![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 2 to 26 of 193. Go back in thread:
Posted by SLS on June 30, 2013, at 13:35:30
In reply to It is gone far beyond theorectical now, Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on June 30, 2013, at 11:37:12
> And it is absolutely ridiculous.
>
> :-(I agree.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20130617/msgs/1046049.html
It no longer makes sense to avoid the elephant in the room. He has a name.
Precedent?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020124/msgs/92279.html
Lou Pilder: "Psychotropic drugs have been used for 5000 years and have never shown to lead anyone to anyplace except death, either physically or a living death that eats the victim's minds."
Dr. Bob: "Please don't over-generalize. Whether or not you consider that the truth, that's not acceptable here."
- Scott
Posted by 10derheart on June 30, 2013, at 18:45:09
In reply to Re: It is gone far beyond theorectical now, Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on June 30, 2013, at 13:35:30
>>It no longer makes sense to avoid the elephant in the room.
Yes, well, I was trying to avoid being uncivil on the board and comply (somewhat) with Dr. Bob's recently renewed requests to not report things publicly, while possibly catching his eye if he ever looks in here.
But that's just *me*. And I'm not quite sure why I bother.
Seems no matter what means or method is used by posters to draw attention to this is met with...I don't know...some kind of philosophical gobbledygook questions as answers to our questions and concerns, or some new request for *us* to do or not do this or that.
I'm tired of that.
Some clear administration, please. {she says into the wind...}
Posted by alexandra_k on June 30, 2013, at 19:57:33
In reply to Re: It is gone far beyond theorectical now, Dr. Bob » SLS, posted by 10derheart on June 30, 2013, at 18:45:09
how come people don't just put the poster on ignore if they don't want to read their posts?
Posted by sigismund on June 30, 2013, at 21:07:07
In reply to Re: It is gone far beyond theorectical now, Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on June 30, 2013, at 13:35:30
>Psychotropic drugs have been used for 5000 years
They worked well enough in the traditional culture of many nations.
Posted by SLS on July 1, 2013, at 0:00:37
In reply to Re: It is gone far beyond theorectical now, Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on June 30, 2013, at 19:57:33
> how come people don't just put the poster on ignore if they don't want to read their posts?
What does it mean to "put the poster on ignore"? I'm still looking for the button to click on.
It often occurs that a poster will include the words of others within their own. How would someone else know which to click on and which to ignore?
Should I ignore racism when it isn't directed at me in particular?
Do words ever harm anyone?
What posting behaviors would you proscribe?
- Scott
Posted by 10derheart on July 1, 2013, at 0:31:29
In reply to Re: It is gone far beyond theorectical now, Dr. Bob » alexandra_k, posted by SLS on July 1, 2013, at 0:00:37
Yeah...pretty much what Scott said/asked.
Posted by willful on July 1, 2013, at 0:39:14
In reply to Re: It is gone far beyond theorectical now, Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on July 1, 2013, at 0:31:29
let me add my voice to those that say something needs to be done
Posted by 10derheart on July 1, 2013, at 0:40:35
In reply to Re: It is gone far beyond theorectical now, Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on June 30, 2013, at 19:57:33
How, exactly? You're joking?
Or do you know something I don't know?
Posted by alexandra_k on July 1, 2013, at 5:07:59
In reply to Re: It is gone far beyond theorectical now, Dr. Bob » alexandra_k, posted by 10derheart on July 1, 2013, at 0:40:35
Oh, I don't know. I thought there used to be an 'ignore' feature here, but maybe not. Maybe that was someplace else, actually... One of the first admin discussions that I ever remember from these boards was an admin discussion about lou suggesting this or that was anti-semitic and other posters feeling upset about that and wanting something to be done.
I think mostly Dr Bob seems reluctant to change Lou. If we don't accept him... Who will? Can anybody think of another posting site that is likely to be more accepting of him? Can Lou change? Should Lou change? I don't know... I suspect... He's not going to. So, uh, it is unclear what can be done. I guess I've just stayed out of it. I'm not entirely sure what has made that possible for me in this case...
Posted by alexandra_k on July 1, 2013, at 5:09:14
In reply to Re: It is gone far beyond theorectical now, Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on July 1, 2013, at 5:07:59
Maybe it is because I don't read / post much from meds or faith. I suspect that may be it.
Posted by SLS on July 1, 2013, at 6:36:31
In reply to Re: It is gone far beyond theorectical now, Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on July 1, 2013, at 5:07:59
It is hard not to develop an affection for the delusional Don Quixote. However, Don Quixote did not wield his sword indiscriminately against innocent and vulnerable human beings.
Don Quixote did not need pardons for capital crimes because he did not commit any. Lesser offenses were often overlooked, though, and people from his village would save him from himself and take him home. If Don Quixote had repeatedly killed innocent people, would he have been pardoned? At some point, a judge must weigh the health of the populace against his affection for the murderer as well as the pressure being placed upon him by others to grant another pardon.
- Scott
Posted by Phillipa on July 1, 2013, at 9:44:32
In reply to Re: It is gone far beyond theorectical now, Dr. Bob » alexandra_k, posted by SLS on July 1, 2013, at 6:36:31
If one of those posts were the first ones I'd seen when coming here I'd have never returned. Now that's a thought. So why does said person want to close down the site? Phillipa
Posted by Toph on July 1, 2013, at 12:33:35
In reply to It is gone far beyond theorectical now, Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on June 30, 2013, at 11:37:12
I'm sure it has dawned on many posters that Lou has no real interest in the people he purportedly attmpts to help with his strident admonitions and delusional solutions, rather he just likes to piss everyone off and spurn threads like this. The veil of cyber anonimity keeps him from facing those he injures while feeding his self-deception as the victim.
Posted by 10derheart on July 1, 2013, at 13:04:19
In reply to It is gone far beyond theorectical now, Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on June 30, 2013, at 11:37:12
I shouldn't have started this.
I just use this board as a secondary way to get Bob's attention. Emails are responded to....intermittently, so I thought, maybe, as luck would have it he'd be curious about my subject line...
Please, I didn't want to encourage bashing or uncivil posts toward Lou or anyone.
I just want every poster held to the overgeneralization rule and sensitivity rules, unless they are gone, in which case explicitly telling us that would be nice. I just wanted Dr. Bob to see we aren't imagining our concerns.
No, there was never an 'ignore' button here.
I wish we could delete our own threads.
Posted by SLS on July 1, 2013, at 13:06:10
In reply to Re: It is gone far beyond theorectical now, Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on July 1, 2013, at 12:33:35
> I'm sure it has dawned on many posters that Lou has no real interest in the people he purportedly attmpts to help with his strident admonitions and delusional solutions, rather he just likes to piss everyone off and spurn threads like this. The veil of cyber anonimity keeps him from facing those he injures while feeding his self-deception as the victim.
I sometimes wonder if Lou Pilder is trying to close this place down as one of his goals. He certainly has motive. He is also clever enough, and will continue to push the envelope until Dr. Bob sanctions him. He knows how disruptive his posts are, and how pernicious is his changing of the subject lines of every post he replies to. Ugly.
Psycho-Babble is quite ill.
PLEASE RESET SUBJECT LINES!
- Scott
Posted by SLS on July 1, 2013, at 13:41:09
In reply to Re: It is gone far beyond theorectical now, Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on July 1, 2013, at 13:04:19
> I wish we could delete our own threads.
If not you, it would have been me to start this thread. Only I would not have been as tactful as you in composing a subject line.
Bashing?
How does one define the word "bashing"?
Which of the words posted along this thread qualify as "bashing"?
I don't feel that I am bashing Lou Pilder. I am certainly making him the focus of my attention, however.
Simple: I think Lou Pilder should be blocked from posting if he continues his present posting behaviors.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on July 1, 2013, at 15:40:02
In reply to Re: It is gone far beyond theorectical now, Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on July 1, 2013, at 13:04:19
> I shouldn't have started this.
Confrontation can be uncomfortable, either to participate in or to witness. Not much would ever get done without it, though.
I'm sorry that I felt the need to confront you regarding your use of the word "bashing". It is an extremely important issue, in my estimation, to distinguish between bashing and discussing.
- Scott
Posted by 10derheart on July 1, 2013, at 17:03:26
In reply to Re: It is gone far beyond theorectical now, Dr. Bob » 10derheart, posted by SLS on July 1, 2013, at 13:41:09
I apologize if I accused you of bashing.
Accusation wasn't the mode of thought....I was more in, "oh crap, what did *I* just do and why did *I* do that?" mode.
>>How does one define the word "bashing"?
I guess I used it synonymously with the standard definitions of uncivil here on PB, mainly posts using language that could lead others to feel accused or put down and jumping to conclusions. You make a good point. Next time I will say what I mean more precisely; I can see how "bashing" could be vague.
The trouble is, of course, "uncivil," "accused," "put down," "insensitive," etc. could all be subject to interpretation.... so round and round we go and have gone for years. I rely on my understanding of what Dr. Bob generally used to mean by those when I was a deputy.
>>Which of the words posted along this thread qualify as "bashing"?
I shouldn't repost them, if I am going to resume following the FAQ policies as they stand.
I count at least 8 total times this occurs along the thread, with maybe 5 more depending on whether your Don Quixote analogy is "counted" as directed at Lou. I may be missing more, maybe my own. I think I posted at least one when I clearly implied you or others on this thread may be bashing or posting uncivil things. That is uncivil. (And i guess I am doing it again, right here...sigh...)
I reflexively reacted to seeing a thread I created that is the kind that quickly descends into mostly negative comments and descriptions about one poster's posts...based on my 2+ years of experience watching it happen again and again as a deputy. My frustration and assumption Dr. Bob will not appear or act as he used to gets the better of me and I start making my own, probably contradictory rules, or exceptions to rules.
I liked it....loved it, really, when the rules were strict and enforced. This is a minority and rejected POV by several long time posters, and many other categories of posters - I know. Perhaps by the majority, including those who lurk...I have no data to determine that. I am pretty sure you have posted more than once that you thought the blocks, sanctions, etc., in general became a problem, roughly in agreement with, for example, Twinleaf's views, if that's a reasonably accurate memory of mine? We disagree there.
I like rules and I like leaving the elephant standing in the room if that means *forcing* all of us to create civil posts instead of posting what we first think or feel, or when we strongly believe we are stating facts. But I have never seen this go smoothly when Dr. Bob is not actively, constantly, consistently here, and that is a pipe dream.As I said, my view has generally been overruled and rejected in these sorts of discussions on how to administer this site re: civility.
I respectfully have to say I disagree confrontation (the way I think you mean it) is required to get things done. I see it happen regularly in my real life (family, church, Facebook) when people are deliberate about it. It is really, really, challenging, to the point it's like learning a new language, but it happens. When I can't find a way to be utterly honest and kind, compassionate, and charitable all at the same time, then the latter three must take precedence. I am far, far, far from an expert at this tricky balance, but I dislike myself a lot when I lapse and quit trying.
My favorite thing about being a deputy was trying my best to demonstrate that. But that was a ***long*** time ago.
Posted by Phillipa on July 1, 2013, at 20:48:19
In reply to Re: It is gone far beyond theorectical now, Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on July 1, 2013, at 13:06:10
Scott this is my theory. Think the same. Phillipa
Posted by SLS on July 1, 2013, at 21:14:25
In reply to bashing, etc. (far too long) » SLS, posted by 10derheart on July 1, 2013, at 17:03:26
Apparently, the rules have changed.
Perhaps I will attain my goals by continually pushing the envelope up to the point where I receive my first posting block.
Confrontation is sometimes preferable to appeasement.
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 2, 2013, at 2:56:04
In reply to Re: It is gone far beyond theorectical now, Dr. Bob » SLS, posted by 10derheart on June 30, 2013, at 18:45:09
> Seems no matter what means or method is used by posters to draw attention to this is met with...I don't know...some kind of philosophical gobbledygook questions as answers to our questions and concerns, or some new request for *us* to do or not do this or that.
>
> I'm tired of that.
>
> Some clear administration, please. {she says into the wind...}It can be like a hockey game, one minute it looks like you're going to lose, the next minute you win:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20130617/msgs/1046226.html
I thought it helped to:
1. focus on supporting the poster asking for help
2. keep the subject line focused on the poster asking for help
3. counter negative information with positive information
4. be civilSpeaking of hockey, does anybody else know the term "power play"?
Bob
Posted by SLS on July 2, 2013, at 3:44:34
In reply to Re: It is gone beyond theorectical now, posted by Dr. Bob on July 2, 2013, at 2:56:04
> Speaking of hockey, does anybody else know the term "power play"?
Yes. I believe it occurs when a player is blocked from playing.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on July 2, 2013, at 3:47:21
In reply to Re: It is gone beyond theorectical now » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on July 2, 2013, at 3:44:34
> > Speaking of hockey, does anybody else know the term "power play"?
>
> Yes. I believe it occurs when a player is blocked from playing.I'm really not here to play games, though.
- Scott
Posted by Emme_V2 on July 2, 2013, at 5:49:07
In reply to Re: It is gone far beyond theorectical now, Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on June 30, 2013, at 13:35:30
> > And it is absolutely ridiculous.
> >
> > :-(
>
> I agree.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20130617/msgs/1046049.html
>
> It no longer makes sense to avoid the elephant in the room. He has a name.
>
> Precedent?
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020124/msgs/92279.html
>
> Lou Pilder: "Psychotropic drugs have been used for 5000 years and have never shown to lead anyone to anyplace except death, either physically or a living death that eats the victim's minds."
>
> Dr. Bob: "Please don't over-generalize. Whether or not you consider that the truth, that's not acceptable here."
>
>
> - Scott
It looks like Scott found at least one good example of Bob previously enforcing the site guidelines against exaggeration and over-generalization. I'd be very pleased if those guidelines were enforced again.We have enough to battle with every day managing our illnesses. Please shouldn't come to a support forum and find themselves having to cope here as well. Even if some longtime posters are accustomed to certain circumstances here and are able to choose not to respond to posts that they find difficult, newcomers often do respond. Then the longtime posters expend energy trying to help the newcomer not only with their original question - which is the support folks here WANT to give - but in also doing damage control.
As Scott said, he's not here to play games. This board was not founded for the purposes of verbal hockey. I believe much of this could be alleviated if the site guidelines against exaggeration and over-generalization were applied. These guidelines already exist, they have already been enforced in the past, and they make sense.
Posted by Emme_V2 on July 2, 2013, at 5:50:57
In reply to Re: It is gone far beyond theorectical now, Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on June 30, 2013, at 13:35:30
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.