![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 124 to 148 of 193. Go back in thread:
Posted by SLS on August 4, 2013, at 13:54:41
In reply to Lou's response-koelhectyve whill, posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2013, at 11:34:35
> What is written about me can be seen.
What is written by you can be seen as well.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2013, at 14:11:17
In reply to Re: Lou's response-koelhectyve whill » Lou Pilder, posted by larry hoover on August 4, 2013, at 12:16:22
> Come on Lou, you can do better than that. You didn't once call me anti-Semitic.
>
> You claim to have knowledge that will save others from the consequences that you suggest might befall you, if you are scapegoated. Physician, heal thyself.
>
> BTW, scapegoating implies unmerited negative treatment of an individual or group. My remarks are about merited negative treatment, i.e. consequences arising from one's actual behaviour.
>
> LarFriends,
Let us look at this that is written about me here:
As I see it, the post brings up that I claim to have knowledge that will save others from the consequences that I suggest might befall me, if I am scapegoated and brings up consequences arising from what I post here that the poster claims are merited.
I may not have the full understanding of what is posted here, but be it as it may be, let us look at what I think the post says.
The poster states that I did not call him what he posted and that I could do better. I do not understand what is behind what is posted about me here by the poster. And if I am subjected to being a scapegoat here, what could befall others using me for such is that they could bring on themselves the consequences that might befall me if I am scapegoated.
If I understand that correctly, this could refer to what I posted here from the psychologist about scapegoating. I offered a video from the psychologist that showed what scapegoating could do to the scapegoater as well as the scapegoated.
The knowledge that I claim to have could IMHO have one delivered out of the captivity of depression and addiction. If one becomes party to scapegoating, the psychologist in the video told what could happen to them and I claim to have knowledge that could free those involved in scapegoating from depression and suicide thoughts and thoughts of violent behavior that could arise from using someone as a scapegoat. The one scapegoated could also be driven into suicide thinking and depression and addiction.
This knowledge I am prevented from posting here, for is prohibited by Mr. Hsiung in his prohibitions posted to me here.
This is how I understand the post that I am responding to, and I may not have it all as the poster means. If so, any clarification would be welcomed and I could post again and do better.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2013, at 14:21:46
In reply to Lou's response-dubedder, posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2013, at 14:11:17
> > Come on Lou, you can do better than that. You didn't once call me anti-Semitic.
> >
> > You claim to have knowledge that will save others from the consequences that you suggest might befall you, if you are scapegoated. Physician, heal thyself.
> >
> > BTW, scapegoating implies unmerited negative treatment of an individual or group. My remarks are about merited negative treatment, i.e. consequences arising from one's actual behaviour.
> >
> > Lar
>
> Friends,
> Let us look at this that is written about me here:
> As I see it, the post brings up that I claim to have knowledge that will save others from the consequences that I suggest might befall me, if I am scapegoated and brings up consequences arising from what I post here that the poster claims are merited.
> I may not have the full understanding of what is posted here, but be it as it may be, let us look at what I think the post says.
> The poster states that I did not call him what he posted and that I could do better. I do not understand what is behind what is posted about me here by the poster. And if I am subjected to being a scapegoat here, what could befall others using me for such is that they could bring on themselves the consequences that might befall me if I am scapegoated.
> If I understand that correctly, this could refer to what I posted here from the psychologist about scapegoating. I offered a video from the psychologist that showed what scapegoating could do to the scapegoater as well as the scapegoated.
> The knowledge that I claim to have could IMHO have one delivered out of the captivity of depression and addiction. If one becomes party to scapegoating, the psychologist in the video told what could happen to them and I claim to have knowledge that could free those involved in scapegoating from depression and suicide thoughts and thoughts of violent behavior that could arise from using someone as a scapegoat. The one scapegoated could also be driven into suicide thinking and depression and addiction.
> This knowledge I am prevented from posting here, for is prohibited by Mr. Hsiung in his prohibitions posted to me here.
> This is how I understand the post that I am responding to, and I may not have it all as the poster means. If so, any clarification would be welcomed and I could post again and do better.
> LouFriends,
Here is a post that offers a video that I think could help here in this discussion.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1046759.html
Posted by Twinleaf on August 4, 2013, at 14:34:02
In reply to Re: Trying to practice what I've been preaching » Dr. Bob, posted by larry hoover on August 4, 2013, at 10:39:46
Thank you for posting that. I think it expresses exactly the administrative difficulties our community is facing.
Posted by SLS on August 4, 2013, at 14:35:58
In reply to Re: Lou's response-koelhectyve whill » Lou Pilder, posted by larry hoover on August 4, 2013, at 12:16:22
> BTW, scapegoating implies unmerited negative treatment of an individual or group. My remarks are about merited negative treatment, i.e. consequences arising from one's actual behaviour.
It appears that some people don't understand the whole scapegoating thing. Either that, or I don't understand it.
It has been suggested that I was scapegoating for writing the following:
"It also pains me to ponder the possibility that posting activity has dropped off significantly as Lou Pilder has been allowed to post exaggerations, over-generalizations, and accusations to a greater degree and frequency."
I continue to ponder this possibility. I don't yet know this to be a fact, though. Is this inquiry into cause and effect and the assignment of responsibility an attempt at scapegoating? I am not attempting any such thing. I have not knowingly assigned blame to someone who I know is not a causative agent.
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2013, at 5:20:01
In reply to Re: Trying to practice what I've been preaching » Dr. Bob, posted by larry hoover on August 4, 2013, at 12:03:20
> The issue is unrestrained incivility in posting draining the resources of the community.
>
> Admonishing us all by asking us to try harder to tolerate each other more is not leadership. Many eleoquent and passionate voices expressing that discontent are being ignored.
>
> asking us to grow into tolerance is offensive. If I tolerate behaviour that I consider to violate community standards, I am worse than the perpetrator, because I'm letting my community down. Listen, Bob, to the voices of community members asking you to restore THEIR community's standards of civility. A healthy community's leader is a servant to the people within it.
>
> The community is powerless to self-manage> If you do consider your new strategy of inaction to be a change in behaviour, are you satisfied with the results so far?
Incivility isn't unrestrained.
Voices aren't being ignored. Opinions are being disagreed with.
A leader is a servant? When a community can't self-manage?
If you tolerate behavior a community disagrees with, you give someone the experience of acceptance. And you give yourself peace.
Yes, I'm satisfied so far. For one thing, old posters are starting to post again. :-)
Bob
Posted by larry hoover on August 6, 2013, at 8:32:36
In reply to Re: Trying to practice what I've been preaching, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2013, at 5:20:01
Nice cherry-picking from my coherent thesis, Bob. Kind of changes the meaning when you take my thoughts out of context.
> Incivility isn't unrestrained.
Yes, it is, and by applying your own definitions. You appear to have cut a side-deal with one poster, allowing over-exaggeration and over-generalization to continue, despite being a couple of the few examples in your FAQ.
> Voices aren't being ignored. Opinions are being disagreed with.
As I further remarked, what you are calling disagreement (from you) comes across as condescencion and trivialization (from over here).
> A leader is a servant? When a community can't self-manage?Don't even go there. I said that in a HEALTHY community, the leader serves the people. You have created a community that cannot self manage. Stop twisting my words, please.
> If you tolerate behavior a community disagrees with, you give someone the experience of acceptance. And you give yourself peace.This is more than behaviour that is disagreed with, Bob. It is against community standards. Try that argument with pedophilia, and see how far you get.
> Yes, I'm satisfied so far. For one thing, old posters are starting to post again. :-)
>
> BobNot for long.
Lar
Posted by larry hoover on August 6, 2013, at 9:07:39
In reply to Re: Trying to practice what I've been preaching, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2013, at 5:20:01
Another P.S., Bob.
In other contexts, people in a position of authority bear more exacting standards of conduct towards those they have authority over than are normally applied, as I'm sure you're aware, as a physician. And, that includes an obligation to put the other party's needs before your own.
You have created a community. That's fantastic. But you've also created an obligation. There are hundreds of real people out here, Bob. I had dinner with you, and others. Real flesh and blood people, whose needs should be in the forefront.
I really don't want to hear about how much trouble it is for you to manage this civility issue. I don't really have any sympathy for this particular rock/hard place situation you find yourself in, as I know that quick action, in accordance with site quidelines, would have precluded all this BS.
I don't know what an overall solution is, Bob, because in the end you do need to have a sustainable model. I'm certainly sympathetic to that. But that's a separate issue, and you have conflated the two.
Why don't you create a poll about what your community wants? Why don't you find out if e.g. over-exaggeration is acceptable to the community, or not? There are many polling websites out there.
I have work to do, so I'm gone again. Back a few years ago, I was disabled by mental illness. Now, I take no psych meds, and I'm a President/CEO/CFO/Director of a number of corps. I'd like to contribute here, but this whole can of worms would consume what little I have to give (as you can see already). I'd rather help people than fight with you, but maybe that's the best way that I can help.
Lar
Posted by SLS on August 6, 2013, at 10:18:05
In reply to Re: Trying to practice what I've been preaching » Dr. Bob, posted by larry hoover on August 6, 2013, at 9:07:39
> Now, I take no psych meds
Mazel tov! This is welcome news.
> and I'm a President/CEO/CFO/Director of a number of corps.
You are such an underachiever.
:-)
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 6, 2013, at 15:24:32
In reply to Re: Lou's response-koelhectyve whill » Lou Pilder, posted by larry hoover on August 4, 2013, at 12:16:22
> Come on Lou, you can do better than that. You didn't once call me anti-Semitic.
>
> You claim to have knowledge that will save others from the consequences that you suggest might befall you, if you are scapegoated. Physician, heal thyself.
>
> BTW, scapegoating implies unmerited negative treatment of an individual or group. My remarks are about merited negative treatment, i.e. consequences arising from one's actual behaviour.
>
> LarLarry,
I have red your recent posts that contain statements about me or statements that have the potential for someme to think that I am the subject person that you are referring to.
So I am making this offer to you now to settle this once and for all. I will meet you here on this board in a new thread here titled,"The Hoover-Pilder debate", at noon tomorrow, CST. I would like a closed debate with just me and you, alone,but with a team of moderators that can post in your behalf. And I am asking that you pick your moderators for the debate. I would like for you to have in your team the big-guns here, like Scott and Dinah and Willfull and Sarcano and Toph and others. I will ask to have on my team Schleprock and poser and ZZDucke and gardenergirl and any others that will b-mail me to want to be a moderator for me on my team.
And if you believe that this debate will not be good for this community as a whole, then reject this opportunity now. But if you do believe that this debate will be good for the community as a whole, then go to the new thread at the bottom of this page and register and accept this opportunity now. Also, those invited to be moderators, also please register with your acceptance.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 6, 2013, at 15:32:43
In reply to Lou's offer-hyknewn » larry hoover, posted by Lou Pilder on August 6, 2013, at 15:24:32
> > Come on Lou, you can do better than that. You didn't once call me anti-Semitic.
> >
> > You claim to have knowledge that will save others from the consequences that you suggest might befall you, if you are scapegoated. Physician, heal thyself.
> >
> > BTW, scapegoating implies unmerited negative treatment of an individual or group. My remarks are about merited negative treatment, i.e. consequences arising from one's actual behaviour.
> >
> > Lar
>
> Larry,
> I have red your recent posts that contain statements about me or statements that have the potential for someme to think that I am the subject person that you are referring to.
> So I am making this offer to you now to settle this once and for all. I will meet you here on this board in a new thread here titled,"The Hoover-Pilder debate", at noon tomorrow, CST. I would like a closed debate with just me and you, alone,but with a team of moderators that can post in your behalf. And I am asking that you pick your moderators for the debate. I would like for you to have in your team the big-guns here, like Scott and Dinah and Willfull and Sarcano and Toph and others. I will ask to have on my team Schleprock and poser and ZZDucke and gardenergirl and any others that will b-mail me to want to be a moderator for me on my team.
> And if you believe that this debate will not be good for this community as a whole, then reject this opportunity now. But if you do believe that this debate will be good for the community as a whole, then go to the new thread at the bottom of this page and register and accept this opportunity now. Also, those invited to be moderators, also please register with your acceptance.
> LouI am also inviting Lamdage22 and Alexandra-K to be on my tean.
Lou
Posted by SLS on August 6, 2013, at 18:15:31
In reply to Lou's offer-hyknewn » larry hoover, posted by Lou Pilder on August 6, 2013, at 15:24:32
Interesting.
- Scott
Posted by Deneb on August 6, 2013, at 22:31:02
In reply to Re: Trying to practice what I've been preaching » Dr. Bob, posted by larry hoover on August 6, 2013, at 9:07:39
Hi Lar!
Off topic, but are there any job openings at your place? LOL
Nice to see you!
Work is crazy right now.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2013, at 23:11:55
In reply to Re: Trying to practice what I've been preaching » Dr. Bob, posted by larry hoover on August 6, 2013, at 9:07:39
> > Incivility isn't unrestrained.
>
> Yes, it isOK, reasonable people can disagree.
> > Voices aren't being ignored. Opinions are being disagreed with.
>
> As I further remarked, what you are calling disagreement (from you) comes across as condescencion and trivialization (from over here).OK, I respect how you feel.
And Lou may also feel condescended to and trivialized. Maybe you and he could support each other?
> I really don't want to hear about how much trouble it is for you to manage this civility issue. I don't really have any sympathy for this particular rock/hard place situation you find yourself in, as I know that quick action, in accordance with site quidelines, would have precluded all this BS.
I keep hearing how much trouble it is for posters to deal with Lou. I have sympathy for the rock/hard place situation they find themselves in. Quick action on their part could, however, preclude many problems.
> Why don't you create a poll about what your community wants? Why don't you find out if e.g. over-exaggeration is acceptable to the community, or not?
Because I'm your leader, not your servant.
> > Yes, I'm satisfied so far. For one thing, old posters are starting to post again. :-)
>
> Not for long.> I have work to do, so I'm gone again. Back a few years ago, I was disabled by mental illness. Now, I take no psych meds, and I'm a President/CEO/CFO/Director of a number of corps. I'd like to contribute here, but this whole can of worms would consume what little I have to give (as you can see already). I'd rather help people than fight with you, but maybe that's the best way that I can help.
You have a lot to offer. It's too bad Babble is going to miss out on that. But maybe Babble would miss out even if you stayed, because you'd fight with me rather than help people. Remember:
> > You have the power to pick your battles.
> >
> > Battling Dr. Bob on PB Admin? Generally results in frustration and effects on policy ranging from
> > - none
> > - the exact opposite of what you intended to accomplish
> > - some other seemingly random policy change that isn't what you wanted.
> >
> > Choose wisely!http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090302/msgs/893534.html
Bob
Posted by 10derheart on August 7, 2013, at 0:11:55
In reply to Re: Trying to practice what I've been preaching, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2013, at 23:11:55
See...that's just the thing. This tone and attitude you take. It's coming across mocking and offensive.
Quotes, sayings, clever word pretzels....it's not honest communication IMO. That's why I can't engage. Has plainspokenness gone out of style?
What are you hiding....hiding from? None of my business but it always crosses my mind...
Posted by Twinleaf on August 7, 2013, at 6:19:38
In reply to Re: Trying to practice what I've been preaching, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2013, at 23:11:55
I don't think it is accurate to describe these exchanges with you as "battling". You are being asked to follow your own guidelines for the running of the site, albeit in a more moderate, flexible manner, or, failing that, to let us know what your thoughts are about how you would like to run it now. Despite repeated civil requests to do this, from many people, I have not seen one instance of respectful discussion of this topic. Instead, you often change the meaning of our posts, trivialize our concerns and treat everyone with a slight tinge of contempt. Repeatedly warning us that our good-faith attempts at communicating with you are actually battles which are going to result in us getting the opposite of what we hope for is a startling example of this barely-concealed contemptuous attitude. The problems raised can all be resolved, or at least made better, if you treat them with the thoughtfulness and respect with which they are offered. It is your own attitude, which repeatedly appears contentious and passive-aggressive, which is preventing that from happening.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 8, 2013, at 11:35:09
In reply to Re: Trying to practice what I've been preaching » Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on August 7, 2013, at 6:19:38
> Quotes, sayings, clever word pretzels....it's not honest communication IMO.
>
> What are you hiding....hiding from?
>
> 10derheart> I have not seen one instance of respectful discussion of this topic.
>
> TwinleafPlease don't exaggerate or post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express yourself, including a link to a nice post by Dinah on I-statements, are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Twinleaf on August 8, 2013, at 13:50:32
In reply to Re: Trying to practice what I've been preaching » Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on August 7, 2013, at 6:19:38
I was expressing regret that I did not feel that we had had a mutually respectful exchange on the topic of what the administrative guidelines actually are at present. I should have written, " I have not personally seen any respectful exchanges..." There certainly could have been one or more that I missed. I would be grateful for a link to any existing ones.
Posted by 10derheart on August 8, 2013, at 16:11:19
In reply to Re: please be civil » 10derheart » Twinleaf, posted by Dr. Bob on August 8, 2013, at 11:35:09
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 8, 2013, at 18:45:32
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
> It is hard not to develop an alvzffection 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.
>
>
> - ScottFriends,
It is written here,[...for the murderer...].
This statement in context with the thread's context and in the post, could identify me as the subject person. I have not commited murder by any analogy or other literary concept used here.
Friends, be advised that I am here to try to save lives and to prevent life-riuining conditions/addictions. I know of a way for those that want a way out from addiction and depression that I am prevented from posting here due to prohibitions posted to me by Mr Hsiung. And I am abiding by those prohibitions here. The way out is hard. It is like being in a furnace, but this furnace refines one so that they come out with joy and be led forth with peace: the mountains and hills break forth before you in singing, and all the trees of the field clap their hands.
Friends, for those that are in the darkness of depression/addiction, there is a Light that dispells the darkness, and I have come here to reveal that Light to you, so you can rejoice in singing and see the green fields that you used to know. And there will be given to you The Bread of Life to nourish you while you journey to The Promised Land. And I have been to The Promised Land and have come back to tell you a way to have freedom from captivity, and joy for morning, and a peace that goes beyond understanding.
My friends, if you are swayed to think of me as a murderer, then reject all that I say here now. But if you do believe that there is a Promised Land, and that there is a way to go there, then accept this opportunity to know the way to a new life, and life more abundantly and you could rejoice and be exceedingly glad .
This Promised Land is a realm that one enters and I am here to tell you how to enter that realm. You see, I have been writing about a Rider on a white horse. The Rider is a spirit. He is The Word of God. And you can receive the word from Him by hearing that word. When one hears that word there is revealing. Revelation can come by hearing the Word of God. And as many that hear Him, to them He gives power to overcome, overcome all things, even addiction, depression and even death. And for those that accept this opportunity, read what the Rider has spoken here. Do a search in the archives like, [Lou, Rider said to me] and when you hear what He said, that could open up your heart to Faith. For it has been revealed to me that Faith comes by hearing the Word of God.
Lou
Posted by SLS on August 8, 2013, at 18:59:02
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
Perhaps I exaggerated?
> 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 Lou Pilder on August 8, 2013, at 19:41:45
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.
Friends,
It is written here,[...delusional solutions...those he injures..his self-deception..]
For those swayed by those statements standing here to think that they are supportive, be advised that those statements could decrease the respect and confidence and regard that I am held and induce disagreeable opinions and hostile feelings against me. And that could cause you to reject the way to Eternal Life that has been revealed to me. I am prevented from posting here what the Rider has revealed to me as to what the fate of those that take mind-altering drugs, the fate of those that give them to others being legal or not, and those that manufacture those mind-altering drugs. And I am following the prohibitions to me from Mr Hsiung in that regard.
But if what I am trying to write here is delusional, and it comes from a Jewish perspective, then is not the statement in question one that can be considered to be directed at all Jews?
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 8, 2013, at 20:13:25
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 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.
>
>
> - ScottFriends,
It is written here,[...I think that Lou Pilder should be blocked from posting {if he continues his present posting behaviors}...].
Friends, I ask, what are the present behavious?
Since those have not been specified in this post, one could think that anything that I post qualifies for me to be blocked if I post whatever it is again. But should also others that post the same thing also be blocked from posting?
The major theme of the posts that I post here have to do with being delivered from the captivity of depression and addiction. This comes from a Jewish perspctive as revealed to me. Since the posting of mine that is what if continued I should be blocked from posting for is not specified, then it could be the posts of mine that have the Jewish perspective in it as revealed to me. And if so, (redacted by respondent)
Be advised to those that think that the statement in question is supoportive because it is allowed to stand, that psychologists have written about what is in question here. Later, I will offer a video presentation by a psychologist that goes over what I and he thinks could be harmful to readers here because of what is written about me here.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 8, 2013, at 21:32:46
In reply to Re: It has gone far beyond theoretical now » Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on July 2, 2013, at 13:31:10
> Okay, so you are trying to make some analogy between a psychiatrist/patient relationship and the relationship between you as an administrator and all the posters of Babble, correct?
>
> Since obviously you are no psychiatrist when posting here and we are definitely *not* your patients (you and I would be a poor fit, I'm afraid, and I would have to seek another provider). But I just don't get it. These boards are not the therapy space. The analogy does not work for me. And the thing is, apparently you don't believe in your own rules any more, rules that served this place well for years. IMO, Babble is utterly dysfunctional without the safety provided by you and/or deputies. This is no place for experiments or pushing people to use their precious emotional resources to fend off a drumbeat of responses telling them they are poisoning their children and that their children may become mass murderers or kill themselves. If you think otherwise, I don't know what to say.
>
> How is this response by you helpful? It is always all so obfuscated when you do this. Can't you speak plainly? It is so very, very unhelpful in my opinion. We are not writing a book. We are not trying to think of the next clever comparison. We are not trying to see who can put the most flowery words together. We just want an open, welcome environment without put downs, accusations and insensitive rants. People *know* "real" life is not that way and they will have to cope without a pdoc or anyone else "making the problem go away." It is HARD. But do you really want them to completely have to do this here, under the strain of THIS kind of posting? Does PB have to be an exact replica of real life? I hope not. I used to come here for refuge.
>
> You expect a mom to stay focused of her child's treatment and hearing from others with support when inundated with implications or bald-face assertions she is a drug pusher and poinsoner, who is in concert with pdocs in possibly killing her child? If so, I guess this "dialog" (ha!) is over since that is incomprehensible.
>
> Lou posts more and more accusations, in clear violation of the most basic of your rules from the beginning, and yet on you go, oblivious to being accused personally of all kinds of things that are profoundly uncivil, and allowing your former deputies and more importantly, innocent, vulnerable posters to be accused of hatred...and not just some general, overall hatred, or even hatred of him, but of hatred of JEWS (absurd and utterly unfounded), racism, child abuse and neglect, and so much more I cannot recall.
>
> YOU CAN'T RELY ON POSTERS TO MANAGE THIS. YOU are the administrator. You set up civility rules, and those very parameters drew some of us here, or at least kept us long term because of the prohibitions on bullying and the safety aspect. Now, you seem to want a jungle. What options do we have in this environment? Even ignoring and silence has no effect. The abusive writing still appears, again and again and again and again....
>
> ^&**&^%^%&!!!!
>
> I would appreciate it if you would not change my subject lines, either. I get more than enough of this here. You can state your thoughts in the body of the post, can't you?10,
You wrote,[...Lou posts..accusations....(members) accused of hatred...hatred of JEWS....racism,chikd abuse and neglect, and so much more...].
Since there are not citations of your claims here about me, readers could think that they are true. If there are such posts that you write about me that I have posted here, I would like for you to post the URLs for those posts so that I can, and readers can, see the context. Then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly. If I do not have that opportunity, then I think that there is the potential for me to be put in a false light and could induce hostil feelings toward me and decrease the regard, respect and confidence in which I am held.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 8, 2013, at 22:52:31
In reply to expressing myself » Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on July 2, 2013, at 20:37:15
> Right.
>
> Thanks for the tiny crumb, after you had to be begged to do something.
>
> It's funny how you either just randomly pick, or purposely pick one of the more benign accusations. This has been a pattern before. This speaks volumes after ignoring outrageous incivility about all the things I already listed for you. In fact, it confirms the priority you have about certain things being said to certain people here. Whatever.
>
> If people in a community repeatedly notify you about the same problem, again and again, do you think you might want to read more of those posts so you could get a feel for what the hell we are trying to show you?
>
> I don't want Lou silenced, blocked, or stifled. I *want* him to continue to speak out against psych drugs till the end of time if he likes. That's free speech. That belongs here.
>
> I do not want Lou or anyone to NOT "scare people"....whether fear is a poster's reaction is about them, not so much Lou. It's all in the WAY IT IS PRESENTED. Do you remember not accusing, not exaggerating, and being sensitive? These were YOUR ideas, and ideals, I thought :-(
>
> Do you not see the difference between:
>
> "I could save you parents from giving your children poison (hint, hint, like that used by some group I can't mention anymore in history to murder Jewish children - hint, hint) and from life-ruining harm and damage that could make your children mass murderers and make them kill themselves"
>
> AND
>
> "I have serious and grave misgivings about psychiatric drugs. I truly believe they alter and damage the mind and are dangerous. I don't want one more person, especially children, whose brains are likely more vulnerable, to be damaged by pills when there is another way to help them. I believe, based on {Insert link to evidence here] that medications are not the way to go and I am dedicated to saving lives here...""
>
> ~~~etc. etc and however else Lou wants to express himself as long as it is not filled with:
>
> exaggerations
> jumping to conclusions
> accusations
> put downs
> harassment and pressure
>
> This seems incredibly simple and obvious to me.
>
10,
You wrote about me as to what I have posted in regards to children being drugged in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor.You list things that IMHO have the potential for readers to think that my posts fall into the catagory of those that you listed at the end of your post about me here.
I would like for you to post URLs to posts of mine that you think fall into that catagory of those in your list at the end of your post here to show the context. If you do not do so, then I do not have the opportunity of knowing what posts of mine you are referring to and can not post my response to you. And further, IMHHHO, I could be placed in a false light, and readers could have induced into them hostile opinions or feelings toward me and decrease the respect toward me.
Lou
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.