![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 90 to 114 of 179. Go back in thread:
Posted by SLS on May 10, 2013, at 0:06:57
In reply to Lou's reply- » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on May 9, 2013, at 6:46:49
Hi Lou.
> Do you think that Dr. Bob has singled you out to be treated differently from all other posters?
- Scott
Posted by Willful on May 10, 2013, at 0:55:03
In reply to Re: the Prince of Death, posted by Dr. Bob on May 9, 2013, at 21:46:30
Thank for finally clarifying this!
The phrase seemed to be used metaphorically, although it was hard to argue for any particular clear interpretation, and there was much misunderstanding of what was meant by it. -- It's a relief to have an explanation for something that has concerned many posters here.
Willful
Posted by Twinleaf on May 10, 2013, at 7:05:02
In reply to Re: feeling empowered, posted by Dr. Bob on May 9, 2013, at 23:13:56
Many of these posts are touching on the best ways to express differing points of view. I personally don't wish to change anyone here. It would help a lot, in my dealings with Dr.Bob, if he acknowledged my point of view, while not agreeing or acceding to it. Acknowledgement and recognition of others' differing views can be very powerful. I would like to see it done much more frequently by all posters when they are dealing with contention issues. Dr. Bob, your setting such an example could have a wonderful influence!
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 10, 2013, at 9:54:15
In reply to Re: feeling empowered, posted by Twinleaf on May 10, 2013, at 7:05:02
> Many of these posts are touching on the best ways to express differing points of view. I personally don't wish to change anyone here. It would help a lot, in my dealings with Dr.Bob, if he acknowledged my point of view, while not agreeing or acceding to it. Acknowledgement and recognition of others' differing views can be very powerful. I would like to see it done much more frequently by all posters when they are dealing with contention issues. Dr. Bob, your setting such an example could have a wonderful influence!
I agree. I'd like different points of view to be respected and try to respect different points of view myself. Did you feel I didn't acknowledge your point of view?
Bob
Posted by Twinleaf on May 10, 2013, at 10:40:47
In reply to Re: feeling empowered, posted by Dr. Bob on May 10, 2013, at 9:54:15
Although I don't think you meant it to be the main meaning of your post, I did feel misunderstood and somewhat threatened when you said, "be careful what you wish for..", rather than, " I hear what you wish for." I would like to feel respected and safe when I express reasonable wishes on this forum.
I would love to have heard something along the lines of, " I hear that it's very important to you to feel that everyone is treated equally where pbc's are concerned. However, there are other considerations which are at times more important to me as moderator, such as..."
If respectfully acknowledging one another's differing views is important for the smooth running of Babble, it might make it more difficult if differing views are separated into different threads. It might offer even less opportunity for constructive dialogue.
Posted by Toph on May 10, 2013, at 12:22:35
In reply to Re: feeling empowered, posted by Dr. Bob on May 9, 2013, at 23:13:56
> Let's make a deal. If I invest time and energy to moderate Babble, will you all invest time and energy to reassure other posters?
>
> BobBeing civil has never been a deliberate intention of my posts. I think I have learned, mostly from you, certain ways of speaking that are acceptible. I also think being honest and direct are important ways of communicating.
Another consideration is the effect of feeling invested in the group. I was wreckless recently, I think, in part because I am less connected as before. That does not excuse my rant.
I am curious if Lou has ever congratulated anyone on Babble for finding a medication that helped them manage their illness. That would be supportive, and likely to improve his standing with some posters. I know I have never recieved any kind of support of this sort from him regarding what I have repeatedly discussed as a clear benefit to me from taking lithium. Of course, he has no obligation to do anything considerate here.
If you, Bob, are condidering moderating Babble again, does this mean that the hands laissez faire approach of the recent past was a failure, in your opnion?
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 10, 2013, at 16:52:02
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-Gehybreelll » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on May 9, 2013, at 5:23:54
> Lou Pilder:
>
> I think it possible that Dr. Bob was involved in life outside of Psycho-Babble for an extended period of time. During such a time, no notifications would be attended to, regardless of their volume and degree of repetition. Over the past few years, none of the few notifications I submitted elicited a written reply nor an action on the board. I was very disappointed, as you might imagine. I didn't take it personally, though. I certainly didn't take Dr. Bob's silence and inaction to my notifications as a promotion of hate towards a group of people based upon my affiliation with that group. I don't see antisemitism in his behavior. I don't see antisemitism in the posts that have been directed at you or about you. Perhaps I am blind to it, but, as a Jew, I have a vested interest in being aware of antisemitism.
>
> Do you see antisemitism in the behavior of the moderator towards you or anyone else?
>
> Do you have evidence that antisemitism has been the result of administrative silence, or is this simply conjecture on your part?
>
> Hate does not equate to antisemitism, even though antisemitism equates to hate.
>
> If I were to hate you, would you conclude that this hate would be the result of my knowing that you were Jewish? Can no one hate you for other reasons?
>
> Over the years, lots of people have hated me. Lots. Most of them never knew that I was Jewish. Of course, all of them were riddled with character flaws.
>
> For what it is worth, I do not hate you. Nor do I see hate in the words of most other posters towards you on Psycho-Babble.
>
>
> - ScottScott,
I am unsure as to how you arrived at some of the conclusions that you have posted here above. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A. If it is possible that Mr Hsiung had a life outside of here for an extended period of time, what criteria do you use, if any, to make the claim that,[...During that time, no notification would be attended to, regardless of their volume or repetition....].
B. If it is possible for that to be the case, could it also not be possible that that is the case?
C. If harm during that time period could come to people as a result of that there are numerous outstanding requests /notifications from me, would it be supportive for Mr Hsiung to leave the requests/notifications from me outstanding?
D. Now that these requests/notifications still remain outstanding, could harm to some others still be a result of those being outstanding?
E. In the outstanding requests from me to Mr Hsiung here, in the ones that have the potential to arouse anti-Semitic feelings or lead a Jew to feel put down/accused, could those posts in question have the potential to induce hatred toward the Jews on the grounds that there could be a sub set of readers here that could think that the hate is supportive because Mr Hsiung states that support takes precedence and that he does not wait?
lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 10, 2013, at 17:51:05
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-Gehybreelll » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on May 10, 2013, at 16:52:02
> > Lou Pilder:
> >
> > I think it possible that Dr. Bob was involved in life outside of Psycho-Babble for an extended period of time. During such a time, no notifications would be attended to, regardless of their volume and degree of repetition. Over the past few years, none of the few notifications I submitted elicited a written reply nor an action on the board. I was very disappointed, as you might imagine. I didn't take it personally, though. I certainly didn't take Dr. Bob's silence and inaction to my notifications as a promotion of hate towards a group of people based upon my affiliation with that group. I don't see antisemitism in his behavior. I don't see antisemitism in the posts that have been directed at you or about you. Perhaps I am blind to it, but, as a Jew, I have a vested interest in being aware of antisemitism.
> >
> > Do you see antisemitism in the behavior of the moderator towards you or anyone else?
> >
> > Do you have evidence that antisemitism has been the result of administrative silence, or is this simply conjecture on your part?
> >
> > Hate does not equate to antisemitism, even though antisemitism equates to hate.
> >
> > If I were to hate you, would you conclude that this hate would be the result of my knowing that you were Jewish? Can no one hate you for other reasons?
> >
> > Over the years, lots of people have hated me. Lots. Most of them never knew that I was Jewish. Of course, all of them were riddled with character flaws.
> >
> > For what it is worth, I do not hate you. Nor do I see hate in the words of most other posters towards you on Psycho-Babble.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Scott,
> I am unsure as to how you arrived at some of the conclusions that you have posted here above. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> A. If it is possible that Mr Hsiung had a life outside of here for an extended period of time, what criteria do you use, if any, to make the claim that,[...During that time, no notification would be attended to, regardless of their volume or repetition....].
> B. If it is possible for that to be the case, could it also not be possible that that is the case?
> C. If harm during that time period could come to people as a result of that there are numerous outstanding requests /notifications from me, would it be supportive for Mr Hsiung to leave the requests/notifications from me outstanding?
> D. Now that these requests/notifications still remain outstanding, could harm to some others still be a result of those being outstanding?
> E. In the outstanding requests from me to Mr Hsiung here, in the ones that have the potential to arouse anti-Semitic feelings or lead a Jew to feel put down/accused, could those posts in question have the potential to induce hatred toward the Jews on the grounds that there could be a sub set of readers here that could think that the hate is supportive because Mr Hsiung states that support takes precedence and that he does not wait?
> louScott and other members
To continue this discussion, I would like for you to examine the posts in the following link and post in any of those posts from your perspective.
Lou
To see this link;
a. go to the bottom of this page to the search box and type in;
[admin,1042501] and then there are directions to see each post in each part.
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on May 10, 2013, at 20:49:31
In reply to Lou's request to Scott--continued, posted by Lou Pilder on May 10, 2013, at 17:51:05
Hi Lou do you feel that some people need medications to improve their lives? Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 10, 2013, at 21:24:11
In reply to Re: the Prince of Death, posted by Dr. Bob on May 9, 2013, at 21:46:30
> > > So be it as it may be, let us look at the following post here by Mr Hsiung about me.
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1043225.html
> > >
> > > Lou
> >
> > Although not explicitly referring to you, it was an unfortunate choice of words.
> >
> > - Scott
>
> I was referring to depression, not to Lou. And "The Wizard of Babble" was referring to, of all things, feeling powerless (while being seen as powerful).
>
> BobFriends,
It is written here,[...I was referring to depression...]
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 10, 2013, at 23:20:29
In reply to Re: feeling empowered » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on May 10, 2013, at 12:22:35
> Although I don't think you meant it to be the main meaning of your post, I did feel misunderstood and somewhat threatened when you said, "be careful what you wish for..", rather than, " I hear what you wish for." I would like to feel respected and safe when I express reasonable wishes on this forum.
>
> I would love to have heard something along the lines of, " I hear that it's very important to you to feel that everyone is treated equally where pbc's are concerned. However, there are other considerations which are at times more important to me as moderator, such as..."I didn't intend to threaten you. I did intend to alert or warn you that I thought (correctly, as it turned out) that you were heading toward a PBC yourself. You weren't in fact safe, because what you were expressing wasn't civil.
I could, however, have phrased that differently, for example: "I hear that it's very important to you to feel that everyone is treated equally where pbc's are concerned. That's important to me, too. And that means that if others get more pbc's, you may, too." Would you have preferred that?
> If respectfully acknowledging one another's differing views is important for the smooth running of Babble, it might make it more difficult if differing views are separated into different threads. It might offer even less opportunity for constructive dialogue.
>
> TwinleafDialogue is great, but I've been thinking lately that if two sides are too far apart, there's more likely to be conflict than dialogue.
--
> Being civil has never been a deliberate intention of my posts. I think I have learned, mostly from you, certain ways of speaking that are acceptible. I also think being honest and direct are important ways of communicating.
Honest and direct is good, but sometimes there can be too much of a good thing. If a message is honest and direct, but uncivil, it may be less likely to be heard and to be an effective communication.
> Another consideration is the effect of feeling invested in the group. I was wreckless recently, I think, in part because I am less connected as before. That does not excuse my rant.
That's a great point. And, the more members that are invested in a group, the more members that group will attract.
> I am curious if Lou has ever congratulated anyone on Babble for finding a medication that helped them manage their illness. That would be supportive, and likely to improve his standing with some posters. I know I have never recieved any kind of support of this sort from him regarding what I have repeatedly discussed as a clear benefit to me from taking lithium. Of course, he has no obligation to do anything considerate here.
Lou may express the fears of posters. Fear "wants" to make you feel afraid. Fear wants to make you feel powerless. Fear isn't going to congratulate you. Fear isn't going to be considerate.
In theory, Lou might be more supportive if he felt more supported. I don't know. Hoping for Lou to change, like hoping for me to change, can lead to frustration.
> > Let's make a deal. If I invest time and energy to moderate Babble, will you all invest time and energy to reassure other posters?
>
> If you, Bob, are condidering moderating Babble again, does this mean that the hands laissez faire approach of the recent past was a failure, in your opnion?I think it would be neat if Babble could be self-sufficient. But I wonder if my not investing more time and energy, and being more connected, led posters to invest less time and energy, and to feel less connected.
Bob
Posted by Twinleaf on May 11, 2013, at 6:31:42
In reply to Re: feeling empowered, posted by Dr. Bob on May 10, 2013, at 23:20:29
I do not understand how wishing that pbc's would be applied equally to everyone would be considered uncivil on my part. I am very disappointed that you have come to that conclusion. I believe the part of my post which may have been considered uncivil by you was my statement that some of Lou's posts could be considered harmful, especially to newcomers. Even in this instance, it's very damaging and limiting to any attempt at correcting problems here if members' honest opinions about the problems are threatened with pbc's and possible eventual blocks.
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 11, 2013, at 8:21:25
In reply to Lou's response- -Mr Hsiung's reference » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on May 10, 2013, at 21:24:11
> > > > So be it as it may be, let us look at the following post here by Mr Hsiung about me.
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1043225.html
> > > >
> > > > Lou
> > >
> > > Although not explicitly referring to you, it was an unfortunate choice of words.
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> > I was referring to depression, not to Lou. And "The Wizard of Babble" was referring to, of all things, feeling powerless (while being seen as powerful).
> >
> > Bob
>
> Friends,
> It is written here,[...I was referring to depression...]
Let us first understand that the crfiteria for what can be known by what is contained in a post here is something like:
[...Not until I see it can I know it...]
This means that the stetament could be thought to mean that if it can be seen, others can know it. It cold also be construed to mean IMHO that:
IF IT CAN'T BE SEEN, THAT ONE CAN NOT KNOW IT (caps mine)
so let us look at gardenergirl's post which could bring out what I think is of great importance here, for what gardenergirl saw, she posted this:
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20120228/msgs/1031964.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 11, 2013, at 8:49:33
In reply to Lou's response Mr Hsiung's reference-gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on May 11, 2013, at 8:21:25
> > > > > So be it as it may be, let us look at the following post here by Mr Hsiung about me.
> > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1043225.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Lou
> > > >
> > > > Although not explicitly referring to you, it was an unfortunate choice of words.
> > > >
> > > > - Scott
> > >
> > > I was referring to depression, not to Lou. And "The Wizard of Babble" was referring to, of all things, feeling powerless (while being seen as powerful).
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Friends,
> > It is written here,[...I was referring to depression...]
> Let us first understand that the crfiteria for what can be known by what is contained in a post here is something like:
> [...Not until I see it can I know it...]
> This means that the stetament could be thought to mean that if it can be seen, others can know it. It cold also be construed to mean IMHO that:
> IF IT CAN'T BE SEEN, THAT ONE CAN NOT KNOW IT (caps mine)
> so let us look at gardenergirl's post which could bring out what I think is of great importance here, for what gardenergirl saw, she posted this:
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20120228/msgs/1031964.html
>Friends,
What can be seen, and what can not be seen, that is the question. I come to save lives here, not to give praise to anyone. What is posted here could live after it is posted, the archives can be resurrected to other's homes. So let it be with this post here, for if what can not be seen is allowed to be said to be seen, then any post could be changed to mean what is not there.
Here is the post in question. Let us see what can be seen and what can not be seen.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1043225.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 11, 2013, at 12:42:36
In reply to Re: feeling empowered » Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on May 11, 2013, at 6:31:42
> it's very damaging and limiting to any attempt at correcting problems here if members' honest opinions about the problems are threatened with pbc's and possible eventual blocks.
I hear that it's very important to you to correct problems. However, it's important to me to treat everyone equally where pbc's are concerned. Honest is good, but sometimes there can be too much of a good thing. If messages are honest, but uncivil, they may exacerbate, as opposed to correct, problems.
Do you feel constrained as far as what you can express here? If so, you and Lou may have something in common.
Bob
Posted by Twinleaf on May 11, 2013, at 13:15:43
In reply to Re: feeling disempowered, posted by Dr. Bob on May 11, 2013, at 12:42:36
No, I don't feel that way. I generally feel very comfortable in expressing my own views, and appreciative of having this forum to learn from and contribute to.
I do not feel that the degree of honesty I display here is excessive or harmful to anyone. If it were, I am sure people would point that out to me, as they have done multiple times to Lou, thus giving me an opportunity to change how I express things. I am someone who does change how I do things when I receive criticism which seems to be accurate and reasonable.
I only feel constrained when I am faced with warnings and pbc's from you. So far, those have not appeared helpful to either the forum or to me - or even understandable in human terms.
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 11, 2013, at 14:37:09
In reply to Re: feeling disempowered, posted by Twinleaf on May 11, 2013, at 13:15:43
Friends,
If yiu are considering being a discussant in this thread or parallel threads, I am requesting that you examine the following.
You will see a short list of fallacies in reasoning that show how errors in reasoning make a conclusion invalid.
In particular, but not limited to, I would like for you to examine under II, Fallacies in reasoning, the section "E" 1-4.
Lou
http://web.gccaz.edu/~kshinema/FALLACIES.HTML
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 11, 2013, at 15:01:37
In reply to Lou's request, posted by Lou Pilder on May 11, 2013, at 14:37:09
Friends,
If you are considering being a discussant in this thread or parallel threads, I am requesting that you read the following.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20101230/msgs/997025.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 11, 2013, at 15:26:51
In reply to Lou's request to discussants, posted by Lou Pilder on May 11, 2013, at 15:01:37
Friends,
If you are considering being a discussant in this thread, I am requesting for you to read the following. This IMHHHO could help you understand a lot of the posts here that you may not be aware of as to the underlying issues involved here.
Lou
To see this post go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in:
[admin,1030171]
look for the 1030171 in the colored strip url
Posted by Willful on May 11, 2013, at 17:42:37
In reply to Re: feeling disempowered, posted by Dr. Bob on May 11, 2013, at 12:42:36
Obviously we all have noticed that Bob seems very invested in trying to focus us on the idea that we all have something, or perhaps various things, in common with Lou.
But I wonder why this is such an issue. Even if I have something, say a fear of some terrible effect from taking anti-depressants and that some poster also has a fear that ADs cause terrible effects. This has some rationality-- ADs can in rare cases cause very destructive side effects--but it can also take on an irrational quality, which is itself destructive-- and to a degree that it would even terrify me into refusing a drug that would help.
The initial insight might make me open to realizing how much I share with this poster-- and therefore to feeling a sense of community with him or her. But the form these fears take, and the actions that the other person undertakes in response to the fears may be in fact very harmful to me. In fact, someone with similar fears to oneself can present a danger, if their fears are irrational or if they believe that giving voice to the worst fears and indeed adumbrating them is the best way to cope.
So I suppose I might have a fear of taking dangerous drugs, and a conflicting fear of not taking a drug that I desperately need. The only hope I have I guess is to believe that I am capable of some sort of insight-- or of seeing through these unbalancing hopes and fears to a best judgment.So maybe what Bob is saying is that the push and pull of the community gives voice to posters' tangle of emotions-- and that Lou represents the fears while others of us represent the hopes-- or the hard-fought judgments we've come to through the conflict of these. And as such, perhaps we should tolerate his invective against drugs-- since dangers do exist.
Of course it would be more comfortable if Lou had what I suppose I consider sound judgment--something closer to a moderate view-- even if he were more wary of drugs or more pessimistic about their usefulness. But also, we can't order up our opposing views---
I don't know. I think we can all understand how hard is for us to hear Lou's comments-- because we've fought our way through fears, disappointments, etc about drugs-- and find his animadversions disturbing, depressing reminders of something in ourselves.
And we all might therefore question our own reactions to him-- and our fears (or my fear anyway) that he will harm other posters-- or drive away potential fellow sufferers in a community where we are a bit forlorn.
And yet--- well--- is there any possibility that he could frighten people who might be considering taking drugs? Is someone on a message board that powerful in the face of other voices?-- when it's really the internal struggle in each of us that leads to our ultimate judgments?
well anyway-- sorry for rambling. I suppose I understand Bob's point-- but perhaps, one doesn't know-- if he has never gone through this process of struggle about taking drugs-- does he really understand ours?
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 11, 2013, at 18:21:58
In reply to Lou's response Mr Hsiung's reference-l, posted by Lou Pilder on May 11, 2013, at 8:49:33
> > > > > > So be it as it may be, let us look at the following post here by Mr Hsiung about me.
> > > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1043225.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lou
> > > > >
> > > > > Although not explicitly referring to you, it was an unfortunate choice of words.
> > > > >
> > > > > - Scott
> > > >
> > > > I was referring to depression, not to Lou. And "The Wizard of Babble" was referring to, of all things, feeling powerless (while being seen as powerful).
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > >
> > > Friends,
> > > It is written here,[...I was referring to depression...]
> > Let us first understand that the crfiteria for what can be known by what is contained in a post here is something like:
> > [...Not until I see it can I know it...]
> > This means that the stetament could be thought to mean that if it can be seen, others can know it. It cold also be construed to mean IMHO that:
> > IF IT CAN'T BE SEEN, THAT ONE CAN NOT KNOW IT (caps mine)
> > so let us look at gardenergirl's post which could bring out what I think is of great importance here, for what gardenergirl saw, she posted this:
> > Lou
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20120228/msgs/1031964.html
> >
>
> Friends,
> What can be seen, and what can not be seen, that is the question. I come to save lives here, not to give praise to anyone. What is posted here could live after it is posted, the archives can be resurrected to other's homes. So let it be with this post here, for if what can not be seen is allowed to be said to be seen, then any post could be changed to mean what is not there.
> Here is the post in question. Let us see what can be seen and what can not be seen.
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1043225.htmlFriends,
Let us look at the statement in question:
[...I wish I could keep The Prince of Death away. I hope others here could help you offset him and you could do the same for them...].
Now let us examine some important aspects of the statement that may be unbeknownst to you. Do you know where this statement came from?
Let us look at this post. In the following, the poster uses {go away} in connection with me. The importance of the grammatical structure of all of this goes to what can be seen and what can not be seen. Now let's look at {go away} in this post.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20120228/msgs/1030526.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 11, 2013, at 20:35:42
In reply to Lou's respone to Mr Hsiung's reference-gauxawhey, posted by Lou Pilder on May 11, 2013, at 18:21:58
> > > > > > > So be it as it may be, let us look at the following post here by Mr Hsiung about me.
> > > > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1043225.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lou
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Although not explicitly referring to you, it was an unfortunate choice of words.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Scott
> > > > >
> > > > > I was referring to depression, not to Lou. And "The Wizard of Babble" was referring to, of all things, feeling powerless (while being seen as powerful).
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > > Friends,
> > > > It is written here,[...I was referring to depression...]
> > > Let us first understand that the crfiteria for what can be known by what is contained in a post here is something like:
> > > [...Not until I see it can I know it...]
> > > This means that the stetament could be thought to mean that if it can be seen, others can know it. It cold also be construed to mean IMHO that:
> > > IF IT CAN'T BE SEEN, THAT ONE CAN NOT KNOW IT (caps mine)
> > > so let us look at gardenergirl's post which could bring out what I think is of great importance here, for what gardenergirl saw, she posted this:
> > > Lou
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20120228/msgs/1031964.html
> > >
> >
> > Friends,
> > What can be seen, and what can not be seen, that is the question. I come to save lives here, not to give praise to anyone. What is posted here could live after it is posted, the archives can be resurrected to other's homes. So let it be with this post here, for if what can not be seen is allowed to be said to be seen, then any post could be changed to mean what is not there.
> > Here is the post in question. Let us see what can be seen and what can not be seen.
> > Lou
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1043225.html
>
> Friends,
> Let us look at the statement in question:
> [...I wish I could keep The Prince of Death away. I hope others here could help you offset him and you could do the same for them...].
> Now let us examine some important aspects of the statement that may be unbeknownst to you. Do you know where this statement came from?
> Let us look at this post. In the following, the poster uses {go away} in connection with me. The importance of the grammatical structure of all of this goes to what can be seen and what can not be seen. Now let's look at {go away} in this post.
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20120228/msgs/1030526.htmlFriends,
Now to identify what can be seen about the Prince of Death. Where did that come from?
Here is a post that could give some understanding to that. You see, the Prince of Death has the potential to be considered IMHO by some as a perversion of The Prince of Peace.
Lou
Here is a post that I would like for interested readers to see. To see this post go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in:
[admin,1030546]
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 11, 2013, at 21:18:16
In reply to Re: feeling disempowered, posted by Willful on May 11, 2013, at 17:42:37
> Obviously we all have noticed that Bob seems very invested in trying to focus us on the idea that we all have something, or perhaps various things, in common with Lou.
>
> But I wonder why this is such an issue. Even if I have something, say a fear of some terrible effect from taking anti-depressants and that some poster also has a fear that ADs cause terrible effects. This has some rationality-- ADs can in rare cases cause very destructive side effects--but it can also take on an irrational quality, which is itself destructive-- and to a degree that it would even terrify me into refusing a drug that would help.
>
> The initial insight might make me open to realizing how much I share with this poster-- and therefore to feeling a sense of community with him or her. But the form these fears take, and the actions that the other person undertakes in response to the fears may be in fact very harmful to me. In fact, someone with similar fears to oneself can present a danger, if their fears are irrational or if they believe that giving voice to the worst fears and indeed adumbrating them is the best way to cope.
>
>
> So I suppose I might have a fear of taking dangerous drugs, and a conflicting fear of not taking a drug that I desperately need. The only hope I have I guess is to believe that I am capable of some sort of insight-- or of seeing through these unbalancing hopes and fears to a best judgment.
>
> So maybe what Bob is saying is that the push and pull of the community gives voice to posters' tangle of emotions-- and that Lou represents the fears while others of us represent the hopes-- or the hard-fought judgments we've come to through the conflict of these. And as such, perhaps we should tolerate his invective against drugs-- since dangers do exist.
>
> Of course it would be more comfortable if Lou had what I suppose I consider sound judgment--something closer to a moderate view-- even if he were more wary of drugs or more pessimistic about their usefulness. But also, we can't order up our opposing views---
>
> I don't know. I think we can all understand how hard is for us to hear Lou's comments-- because we've fought our way through fears, disappointments, etc about drugs-- and find his animadversions disturbing, depressing reminders of something in ourselves.
>
> And we all might therefore question our own reactions to him-- and our fears (or my fear anyway) that he will harm other posters-- or drive away potential fellow sufferers in a community where we are a bit forlorn.
>
> And yet--- well--- is there any possibility that he could frighten people who might be considering taking drugs? Is someone on a message board that powerful in the face of other voices?-- when it's really the internal struggle in each of us that leads to our ultimate judgments?
>
> well anyway-- sorry for rambling. I suppose I understand Bob's point-- but perhaps, one doesn't know-- if he has never gone through this process of struggle about taking drugs-- does he really understand ours?
>
> Friends,
I have come here to save lives and prevent life-ruining conditions and addictions. And I am asking those interested in what Willful has posted about me here to read the following so that you could have more information to make a more informed decision as to what you may post here. To see this post, go to the bottom of the page and type in the search box:
[admin,1030171]
>
>
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 11, 2013, at 21:20:41
In reply to Lou's request-ceephaorurselv » Willful, posted by Lou Pilder on May 11, 2013, at 21:18:16
> > Obviously we all have noticed that Bob seems very invested in trying to focus us on the idea that we all have something, or perhaps various things, in common with Lou.
> >
> > But I wonder why this is such an issue. Even if I have something, say a fear of some terrible effect from taking anti-depressants and that some poster also has a fear that ADs cause terrible effects. This has some rationality-- ADs can in rare cases cause very destructive side effects--but it can also take on an irrational quality, which is itself destructive-- and to a degree that it would even terrify me into refusing a drug that would help.
> >
> > The initial insight might make me open to realizing how much I share with this poster-- and therefore to feeling a sense of community with him or her. But the form these fears take, and the actions that the other person undertakes in response to the fears may be in fact very harmful to me. In fact, someone with similar fears to oneself can present a danger, if their fears are irrational or if they believe that giving voice to the worst fears and indeed adumbrating them is the best way to cope.
> >
> >
> > So I suppose I might have a fear of taking dangerous drugs, and a conflicting fear of not taking a drug that I desperately need. The only hope I have I guess is to believe that I am capable of some sort of insight-- or of seeing through these unbalancing hopes and fears to a best judgment.
> >
> > So maybe what Bob is saying is that the push and pull of the community gives voice to posters' tangle of emotions-- and that Lou represents the fears while others of us represent the hopes-- or the hard-fought judgments we've come to through the conflict of these. And as such, perhaps we should tolerate his invective against drugs-- since dangers do exist.
> >
> > Of course it would be more comfortable if Lou had what I suppose I consider sound judgment--something closer to a moderate view-- even if he were more wary of drugs or more pessimistic about their usefulness. But also, we can't order up our opposing views---
> >
> > I don't know. I think we can all understand how hard is for us to hear Lou's comments-- because we've fought our way through fears, disappointments, etc about drugs-- and find his animadversions disturbing, depressing reminders of something in ourselves.
> >
> > And we all might therefore question our own reactions to him-- and our fears (or my fear anyway) that he will harm other posters-- or drive away potential fellow sufferers in a community where we are a bit forlorn.
> >
> > And yet--- well--- is there any possibility that he could frighten people who might be considering taking drugs? Is someone on a message board that powerful in the face of other voices?-- when it's really the internal struggle in each of us that leads to our ultimate judgments?
> >
> > well anyway-- sorry for rambling. I suppose I understand Bob's point-- but perhaps, one doesn't know-- if he has never gone through this process of struggle about taking drugs-- does he really understand ours?
> >
> > Friends,
> I have come here to save lives and prevent life-ruining conditions and addictions. And I am asking those interested in what Willful has posted about me here to read the following so that you could have more information to make a more informed decision as to what you may post here. To see this post, go to the bottom of the page and type in the search box:
> [admin,1030171]
> >
> >
> > correction:
Type in:
[admin,1030378]
>
>
Posted by Phillipa on May 11, 2013, at 22:50:35
In reply to correction- Lou's request-ceephaorurselv, posted by Lou Pilder on May 11, 2013, at 21:20:41
Lou you just broke the rule of three posts in a row? Phillipa
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.