![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 16 to 40 of 40. Go back in thread:
Posted by misterB on August 14, 2000, at 1:41:16
In reply to Re: Response ... » shar, posted by misterB on August 14, 2000, at 1:37:45
(darn 386... here is the rest of the post...)
My primary purpose here is not disruption, yet any culture that precludes disruption precludes growth. I don't come here to hurt people. I get hurt here. I feel it is abusive of you to presume to explain my motivation rather than asking and trying to understand my explanation of my motive. I feel annoyed with your reply to my post in this thread, but that does not mean you annoy me. I own my annoyance toward you, and support those who do not attribute their feelings to a second or third person.
On the other hand, if you hold me responsible for the annoyance others feel, perhaps you can understand why I explore a culture basis for "my depression" (borrowed term).
I don't understand how one can maintain that I should discuss my feelings, yet adamantly discount my reflection of my feelings.
I don't understand how one can express concern that I not take my life, but have so little interest, concern or respect for what my life means.
_____________________________________________
"The persecution of witches and madmen is the expression of social intolerence and a search for scapegoats. Those who fight against such bigotry and oppression do not neccessarily profess revolutionary beliefs or propound novel truths."
-Thomas Szasz
_________________________________________________
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 14, 2000, at 2:59:47
In reply to Re: Response ... » shar, posted by misterB on August 14, 2000, at 1:37:45
> The fact that I might be in the minority among people who post here does not diminish me as a person, or a community member, nor does it abrogate my responsibility to reflect my perspective.
The way in which you contribute to a community can in fact make you a more or less valuable member. And reflection is generally to be encouraged, but doesn't necessarily have to take place, and isn't necessarily appropriate, here.
> I get hurt here. I feel it is abusive of you to presume to explain my motivation rather than asking and trying to understand my explanation of my motive...
Please, however you feel, don't accuse others of being abusive.
> I don't understand how one can maintain that I should discuss my feelings, yet adamantly discount my reflection of my feelings.
Again, discussion of feelings is generally to be encouraged, but doesn't necessarily have to take place, and isn't necessarily appropriate, here.
Bob
Posted by MisterB on August 14, 2000, at 3:23:15
In reply to Re: please be civil » misterB, posted by Dr. Bob on August 14, 2000, at 2:59:47
You are way off base, Robert Hsuing. This is an abusive, accusatory statement directed at me:
"...there seems to be nothing here for you except an opportunity to engage in conflict, argue your position, annoy others, and hurt some."
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000811/msgs/42803.html
Your response to me is one sided, accusatory, insensitive and inappropriate. I can present to the administration of the Behavioral Sciences Department and of the University of Chicago a collection of abusive, accusatory posts directed at me and at others that you have tolerated.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 14, 2000, at 11:03:16
In reply to I am civil. You are way off base » Dr. Bob, posted by MisterB on August 14, 2000, at 3:23:15
> > Please, however you feel, don't accuse others of being abusive.
> You are way off base, Robert Hsuing. This is an abusive, accusatory statement...
Since you don't follow the guidelines I set forth, I'm going to try to block you from posting. If you agree to submit to those rules, arbitrary and ambiguous though they may seem to you, just e-mail me, and I'll reconsider.
> I can present to the administration of the Behavioral Sciences Department and of the University of Chicago a collection of abusive, accusatory posts directed at me and at others that you have tolerated.
You have the right to complain to the authorities. Thanks for the warning...
Bob
Posted by Cass on August 14, 2000, at 12:41:10
In reply to Re: please be civil » misterB, posted by Dr. Bob on August 14, 2000, at 2:59:47
>And reflection is generally to be encouraged, >but doesn't necessarily have to take place, and >isn't necessarily appropriate, here.
> Again, discussion of feelings is generally to be encouraged, but doesn't necessarily have to take place, and isn't necessarily appropriate, here.
>
Dr. Bob,
It sounds to me like you're saying that MisterB's reflections and feelings are not encouraged but everyone else's are. Why? I did not think he was more uncivil than others.
Cass
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 14, 2000, at 13:55:34
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Cass on August 14, 2000, at 12:41:10
> It sounds to me like you're saying that MisterB's reflections and feelings are not encouraged but everyone else's are. Why? I did not think he was more uncivil than others.
I did think he was more uncivil than others. Have others made accusations of abusiveness?
Bob
Posted by Cass on August 14, 2000, at 15:14:46
In reply to Response to MrB, posted by shar on August 13, 2000, at 23:02:39
Dr. Bob,
Yes, MisterB accused someone of being abusive, but here someone accused MisterB of wanting to engage in conflict, annoy, hurt and disrupt. I maintain my opinion that MisterB's statement was no more uncivil than others.
Cass
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I always wonder why you choose this particular forum to do this. Based on an analysis of your past postings and responses, there seems to be nothing here for you except an opportunity to engage in conflict, argue your position, annoy others, and hurt some.>I wonder if there is an organized (even loosely) >set of beliefs you hold that sets out disruption >as a particularly desirable behavior?
Posted by Oddzilla on August 14, 2000, at 15:47:22
In reply to Civility, Dr. Bob, posted by Cass on August 14, 2000, at 15:14:46
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I always wonder why you choose this particular forum to do this. Based on an analysis of your past postings and responses, there seems to be nothing here for you except an opportunity to engage in conflict, argue your position, annoy others, and hurt some. I wonder if you innocently believe that this time will be different (ie, you non-ersatzly believe an open dialogue will take place with people you know are mostly in disagreement with your position, the majority not being here for theoretical discussions). Most cultures have norms and mores that prescribe and proscribe certain behaviors based on different variables, and I wonder if there is an organized (even loosely) set of beliefs you hold that sets out disruption as a particularly desirable behavior?
--------------DR Bob,
Do I count as a person? MrB has been both informative and supportive to me. I may be in the minority does that mean I don't count?
I was staying off his threads in order to avoid accusations of being the same person. I consider that to be much more incivil behaviour than anything MrB has done. Having my identity attacked and discounted is certainly a more uncivil act than anything he has done. Nobody was reprimanded about civility for that.
Is there a list of forbidden words on PB besides abusive? Please post them.
You are wrong about this DR bob. I hope you admit your mistake.
MrB is not just a disruption. I find his posts helpful in finding meaning in great pain-my own meaning not his. This is a practical not theoretical concern. There are a lot of discussions on here that are not medication related. Why is he the only one singled out as a disruptor?
Why is it OK to level accusations at MrB (annoying people, hurting people, causing disruption) but not alright when he characterizes someone elses behaviour as abusive?
I am dismayed and disappointed with your action Dr Bob. Perhaps I will have more to say after you publish the list of forbidden words.
Oddzilla
>
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 14, 2000, at 19:10:42
In reply to Civility and fairness Dr Bob, posted by Oddzilla on August 14, 2000, at 15:47:22
> Do I count as a person? MrB has been both informative and supportive to me. I may be in the minority does that mean I don't count?
You count as a person. But sometimes when you're in the minority, how you feel counts less.
> I was staying off his threads in order to avoid accusations of being the same person. I consider that to be much more incivil behaviour than anything MrB has done. Having my identity attacked and discounted is certainly a more uncivil act than anything he has done. Nobody was reprimanded about civility for that.
I think it's a significant problem, the real possibility of multiple identities. The most effective way I can think of to address it is to require not just email addresses, but also credit card numbers. But I'm not set up for that yet...
At the same time, I think he contributed to it himself in this case by actually assuming different identities.
> Is there a list of forbidden words on PB besides abusive? Please post them.
Sorry, but I think it's a case of I know 'em when I see 'em. Or at least I'm forced to decide one way or the other when I see 'em. Plus context is important.
> You are wrong about this DR bob. I hope you admit your mistake.
I may be wrong, but I don't think I am. I think there's room for dissent, but not if it can't be expressed in an appropriate way.
> Why is he the only one singled out as a disruptor?
Have I singled him out?
> Why is it OK to level accusations at MrB (annoying people, hurting people, causing disruption) but not alright when he characterizes someone elses behaviour as abusive?
First, there's a difference between calling someone annoying and calling someone abusive. Second, I think there's some truth to the charge that he annoys, hurts, disrupts, etc.
> I am dismayed and disappointed with your action Dr Bob.
Sorry. I wish it were otherwise, but this board can't be all things to all people.
Bob
Posted by Oddzilla on August 14, 2000, at 20:01:34
In reply to Re: Civility and fairness, posted by Dr. Bob on August 14, 2000, at 19:10:42
> > Do I count as a person? MrB has been both informative and supportive to me. I may be in the minority does that mean I don't count?
>
> You count as a person. But sometimes when you're in the minority, how you feel counts less.
>
> > I was staying off his threads in order to avoid accusations of being the same person. I consider that to be much more incivil behaviour than anything MrB has done. Having my identity attacked and discounted is certainly a more uncivil act than anything he has done. Nobody was reprimanded about civility for that.
>
> I think it's a significant problem, the real possibility of multiple identities. The most effective way I can think of to address it is to require not just email addresses, but also credit card numbers. But I'm not set up for that yet...> Wouldn't it be necessary to give a name with the credit card for it to be of any use? Don't most people have lots of credit cards?
> At the same time, I think he contributed to it himself in this case by actually assuming different identities.
But I'm not one of them and I'm the one that was accused (and it felt UNCIVIL to me not him).
>
> > Is there a list of forbidden words on PB besides abusive? Please post them.
>
> Sorry, but I think it's a case of I know 'em when I see 'em. Or at least I'm forced to decide one way or the other when I see 'em. Plus context is important.
>
> > You are wrong about this DR bob. I hope you admit your mistake.
>
> I may be wrong, but I don't think I am. I think there's room for dissent, but not if it can't be expressed in an appropriate way.
>
> > Why is he the only one singled out as a disruptor?
>
> Have I singled him out?You chose to permit people to make accusations against me without doing anything about it.
You allowed Shar to accuse him of hurting people (how is that any different from saying someone is abusive?)
>
> > Why is it OK to level accusations at MrB (annoying people, hurting people, causing disruption) but not alright when he characterizes someone elses behaviour as abusive?
>
> First, there's a difference between calling someone annoying and calling someone abusive. Second, I think there's some truth to the charge that he annoys, hurts, disrupts, etc.The American Heritage dictionary defines abuse as "to hurt or injure by maltreatment". No difference.
Several people have annoyed me on this board, but I quit reading their posts,I didn't expect them to be banned from the board.
One person can't disrupt the board if no one answers his posts and assists in the disruption,but only one person is being ejected.
>
> > I am dismayed and disappointed with your action Dr Bob.
>
> Sorry. I wish it were otherwise, but this board can't be all things to all people.I'm sorry too. It really makes me sad.
I think it would be most honest just to say the board belongs to you and you don't have to have any reasons to kick people off. I think that would be fairer and more honest and kinder than making accusations against people as you evict them. It really does make me sad.Oddzilla
Posted by Cass on August 14, 2000, at 20:03:23
In reply to Re: Civility and fairness, posted by Dr. Bob on August 14, 2000, at 19:10:42
> First, there's a difference between calling someone annoying and calling someone abusive.
He was also called hurtful and disruptive. Can you elaborate on the difference between calling someone abusive and calling someone those other names?
>Second, I think there's some truth to the charge >that he annoys, hurts, disrupts, etc.
Yet is there no truth to the fact that calling someone annoying, hurtful and disruptive is abusive?
All of this seems to stem from the fact that MisterB's opinions are a minority opinion. Why can't others be at least tolerant of his opinions? I don't agree with every thing he writes, but I still respect him, and I don't want to see him leave. Let's ALL get along. Let's all respect each other, not only those whose opinions are in the mainstream but everyone who seems to be earnest. I agree that this seems like a witch hunt, and it really makes me sad.
Cass
Posted by Kath on August 15, 2000, at 8:30:16
In reply to Re: Civility and fairness » Dr. Bob, posted by Cass on August 14, 2000, at 20:03:23
Haven't been following this, but I'll share my general thoughts. I have found that talking about our OWN FEELINGS is far less inflammatory than using adjectives. Also avoiding "you" statements, "he" statements, "she" statements in airing "beefs".
For example "When you said (or when he said) '...............' I really felt hurt. I felt as it made me look stupid".
If there was a reply it could be "I'm sorry you felt hurt (if the replyee was feeling generous). I didn't mean to hurt your feelings; I just have different views about this."As I say, I haven't been following this so I don't know how people have been talking.
Just a thought, but it seems to be working in my life. The replyee sometimes keeps their same tone so it's one-sided non-adjective use, but it does keep things from escalating. If we state our feelings, they're OURS. I think people tend to feel less defensive/attacked/unaccepted if they're hearing the other person's feelings rather than adjectives about themselves.
Caution: This method can be manipulated..."I feel as if you're being abusive" But the secret is, the "I feel" needs to have the EMOTION the person is feeling. Anyway, just a thought.Kath
> > First, there's a difference between calling someone annoying and calling someone abusive.
>
> He was also called hurtful and disruptive. Can you elaborate on the difference between calling someone abusive and calling someone those other names?
>
> >Second, I think there's some truth to the charge >that he annoys, hurts, disrupts, etc.
>
> Yet is there no truth to the fact that calling someone annoying, hurtful and disruptive is abusive?
>
> All of this seems to stem from the fact that MisterB's opinions are a minority opinion. Why can't others be at least tolerant of his opinions? I don't agree with every thing he writes, but I still respect him, and I don't want to see him leave. Let's ALL get along. Let's all respect each other, not only those whose opinions are in the mainstream but everyone who seems to be earnest. I agree that this seems like a witch hunt, and it really makes me sad.
> Cass
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 15, 2000, at 8:47:23
In reply to Re: Civility and fairness » Dr. Bob, posted by Oddzilla on August 14, 2000, at 20:01:34
> > I think it's a significant problem, the real possibility of multiple identities. The most effective way I can think of to address it is to require not just email addresses, but also credit card numbers. But I'm not set up for that yet...
>
> > Wouldn't it be necessary to give a name with the credit card for it to be of any use? Don't most people have lots of credit cards?That's a good point, I guess a name -- or an address -- would also need to be required...
> > At the same time, I think he contributed to it himself in this case by actually assuming different identities.
>
> But I'm not one of them and I'm the one that was accused (and it felt UNCIVIL to me not him).That's one of the problems with this multiple identity business, it can create a general atmosphere of uncertainty and "innocent" people can become suspected, too.
> Several people have annoyed me on this board, but I quit reading their posts,I didn't expect them to be banned from the board.
>
> One person can't disrupt the board if no one answers his posts and assists in the disruption,but only one person is being ejected.I do think the best way to respond to disruptive posts is not to, but reading them, or even just seeing them, itself makes it a less supportive environment.
Some chat rooms let you designate people to "ignore", after which you don't even see what they post. That would be another way around this, but would be a big job, programming-wise.
> I think it would be most honest just to say the board belongs to you and you don't have to have any reasons to kick people off. I think that would be fairer and more honest and kinder than making accusations against people as you evict them.
I could say that, and it may seem that way, but (1) I do have reasons and (2) I'm not sure that would in fact be kinder for them -- or better for the community.
Now responding to Cass:
> > Second, I think there's some truth to the charge that he annoys, hurts, disrupts, etc.
>
> Yet is there no truth to the fact that calling someone annoying, hurtful and disruptive is abusive?These things are judgment calls, and therefore inherently subjective, but no, in this context, I didn't consider that "abusive". Even though I don't doubt that he felt hurt by it.
> All of this seems to stem from the fact that MisterB's opinions are a minority opinion.
This board doesn't exist just to allow people to voice their opinions. If that's all they want to do, they can start their own eGroup. This board exists to provide support and education. *If* an opinion is supportive or educational, *then* it's welcome here.
> Why can't others be at least tolerant of his opinions? I don't agree with every thing he writes, but I still respect him, and I don't want to see him leave. Let's ALL get along. Let's all respect each other, not only those whose opinions are in the mainstream but everyone who seems to be earnest.
I would *love* it if everyone respected each other and I didn't have to enforce any rules. But is it tolerant and respectful to call someone abusive?
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 15, 2000, at 9:31:49
In reply to Re: Civility and fairness, posted by Kath on August 15, 2000, at 8:30:16
> I have found that talking about our OWN FEELINGS is far less inflammatory than using adjectives. Also avoiding "you" statements, "he" statements, "she" statements in airing "beefs"...
>
> Caution: This method can be manipulated..."I feel as if you're being abusive" But the secret is, the "I feel" needs to have the EMOTION the person is feeling.I tried suggesting this myself before:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000603/msgs/35912.html
And it was in fact "manipulated":
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000603/msgs/35923.html
But if at first you don't succeed... :-)
Bob
Posted by Oddzilla on August 15, 2000, at 11:20:15
In reply to Re: Civility and fairness, posted by Dr. Bob on August 15, 2000, at 9:31:49
I started a new list
http://www.egroups.com/group/AsThePsychoBabbles
I don't like talking about people when they can't answer back!!!!!!If anyone needs a forum, they're welcome.
Posted by JohnB on August 15, 2000, at 15:08:53
In reply to Re: Civility and fairness, posted by Dr. Bob on August 15, 2000, at 8:47:23
> This board doesn't exist just to allow people to voice their opinions. If that's all they want to do, they can start their own eGroup. This board exists to provide support and education. *If* an opinion is supportive or educational, *then* it's welcome here.Thanks for that, Bob. Thanks to all the
participants who make this a great community
and a unmatched source for information on meds.I wouldn't mind seeing this board return to being a
serious forum on psycho-pharmacology.
It's the one thing I can't get elsewhere. It's how the board started.
It's why it's connected to Psycho-pharmacology tips.I agree with those who have said this board is
getting unwieldy with off-topic chat and polemics.
There are many other boards for that.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 15, 2000, at 18:09:02
In reply to AS THE PSYCHO BABBLES !!!!!!, posted by Oddzilla on August 15, 2000, at 11:20:15
> If anyone needs a forum, they're welcome.
Thanks, I've asked to be subscribed myself. And the name totally cracks me up! :-)
Bob
Posted by Snowie on August 15, 2000, at 23:43:01
In reply to Re: Civility and fairness, posted by Dr. Bob on August 15, 2000, at 9:31:49
Dr. Bob,
I've intentionally avoided these seemingly endless "BoBB" and now "Mister B" debates mostly because I'm more interested in the drug and therapy information this site offers than BoBB's personal feelings regarding an issue. However, I've noticed that on a few occasions he has posted very intelligently and respectfully, but as we all know, that hasn't always been the case. Since he has a small but very loyal following of friends, rather than block him from posting on Psycho-Babble entirely, why not limit his postings to the newly-created Psychosocial-Babble instead? Since Mister B is not interested in meds or therapy anyway, it seems to me that Psychosocial-Babble would be the perfect forum for him to express his opinions regarding social issues to anyone who is interested without disturbing the integrity of Psycho-Babble. Maybe you know a reason why this wouldn't work, but it seems like a win-win solution to me.
Snowie
Posted by Cass on August 16, 2000, at 16:11:23
In reply to AS THE PSYCHO BABBLES !!!!!!, posted by Oddzilla on August 15, 2000, at 11:20:15
Hi Odd,
I registered at your site, but I could not figure out how to post there. I'm so techno challenged it hurts. Can you tell me how to post?
Thanks.
Cass
Posted by Cass on August 16, 2000, at 16:25:34
In reply to AS THE PSYCHO BABBLES !!!!!!, posted by Oddzilla on August 15, 2000, at 11:20:15
... nevermind. (I figured it out.)
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 17, 2000, at 4:50:46
In reply to Food for Thought » Dr. Bob, posted by Snowie on August 15, 2000, at 23:43:01
> I've noticed that on a few occasions he has posted very intelligently and respectfully, but as we all know, that hasn't always been the case. Since he has a small but very loyal following of friends, rather than block him from posting on Psycho-Babble entirely, why not limit his postings to the newly-created Psychosocial-Babble instead?
Thanks for the idea. In fact, I've told him myself I think there's plenty he could offer, and there's a role for dissent, but the problem is the whole package he presents, and the question becomes, do the pros outweigh the cons?
People will need to be civil at Psychosocial-Babble, too. I think a better alternative would be Oddzilla's new list. :-)
Bob
Posted by Snowie on August 17, 2000, at 6:17:17
In reply to Re: Food for Thought, posted by Dr. Bob on August 17, 2000, at 4:50:46
> Thanks for the idea. In fact, I've told him myself I think there's plenty he could offer, and there's a role for dissent, but the problem is the whole package he presents, and the question becomes, do the pros outweigh the cons?
Probably not.
People will need to be civil at Psychosocial-Babble, too. I think a better alternative would be Oddzilla's new list. :-)
I agree, after visiting her site. Pretty impressive, Odd. I sincerely hope that many people will sign up. Heck, I probably wouldn't mind being a fly on that cyber wall from time to time. :-)
Snowie
Posted by Billb on August 17, 2000, at 21:17:48
In reply to AS THE PSYCHO BABBLES !!!!!!, posted by Oddzilla on August 15, 2000, at 11:20:15
Oddzilla, is it true that you assume multiple namesakes on PB (like are you really MisterB)? You seem to be a caring person. Why do you think it is that you have been accused.
If I am totally missing the boat let me know. I have been so distracted lately and have had trouble keeping up.
Posted by michael on August 18, 2000, at 15:58:27
In reply to Re: Oddzilla, posted by Billb on August 17, 2000, at 21:17:48
If I recall correctly, Odd got caught in the mess because he/she had the unfortunate coincidence of showing up just when bobB had been banned...?
> Oddzilla, is it true that you assume multiple namesakes on PB (like are you really MisterB)? You seem to be a caring person. Why do you think it is that you have been accused.
>
> If I am totally missing the boat let me know. I have been so distracted lately and have had trouble keeping up.
Posted by Billb on August 18, 2000, at 20:52:29
In reply to Re: Oddzilla » Billb, posted by michael on August 18, 2000, at 15:58:27
michael, I am with you.
This is the end of the 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.