![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 53 to 77 of 80. Go back in thread:
Posted by Cam W. on June 1, 2000, at 0:23:33
In reply to Are we done yet?, posted by boBB on May 31, 2000, at 19:50:51
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> The resident pharmacist wrote: “I, myself would risk the aggression/violence/suicidal side effects of medications; if only to enjoy a nice sunny day.”
>
> He offered a well qualified analysis that such side effects might result from as many as one in ten administrations of certain psychotropic medications “Yes, I agree that some people (about 10%) do get akasthesia-like or aggression as a side effect of a number of medications.”
>
> Dr. Bob wrote: “please don't suggest that anyone do anything self-destructive.”
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> • a doctor accuses other unnamed doctors of poor judgment
> • a pharmacist says he would risk suicide or violence to enjoy a sunny day.
> • a working journalist sincerely asks a person requesting that a journalist share his worst feelings to direct their sincere concern elsewhere, if only for the purpose of further relieving the journalist’s suffering.
> • another poster, who declines to disclose their occupation, repeatedly posts unwanted personal advice to the journalist, even after the journalist three times says no.
> _____________________________Your right. It is over. I'm outta here. I don't like your accusations and insinuations. All you do and piss people off. I don't need it. Bye. - Cam
Posted by Adam on June 1, 2000, at 1:54:31
In reply to Get off it. Really! » Adam, posted by boBb on June 1, 2000, at 0:04:45
Goodness!
>
> One: My brief polemic about which you are now ranting and raving was hardly “spewing hateful filth.” It was very close to what is taught on Sunday morning, an environment where I was forced to spend one of every seven days until I was old enough to know better. If thine eye offend the, pluck it out. It was said in reference to a direct statement to myself, after I had twice asked the person to not concern themself with my personal way of managing my feelings.I never said it was. Others have spewed hateful filth here, though, and the posts were removed. I guess the fact that in
the same post I said I wasn't really offended by things you had said would indicate I wasn't accusing you of such transgressions.
>
>
> Two: no, I never came close to suggesting that you should your ass kicked for anybody. In fact, it was our resident pharmacist who most recently boasted of fighting for sport in martial arts tournaments. What’s with your language anyway. (”Anyway, you seem to be saying that the best way to be your friend is to go get my ass kicked for the cause”) I said, quite plainly, though you choose to twist beyond reason whatever I tried very sincerely, persistently and honestly to say, that one person who offered to listen to me would help me by listening to people who need it far more; that fixing me is not a worthy cause - I’m fine with me, but there is plenty suffering around that does really need attention. Is that too hard to understand? Christ!"People die in agony for
just cause - for causes you may not care about, but from which you likely benefit. I find satisfaction sharing their suffering,
and suffering for these “causes” is the best way you could lend me comfort."If this statement doesn't at least imply that one ought to get a can of whoop-ass opened up on
them to relate, I'm not sure what it does, then. All this talk of death and agony and war and
fighting and causes and so on sound like the musings of a self-styled Job, that's all. If all
you meant was to understand this torturous journey we must listen to people who have suffered,
why not just say so? And what's wrong with my language, anyway? Like you never used the F
word or whatever. Please.
>
> Three: I never said anything I post here is going to threaten my life. To return to the direct accusations for which I was warned, you, Adam, are demonstrating the worst of insensitive behaviors often demonstrated by mental health workers by twisting my genuine and well considered explanations, you wrote: “You claim to divulge personal information would threaten your life.” Please search my posts and document your allegation. I said, rather obtusely, that to post under my real name might damage my bi-line and to make direct admissions of illegal drug use on the internet could serve as basis for a search warrant. To thicken the plot, if when such a hypothetical search warrant were served, I had as a guest in my house a source in a news story who happend to be in possession of an illegal aminergine, I could be criminally liable. When challenged about how I could possibly know what goes into an affidavit for a warrant, I explained that, as a journalist, I read such documents, and know the basis for many warrants. That was in a discussion in which we were comparing illegal aminergines to legal aminergines.
>
Here's what you wrote:"I am certain ECHELON, the international electronic intelligence gathering contractor, can identify me. I am not famous, I just
have a certain edge that shows wherever I flash it. If I told you places, you might shudder with recognition. I don't identify
myself here mostly so I won't have to shut up. Otherwise I would be confronted in my daily life by my stances here and
elsewhere. Somebody likely knows. This isn't paranoia, it is low-intensity warfare. If it comes down to it, the daily normal job
goes and this fight over the franchise to medicine and over the human right to have food and safe shelter will always be my
main mission in life. I will give my life in a heartbeat to prosecute that war."I guess all this talk of "low-intensity warfare" and giving your life, alongside this weird ECHELON thing got
me thinking you were afraid the 'Net police were going to hunt you down and do something nasty to you. If you
don't want such misunderstandings to happen in the future, you might want to tone down the language in your
initial posts, to match the mitigated refutations.
> Four: you wrote that: “We are taking the rather prodigious leap of faith that you are some kind of vigilante warrior” I am exactly what I am. Well, yes, in my state and many others, there are people using the phrase “leaderless resistance.” But I encountered the style many years ago, when Arlo Guthrie, son of the renowned activist/folk singer Woodie Guthrie was touring, yes, in the mid-west. He said in the early 1980’s that mass movements had become so misdirected and watered down, that people need to learn to act on their own. Well, golly jee. But isn’t learning to act on our own - to be self directed, the goal of psychotherapy, and the essential spice of democracy?Umm, sure. Why does the fact that Arlo Guthrie said some things make you believable?
>
> Five: I have repeatedly acknowledged that some people know who I am, for what that is worth. I am basically interested in protecting myself from the likes of you, Adam, who apparently are unable or unwilling to accurately represent the substance of what I offer you when you reply. I would have a hard time hiring you in my newsroom. I would have very a hard time trusting you with my identity. Who knows where you might choose to slander me.Why on Earth would I bother to slander you? And like I have said above, I don't think it's an enormous stretch to interpret some
of your posts the way I have. It's the bombastics that are causing the problem, I think. Everything is expressed with such
grandiloquence, I can't resist images of Charlton Heston parting the waters.
>
>
> Five: you asked "How big of a leap is it to suppose some doctors don't see eye to eye, or that their identities should be any of our business?" Well, I am concerned that one particular psychiatric doctor might use his position of power at a university funded by an unlawful oil monopoly to discourage patients from trusting their family physician when that physician attempts to exercise a lawful obligation to warn patients about contraindications of a procedure. If you really need to fight about it, perhaps I should consider recommending him to his state medical arts licensing board for an ethical review. Then he will be in a forum where someone else gets to make up the rules.
>
I'm sorry, but this is almost comical. I think many p-docs feel that the specialty of psychopharmacology
might be best left to psychopharmacologists, just like they're not going to go around claiming to be
experts in nephrology or something. As for where the U of Chicago gets its money, I can't see why that
is necessarily a reflection of the character of someone who works there. Hell, I live in a country stolen
from Native Americans and built with the toil of slaves. I am the direct beneficiary of racism and genocide.
Who is free from guilt by association? At some point you have to just live and do your job and try to be
a good person. Anyway, I'm sure U of C gets all kinds of "legitimate" funds too. What should we focus on?>
> Apparently, those who advocate meds and the medical model enjoy the benefit of a referee here, and the rest of us can expect to be mugged. You, Adam, seem to represent a group of well educated individuals who are unable to manage there personal aggression, and are unable to back off once you smell blood in the water. Get out your credit card, type in the numbers and rule this site. I hope that brings you some satisfaction.
>
Smell blood? What? Anyway, I acknowlege medicine because it finally managed to help me after about ten years
of lackluster results, and some possible exacerbations of my condition. I'm not a blind fanatic, and I have my
share of questions and concerns. I just feel that there are good doctors and not-so-good ones, and that's about
all there is to it. I have been my own advocate in all the times where medicine has helped me. I could hardly
be called an advocate of all medicine. And who said anything about ruling the site? No one is silencing you
as it is, they're just refuting you. The problems registration hopes to address are, I am convinced, not limited
to or even primarily about your behavior. There have been other problems. I think your use of many pseudonyms
just highlights the concern about unrestricted use of names, where confusion and misappropriation of others'
identities would cause confusion and harm. This doesn't seem all that sinister, that's all.> The main problem with jumping to another level of restriction now is not that it would insult me. Who the H**l am I, anyway? It is that it demeans the site by diverting the discussion toward one of how things are said rather than what is being said.
I'm just not following this. There's virtually no restriction now, and no reason to believe things would change in
any radical way. Why not wait and see, or consider some of the benefits of registration? Why be so negative about
it until you see whether or not there really is a problem? I like the idea that certain foul behaviour could be
dealt with (I'm talking the truly caustic stuff, stuff meant only to hurt, not intelligent (or unintelligent) debate
over something.)
Posted by Noa on June 1, 2000, at 7:52:24
In reply to Re: Are we done yet? » boBB, posted by Cam W. on June 1, 2000, at 0:23:33
Cam, I hope you aren't leaving babble altogether.
Posted by Cindy W on June 1, 2000, at 9:53:53
In reply to Re: Are we done yet?--to CAM, posted by Noa on June 1, 2000, at 7:52:24
> Cam, I hope you aren't leaving babble altogether.
Cam, I agree with Noa! Wish everybody would just ignore the "flame wars" some people like to start, just to get a rise out of others. This board is too valuable and everyone on it is too valuable to waste time with that. How about letting this thread lapse and go back to talking about depression and how to live happier lives?--Cindy W
Posted by Janice on June 1, 2000, at 12:02:25
In reply to Re: Are we done yet? » boBB, posted by Cam W. on June 1, 2000, at 0:23:33
I hope you don't mean forever. You've probably helped more people here than any single individual.
take care, Janice
ps Haven't you had experience with the media before?
Hey, Aren't you going on vacation soon?
Posted by shar on June 1, 2000, at 21:18:05
In reply to Re: Are we done yet?--to CAM, posted by Cindy W on June 1, 2000, at 9:53:53
Cam,
Someone signed on as you and wrote that you were "outta here" and scared everyone (well, maybe all but one).Sure would be a different world here without you, and your accurate information, especially to those of us who can't make sense of the small print enclosed with our meds!
S
Posted by bob on June 1, 2000, at 21:28:02
In reply to Re: Get off it. Really!, posted by Adam on June 1, 2000, at 1:54:31
A sentiment I can agree with wholeheartedly.
Pardon my sermonizing, folks, but it takes a minimum of two for a fight, and we've been seeing a rather lop-sided one here lately. As I like to say my grandma told me, when you go pointing a finger, there are three pointing back at you ... and I'm just as guilty as anyone else in this matter.
But how should we expect someone to act when they get pushed into a corner not just by one or two, but by a crowd? I don't care what rationalizations or justifications anyone on anyside has here, the pushing is still going on.
It should not need pointing out, but there is no "ignore" filter built into this (or any) website -- the filter is in your own head.
And it only works when YOU choose to use it.
If someone calls you a horse's ass or worse, you go a far sight better at disproving that accusation by not responding. So if you can't turn the IGNORE switch on and you JUST HAVE TO read that next message -- consider the source (which should works for both/all sides here, given the level of mutual disrespect exhibited), and then perhaps you can walk away with a grin instead of responding with a grimace.
Consider the source and ignore it.
Now, can we please get off of this topic?
If you feel some need to respond to me, you know where my email address is, otherwise, this dead horse has been whipped enough and is in serious need of burial.
If you want to place any bets on whether or not this will be the last response on this thread, you got my email address for that, too. Right now, odds are running 50-to-1 AGAINST.
cheers,
preacher bob, the designated "self-appointed" traffic cop (and bookie) of Babbleland[you know how HARD it is to fit that on a business card?]
Posted by brian on June 1, 2000, at 21:52:57
In reply to Get off it. Really! (and Amen to that!), posted by bob on June 1, 2000, at 21:28:02
> A sentiment I can agree with wholeheartedly.
>
> Pardon my sermonizing, folks, but it takes a minimum of two for a fight, and we've been seeing a rather lop-sided one here lately. As I like to say my grandma told me, when you go pointing a finger, there are three pointing back at you ... and I'm just as guilty as anyone else in this matter.
>
> But how should we expect someone to act when they get pushed into a corner not just by one or two, but by a crowd? I don't care what rationalizations or justifications anyone on anyside has here, the pushing is still going on.
>
> It should not need pointing out, but there is no "ignore" filter built into this (or any) website -- the filter is in your own head.
>
> And it only works when YOU choose to use it.
>> If someone calls you a horse's ass or worse, you go a far sight better at disproving that accusation by not responding. So if you can't turn the IGNORE switch on and you JUST HAVE TO read that next message -- consider the source (which should works for both/all sides here, given the level of mutual disrespect exhibited), and then perhaps you can walk away with a grin instead of responding with a grimace.
>
> Consider the source and ignore it.
>
> Now, can we please get off of this topic?
>
> If you feel some need to respond to me, you know where my email address is, otherwise, this dead horse has been whipped enough and is in serious need of burial.
>
> If you want to place any bets on whether or not this will be the last response on this thread, you got my email address for that, too. Right now, odds are running 50-to-1 AGAINST.
>
> cheers,
> preacher bob, the designated "self-appointed" traffic cop (and bookie) of Babbleland
>
> [you know how HARD it is to fit that on a business card?]
I'll take those odds. ;~)
Posted by Adam on June 2, 2000, at 14:10:16
In reply to Get off it. Really! (and Amen to that!), posted by bob on June 1, 2000, at 21:28:02
OK, BUT, I do think the issue of security and whether or not it is a good idea to have a more involved system of registration is one still worthy of discussion. My concerns about registration actually have nothing to do with boBB, though I'm guessing he has much more that is of value to say on the subject. I'm kind of interested in the nitty-gritty aspects of encryption and its possible utilization here, how much info we've already, perhaps inadvertantly, divulged, etc. Another thread for that? Shall we take a vote?
> A sentiment I can agree with wholeheartedly.
>
> Pardon my sermonizing, folks, but it takes a minimum of two for a fight, and we've been seeing a rather lop-sided one here lately. As I like to say my grandma told me, when you go pointing a finger, there are three pointing back at you ... and I'm just as guilty as anyone else in this matter.
>
> But how should we expect someone to act when they get pushed into a corner not just by one or two, but by a crowd? I don't care what rationalizations or justifications anyone on anyside has here, the pushing is still going on.
>
> It should not need pointing out, but there is no "ignore" filter built into this (or any) website -- the filter is in your own head.
>
> And it only works when YOU choose to use it.
>
> If someone calls you a horse's ass or worse, you go a far sight better at disproving that accusation by not responding. So if you can't turn the IGNORE switch on and you JUST HAVE TO read that next message -- consider the source (which should works for both/all sides here, given the level of mutual disrespect exhibited), and then perhaps you can walk away with a grin instead of responding with a grimace.
>
> Consider the source and ignore it.
>
> Now, can we please get off of this topic?
>
> If you feel some need to respond to me, you know where my email address is, otherwise, this dead horse has been whipped enough and is in serious need of burial.
>
> If you want to place any bets on whether or not this will be the last response on this thread, you got my email address for that, too. Right now, odds are running 50-to-1 AGAINST.
>
> cheers,
> preacher bob, the designated "self-appointed" traffic cop (and bookie) of Babbleland
>
> [you know how HARD it is to fit that on a business card?]
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 3, 2000, at 2:13:19
In reply to Get off it. Really! » Adam, posted by boBb on June 1, 2000, at 0:04:45
> My brief polemic about which you are now ranting and raving...
> you choose to twist beyond reason whatever I tried very sincerely, persistently and honestly to say...
> I would have a hard time hiring you in my newsroom. I would have very a hard time trusting you with my identity. Who knows where you might choose to slander me.
> You, Adam, seem to represent a group of well educated individuals who are unable to manage there personal aggression, and are unable to back off once you smell blood in the water.
I consider the above to go too far. Having already issued a warning before, I'm now going to block this "handle".
> Apparently, those who advocate meds and the medical model enjoy the benefit of a referee here, and the rest of us can expect to be mugged.
Well, that's one interpretation. :-)
Bob
Posted by Elizabeth on June 3, 2000, at 7:08:59
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by Dr. Bob on June 3, 2000, at 2:13:19
> > My brief polemic about which you are now ranting and raving...
>
> > you choose to twist beyond reason whatever I tried very sincerely, persistently and honestly to say...
>
> > I would have a hard time hiring you in my newsroom. I would have very a hard time trusting you with my identity. Who knows where you might choose to slander me.
>
> > You, Adam, seem to represent a group of well educated individuals who are unable to manage there personal aggression, and are unable to back off once you smell blood in the water.
>
> I consider the above to go too far. Having already issued a warning before, I'm now going to block this "handle".
>
> > Apparently, those who advocate meds and the medical model enjoy the benefit of a referee here, and the rest of us can expect to be mugged.
>
> Well, that's one interpretation. :-)
>
> BobBefore I discuss this thread (from an "I seem to have missed this flame war, but boy is it interesting reading" perspective), I'd like to ask a question of Dr. Bob and anyone else who knows more about psychology than I do. "Help-rejecting complaining" is listed among the common defense mechanisms in one of the appendices to DSM-IV (the appendices are definitely the most interesting part of that book). My question is: what purpose does this behavior serve? How does it defend?
On to my thoughts (which you're all of course free not to read if you're sick of this topic - I just found this discussion too interesting not to comment):
Isn't it ironic that bobb accuses Adam (of all people!) of uncontrolled aggression? I think so. I'd go so far as to say it is plain bizarre. Or not: twisting reality so as to style oneself as the downtrodden victim and another as the evil aggressor can sometimes be an effective way to get sympathy, to get people "on one's side." (Attacking someone for being educated also tends to set off my BS alarm.)
Uh-oh, I guess that I've just given bobb license to spew vitriol in my general direction for daring to make observations about his behavior - for focusing on an individual (especially this incredibly deep and complex individual - how dare I, unenlightened scum that I am?) rather than on "larger" problems. Well, that's okay. It has always been a weakness of mine that I am intrigued by the darker side of humanity as exemplified by particular behaviors. And, as someone (Cam, I think?) observed, how can one feel compassion for large groups when one does not recognize the importance of individuals who make up those groups? I think that bobb's focus (obsession?) on political problems is a red herring.
Bobb seems to consider himself especially insightful (e.g., he feels he understands The Truth which others here refuse to see) and thrives on pointing out others' faults (or perceived faults). It's been my observation, though, that "insight" which is directed at others only, never at oneself, is no insight at all.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is that "It" *is* about you, bobb. It is not possible for it to be otherwise, even if "It" is about something else as well.
Posted by Civilla T on June 3, 2000, at 12:40:00
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by Elizabeth on June 3, 2000, at 7:08:59
Remember,three fingers back atcha!;-)
Posted by Lurker on June 3, 2000, at 12:58:52
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by Elizabeth on June 3, 2000, at 7:08:59
Remember, boBB has many identities on this board (and new ones everyday) and some of them are quite useful and informative. We all have alter-egos that allow us to play a bit. Blocking one doesn't necessarily solve your problem. Maybe just letting it go would though.
> > > My brief polemic about which you are now ranting and raving...
> >
> > > you choose to twist beyond reason whatever I tried very sincerely, persistently and honestly to say...
> >
> > > I would have a hard time hiring you in my newsroom. I would have very a hard time trusting you with my identity. Who knows where you might choose to slander me.
> >
> > > You, Adam, seem to represent a group of well educated individuals who are unable to manage there personal aggression, and are unable to back off once you smell blood in the water.
> >
> > I consider the above to go too far. Having already issued a warning before, I'm now going to block this "handle".
> >
> > > Apparently, those who advocate meds and the medical model enjoy the benefit of a referee here, and the rest of us can expect to be mugged.
> >
> > Well, that's one interpretation. :-)
> >
> > Bob
>
> Before I discuss this thread (from an "I seem to have missed this flame war, but boy is it interesting reading" perspective), I'd like to ask a question of Dr. Bob and anyone else who knows more about psychology than I do. "Help-rejecting complaining" is listed among the common defense mechanisms in one of the appendices to DSM-IV (the appendices are definitely the most interesting part of that book). My question is: what purpose does this behavior serve? How does it defend?
>
> On to my thoughts (which you're all of course free not to read if you're sick of this topic - I just found this discussion too interesting not to comment):
>
> Isn't it ironic that bobb accuses Adam (of all people!) of uncontrolled aggression? I think so. I'd go so far as to say it is plain bizarre. Or not: twisting reality so as to style oneself as the downtrodden victim and another as the evil aggressor can sometimes be an effective way to get sympathy, to get people "on one's side." (Attacking someone for being educated also tends to set off my BS alarm.)
>
> Uh-oh, I guess that I've just given bobb license to spew vitriol in my general direction for daring to make observations about his behavior - for focusing on an individual (especially this incredibly deep and complex individual - how dare I, unenlightened scum that I am?) rather than on "larger" problems. Well, that's okay. It has always been a weakness of mine that I am intrigued by the darker side of humanity as exemplified by particular behaviors. And, as someone (Cam, I think?) observed, how can one feel compassion for large groups when one does not recognize the importance of individuals who make up those groups? I think that bobb's focus (obsession?) on political problems is a red herring.
>
> Bobb seems to consider himself especially insightful (e.g., he feels he understands The Truth which others here refuse to see) and thrives on pointing out others' faults (or perceived faults). It's been my observation, though, that "insight" which is directed at others only, never at oneself, is no insight at all.
>
> So I guess what I'm trying to say is that "It" *is* about you, bobb. It is not possible for it to be otherwise, even if "It" is about something else as well.
Posted by Adam on June 3, 2000, at 14:37:58
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by Elizabeth on June 3, 2000, at 7:08:59
Hmm.
I think this represents sage observation. I essentially thought this boiled down to a bias in favor of the noble underdog (both as a self-identity and a community to identify with), coupled with a tenacious, and sometimes untenable desire to conflict with a larger, hostile "establishment", and/or those who appear to represent or defend it. I didn't consider the deeper motivations. Perhaps I could, if I felt victimized, characterize myself as a straw man torched by a firebrand, but I don't feel victimized, just misunderstood, and because I am also a tenacious debator, I can hardly claim total innocence.
I don't make the rules here, and don't presume to tell Dr. Bob what to do, but I was suprised that the boBB handle was silenced. I didn't find the exchange "uncivil" by my definition. I never felt particularly hurt, just irritated and misrepresented. False or mistaken accusations (of which I am guilty, it would appear) can happen, and even if the intent isn't malicious, I guess angry reponses are to be expected until the issue is clarified.
What I consider to be "uncivil" is behaviour that is without any redeeming value whatsoever, and material that is unregenerately hateful and brutal. There are few without sociopathic tendancies who want to be exposed to that.
Not to say I wasn't disturbed, but I don't see any sociopaths here. I could be wrong (given a lack of familiarity with the nuances of psychology), but I don't.
Anyway, I am STILL really curious about the logistics of registration, and real information (not just idle suspicion or overconfidence) about costs and benefits.
> > > My brief polemic about which you are now ranting and raving...
> >
> > > you choose to twist beyond reason whatever I tried very sincerely, persistently and honestly to say...
> >
> > > I would have a hard time hiring you in my newsroom. I would have very a hard time trusting you with my identity. Who knows where you might choose to slander me.
> >
> > > You, Adam, seem to represent a group of well educated individuals who are unable to manage there personal aggression, and are unable to back off once you smell blood in the water.
> >
> > I consider the above to go too far. Having already issued a warning before, I'm now going to block this "handle".
> >
> > > Apparently, those who advocate meds and the medical model enjoy the benefit of a referee here, and the rest of us can expect to be mugged.
> >
> > Well, that's one interpretation. :-)
> >
> > Bob
>
> Before I discuss this thread (from an "I seem to have missed this flame war, but boy is it interesting reading" perspective), I'd like to ask a question of Dr. Bob and anyone else who knows more about psychology than I do. "Help-rejecting complaining" is listed among the common defense mechanisms in one of the appendices to DSM-IV (the appendices are definitely the most interesting part of that book). My question is: what purpose does this behavior serve? How does it defend?
>
> On to my thoughts (which you're all of course free not to read if you're sick of this topic - I just found this discussion too interesting not to comment):
>
> Isn't it ironic that bobb accuses Adam (of all people!) of uncontrolled aggression? I think so. I'd go so far as to say it is plain bizarre. Or not: twisting reality so as to style oneself as the downtrodden victim and another as the evil aggressor can sometimes be an effective way to get sympathy, to get people "on one's side." (Attacking someone for being educated also tends to set off my BS alarm.)
>
> Uh-oh, I guess that I've just given bobb license to spew vitriol in my general direction for daring to make observations about his behavior - for focusing on an individual (especially this incredibly deep and complex individual - how dare I, unenlightened scum that I am?) rather than on "larger" problems. Well, that's okay. It has always been a weakness of mine that I am intrigued by the darker side of humanity as exemplified by particular behaviors. And, as someone (Cam, I think?) observed, how can one feel compassion for large groups when one does not recognize the importance of individuals who make up those groups? I think that bobb's focus (obsession?) on political problems is a red herring.
>
> Bobb seems to consider himself especially insightful (e.g., he feels he understands The Truth which others here refuse to see) and thrives on pointing out others' faults (or perceived faults). It's been my observation, though, that "insight" which is directed at others only, never at oneself, is no insight at all.
>
> So I guess what I'm trying to say is that "It" *is* about you, bobb. It is not possible for it to be otherwise, even if "It" is about something else as well.
Posted by Dr. bobitty-bob_boB_BoBB_BOBB_BOBB_BOB_BOB_BOB!!!! on June 3, 2000, at 17:43:27
In reply to Re: please be civil » Elizabeth, posted by Civilla T on June 3, 2000, at 12:40:00
>
> Remember,three fingers back atcha!
>
> ;-)And don't forget to tune in to comedy central, where the stage guard will keep you from heckling the perfomers!
Really though, I wouldn't let some of these people help my dog, if it lay dying on the highway!
Any profession that claims an indicator that people need its service is that they decline its service is using severely flawed circular logic to sell its service.
boBB consider Mr. Robert Hsuing to be a very dangerous individual, whose aggressive style resembles that of some of the worse despots in recent history.
boBB will contact the Illinois medical arts licensing board in reference to his disparaging other doctors who warn their patients of contraindications to ECT.
Posted by Oddzilla on June 3, 2000, at 18:03:54
In reply to Re: please be what we tell you to be, posted by Dr. bobitty-bob_boB_BoBB_BOBB_BOBB_BOB_BOB_BOB!!!! on June 3, 2000, at 17:46:36
Welcome back bobbitty-bob (if I may be so bold as to use your first name). I missed you and you weren't even gone a whole day.
Oddzilla
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 3, 2000, at 18:18:03
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by Lurker on June 3, 2000, at 12:58:52
> Remember, boBB has many identities on this board (and new ones everyday) and some of them are quite useful and informative. We all have alter-egos that allow us to play a bit. Blocking one doesn't necessarily solve your problem. Maybe just letting it go would though.
I don't want to get obsessed with this, and paying attention to it reinforces it, but:
Identities that are civil are fine. Those that repeatedly cross the line make this community less supportive one.
Bob
PS: If there's a need for a separate forum for alternative forms of discourse, it's easy to set up your own mailing list these days. One site I'm familiar with is:
http://www.egroups.com
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 3, 2000, at 19:02:19
In reply to Re: please be what we tell you to be, posted by Dr. bobitty-bob_boB_BoBB_BOBB_BOBB_BOB_BOB_BOB!!!! on June 3, 2000, at 17:43:27
> boBB consider Mr. Robert Hsuing to be a very dangerous individual, whose aggressive style resembles that of some of the worse despots in recent history.
That's not civil, either.
Bob
PS: Sometimes it's more productive to talk about how you feel instead of what the other person does.
Posted by Snowie on June 3, 2000, at 20:39:24
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by Dr. Bob on June 3, 2000, at 19:02:19
Sorry, guys, but this thread has gone on way too long ... it has become a cosmic joke and a tremendous bore. Can we finally move on to bigger and better things? There are and will always be troublemakers on every BBS. If the powers that be can block or delete the troublemakers, that's great. If not, avoid the temptation to read their posts.
Snowie
Posted by Sal on June 3, 2000, at 20:47:11
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by Dr. Bob on June 3, 2000, at 19:02:19
>
> PS: Sometimes it's more productive to talk about how you feel instead of what the other person does.It seems to me, I mean I feel as if this person "boBB" started this unfortunate thread by daring to talk about his feelings.
As I read the posts here, it seems to me the person is okay with his feelings, even though others seemed to concern themselves with what he dared to feel. It seems he has established clear referants for some of his feelings, which, as I understand it, is a goal of some humanistic therapies. I see other posts that say "your anger is okay." I feel like the boBB's anger is okay. He didn't threaten anybody.
I feel like people might have tried to stigmatize him by calling him bizarre. I feel as if the idea that he is somehow exhibiting evidence of a disorder by involving himself in what kind of help he accepts seems to go against the educational, supportive mission of the site.
Posted by claire 7 on June 3, 2000, at 21:00:47
In reply to feelings, posted by Sal on June 3, 2000, at 20:47:11
> I feel Sal makes some very good points. I feel like maybe Dr Bob is a bit paranoid. I feel like Dr Bob has gone overboard. I feel like nobody has been harmed by boBB. I feel like civility is in the eye of the beholder.
> >
> > PS: Sometimes it's more productive to talk about how you feel instead of what the other person does.
>
> It seems to me, I mean I feel as if this person "boBB" started this unfortunate thread by daring to talk about his feelings.
>
> As I read the posts here, it seems to me the person is okay with his feelings, even though others seemed to concern themselves with what he dared to feel. It seems he has established clear referants for some of his feelings, which, as I understand it, is a goal of some humanistic therapies. I see other posts that say "your anger is okay." I feel like the boBB's anger is okay. He didn't threaten anybody.
>
> I feel like people might have tried to stigmatize him by calling him bizarre. I feel as if the idea that he is somehow exhibiting evidence of a disorder by involving himself in what kind of help he accepts seems to go against the educational, supportive mission of the site.
Posted by gg on June 3, 2000, at 21:20:35
In reply to Re: feelings, posted by claire 7 on June 3, 2000, at 21:00:47
> > I feel Sal makes some very good points. I feel like maybe Dr Bob is a bit paranoid. I feel like Dr Bob has gone overboard. I feel like nobody has been harmed by boBB. I feel like civility is in the eye of the beholder.
> > >
> > > PS: Sometimes it's more productive to talk about how you feel instead of what the other person does.
.
> >
> > I feel like people might have tried to stigmatize him by calling him bizarre. I feel as if the idea that he is somehow exhibiting evidence of a disorder by involving himself in what kind of help he accepts seems to go against the educational, supportive mission of the site.
```````````````````````````````````````
I feel frightened. I feel powerless knowing that
simply being a psychiatrist can give someone the power to label another person abnormal or not fit to be part of society. I realize that this is only a BB but we are talking feelings here and those are the feeling it stirs up. I feel sad. I feel the loss of a place where labeled people might find acceptance. I feel concern for Dr. Bob because if he were a patient rather than doctor he would certainly be accused of exhibiting paranoid tendencies. I feel confused because I don't know if I should be glad for him that he is above suspicion or sad for him because he is in need of psychiatric intervention and I am helpless to help him.
I feel sad for bobbity-bob because the world is sad and we are all going to die and there is nothing anyone can do. I feel afraid because I don't want any well-vocabularied babblers jumping in to jump all over me.
Posted by shar on June 3, 2000, at 21:47:24
In reply to Re: feelings feelings feelings feelings, posted by gg on June 3, 2000, at 21:20:35
My compassion goes out to many people on this board who are obviously in pain and great distress; my gratitude goes out to the many who offer encouragement, good information, and acceptance to others.
Somehow I can't get it up for boBB or any of boBB's incarnations. With all due respect, there doesn't seem to be any good will or genuine focus on "psych" within his writing-- mainly just a focus on babble.
S
Posted by SLS on June 3, 2000, at 22:06:52
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by Lurker on June 3, 2000, at 12:58:52
> Remember, boBB has many identities on this board (and new ones everyday) and some of them are quite useful and informative.
I am so naive.
> We all have alter-egos that allow us to play a bit. Blocking one doesn't necessarily solve your problem. Maybe just letting it go would though.
I wish more people would think this way. I really hate to see people become so upset.
It seems to me that it would be an efficient strategy to rescue those who may need rescuing without encouraging further entanglements by retaliating against the aggressor.
I can't begin to read the contents of this thread. I don't have the intelligence, education, or the mental energy to participate in it. Even if I did, I am not sure that I would do so anyway. Of course, I am now.
I am not bashing BoBB, or anyone else.
I have nothing to say, really. I am just sad to see this happen here.
I don't know if anyone would care to comment on this, but does BoBB suffer from bipolar disorder? Perhaps a dysphoric hypomania or mixed-state would account for some of this.
BoBB, if you are reading this - Hi. Unfortunately, your name is being mentioned in yet another post. I guess you've managed to grab the spotlight. The content (not the length) of your "Info on Neurotransmitters" post left me suspicious that you might be a bit manic. It's hard to guess at, though, as many of your posts are so incisively coherent. However, if I were to gauge things based upon that one post...
Obvious:
--------From debate can come good.
From anger can come good. (This might not be so obvious to some)
Debate can sometimes lead to conflict.
Anger can perpetuate conflict.
Anger feels good.
I guess the participant must be burdened with the responsibility of making the decision of when to discontinue participating. Discontinuing is so easy to do here.I see flaming on the Internet as being analogous to road-rage, only with less risk of physical or real-time engagement. Talk about dynamics, do you really think people here would carry on this way if they were forced to stand with each other face-to-face? I guess some would.
Again, one can rescue the victim without directing a single word at the aggressor.
I like you, Adam. You set a good example for me.
I probably like you too, BoBB. I haven't read enough of your stuff to do otherwise. If you do have bipolar disorder, and you are willing to entertain the idea that I have not conjured this idea in order to relieve you of credibility, then you may want to go check things out. You obviously have the intellect to overpower the usually overwhelming tendency to deny experiencing a manic state, should this be the case. If you think that there is any possibility of this, I urge you to do so. It's possible that a brighter life is waiting for you just around the corner. If this is not applicable, then just continue to smile. :-)In my opinion, BoBB, you are experiencing a dysphoric hypomania.
Anyway, that's all I have to say about that.
Carry on all - if you decide to.
Bye.
- Pollyanna
Posted by Granny Babble on June 4, 2000, at 12:25:22
In reply to Be civil and don't respond to people who aren't ?, posted by SLS on June 3, 2000, at 22:06:52
>
> I am so naive.Me too.
>
> > We all have alter-egos that allow us to play a bit. Blocking one doesn't necessarily solve your problem. Maybe just letting it go would though.Good idea. Who'll be first?
>
> I wish more people would think this way. I really hate to see people become so upset.Me too.
>
> It seems to me that it would be an efficient strategy to rescue those who may need rescuing without encouraging further entanglements by retaliating against the aggressor.
>
> I can't begin to read the contents of this thread. I don't have the intelligence, education, or the mental energy to participate in it. Even if I did, I am not sure that I would do so anyway.Same here.
> I am not bashing BoBB, or anyone else.Me neither.
>
> I have nothing to say, really.That hasn't stopped anyone else here :-)
I am just sad to see this happen here.Me too.
>
> I don't know if anyone would care to comment on this, but does BoBB suffer from bipolar disorder? Perhaps a dysphoric hypomania or mixed-state would account for some of this.BoBB has never said he suffers from any "mental illness" that I know of. I would never presume to diagnose someone else.
>
>
>
> Obvious:
> --------
>
> From debate can come good.
>
> From anger can come good. (This might not be so obvious to some)
>
> Debate can sometimes lead to conflict.
>
> Anger can perpetuate conflict.
>
> Anger feels good.
>
And don't forget Life is like a box of chocolates :-)
>
> In my opinion, BoBB, you are experiencing a dysphoric hypomania.
>
In my opinion,polly, you are experiencing soporific pontification. (I'm only telling you because you are so intelligent. Use it as you will or just keep smiling :-))> Anyway, that's all I have to say about that.
Me too.
>
> Carry on all - if you decide to.I agree.
>
> Bye.Bye.
>
> - Pollyanna
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.