006, at 14:01:28
In reply to Re: Good Bye Posts, posted by Maxime on December 27, 2006, at 13:45:22
I am saddened by some of the turns the thread has taken. I do appreicate others bringing up and adding their input to an issue I have been and, no doubt, will continue to be impacted by. It is not unusual for intense feelings to lead to heated discussions. I would like to see the behavior discussed stop and I would like to see accountibility. I'm not sure I'll see either - time will tell. Maybe, just maybe, highlighting how impacted people have been by this behavior may actually stop this type of posting.
I am sorry to see the emotional carmage.
Posted by AuntieMel on December 27, 2006, at 14:12:38
In reply to Re: Good Bye Posts, posted by Farkus on December 27, 2006, at 14:01:28
It is a multi-faceted problem.
It is hard, if not impossible, to know when someone is serious or if someone is "crying wolf."
I would hate to assume one thing, just to find out I was wrong. The guilt would be overwhelming.
Should we refuse to help someone in crisis? I don't think anyone would want that.
I do understand people thinking "crying wolf" or "melodrama." Once I thought the same thing about someone. Later I found out from someone in phone contact that the person *was* really in crisis.
Luckily nothing came of it, but I felt horrible just the same.
Posted by fayeroe on December 27, 2006, at 15:41:28
In reply to Re: Do I have to take y'all outside? » AuntieMel, posted by Happyflower on December 26, 2006, at 13:11:54
> I will calm down when this matter is taken seriously and not made light of by asking us if you should take us all outside. Geeze my mother did do that, and beat the sh*t out of me until I couldn't stand anymore or sit for that matter for days.
> Rules have been broken, and nothing is done except threatening to take us outside. If that abusive comment was meant to be funny, well it isn't to anyone who has been "taken outside" and was abused afterwards.
>
> I guess I expected more from a deputy.
it's too bad when something like this is said, even if the deputy thought she was making a joke. as much hurt as there was in the thread, i don't see how making a joke would have helped anything anyway.there are numerous abuse victims here and everyone has heard that one many more times that they should have had to hear it.
Happyflower, i am appalled, but not surprised, that you got blocked. it is the one size fits all remedy.
i am proud of you for taking the stand that you took and support you, as i've said before, and will see you if you come back......xoxoxo pat
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2006, at 16:03:30
In reply to Re: *Trigger* Happyflower and » Farkus, posted by ElaineM on December 27, 2006, at 12:33:25
> I agree with what you've written and support the need to find an appropriate resolution to suicide being used as a threat -- direct or implied. I've said a couple of my thoughts before, and don't really have anything new to add, but I support the efforts of this thread.
>
> I agree that a link can be there even if "appropriate" wording is used. Perhaps by taking one or two questionable sentences out of a post/thread it's possible to argue that nothing further than what the language specifically suggests is implied. But I think it can become evident within the context of an entire post, or a string of post/replies in a thread (if such are written). I don't have a problem with posting of suicidal ideation, or wanting to kill oneself, just when it's connected to the actions, or non-actions of other posters. I'm personally extremely sensitive to the word "if", in that context. I'm confused because I've seen posters get blocked for, what I'd consider, much less. Perhaps I'm too sensitive, but I don't know what could be worse on a mental health forum than not ensuring that suicide is always treated with the utmost sensitivity, respect and gravity.
>
> This is also something that's probably just my own personal thing but it's along similar lines, so I figured I'd add it in here. Theoretically, I would feel manipulated if suicide was repeatedly, and knowingly, used inplace of a (perhaps less loaded) emotion. I feel that reducing such a devastating act to a synonym for "confused", "hurt", "angry", "afraid", "rejected", "lonely", or any other emotion makes light of that type of death. I would feel offended if a process like that could be acknowledged by each party involved, "apoligized" for, and yet repeated over - without consequence. It would make me feel manipulated and unsafe - but that's just me.
>
> It is true that I, as others, have some transference issues regarding behaviours and subjects encountered when using this or other forums, but I don't think that that should detract from the concurrant, in-the-moment interaction happening here, or provide a reason for it to be ignored or consequence-free -- whenever it occurs, and by whomever. I'd think lack of appropriate use of consequences fosters repetition, not discussion or re-education -- if anything I'd think it would only do the opposite.
>
> I'm sorry that so many involved with this thread are hurting - everyone.
> blove, ElFriends,
It is written here,[...I..support the need to find a resolution to suicide being used as a threat..direct or implied...I support the efforts of this thread...suicide treated with the utmost...].
I am tremendously interested in this thread and its development to, in my hopes, to reach a higher level of understanding about suicide as a result of the efforts of posters here , for it is a very stressfull topic, even in a mental-health forum.
Looking at what Dr. Hsiung has posted here in 716245, he writes,[..online..of suicide ideation can be..suicide prevention..enable to receive more..support...stressfull for others..attract..false reports...]
In this administrative discussion, many have posted what their thoughts are concerning this important topic and how the administration could be used accordingly.
My views are that aspects that arrise out of this discussion can have the potential to have a preventative effect to others that read this thread if some of the issues could be explored more. But this could be problematic.
Looking back at ElaineM's statement,[...resolution of suicde being used as a threat..] and coupled with Dr. Hsiung's statemnet,[...enable to receive more support...], then I think that a different forum here for just being about suicide, with a different set of guidlines for discussion could IMO facilitate a more supportive millieu for this unique aspect that IMO is deresrving of special circumstatnces.
Looking again at DR. Hsiung's post here, he writes that others could be attracted to this forum for these type of threads. Well, if there was a forum here only for that, then could there not be the potential for that circumstance to be welcomed? Any ideas?
Lou
Posted by bottomfeeder on December 27, 2006, at 17:12:42
In reply to Re: Good Bye Posts *Trigger*, posted by Dr. Bob on December 24, 2006, at 23:55:56
> I've said elsewhere that: The online ventilation of suicidal ideation can be an important part of suicide prevention, and the expression of suicidal thoughts and feelings is not prohibited here. This may enable suicidal posters to receive more effective support, but there are trade-offs: it may also be stressful for other members, attract suicidal posters (and thereby increase the incidence of suicide in the group), and make the group more vulnerable to false reports.Let me get this straight....someone talking about suicide here can be given support and may change their mind, but the "trade-off" is that it can increase the incidence of suicide in the group...hmmmm....so save 1 and maybe lose more than that....is this trade-off worth it Dr. Bob?????
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2006, at 17:32:28
In reply to Re: Trade-offs}} Dr. BOB, posted by bottomfeeder on December 27, 2006, at 17:12:42
>
> > I've said elsewhere that: The online ventilation of suicidal ideation can be an important part of suicide prevention, and the expression of suicidal thoughts and feelings is not prohibited here. This may enable suicidal posters to receive more effective support, but there are trade-offs: it may also be stressful for other members, attract suicidal posters (and thereby increase the incidence of suicide in the group), and make the group more vulnerable to false reports.
>
> Let me get this straight....someone talking about suicide here can be given support and may change their mind, but the "trade-off" is that it can increase the incidence of suicide in the group...hmmmm....so save 1 and maybe lose more than that....is this trade-off worth it Dr. Bob?????Friends,
It is writen here,[...can increase the incidence of suicide in the group...]. The exact wording by Dr. Hsiung was,[..{and thereby} increase the incidence...].
I think that the grammatical structure of Dr. Hsiung's statement could mean something different than,[... that it can increase the incidence...]. I think that there is the potential for Dr. Hsiung's statement, in toto, to have the potential to mean that because there could be more posters of that nature comming into the forum, that the number of suicides could be, as a number, more than if those posters were not attracted to come here. I think that there is the potential to think that Dr. Hsiung's statement is not suggesting a cause and effect , but suggesting an increase in the number due to the increase in the number of posters of that nature.
To try and make this simple without going into statistical inferences and grammatical inferences, we could look at this, if my interpretation is correct, as if the forum attracted by having a separate forum here for, let' say, skydivers and deep-sea divers and mountain climbers and formula-one and stock car NASCAR racers, that we could have an increase in the number of deaths of members, not that the forum caused their deaths.
Lou
Posted by fayeroe on December 27, 2006, at 20:23:40
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of bottomfeeder's post, posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2006, at 17:32:28
well, lou, i don't understand you.
this is a mental health forum where people come that are far more likely to committ suicide than nascar drivers would be dying just because they had their own forum. what would be in the postings for the nascar drivers to cause more deaths with them?
the whole point of this line of thinking is that "yes, suicide ideation is discussed here and, yeah, we need to discuss it and, oh, by the way, it may cause problems for our group as more of them may kill themselves..........
did that help?
Posted by laima on December 27, 2006, at 21:00:06
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of bottomfeeder's post » Lou Pilder, posted by fayeroe on December 27, 2006, at 20:23:40
I think what Lou is saying is that if the site is attractive to suicidal individuals, they will come here and post, but that doesn't mean that the site made them suicidal. They came to the site because they were suicidal, or, they came to the site because they were suicidal, and posted, because they were able to, because they were looking for someone to listen, etc. Not that they came to the site and became suicidal because of what they read. At least that's my understanding. In other words, is the site particularly attractive to suicidal people because they can post about their thoughts?
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2006, at 21:15:53
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of bottomfeeder's post » Lou Pilder, posted by fayeroe on December 27, 2006, at 20:23:40
> well, lou, i don't understand you.
>
> this is a mental health forum where people come that are far more likely to committ suicide than nascar drivers would be dying just because they had their own forum. what would be in the postings for the nascar drivers to cause more deaths with them?
>
> the whole point of this line of thinking is that "yes, suicide ideation is discussed here and, yeah, we need to discuss it and, oh, by the way, it may cause problems for our group as more of them may kill themselves..........
>
> did that help?fayeroe,
You wrote,[...Lou, I don't understand you..people (here) are..more likely to commit suicide than NASCAR drivers would be dying..because they had their own forum. What would be in the postings..to cause more deaths with them?...suicide ideation is discussed here..it may cause..more of them may kill themselves...].
I think that if one interprets Dr. Hsiung's statement in question here as that he means that if suicide ideation is discussed here that there will be a cause and effect situation sponsored here as a result of that, which would cause more people to commit suicide, then that is one interpretation. But I think that there is the potential for the grammatical structure of Dr. Hsiung's statement to mean something different from that, as in my previous post.
But let's suppose a new forum was created here for stamp-collectors, butterfly collectors, bottle collectors, and such. I do not think that there would be more deaths of members here because of the establishment of a forum like that because those hobbies are not considered to be hazzardous. But sky-diving and race-car driving is, according to the insurance industry.
Lou
Posted by ElaineM on December 27, 2006, at 23:19:29
In reply to Lou's response -aspects of ElaineM's post-newfrm?, posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2006, at 16:03:30
In my point of view, the issue doesn't seem so multi-faceted. But perhaps were are focusing on different aspects. I'm not arguing here, just clarifying my own standpoint by using parts of your post AuntieMel.
>>>>It is hard, if not impossible, to know when someone is serious or if someone is "crying wolf."
>>>>Should we refuse to help someone in crisis?For just me personally, I am bothered by the issue of repetition, and the acknowledgement that suicide talk is possibly, or sometimes, used as a medium for elliciting immediate responses. But again, this may be just one of my own issues.
But in terms of the more general concern of the thread, I don't see the issue as being that people shouldn't be allowed to "cry wolf" or that "crying wolf" should be punishable [though I'm not saying that AuntieMel's post suggested that], but rather being when the "crying wolf" (or true, actual intent) is stated to be somehow caused by another poster or posters. I don't have a problem with people expressing their wanting to commit suicide - afterall, that's what peer forums usually are for. I'd also be equally upset if people were NOT allowed to talk of suicide, suicidal ideation, self-harm etc. But I would have a major problem with that desire/plan being threatened as a reaction (explicit or implicit) to the behaviour of fellow posters (keeping in mind that their communications must too be civil).
But also, as far as starting a new forum, I myself, don't think that's necessary. I think this place already has appropriate places to discuss death, suicide, and any other tough, sensitive subjects - I think the issue is more that it is discussed/written about/whatever appropriately, and that that's always enforced consistently. I think that the person asking for help (whatever form that ends up taking) must be equally as sensitive and respectful to the community as a whole, as the replies that are being asked for. I know that sounds strange considering that this is a forum where mental illness is going to be a factor, but as far as I know, being symptomatic has never been considered a sufficient reason for leniency before in regards to other issues here, or other types of posts. If I'm not mistaken the administrative position has been stated as something along the line of "for the good of the whole", which to me implies that someone asking for help in a crisis, or "crisis", must still be held equally accountable in their conduct. But I could be wrong - I'm not often on admin.
But to reiterate, the issue in this thread I'm most concerned with isn't the pure talking of suicide or suicidality, or even someone reporting that they are gonna do it and then taking it all back, but rather somehow threatening it, or implying it, as a consequence of other fellow posters responses.
I just worry that the several slightly different issues coming out in the thread may get confused.
Thanks for listening, EL
Posted by ClearSkies on December 28, 2006, at 8:30:33
In reply to Re: Lou aspects of El's post, and others, etc, posted by ElaineM on December 27, 2006, at 23:19:29
Elaine, I think that your post gets us back to the initial discussion, and I appreciate your clarity.
ClearSkies
Posted by fayeroe on December 28, 2006, at 8:33:02
In reply to Lou's reply to fayeroe » fayeroe, posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2006, at 21:15:53
that is too many "what ifs" to add to this thread.......let's keep it the way it was.
it will be less confusing for those of us who are very concerned by the policies concerning suicide threats............
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 28, 2006, at 10:03:50
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to fayeroe » Lou Pilder, posted by fayeroe on December 28, 2006, at 8:33:02
> that is too many "what ifs" to add to this thread.......let's keep it the way it was.
>
> it will be less confusing for those of us who are very concerned by the policies concerning suicide threats............fayeroe,
You wrote,[...that is {too many}("what ifs")...]
and,[..less confusing to those..concerned {by the policies}...]
Could you clarify:
A.What constitutes something to be a {"what if"}?
B.What then under your definition are the {"what ifs") that you are referring to?
C. What is the authority that you use to declare what is {too many}?
D. Are you saying that a suggestion for a policy to incorporate a separate thread for suicide threats here could cause {confusion}? If so, why?
E. Are you saying that in my reply to you that there is something that could cause confusion? If so, could you clarify how my reply to you about my clarifying what IMO Dr. Hsiung's statement has the potential to mean could cause {confusion}? If you could, I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by SLS on December 28, 2006, at 10:30:49
In reply to Re: Lou aspects of El's post, and others, etc, posted by ElaineM on December 27, 2006, at 23:19:29
I'm glad I have a place to be able to talk about anything, including the potential for me to commit suicide when I reach such a state. To talk about it is certainly a desperate act to avoid committing suicide. It is the connection to and support of others that makes such savior possible.
I imagine there are many different motivations and scenarios for which people pronounce suicidality. For whatever reasons we find some of these pronouncements to be "illegitimate", I wouldn't want to cut off the potential connections that a truly suicidal person might profit from by creating a policy against posts dealing with suicide. Even people whose declarations of suicide are repetitive and not acted upon probably need help. It is difficult to say to what degree PB influences them to avoid successfully committing suicide.
Is there a suicide contagion for the allowance of its being spoken about here? I really don't know. It doesn't affect me that way, though. Perhaps the opposite is true in a community of people who interact so closely. Because I am motivated to rescue others, I am more likely to allow others to rescue me. Perhaps there is a contagion of rescuing here. I don't know, but I don't think it hurts to take inventory every now and then.
For now, I see the discussion of and pleas for help in avoiding suicide to be integral to this community. It is the pinnacle of rescue. Are we to allow rescue from all conditions other than suicide. What sense does that make?
- Scott
Posted by cassie17 on December 28, 2006, at 10:50:01
In reply to Re: Good Bye Posts, posted by Farkus on December 27, 2006, at 14:01:28
If someone is seriously suicidal, the last place they need to be asking for help is an internet bulletin board. I mean come on, these kinds of places are not set up to help the seriously mentally ill. Those kind of "I want to end it all" posts should be discouraged strongly. There's nothing a babble poster can do for someone who writes that kind of suicidal post except to worry about them, and that puts trauma on the other members. I'm wondering if some posts are missing here, because I've tried to read through them all, but I'm missing the problem that is making everyone so angry. If the question is "shouldn't these type of posts be banned from a bulletin board" I think the answer can only be yes. If you are suicidal, you really shouldn't be coming to a bulletin board for help.
Cassie
Posted by wishingstar on December 28, 2006, at 11:09:12
In reply to Re: Good Bye Posts, posted by cassie17 on December 28, 2006, at 10:50:01
I havent posted to this thread yet because I dont think I have anything to add that hasnt already been said, but I felt like I needed to respond to this.
Cassie, I feel a little put down by your statements, although I couldnt quite put a finger on why. I do often feel suicidal myself, and I've posted about it more than once on these boards. However, I dont consider myself to be seriously mentally ill. But more importantly than that... I do believe that boards like these can be excellent supports, IN ADDITION to real life supports, for people in these hard situations. I would worry if most of us were here with no outside doctors, therapists, or support of any kind, but the majority of us do not rely soley on babble for help. I believe that babble offers a type of support that you cant really receive from a doctor or a therapist, or sometimes even a friend, for many reasons. For one, just the fact that there are so many of us here in similar yet different situations makes it much more likely that someone will really understand how youre feeling, on a deeper level because theyve felt it themselves. The "I've been there" support can be priceless, at least for me. There is also a sense of caring and support, at least for me, that you dont experience from professionals. It'd be a potential ethical problem. But that doesnt make the need for it any less real. In an ideal world every one of us would have a family member or friend who understood, cared, and was able and willing to be supportive. Unfortunately, we dont all have that in the way we need it, even though we may try.
I dont say that to suggest that there arent any limitations of reaching out for support in a net forum. There certainly are. I think many of the discussions we have on the admin board would not exist if we were sitting face to face where we could better assess crisis, read tone in people's words, etc. So again, it's not a substitute for anything in the real world. But as a supplement, it has been very valuable to me.
Posted by laima on December 28, 2006, at 11:10:12
In reply to Re: Good Bye Posts, posted by cassie17 on December 28, 2006, at 10:50:01
What about people who are so down and isolated that they can't muster up the ability to go elsewhere for help? Perhaps they might be able to find some encouragement here to do so.
Posted by cassie17 on December 28, 2006, at 11:29:11
In reply to Re: Good Bye Posts » cassie17, posted by wishingstar on December 28, 2006, at 11:09:12
Yes you make good points wishingstar, and yes, the support of bulletin boards can be helpful, but I'm talking about what happens if someone has decided to kill themselves and posts about it. I would consider being seriously suicidal being seriously mentally ill. If someone takes their own life, that has to be mental illness, in my opinion. Suicidal Ideation is different, I think. Suicidal action has got to be mental illness.
Posted by laima on December 28, 2006, at 11:57:25
In reply to Re: Good Bye Posts, posted by cassie17 on December 28, 2006, at 11:29:11
Seems like there's a lot of stigma about "mental illness" even on a mental health board.
Posted by cassie17 on December 28, 2006, at 12:04:31
In reply to Re: Good Bye Posts, posted by laima on December 28, 2006, at 11:57:25
I don't think there's stigma attached to the idea that someone who is about to commit suicide is mentally ill. If there's anything that would count as a sign of mental illness, getting ready to kill yourself HAS to be one.
Don't mean to take the topic off admin topic. I still think if a person has serious suicidal thoughts, they are much better calling a hotline and talking to a real person than posting a final goodbye on a bulletin board. Surely that isn't an uncommon opinion?
Posted by madeline on December 28, 2006, at 12:13:46
In reply to Re: Lou aspects of El's post, and others, etc, posted by SLS on December 28, 2006, at 10:30:49
I totally agree with what you said, but my issue is when posters imply/threaten/indicate that they feel/are suicidal in reponse to something another poster said or did - especially in an attempt to coerce that poster into an action.
We all have triggers and it may be entirely possible that a poster could trigger suicidal ideation in another. However, I think it is more appropriate and much more civil to discuss the trigger rather than to discuss the other poster.
It is THAT issue that on which I would like to see some clarification and accountability.
Posted by madeline on December 28, 2006, at 12:18:49
In reply to Re: Good Bye Posts, posted by cassie17 on December 28, 2006, at 10:50:01
There have been times when I posted that I was suicidal on babble. I mean I was SERIOUSLY down.
THe posters on babble definately helped me to hang on. I would read their posts over and over again.
I CAN say that babble was a very very important facet of keeping me alive at that time.
Now, I'm not saying that babble should be the only place to run to when the ideation is overwhelming, but for some it is all there is.
Being allowed to freely say "you know, I just don't think I can do this anymore" is so valuable.
Suicide should not be taken lightly, nor should it be used as a tool.
But I think that babble is a good place to run.
Posted by gardenergirl on December 28, 2006, at 12:42:12
In reply to Re: Lou aspects of El's post, and others, etc, posted by SLS on December 28, 2006, at 10:30:49
> I imagine there are many different motivations and scenarios for which people pronounce suicidality. For whatever reasons we find some of these pronouncements to be "illegitimate", I wouldn't want to cut off the potential connections that a truly suicidal person might profit from by creating a policy against posts dealing with suicide. Even people whose declarations of suicide are repetitive and not acted upon probably need help. It is difficult to say to what degree PB influences them to avoid successfully committing suicide.>
> For now, I see the discussion of and pleas for help in avoiding suicide to be integral to this community. It is the pinnacle of rescue. Are we to allow rescue from all conditions other than suicide. What sense does that make?I think these are very good points (as were Scott's other points in his post). Making statements about feeling suicidal might very well be a way for someone to cope with whatever feelings or thoughts they are struggling with. Sure, some coping mechanisms are more effective and adaptive than others. I "cope" with feelings of hurt, upset, depression, among others often by withdrawing and isolating myself. I know that's not the best approach, because then I feel more depressed.
Now there might be posters here who view my withdrawing as me ignoring them or not caring about them. I realize that the likelihood and potential magnitude of that feeling is low compared to feelings related to someone's suicidal ideation. But my point is that if someone feels I was ignoring them when I'm really isolating myself from depression, that's them injecting themselves into my inner world and my motivations for behavior. I can't prevent that, and I also can't take responsibility for that. Similarly, if someone feels they or their actions (or inactions) are responsible for someone else's safety, that's them injecting themselves into the formula. Even if someone else tries to "pull" someone else into the formula, none of us has to be pulled in. Of course it's likely we could feel manipulated or blackmailed if we felt responsible for acting a certain way "or else". But we are not responsible for anyone else's behavior. If we can keep separate what's "ours" and what's "theirs", we can avoid getting caught up in something that's not really about us.
I know this is easier said than done. But once we realize that we're caught up in a dynamic that is not healthy for us nor appropriate for us, we can then extricate ourselves, or as my T says, "Pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and get back to your own business of life."
So, long story short, I think there are many different behaviors manifested here on the boards that can be upsetting to others, but I also think that they are quite likely manifestations of illness. That doesn't mean it's not upsetting. But how do we determine which behaviors related to mental illness are tolerable and which are not? If we set intention as a criteria, we're bound to fail because we can't leap inside someone else's psyche to see what's going on.
gg
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.