![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 41 to 65 of 89. Go back in thread:
Posted by Kim on May 12, 2000, at 22:53:28
In reply to Re: here we go again (sigh), posted by boBB on May 12, 2000, at 20:13:27
At the top of MY babble page it says "This is a board for mutual education and support." Some of the postings on this particular thread have been neither educational nor supportive.
Having had extensive experience with the issue of "free speech" in the context of my professional life, I will add the following in a spirit of education: "FREE SPEECH" is subject to restrictions on the time, place, and manner in which it is presented. (Classically, you may not yell "fire" in a crowded theatre.)
Similarly, I do not believe it is appropriate to allow anyone to repeatedly violate the supportive atmosphere which has been created on this board. As posters to this board, we have created a society which has proved to be remarkably well mannered in dealing with differences of opinion. Strong opinions can be offered without resorting to name-calling or personal attacks.
The vast majority of the members of this board strive to keep this a safe, civilized forum. And the majority of us feel some degree of vulnerability due to our situation. It would be unjust (and very, very sad) if we need to weigh the danger of being attacked before participating in Psycho-Babble.
IMHO
Kim
Posted by bob on May 13, 2000, at 1:54:51
In reply to Free Speech, posted by Kim on May 12, 2000, at 22:53:28
well said, kim
Posted by Phil on May 13, 2000, at 6:10:09
In reply to Re: Free Speech, posted by bob on May 13, 2000, at 1:54:51
> well said, kim
>>I second that.
Posted by Elizabeth on May 13, 2000, at 13:35:31
In reply to Re: here we go again (sigh), posted by Dr. Bob on May 12, 2000, at 4:00:49
> [foulness snipped]
>
> This board more or less systematically excludes anyone whose behavior is repeatedly uncivil. I'm going to try to block you from posting.
>
> Bob
>
> PS: I hope this new registration system makes it easier than last time...Dr. Bob saves the day again. :-)
Posted by Elizabeth on May 13, 2000, at 13:48:49
In reply to Re: ECT literature search, posted by SLS on May 12, 2000, at 9:02:26
> > > ECT is the treatment of choice in pregnant women with major depression.
>
> How prevalent is the practice of choosing ECT as the first treatment? Is there any difference in the rate of ECT usage between different countries? Sometimes, the treatment of choice of clinical researchers is not the treatment of choice of the local practitioner.I don't know the answers to these questions (and I would like to -- they are good questions), but my guess is that SSRIs have more or less replaced ECT. They seem to be perfectly safe (though if I were in that situation I might want to see if I could get through the 1st trimester without the SSRI, just to be extra cautious).
I'd be kind of worried about exposing the fetus to the general anasthetics and neuromuscular blocking agents used in ECT, personally! Not sure this is justified, it's just my gut reaction.
> If someone is committed to a hospital for schizophrenia, psychotic mania, or psychotic or suicidal depression, is it not common for him to be forcibly treated with medication or placed in restraints?A person should not be committed for any of those things. AFAIK, a particular diagnosis is *never* a sufficient reason to commit someone involuntarily (in any of the 50 States, anyway).
> I'm not saying that this is a bad thing. Why would ECT be exempt from this sort of rationale? After all, it is effective. Neuroleptics are not without side effect liability, either temporary or permanent.
Indeed, I think it's safe to say that there is no such thing as an active drug that has no side effects and no risks!
> Non-response to antidepressants is a prognosticator of poor response to ECT.
It's true. There's a selection bias at work, in that people who have ECT are usually those who've failed multiple antidepressants. Also, sometimes it's used as a last resort for conditions for which it's not necessarily indicated, such as severe nonmelancholic depression; this further affects the apparent success rate.
Posted by Elizabeth on May 13, 2000, at 14:05:02
In reply to Re: ECT - Scott, posted by Cam W. on May 12, 2000, at 22:37:02
> I was paraphrasing from a study I had read. If a pregnant woman were taking an MAOI, after failing other ADs, I believe that many docs would opt for ECT rather than risking damage to the fetus.
This seems like a poor strategy to me. I'm pretty sure there is little evidence either way as to whether MAOIs have any teratogenic effects, so you'd be taking a risk, but I think the risk of ineffective ECT (ECT is believed to be a poor antidepressant for those with atypical features, the group most likely to be taking MAOIs) is greater. IMHO, a better argument can be made for substituting ECT for tricyclics or lithium.
Posted by boBB on May 13, 2000, at 14:10:10
In reply to Re: here we go again (sigh), posted by Elizabeth on May 13, 2000, at 13:35:31
Well, if that is the way you feel, I guess I will stop posting here.
It seems the mutual education and support wanted by users of this board is one where the pro-university, pro-medical industry, pro-collegiate-speach camp is supported, and where those who engage in conversation styles more common to poor neighborhoods are excluded. It seems people here generally want their medical model of themselves as sick, helpless victims reinforced and any other kind of education excluded.
It is perfectly okay for you to sit in a comedy club or tune in the comedy channel and listen to a person engage in political speach that includes insults, curses and name calling but when a person uses this style of speech outside a capitalist, paid venue relationship, it seems unacceptable.
Why is it that so many people here claim to have problems with rage and call it a medical problem, but when someone expresses legitimate rage, it they are treated with utter contempt? It sounds to me like those who like to call themselves sick and whine about being stigmatized are afraid their paper-thin analysis of themselves will fall apart if exposed to any other point of view.
You educate me only as to your narromindedness and you support me or my ally Fred none whatsoever. If I have anything to say here, you can expect it to be said with audacious rage, and using another alias and alternate ISP's and with all cookie's blocked so as to end-run any attempts to censor my speach in this PUBLIC RESOURCE
Fred's speach was nowhere near equivilant with yelling fire in a theater. It was annoying because in impinged on your world view. Get a clue. This kind of speach is all over the internet. Frankly, all of this medical model BS and diagnosis of supposed illness, in cases where people to numb to hear the voice of their conscience are called depressed, is a personal insult to me and to all living beings. Your insistence on the medical model, coupled with a legal system where I can be committed with no benifit of a jury hearing is a real physical threat to me.
Posted by Elizabeth on May 13, 2000, at 14:46:51
In reply to Re: here we go again (sigh), posted by boBB on May 12, 2000, at 20:13:27
> The curling iron/ample bun comment was clearly out of line in civil conversation,
Oh, that wasn't the only one...
> and the claim to be able to diagnose an individual in a crowd, on site alone, is poor practice of a diagnostic method that is widely questioned anyway.
What, the "look and feel" method? It's quite common in all branches of medicine.
In any case, it's obvious enough that this was not intended to be a diagnosis at all, but a personal insult (which is offensive to those who truly suffer from severe personality disorders, as well as to the individual who is being insulted).
The argument that Dr. Bob is an agent of the state is a specious one. He has a tenuous link to the government; that does not make this a government forum. Even if he were acting exclusively as an agent of the University of Chicago, it is a private university and as such is allowed quite a bit of latitude in making appropriate rules, including codes governing behavior. (Heck, even public schools can do this.) To my knowledge, there is no legal doctrine (and no interpretation of "common sense")
t under which Dr. Bob might be required to allow unrestricted speech on this forum.> I advocate for clear rules of dialogue, which bar threats or implications of personal injury, and which bar malicious, demeaning and derogatory comments.
I agree. Fred's behavior clearly falls into the "malicious, demeaning, and derogatory" category. It is not his unpopular opinions that are the problem; it is the way he chooses to express them.
> But it seems problematic to allow relatively anonymous individuals to offer diagnoses while at other times an offer of a diagnosis is considered to be derogatory.
Again, a question of intent and context.
> Psychiatry has a long and rich history of abuse, torture and self-service.
Medicine in general does. (Ever read _The House of God_? It's not as exaggerated as one would like to think.)
> The father of modern pshyc was a reputed cocaine addict.
And your point is...?
> In a legal system that claims to allow free speech, and that allows some licensed companies to push psychotropic drugs through persuasive, motivational advertising, while other non-licensed individuals are locked up for life or even threatened with lawful execution for selling very similar drugs, we should be very cautious about who we exclude from public discourse about psychotropic meds and other treatments.
I believe that, if he were capable of practicing some restraint in making personal attacks on other posters, Fred would be welcome to express his controversial opinions and even his bitterness and rage. In any case, it's wholly inappropriate of you to consider this forum as part of the "legal system." It is easy to cry "censorship" whenever someone tries to set appropriate limits.
> My point is that, regardless the letter of the law, or the nuance of administrative rule, this site and this discussion is a public franchise.
No, it really isn't. Your argument is, at best, far-fetched.
> Well, I aim to prove Fred wrong on one point.
Only one? Not very ambitious. :)
> This board has not yet systematically excluded me, and I definitely do not echo the majority. I don’t want to see Fred’s perspective cut out simply because he has not had the same opportunity as I have to make his controversial arguments in an articulate voice.
His perspective is not cut out. Any person who shares his opinions is free to express them as long as that person is able to behave appropriately. Being undereducated is not an excuse for being abusive.
> Okay, back to the discussion of depression...
> Any recent regular reader knows I think most depression is situational. I think our culture, with the loss of community, destruction of species and long term ruin of the climate is something worth being depressed about.The glaring flaw here is that (most) depressed people are not depressed "about" those things. I think it's nice that you care so much about important issues, and obviously many other people here do too, but these issues simply do not have a personal, direct impact on most depressed people. If depression can be said to be "situational," it is most likely personal stress, and not political angst, that is responsible.
> I think anyone who is not affected by sorrow for the resources we wantonly consume is both sick and morally weak.
Affected: normal. Driven to depression: doesn't happen. Unless perhaps you're defining "depression" in some unorthodox way.
> But out of deference to the medical model, and out of sincere admiration for the practice of science, I wonder what research is being done into depression and the role of amino acids that are precursors of the neurotransmitters associated with depression, specifically, (I think I recall) tryptophan and lysine.
L-tryptophan is an effective antidepressant, if that's what you mean, but there is still some controversy over how it might be manufactured safely.
> I know that, at a time when a situation was driving my routinely dark mood to an untenable depth, my use of a protein supplement rich in these amino acids correlated to an improvement in my outlook.
(Correlation doesn't equal causation.)
Some people believe that amino acid supplements such as l-tyrosine and d,l-phenylalanine have improved their moods, FWIW.
Posted by bob on May 13, 2000, at 15:21:39
In reply to Re: I'm outa here (middle finger raised), posted by boBB on May 13, 2000, at 14:10:10
Questioning what can be interpreted as the status quo is one thing -- persistent personal attacks accompanied with an expressed lack of intention to reconsider what was said and whether it was appropriate.
boBB, in spite of your concern over how "offensive" you might come off, at least as you've expressed it in other posts, from what folks (including me) have said about you lately you should see this isn't the case. Sure, you go on the attack quite often -- but you attack structures and systems of belief. When it comes to individuals, your comments have always been more along the lines of "wake up and smell the coffee" than slurs or insults. Furthermore, you try to present if not evidence, but a logical argument for your views.
You may write like a cattle prod, but you poke it where it needs to get poked and you give reasons that are often compelling and, in any event, deserve close attention.
Fred started off with a serious issue for consideration -- forced treatment (and ECT). His explanation was personal experience, which is highly-valued commodity around here. But rather than arguing issues, he resorted to persistent and unrelenting personal attacks as his way of making a point.
You may consider him an ally, but all his method did was clamp shut minds almost as tightly as his own. Your methods are quite a bit different. Given that you're a writer and have shown you know quite a bit about discourse styles, I thought you'd be able to recognize the difference.
No, this is not a theater, nor is it Comedy Central nor the rest of the internet. It may be a public forum, but electronic forums like this -- particularly those run by universities or other government institutions -- do have policies of appropriate use. Quite frankly, even if Dr. Bob was a rabid supporter of First Amendment rights, his employers could still force him as moderator to enforce those conditions of appropriate use or shut down the board. This may be a public forum, but participation is voluntary. Furthermore, I doubt that anyone could make a case for access to Babble being a right protected by the ADA or something similar. In choosing to participate, you choose to abide by the board's conditions of use.
Fred had a very important issue to discuss -- one which most of us probably know nothing about -- but he chose to wage a personal vendetta instead of trying to educate us. Maybe Janice could have handled it differently, but I doubt that I would simply have turned the other cheek if I had been Fred's target instead.
Electronic text is a notoriously difficult medium for expression, and smilies do little to improve it. I've been a regular user of email and other forms of electronic communication for a little more than 15 years, and I've seen hundreds of cases where people read far too much into what someone else has said, blowing statements into issues far out of proportion with what was said. I've been on both sides of that argument myself.
It can be very difficult to keep a cool head when you have so little context beyond the words -- inflections, body language, facial expressions -- to go on. But this isn't the Martha Stewart's Living Plan-a-Hampton's-Beach-Party bulletin board -- it's one to which people can bring some rather raw nerves and sensitive topics. The "conditions of use" at the top of the Babbleland page aren't meant to snuff out minority opinions -- they're meant to snuff out forest fires before they spread and destroy this board.
So boBB, if you're so offended by this small community's standards for civility -- well, I *will* miss your thought-provoking, well-argued wake-up calls. But if you think you're taking a stand, fighting for an important cause -- I think you need to see who around here is doing that cause some good versus who around here is hurting his or her own cause through their choice of actions.
sincerely,
bob
Posted by SLS on May 13, 2000, at 15:30:01
In reply to Re: ECT literature search, posted by Elizabeth on May 13, 2000, at 13:48:49
> I'd be kind of worried about exposing the fetus to the general anasthetics and neuromuscular blocking agents used in ECT, personally! Not sure this is justified, it's just my gut reaction.With me, they used Valium as the anesthetic and atropine as the neuromuscular blocking agent. What are your thoughts as to how these drugs may hurt the fetus?
Is atropine considered a muscle-relaxant?
How does Valium exert its muscle-relaxant effects?> > If someone is committed to a hospital for schizophrenia, psychotic mania, or psychotic or suicidal depression, is it not common for him to be forcibly treated with medication or placed in restraints?
> A person should not be committed for any of those things. AFAIK, a particular diagnosis is *never* a sufficient reason to commit someone involuntarily (in any of the 50 States, anyway).
Perhaps I should have been more specific. I didn't mean that a person is to be involuntarily committed for having been diagnosed with one of these afflictions, but rather that they be in such a condition as to "require" it. I am pretty sure that there are statutes in most states prescribing detailed definitions of these conditions and allowing for commitment. I think the notion of "being a danger to themselves or others" is in there somewhere.
Do you feel that commitment is ever in the best interests of the afflicted person?
> > Non-response to antidepressants is a prognosticator of poor response to ECT.
> It's true. There's a selection bias at work, in that people who have ECT are usually those who've failed multiple antidepressants. Also, sometimes it's used as a last resort for conditions for which it's not necessarily indicated, such as severe nonmelancholic depression; this further affects the apparent success rate.
There certainly is a bias. In many situations, as in those you have mentioned, the recognition of this association is moot. You just have to roll the dice. However, the bias may be the de facto realization of a biological condition. This observation has heuristic value. Perhaps it will be helpful in figuring out what's going on.
One thing worth considering is that for most of the cases in which ECT is employed, the patient is not treatment-naive. Prior exposure to antidepressants may reduce the likelihood that they will be responsive to ECT.
By the way, its nice to see you again. I hope school has gone well and that the beast has been kept at bay.
I know I always have to ask you these questions, but what does "AFAIK" stand for? I wish I had a dictionary.
Be well.
Sincerely,
Scott
Posted by Cass on May 13, 2000, at 15:53:19
In reply to Re: I'm outa here (middle finger raised), posted by boBB on May 13, 2000, at 14:10:10
> Well, if that is the way you feel, I guess I will stop posting here.
Hi boBB,
I sure hope you're not really going to stop posting here. I think your honest and insightful voice on this board is invaluable. You are appreciated. I get a lot out of your posts. PLEASE STAY.
Cass
Posted by Mark H. on May 13, 2000, at 18:10:51
In reply to Re: I'm outa here (middle finger raised), posted by boBB on May 13, 2000, at 14:10:10
Is there evidence that ECT is being administered in the United States at this time without patient consent? In the case of someone who is declared incompetent by court order (or has not reached the age of majority), who is permitted to give consent for ECT if not the patient, and under what circumstances? Is it used in VA hospitals without patient consent? State hospitals? If so, which facilities in what states?
If you know of any recent articles or surveys on the use of ECT as a non-elective treatment, I'd be very interested in reading them. (I already own a copy of Toxic Psychiatry, which is several years old. I am interested in verifiable practices that exist today.)
The abuse of ECT in the past has been well documented, and the topic (and treatment) was very nearly beaten to death in the media. However, if it is still going on (abuse, that is, not use), I know a couple of people who might be interested in helping bring it to light.
Sincerely,
Mark H.
Posted by Elizabeth on May 14, 2000, at 4:23:26
In reply to Re: I'm outa here (middle finger raised), posted by boBB on May 13, 2000, at 14:10:10
Sorry you're feeling oppressed. I hope you can find somewhere where you feel more welcome and don't feel a need to engage in harrassment or throw temper tantrums.
Posted by Elizabeth on May 14, 2000, at 4:24:27
In reply to Re: Evidence For Forced ECT?, posted by Mark H. on May 13, 2000, at 18:10:51
> Is there evidence that ECT is being administered in the United States at this time without patient consent? In the case of someone who is declared incompetent by court order (or has not reached the age of majority), who is permitted to give consent for ECT if not the patient, and under what circumstances?
I can't answer any of your other questions, but it would be a parent or legal guardian.
Posted by tina on May 14, 2000, at 12:05:49
In reply to Re: Evidence For Forced ECT?, posted by Elizabeth on May 14, 2000, at 4:24:27
Can you all just agree to disagree and drop the subject. I know some of you have opinions that you want to get across to the others but it really hurts me to see everyone at eachother's throats. This is a place where we are supposed to be supportive and non-judgemental of eachother. I come here for help and understanding from people who are trying to make it through difficult times but it almost makes me cry thinking of all of you getting so upset over this. I'm begging you--please stop, please, please, please. I love you guys.
> > Is there evidence that ECT is being administered in the United States at this time without patient consent? In the case of someone who is declared incompetent by court order (or has not reached the age of majority), who is permitted to give consent for ECT if not the patient, and under what circumstances?
>
> I can't answer any of your other questions, but it would be a parent or legal guardian.
Posted by SLS on May 14, 2000, at 12:59:48
In reply to Please, I beg you--Stop, posted by tina on May 14, 2000, at 12:05:49
ECT is an important topic.
I choose what to read.
I choose what not to read.
I choose who to read.
I choose who not to read.
I choose what to write.
I choose what not to write.Just choose.
Don't blame others for your choice.
- Scott
Posted by Greg on May 15, 2000, at 9:37:50
In reply to Don't stop., posted by SLS on May 14, 2000, at 12:59:48
Scott,
Very insightful, very true, a point well taken.BUT, I think you're missing the point here. No one is trying to suppress the topic, it's an important topic and obviously a sensitive one to many people. I have learned a lot from reading the posts that stuck to the subject. The issue here is verbal and unneccessary abuse.
I spent some time reading the Constitution today and while it STILL guarantees free speech, no where in the Bill of Rights does it guarantee a person the right to be abusive while exercising that free speech. This is what's happened here. I fully support Dr. Bob's decision to try and block the offender from posting again. I'm sure this makes me a horrible person in some people's eyes.
I say again that we must consider the new people coming to this board, choosing what to read is a touchy area. I compare it to driving down the freeway and coming upon an bad accident, you know that its probably going to be bloody and disgusting, but its human nature that we just HAVE to look anyway. Do we want to be responsible for pushing away a person who is desperately looking for our help and support by choosing to be offensive while exercising our right to free speech? I don't. Thats what I choose.
Scott, I don't think its a matter of blame, its a matter of respect.
I hope I have not offended anyone by my opinions here. It certainly is not my intent.
Greg
> ECT is an important topic.
>
> I choose what to read.
> I choose what not to read.
> I choose who to read.
> I choose who not to read.
> I choose what to write.
> I choose what not to write.
>
> Just choose.
>
> Don't blame others for your choice.
>
>
> - Scott
Posted by Mark H. on May 15, 2000, at 9:53:28
In reply to Please, I beg you--Stop, posted by tina on May 14, 2000, at 12:05:49
Dear Tina,
I don't know if you picked my posting and Elizabeth's response at random for your plea to stop this thread, but I am sincerely interested in the answers to the questions I asked, and deeply concerned about the issues involved. I don't mind admitting that I'm ignorant about ECT. I've read some of the objections of those who are totally against its use -- medical and political -- and I've listened to my doctor about the cases of two clients who go to the city once or twice a year for an in-patient visit to have it done, but I am personally unaware of ECT being forced on anyone at this time, in no small part because of the intensity of attention its misuse received in the media in the past.
So if it is still going on -- perhaps in another state -- I would really like to know. The wife of a friend and colleague produced a segment on private psychiatric care for adolescents that wound up shutting down one abusive, understaffed care facility back east. I have no influence whatsoever personally, but if there were a public or private facility that was still using ECT punitively or without some sort of protective means of consent, I am in a position to bring it to that producer's attention, but I would need hard facts before even mentioning it to her. Does that make sense?
The core of this thread was interrupted with an understandably emotional interjection by someone who received what he considered abusive and improper treatment in the past. There are thousands of people who share his story, and it is a sad chapter in the history of the treatment of mental illness. However, whether it is relevant today or not was never questioned, as far as I can tell.
I raised the issue of currency and relevance, because most of what you might have considered the destructive discussion that followed hinges on whether it's a current issue or not.
When I write about, or talk about, the most difficult experiences I've had in the past, I frequently become temporarily irrational -- I'm back at 16, feeling very much persecuted. Often, just getting it out let's me see how much I have grown and changed, how much healthier I am today. If someone reading or listening to me responds to the content of what I've written, then somehow I get lost -- the issue takes on a life of its own. If the issue still applies (e. g., what are schools doing in the post-Columbine era to insure the civil rights of their students?), then its good fodder for discussion. But if high school boys vice principals haven't used corporal punishment in the last 15 or 20 years, then it doesn't do much good to discuss it as a separate issue while leaving the hurt poster in the dust.
I don't know enough about the poster at this point to offer him any help. But I can help either lay the issue (forced ECT) to rest or bring it to light, either of which seems positive and helpful.
I hope this helps clarify my intentions. If you still find my earlier posting or this one offensive, I apologize and would like to know about where I got off track. Perhaps I'm missing something important, and if so I would like to be told about it.
Best wishes,
Mark
Posted by tina on May 15, 2000, at 11:28:20
In reply to Re: Tina?, posted by Mark H. on May 15, 2000, at 9:53:28
It's not that I found your post offensive--not at all. I understand that ECT is an important topic and people need education. It's just that a lot of fighting and pettiness happens in my family and it upsets me. I'm not very good with conflict and in my warped way I guess I was trying to help diffuse a volatile situation. I just want the world to be a caring, understanding place where we can be supportive of eachother and even those we don't understand. That was the only point I was making. Forgive my interference, it was kindly meant.
> Dear Tina,
>
> I don't know if you picked my posting and Elizabeth's response at random for your plea to stop this thread, but I am sincerely interested in the answers to the questions I asked, and deeply concerned about the issues involved. I don't mind admitting that I'm ignorant about ECT. I've read some of the objections of those who are totally against its use -- medical and political -- and I've listened to my doctor about the cases of two clients who go to the city once or twice a year for an in-patient visit to have it done, but I am personally unaware of ECT being forced on anyone at this time, in no small part because of the intensity of attention its misuse received in the media in the past.
>
> So if it is still going on -- perhaps in another state -- I would really like to know. The wife of a friend and colleague produced a segment on private psychiatric care for adolescents that wound up shutting down one abusive, understaffed care facility back east. I have no influence whatsoever personally, but if there were a public or private facility that was still using ECT punitively or without some sort of protective means of consent, I am in a position to bring it to that producer's attention, but I would need hard facts before even mentioning it to her. Does that make sense?
>
> The core of this thread was interrupted with an understandably emotional interjection by someone who received what he considered abusive and improper treatment in the past. There are thousands of people who share his story, and it is a sad chapter in the history of the treatment of mental illness. However, whether it is relevant today or not was never questioned, as far as I can tell.
>
> I raised the issue of currency and relevance, because most of what you might have considered the destructive discussion that followed hinges on whether it's a current issue or not.
>
> When I write about, or talk about, the most difficult experiences I've had in the past, I frequently become temporarily irrational -- I'm back at 16, feeling very much persecuted. Often, just getting it out let's me see how much I have grown and changed, how much healthier I am today. If someone reading or listening to me responds to the content of what I've written, then somehow I get lost -- the issue takes on a life of its own. If the issue still applies (e. g., what are schools doing in the post-Columbine era to insure the civil rights of their students?), then its good fodder for discussion. But if high school boys vice principals haven't used corporal punishment in the last 15 or 20 years, then it doesn't do much good to discuss it as a separate issue while leaving the hurt poster in the dust.
>
> I don't know enough about the poster at this point to offer him any help. But I can help either lay the issue (forced ECT) to rest or bring it to light, either of which seems positive and helpful.
>
> I hope this helps clarify my intentions. If you still find my earlier posting or this one offensive, I apologize and would like to know about where I got off track. Perhaps I'm missing something important, and if so I would like to be told about it.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Mark
Posted by SLS on May 15, 2000, at 12:45:38
In reply to Re: Don't stop - Being civil, posted by Greg on May 15, 2000, at 9:37:50
Hi Greg.
Thanks for posting your thoughts.> Very insightful, very true, a point well taken.
I just wanted everything to be all-better.
It was Pollyanna-ish and short. I was just about to go to bed.
> BUT, I think you're missing the point here. No one is trying to suppress the topic, it's an important topic and obviously a sensitive one to many people. I have learned a lot from reading the posts that stuck to the subject. The issue here is verbal and unneccessary abuse.
The discourse along this thread prompted a member of the community to write:
"Can you all just agree to disagree and drop the subject."
This is not to this person's discredit. I really didn't mean to single this person out and direct my reply at him/her personally.
* Dear person, I apologize for having seemingly directed my post at you. I guess the subject-header could have made you feel this way. I just wanted to say something that might help to prevent the need to drop a subject. Sorry.
I could easily see myself writing the same thing if I had allowed myself to become emotionally involved in this abusive discourse. I know how emotionally charged (unintended pun) issues like this can be, and how easy it is to become antagonistic once intense personal feelings and opinions are challenged. Without condoning those who have written the provocative and abusive posts, I do not find it difficult to recognize the humanness of the authors. People are the way they are. Who knows how they got there?
There is absolutely no way to stop someone who has committed himself to provoking an abusive discourse, short of preventing him from posting. On the other hand, interacting with someone who has said some pretty mean things because his judgment has been influenced by intense emotion, or simply due to his temperament or level of maturity, might influence his behavior and perhaps change his perspective. You can try. If this person continues to be abusive and demonstrate a propensity towards pottie-mouth, one can just walk (click) away. If one continues to read, write, and become upset, it is because he chooses to. I know the "choice" is usually more like a "reaction". However, it is important and productive to recognize that one is actually empowered with choice.
> Scott, I don't think its a matter of blame, its a matter of respect.
I think it is a matter of responsibility - one's responsibility to himself.
"Hey yeah - I don't have to respond to this guy. I'll just get more upset anyway."
Blame? Blame the troubled person who has been abusive for abusing? Blame the abused person for getting upset because he chose to continue the abusive discourse? I don't know. I just try not to allow myself to participate on that level. If, during the course of an argument, someone calls me an asshole, I get upset. If I continue the argument, I will probably be called an asshole again. If such an argument occurs face to face, it is not so easy to escape the abuser, especially if one must be around him all of the time. Besides, abusers will often follow you once you turn around and walk away.
We have it much easier here.
Silence can be very persuasive.
If you really want to abuse the abuser, just ignore him - always. Of course, it is perfectly appropriate to choose not to.
I know it is far easier to say than it is to do. It requires quite a bit of discipline. Sometimes it helps me when I pretend I am a professional. A professional what? It really doesn't matter. (I happen to be a professional non-professional).
> I spent some time reading the Constitution today and while it STILL guarantees free speech, no where in the Bill of Rights does it guarantee a person the right to be abusive while exercising that free speech.
> This is what's happened here. I fully support Dr. Bob's decision to try and block the offender from posting again. I'm sure this makes me a horrible person in some people's eyes.
Not mine.
It is saddening to see this, though.
> I say again that we must consider the new people coming to this board, choosing what to read is a touchy area. I compare it to driving down the freeway and coming upon an bad accident, you know that its probably going to be bloody and disgusting, but its human nature that we just HAVE to look anyway. Do we want to be responsible for pushing away a person who is desperately looking for our help and support by choosing to be offensive while exercising our right to free speech? I don't. Thats what I choose.
I am a bit of a rescuer myself. I would definitely want to step in and do something if no one else were to. In this situation, I think it might be more productive to console the abused person and say, "Don't listen to him - let me point you in the right direction" rather than reprimand the abuser by saying, "don't say that (you asshole)".
The people here who have jumped in to help have done a much better job at handling the situation than I could have. I admire them.
I really haven't encountered too many posts in which someone is being abused. I am usually not attracted to the subject headers along the threads that contain them. When I do, I can't help myself but to click on another hyperlink. I just don't have enough time or energy to spare to become involved with such juvenile behavior. Usually, there are enough paramedics around anyway.
> I hope I have not offended anyone by my opinions here. It certainly is not my intent.
>
> GregI hope I haven't either, although I think I probably have.
I'll think about this stuff some more.
Thanks again, Greg.
- Scott> > ECT is an important topic.
> >
> > I choose what to read.
> > I choose what not to read.
> > I choose who to read.
> > I choose who not to read.
> > I choose what to write.
> > I choose what not to write.
> >
> > Just choose.
> >
> > Don't blame others for your choice.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
Posted by tina on May 15, 2000, at 13:06:13
In reply to Re: Don't stop being civil, posted by SLS on May 15, 2000, at 12:45:38
I was a little upset by the way you just dismissed my feelings, but no permanent damage done. Thanks for the explanation and understanding of it's source.
> Hi Greg.
>
>
> Thanks for posting your thoughts.
>
> > Very insightful, very true, a point well taken.
>
> I just wanted everything to be all-better.
>
> It was Pollyanna-ish and short. I was just about to go to bed.
>
> > BUT, I think you're missing the point here. No one is trying to suppress the topic, it's an important topic and obviously a sensitive one to many people. I have learned a lot from reading the posts that stuck to the subject. The issue here is verbal and unneccessary abuse.
>
> The discourse along this thread prompted a member of the community to write:
>
> "Can you all just agree to disagree and drop the subject."
>
> This is not to this person's discredit. I really didn't mean to single this person out and direct my reply at him/her personally.
>
> * Dear person, I apologize for having seemingly directed my post at you. I guess the subject-header could have made you feel this way. I just wanted to say something that might help to prevent the need to drop a subject. Sorry.
>
> I could easily see myself writing the same thing if I had allowed myself to become emotionally involved in this abusive discourse. I know how emotionally charged (unintended pun) issues like this can be, and how easy it is to become antagonistic once intense personal feelings and opinions are challenged. Without condoning those who have written the provocative and abusive posts, I do not find it difficult to recognize the humanness of the authors. People are the way they are. Who knows how they got there?
>
> There is absolutely no way to stop someone who has committed himself to provoking an abusive discourse, short of preventing him from posting. On the other hand, interacting with someone who has said some pretty mean things because his judgment has been influenced by intense emotion, or simply due to his temperament or level of maturity, might influence his behavior and perhaps change his perspective. You can try. If this person continues to be abusive and demonstrate a propensity towards pottie-mouth, one can just walk (click) away. If one continues to read, write, and become upset, it is because he chooses to. I know the "choice" is usually more like a "reaction". However, it is important and productive to recognize that one is actually empowered with choice.
>
> > Scott, I don't think its a matter of blame, its a matter of respect.
>
> I think it is a matter of responsibility - one's responsibility to himself.
>
> "Hey yeah - I don't have to respond to this guy. I'll just get more upset anyway."
>
> Blame? Blame the troubled person who has been abusive for abusing? Blame the abused person for getting upset because he chose to continue the abusive discourse? I don't know. I just try not to allow myself to participate on that level. If, during the course of an argument, someone calls me an asshole, I get upset. If I continue the argument, I will probably be called an asshole again. If such an argument occurs face to face, it is not so easy to escape the abuser, especially if one must be around him all of the time. Besides, abusers will often follow you once you turn around and walk away.
>
> We have it much easier here.
>
> Silence can be very persuasive.
>
> If you really want to abuse the abuser, just ignore him - always. Of course, it is perfectly appropriate to choose not to.
>
> I know it is far easier to say than it is to do. It requires quite a bit of discipline. Sometimes it helps me when I pretend I am a professional. A professional what? It really doesn't matter. (I happen to be a professional non-professional).
>
> > I spent some time reading the Constitution today and while it STILL guarantees free speech, no where in the Bill of Rights does it guarantee a person the right to be abusive while exercising that free speech.
>
> > This is what's happened here. I fully support Dr. Bob's decision to try and block the offender from posting again. I'm sure this makes me a horrible person in some people's eyes.
>
> Not mine.
>
> It is saddening to see this, though.
>
> > I say again that we must consider the new people coming to this board, choosing what to read is a touchy area. I compare it to driving down the freeway and coming upon an bad accident, you know that its probably going to be bloody and disgusting, but its human nature that we just HAVE to look anyway. Do we want to be responsible for pushing away a person who is desperately looking for our help and support by choosing to be offensive while exercising our right to free speech? I don't. Thats what I choose.
>
> I am a bit of a rescuer myself. I would definitely want to step in and do something if no one else were to. In this situation, I think it might be more productive to console the abused person and say, "Don't listen to him - let me point you in the right direction" rather than reprimand the abuser by saying, "don't say that (you asshole)".
>
> The people here who have jumped in to help have done a much better job at handling the situation than I could have. I admire them.
>
> I really haven't encountered too many posts in which someone is being abused. I am usually not attracted to the subject headers along the threads that contain them. When I do, I can't help myself but to click on another hyperlink. I just don't have enough time or energy to spare to become involved with such juvenile behavior. Usually, there are enough paramedics around anyway.
>
> > I hope I have not offended anyone by my opinions here. It certainly is not my intent.
> >
> > Greg
>
> I hope I haven't either, although I think I probably have.
>
> I'll think about this stuff some more.
>
> Thanks again, Greg.
>
>
> - Scott
>
>
>
> > > ECT is an important topic.
> > >
> > > I choose what to read.
> > > I choose what not to read.
> > > I choose who to read.
> > > I choose who not to read.
> > > I choose what to write.
> > > I choose what not to write.
> > >
> > > Just choose.
> > >
> > > Don't blame others for your choice.
> > >
> > >
> > > - Scott
Posted by SLS on May 15, 2000, at 14:00:24
In reply to Re: Evidence For Forced ECT?, posted by Elizabeth on May 14, 2000, at 4:24:27
Most states allow for the involuntary application of ECT.
- Scott
Posted by Adam on May 15, 2000, at 14:00:33
In reply to Re: I'm outa here (middle finger raised), posted by boBB on May 13, 2000, at 14:10:10
Not too long ago, some idiot decided to post a "humorous" message filled with
anti-Semitic language and references to Nazism. I practically begged to have
it removed, and then aagonized afterward over the conflict I have with my
feelings about public discourse being polluted with such filth and their
juxtoposition with some equally strong feelings of opposition to censorship.I think I may have found some peace with the issue, though I admit it's an
uneasy peace.Nothing is perfect. No stable balance will ever be found between the need for
free speech and the damage such freedoms can lead to when abused. Perhaps in
some situations a certain amount of censorship is appropriate. For instance,
this forum, contrary to your suggestion, is not in fact a "public" one. Dr.
Bob states quite clearly in his disclaimer that this space is his, what goes
into it is his, and he can do what he wants with it. He also lays down some
simple rules, the most appropros to this discussion being the demand for
civility.So, it is a place that all are invited (not entitled) to participate in, and
that invitation is extended so long as we respect the host and each other. It's
not our inalienable right to be here, it's our privilege. If we want to keep
it, we shouldn't abuse it. It is a place to find support and gather information,
not microcosm or meta-world where unrestricted speech should flourish. That is
beyond its scope. Few restrictions are placed on us, though, so we have little
cause to complain.Well, I feel better, anyway.
little cause to complain.
> Well, if that is the way you feel, I guess I will stop posting here.
>
> It seems the mutual education and support wanted by users of this board is one where the pro-university, pro-medical industry, pro-collegiate-speach camp is supported, and where those who engage in conversation styles more common to poor neighborhoods are excluded. It seems people here generally want their medical model of themselves as sick, helpless victims reinforced and any other kind of education excluded.
>
> It is perfectly okay for you to sit in a comedy club or tune in the comedy channel and listen to a person engage in political speach that includes insults, curses and name calling but when a person uses this style of speech outside a capitalist, paid venue relationship, it seems unacceptable.
>
> Why is it that so many people here claim to have problems with rage and call it a medical problem, but when someone expresses legitimate rage, it they are treated with utter contempt? It sounds to me like those who like to call themselves sick and whine about being stigmatized are afraid their paper-thin analysis of themselves will fall apart if exposed to any other point of view.
>
> You educate me only as to your narromindedness and you support me or my ally Fred none whatsoever. If I have anything to say here, you can expect it to be said with audacious rage, and using another alias and alternate ISP's and with all cookie's blocked so as to end-run any attempts to censor my speach in this PUBLIC RESOURCE
>
> Fred's speach was nowhere near equivilant with yelling fire in a theater. It was annoying because in impinged on your world view. Get a clue. This kind of speach is all over the internet. Frankly, all of this medical model BS and diagnosis of supposed illness, in cases where people to numb to hear the voice of their conscience are called depressed, is a personal insult to me and to all living beings. Your insistence on the medical model, coupled with a legal system where I can be committed with no benifit of a jury hearing is a real physical threat to me.
Posted by Greg on May 15, 2000, at 14:43:21
In reply to Re: Evidence For Forced ECT?, posted by SLS on May 15, 2000, at 14:00:24
Scott,
Educate me, what is the "criteria" (for lack of a better word), as you understand it, for subjecting a person to involuntary ECT? I've been doing some reading since this thread came up, but there is much I still don't understand.Tx,
Greg> Most states allow for the involuntary application of ECT.
>
>
> - Scott
Posted by gg on May 15, 2000, at 15:13:22
In reply to Re: I'm outa here (middle finger raised), posted by Adam on May 15, 2000, at 14:00:33
> Not too long ago, some idiot decided to post a "humorous" message filled with
> anti-Semitic language and references to Nazism. I practically begged to have
> it removed, and then aagonized afterward over the conflict I have with my
> feelings about public discourse being polluted with such filth and their
> juxtoposition with some equally strong feelings of opposition to censorship.I think there is a difference between fred's overreaction to someone's apparent misunderstanding and dismissal of an important issue and posts supporting Naziism. Of course if I'd felt attacked I might have seen it differently. I hope if it were me being attacked I would have the grace to retreat in the face of someone else's overwhelming pain. Of course it is dr bob's board and he has the legal right to enforce his own criteria.
boBB, I have to admire you for taking a stand. I certainly think your arguments deserve to be heard and I'm sure you'll find another forum for them. Psychobabble won't be the same without you though ;-)
>
> I think I may have found some peace with the issue, though I admit it's an
> uneasy peace.
>
> Nothing is perfect. No stable balance will ever be found between the need for
> free speech and the damage such freedoms can lead to when abused. Perhaps in
> some situations a certain amount of censorship is appropriate. For instance,
> this forum, contrary to your suggestion, is not in fact a "public" one. Dr.
> Bob states quite clearly in his disclaimer that this space is his, what goes
> into it is his, and he can do what he wants with it. He also lays down some
> simple rules, the most appropros to this discussion being the demand for
> civility.
>
> So, it is a place that all are invited (not entitled) to participate in, and
> that invitation is extended so long as we respect the host and each other. It's
> not our inalienable right to be here, it's our privilege. If we want to keep
> it, we shouldn't abuse it. It is a place to find support and gather information,
> not microcosm or meta-world where unrestricted speech should flourish. That is
> beyond its scope. Few restrictions are placed on us, though, so we have little
> cause to complain.
>
> Well, I feel better, anyway.
>
> little cause to complain.
>
> > Well, if that is the way you feel, I guess I will stop posting here.
> >
> > It seems the mutual education and support wanted by users of this board is one where the pro-university, pro-medical industry, pro-collegiate-speach camp is supported, and where those who engage in conversation styles more common to poor neighborhoods are excluded. It seems people here generally want their medical model of themselves as sick, helpless victims reinforced and any other kind of education excluded.
> >
> > It is perfectly okay for you to sit in a comedy club or tune in the comedy channel and listen to a person engage in political speach that includes insults, curses and name calling but when a person uses this style of speech outside a capitalist, paid venue relationship, it seems unacceptable.
> >
> > Why is it that so many people here claim to have problems with rage and call it a medical problem, but when someone expresses legitimate rage, it they are treated with utter contempt? It sounds to me like those who like to call themselves sick and whine about being stigmatized are afraid their paper-thin analysis of themselves will fall apart if exposed to any other point of view.
> >
> > You educate me only as to your narromindedness and you support me or my ally Fred none whatsoever. If I have anything to say here, you can expect it to be said with audacious rage, and using another alias and alternate ISP's and with all cookie's blocked so as to end-run any attempts to censor my speach in this PUBLIC RESOURCE
> >
> > Fred's speach was nowhere near equivilant with yelling fire in a theater. It was annoying because in impinged on your world view. Get a clue. This kind of speach is all over the internet. Frankly, all of this medical model BS and diagnosis of supposed illness, in cases where people to numb to hear the voice of their conscience are called depressed, is a personal insult to me and to all living beings. Your insistence on the medical model, coupled with a legal system where I can be committed with no benifit of a jury hearing is a real physical threat to me.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | 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.