![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 30 to 54 of 92. Go back in thread:
Posted by sleepygirl2 on February 19, 2012, at 17:29:46
In reply to Solstice's thread » sleepygirl2, posted by ed_uk2010 on February 19, 2012, at 14:03:09
She has been incredibly gracious. I don't think I would have been able to do that.
Posted by Solstice on February 19, 2012, at 18:13:49
In reply to Re: Solstice's thread » ed_uk2010, posted by sleepygirl2 on February 19, 2012, at 17:29:46
> She has been incredibly gracious. I don't think I would have been able to do that.
I deeply appreciate the support from you and ed_UK (and anyone else who has supported me in silence).
As much as I am all for people being tolerant of others, and of those who are 'different' being accepted, I don't think that accepting those who are 'different' requires everyone (or anyone) else to accept socially unacceptable behavior from them.
I could tolerate him making one post where he repeats his message that we're all going to die from medications.. but he's not happy to post it once. He has posted that message (or subliminally by excerpting an out-of-context phrase from someone else's thread to make his same point). Bottom line, though is that this practice is disruptive and discouraging. I've been here a long time and it has been very upsetting to me. I can't imagine what it would be like for a newcomer who came here in desperation and poured their heart out on here only to have their thread hijacked by Lou. It's universally considered very uncivil on the internet to do that.. so for Bob to allow it in the name of tolerance might be misguided.
Sometimes the 'greater good' has to be taken into account. And when a single poster's behavior is extreme enough that the majority of the community feels harmed by it, then the offending behavior should be addressed.
I used the notification button and suggested to administration that perhaps an ongoing thread could be created for Lou to post his concerns about medications. All of Lou's posts would default to his thread, and the subject line he was responding to would stay with his post. That way, if there are people who want to read his objections to medications and watch his videos, they could follow it, but he would be disallowed from committing the offense of hijacking.
That way, he would be accepted and allowed to post whatever he wants, without being allowed to hijack a poster's attempt to get input from others about a medication issue.
It's not about the community being intolerant. It's about LOU being intolerant of others' right to get input from others on medications. And clearly, I have gotten a wide range of responses from others so far - from those who have medication suggestions - to those who are doubtful that ADHD and bipolar are valid diagnoses. I have welcomed ALL of those opinions. And I wouldn't complain about Lou posting his warnings and videos once.. but that's not what he does. His hijacking practices very well may be a very intelligent effort to interfere with people getting input from others about medications.
No one should have the right to impose his message of death and 'life ruination' more than once in a single thread.
:-(
Solstice
Posted by Phillipa on February 19, 2012, at 18:18:34
In reply to Re: Solstice's thread, posted by Solstice on February 19, 2012, at 18:13:49
Extremly well put and to me very civil. And a great idea about the separate thread. I have seen others in the past be asked by the originator of the thread not to post to their threads and it was respected by the poster. Phillipa
Posted by Solstice on February 19, 2012, at 18:26:07
In reply to Re: opportunity to support europerep, posted by Dr. Bob on February 19, 2012, at 1:34:07
> > It's an interesting thing, tolerating distorted views of reality, because someone else believes them.
> >
> > How much can we tolerate because we know someone is not well?
> > It's an important thing I think.
> > There's schizophrenia in my family, not dealt with well at all, so it interests me.
>
> > I'm not sure that the request is about supporting Dr. Bob's views. It could be about supporting each other when we react strongly, so that we might do it as respectfully as possible.
>
> I see it as tolerating *different* views of reality -- which is of course harder if we're convinced our view is right and the other's is distorted. More generally, it's about accepting others who are different. Has anyone here been considered different and wanted instead to be accepted?
>I get that we all have different perceptions of things, and that each person's perception is their reality. That's why tolerance is important and highly civilized. But I don't think that people here have too much of a hard time tolerating Lou's opinions. We are well-versed in his reality. We've all read his views over and over and over. Same view. So I don't think it's his views that get him crossways with people. It's his posting behavior. It's more about the civility issue that you embrace. Some of what Lou does is not civil - especially with regard to hijacking threads and posting repeatedly about the same thing on a single thread. He is prone to filling up threads with his name and his message of death and life-ruination if people take medications or allow their kids who have mental illness to be treated. Isn't Lou demonstrating intolerance when he obsessively posts on a thread? When he hijacks a thread with his agenda? Shouldn't he be required to be more tolerant of the med-lovers on here?
Can't a person come here and post about their teenager's mental illness and medical treatment without Lou burying it in his repeated posts about Nazi's, the Holocaust, anti-Semitism, death and life-ruination?
I hope I haven't gotten myself in trouble, but this whole thing has been distressing under my particular circumstances. I wish Lou would send some tolerance, civility, and kindness my way and leave my thread alone.
Solstice
Posted by Solstice on February 19, 2012, at 18:35:05
In reply to Re: Solstice's thread » Solstice, posted by Phillipa on February 19, 2012, at 18:18:34
> Extremly well put and to me very civil.
Thanks Phillipa. I've worried about whether I was getting myself in trouble.
> And a great idea about the separate thread.I think it would solve the problem, for sure.
> I have seen others in the past be asked by the originator of the thread not to post to their threads and it was respected by the poster. Phillipa?? I'm not sure who you are referring to, but I don't think I've ever asked people to not post to my thread - except this time - and it's only because I really feel anxious about what's going on with my daughter, and once he started posting, I knew he would be likely to hijack it, and I was desperate to hear from people. Thank goodness he apparently had technical problems last night and wasn't able to post easily, but he sure has made up for it today :-(
And to clarify, I don't mind Lou or anyone else posting on my thread. The more people that post, and the wider the span of information, the happier I am. What I DON'T want, is for my thread to be hijacked by someone's agenda that has nothing to do with responding to my request. What is taking place is rude and uncivil, and I don't understand why Dr. Bob allows it. Allowing it defeats my thread, and it doesn't equal 'tolerance.' Rather, it is giving a voice to someone else's intolerance of those who have found success in treatment with medications.
Solstice
Posted by Phillipa on February 19, 2012, at 20:30:11
In reply to Re: Solstice's thread » Phillipa, posted by Solstice on February 19, 2012, at 18:35:05
No not your threads other posters in the past. I will fix the situation. I do think I can. Doesn't matter how I can I think like the little engine that could. Phillipa
Posted by SLS on February 19, 2012, at 22:45:04
In reply to Re: opportunity to support europerep, posted by Dr. Bob on February 19, 2012, at 1:34:07
> I see it as tolerating *different* views of reality -- which is of course harder if we're convinced our view is right and the other's is distorted. More generally, it's about accepting others who are different. Has anyone here been considered different and wanted instead to be accepted?
Yes. However, I was not given carte-blanche to behave in any manner I wished. This was especially true in public venues and in school, where disruptive behaviors prevented the learning process of the entire class. There were rules. It seems to me that Lou Pilder overgeneralizes and exaggerates. Since this sort of posting behavior was considered uncivil in the past, what has changed? Perhaps Lou Pilder manages to make his statements by formatting them as questions. But not all of his statements of exaggerations and overgeneralizations are contained in questions. Why are these statements not considered uncivil?
I have taken note of a change in tactics in Lou Pilder's most recent posts. He's pretty smart. Something should have been done prior to this shift in posting format. That you have let his previous posts stand unsanctioned is a tacit agreement by you of his overgeneralizations and exaggerations. I'm sure this is a familiar argument to you. It is probably specious, but I thought I would make it anyway. It is ironic, really.
"Different points of view are fine, and in fact encouraged, but your freedom of speech is limited here."
"It's fine to give others feedback as long as it's constructive."
"Also, please don't post the same information in more than one place at the same time."
"Some may not realize, for example, that I don't consider it civil to overgeneralize"
"Please don't... post information that you know to be false, exaggerate or overgeneralize -- etc. Even if you're quoting someone else."
I acknowledge that this is a difficult situation to handle equitably and remain faithful to the rules of conduct that you have established. I don't want to see Lou Pilder blocked from posting. That would be a shame. But what I want is not terribly relevant. What is relevant is what you want.
What do you want?
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on February 20, 2012, at 8:48:07
In reply to Re: Solstice's thread, posted by Solstice on February 19, 2012, at 18:13:49
You have my full support.
I worry, though, that what happened on the other thread (and countless times previously) that Dr. Bob's actions will be against the poster pointing out the problem. I feel very angry when that happens. In my opinion, you've tried to be clear that you aren't rejecting Lou, but are complaining about a behavior.
In the interests of keeping the focus where it should be, in terms of a posting behavior that many on board would like to see addressed, might I suggest that the posting behavior be addressed in terms that aren't exclusive to Lou? After all, it's not at all unlikely that another poster might come along and post on threads with anti-medication rhetoric. Dr. Bob has already made a rule about linking medications with Nazis or the Holocaust or the death of millions of Jews. I think it would be easy enough to come up with a way to state that anti-medication messages would not be helpful on a particular thread.
The Please Be Sensitive rule would easily fit that circumstance. In fact, I'm surprised it already has not been invoked on that thread. You have stated that you would not find anti-medication posts helpful, and requested that they not be posted on this thread where you're asking for help of a certain sort. (That could be fine tuned a bit.) And someone has chosen to ignore your request.
It seems on the face of it pretty straightforward. In the interests of clarity to Dr. Bob, it might be best to make the request without naming particular posters or being overly specific.
I suspect that the generalization rule might also be applied, but that rule has been applied less predictably in the past, and is open more to interpretation by Dr. Bob.
I hope this is understood in the spirit it was intended. I fully share your concerns, and the concerns of others as they have recently expressed them. I know how Dr. Bob likes rules, and I see a way an existing rule can be utilized without risk to the requesting poster.
I will totally support anyone trying to see this existing rule properly enforced and do what I can to further those efforts.
Posted by Dinah on February 20, 2012, at 8:50:17
In reply to Re: Solstice's thread » Solstice, posted by Dinah on February 20, 2012, at 8:48:07
I also at this time would fully support an "ignore" function.
Posted by Dinah on February 20, 2012, at 9:12:54
In reply to Re: Solstice's thread, posted by Dinah on February 20, 2012, at 8:50:17
I would like to see any phrases requesting posters to view a webpage or video in order to be a participant in the thread considered insensitive to the originating poster, who has the right to receive input from posters whether or not they wish to conform to certain requests by other posters.
At any rate, I think Poster A ought to be able to request to Poster B a single time not to make requests concerning the ongoing participation of other posters. After that, future requests for conditions to be met by participants on the part of Poster B on threads of Poster A would be considered insensitive.
I see no problem with Poster B requesting that if anyone wishes to carry on a conversation with Poster B, that they should watch a certain video or view a certain link. I think Poster B's requests for certain actions should be solely related to conversing with poster B, and possibly carried on in a separate thread for those who wish to comply with those guidelines.
Posted by sleepygirl2 on February 20, 2012, at 9:32:00
In reply to And on a related note, posted by Dinah on February 20, 2012, at 9:12:54
As usual, Dinah makes excellent sense. I agree with her suggestions.
Posted by Dinah on February 20, 2012, at 9:49:23
In reply to Re: And on a related note, posted by sleepygirl2 on February 20, 2012, at 9:32:00
And if I might make another. I think if Solstice starts a separate thread, and requests that anti medication posts not be made on that thread, perhaps Dr. Bob will move some of the posts on the current thread to Admin. If there is a lot of activity on Medication, perhaps the board will turn over soon.
And being totally pragmatic, it might be wise for everyone to prophylactically apologize to Dr. Bob if they inadvertently violated any civility rules and ask him what he would and would not consider ok in these types of requests.
In fact, I do so myself, if I was a bit too specific in my posts. It wasn't my intent to cause Lou any distress, but rather to address concerns about posting behaviors that are more global than personal.
And I hope this is recognized as the attempt to help posters that it was intended. I've always considered the best result to be achieving my goals without unnecessary casualties.
Posted by jane d on February 20, 2012, at 12:04:17
In reply to Re: Solstice's thread, posted by Solstice on February 19, 2012, at 18:13:49
Just don't read them. I seriously doubt that anyone arrives at this board unaware that some people hold these views about meds. And anyone who's read a few posts knows what Lou's views are - just as we know the views of many other frequent posters. If seeing it on the screen upsets you - then just don't read the posts. It really works fairly well and I promise you it gets easier with practice.
And if you start skipping enough posters it will free up lots of time for truly useful pasttimes like youtube and cooking shows. ;-)
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 20, 2012, at 12:19:52
In reply to How about just skipping posts that disturb you?, posted by jane d on February 20, 2012, at 12:04:17
> Just don't read them. I seriously doubt that anyone arrives at this board unaware that some people hold these views about meds. And anyone who's read a few posts knows what Lou's views are - just as we know the views of many other frequent posters. If seeing it on the screen upsets you - then just don't read the posts. It really works fairly well and I promise you it gets easier with practice.
>
> And if you start skipping enough posters it will free up lots of time for truly useful pasttimes like youtube and cooking shows. ;-)
>Jane,
You wrote the above. Thanks, I think that's good.
Lou
BTW, are you the same {Jane} as in other post that we have had dialog in?
Posted by Solstice on February 20, 2012, at 13:56:46
In reply to Thanks :), posted by Dinah on February 20, 2012, at 9:49:23
> And if I might make another. I think if Solstice starts a separate thread, and requests that anti medication posts not be made on that thread, perhaps Dr. Bob will move some of the posts on the current thread to Admin. If there is a lot of activity on Medication, perhaps the board will turn over soon.
I tried to start a separate thread for Lou to post his views about my daughter's situation - but he has not used it - which seems to underscore that his purpose is less about his brand of 'education' and is really more about defeating my threat through hijacking. It's his way of overwhelming the flow of information that serves the purpose of the thread - me getting input from others on the board about possible medical AND non-medical treatments for my daughter.
And it's upsetting that there has been no intervention.
I think if I started another thread to continue getting input related to my issue, Lou would just follow that second thread, because disruption seems to be the goal.
>
> And I hope this is recognized as the attempt to help posters that it was intended. I've always considered the best result to be achieving my goals without unnecessary casualties.:-) You, Dinah, are the definition of balance. And really.. this is NOT an issue of Lou being 'unlikeable' or 'unacceptable.' I can easily accept him, accept his message, and am happy to see him participate in the forum. My issue is that he has a single message, and uses tactics to spread that message that are nothing less than bullying and uncivil (as in hijacking a thread and dominating it by repetition of his message). It's not Lou that I object to. It's not even his message. It's his tactics - his behavior - that is universally considered uncivil at best - and should not be permitted to take place.
I know you suggested that I not be specific by using a certain person's name.. and I get why that's a good idea... but it would feel weird to do that when there isn't anyone who would read this and not know who is engaging in this objectionable behavior - because Lou is the only one here who wages these kinds of wars. My and my daughter's needs being met are what threatens to be the casualty of the tactics he uses. And that's what his objective seems to be - to defeat the thread of a concerned mom exploring medication and non-medication options for her daughter :-(
Solstice
ps I apologize if I'm repeating myself somewhat. I'm just worn out trying to keep my head above water - and it feels like I'm being pushed under (by the tactics being used to defeat my thread).
Posted by fayeroe on February 20, 2012, at 21:00:24
In reply to Re: This is ridiculous... » SLS, posted by europerep on February 17, 2012, at 15:59:38
europerep, I have emailed with Lou and his writing is concise and he stays on topic. I wish he would carry over his email 'style' to the forums. And I wish I knew what to do to help you. Sadly, I don't. P
Posted by Solstice on February 20, 2012, at 21:21:27
In reply to Re: This is ridiculous...yes, it is. » europerep, posted by fayeroe on February 20, 2012, at 21:00:24
> europerep, I have emailed with Lou and his writing is concise and he stays on topic. I wish he would carry over his email 'style' to the forums. And I wish I knew what to do to help you. Sadly, I don't. P
This is interesting. There are a fair number of community members who have said the same thing. Makes me wonder why he takes on this different persona for Babble. Perhaps it helps elicit the extra yardage he is granted in how far his behavior strays from the civility requirements?Sounds like he is capable of a whole lot more civil and sociable behavior than what he shares on Babble. To have one persona for personal exchanges and a whole 'nother one especially for Babble implies there is a deliberate nature to his Babble persona. A choice.. rather than his Babble persona being something he can't help.
Solstice
Posted by gardenergirl on February 20, 2012, at 22:36:25
In reply to Re: opportunity to support europerep, posted by Dr. Bob on February 18, 2012, at 1:06:17
> I'd also like to see this site become more active again. How do you think you might be able to help turn things around?
>
> Thanks,
>
> BobMethinks you are justifiably on your own with this one. Not in wanting the site to be more active again, but in actually putting forth more effort in making it so. No one's going to do it for you at this point when the site has been essentially if not actually abandoned.
gg
Posted by Phillipa on February 21, 2012, at 0:01:22
In reply to Re: This is ridiculous...yes, it is. » europerep, posted by fayeroe on February 20, 2012, at 21:00:24
Me also today as well. How interesting. Same impression. Phillipa
Posted by SLS on February 21, 2012, at 7:34:06
In reply to site more active again » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on February 20, 2012, at 22:36:25
>
> > I'd also like to see this site become more active again. How do you think you might be able to help turn things around?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Bob
>
> Methinks you are justifiably on your own with this one. Not in wanting the site to be more active again, but in actually putting forth more effort in making it so. No one's going to do it for you at this point when the site has been essentially if not actually abandoned.
I prefer when Dr. Bob has a presence on his website. I don't always agree with his method of moderation, but I have always been motivated to keep posting because of the high quality of the posting community and the ease with which one can navigate posts and threads.
- Scott
Posted by Twinleaf on February 21, 2012, at 9:53:48
In reply to Re: site more active again » gardenergirl, posted by SLS on February 21, 2012, at 7:34:06
I agree with Scott. Even though I also disagree with some of the administrative policies, (as I guess most people know by now) I think Dr. Bob's presence is essential to the on-going vitality of the forum.
Posted by Solstice on February 21, 2012, at 11:53:18
In reply to Re: site more active again » gardenergirl, posted by SLS on February 21, 2012, at 7:34:06
> I prefer when Dr. Bob has a presence on his website. I don't always agree with his method of moderation, but I have always been motivated to keep posting because of the high quality of the posting community and the ease with which one can navigate posts and threads.
>
>
> - Scott
His presence can be helpful... except when he's not present and doesn't intervene when there are problems :-(He so fervently encourages the use of notification buttons - presumably ensures we don't have to take things into our own hands - but in my single experience using them - he ignores notifications as well as emails.
Solstice
Posted by sigismund on February 21, 2012, at 18:15:26
In reply to Re: site more active again, posted by Twinleaf on February 21, 2012, at 9:53:48
In responding to Sostice's thread the way I transposed my feelings for my own kids to her situation. I can only assume Lou means exactly what he says about saving lives and felt something of the same. I have some sympathy with this. But there is an issue of tact and kindness as well.
Posted by Solstice on February 21, 2012, at 20:05:37
In reply to Re: site more active again, posted by sigismund on February 21, 2012, at 18:15:26
> In responding to Sostice's thread the way I transposed my feelings for my own kids to her situation. I can only assume Lou means exactly what he says about saving lives and felt something of the same. I have some sympathy with this. But there is an issue of tact and kindness as well.
Thank you Sigi... Your post was a perfect example of how a person can post their concerns and talk about their reservations about medications in a constructive and civil manner. You didn't have to post the same thing 30 times, and you didn't have to use intense exaggerations to make your point. And you didn't have to hijack the thread to make your point. As a result of your civility, I felt very receptive to your input, and it will stay with me. Best of all, our relationship was not jeopardized in the process. Your post is a model for how to post opposing views without being disruptive, destructive, or hurtful.
Warmly,
Solstice
Posted by sleepygirl2 on February 21, 2012, at 22:11:36
In reply to Scott's response. » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on February 19, 2012, at 22:45:04
I am so confused about what rules apply on this site. They used to be abundant. Now, I feel like dr bob is present in a only a very minimal way, by choice, distraction or something else.
I sometimes imagine it's a decision to let posters work stuff out on their own, but then I think not.
What the hell does Dr bob want?
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.