![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 2 to 26 of 65. Go back in thread:
Posted by IsoM on May 23, 2002, at 2:49:03
In reply to Re: right to laugh, etc., posted by Dr. Bob on May 23, 2002, at 2:03:30
Dr. Bob, you asked:
"Do you feel he's just sharing what's worked for him or also pressuring you to do the same?"While no one is being TOLD they must do such 'n such (thereby seemingly refuting the idea of pressure), the predominant theme of Lou's posts always returns to the 'gates theory', as I call it.
It's the constant bombardment of these posts without just getting to the point, then including an e-mail for any interested readers to contact him, is what makes it seem like a subtle form of pressure.
I don't respond to Lou's posts & rarely read them anymore, other than an occasional quick skim. And it's true that those not interested can simply not reply to the posts besides not reading them. But I do feel this repeated postings of his 'gate theory' is tiresome & pushing it on sensitive people who can get discouraged by these posts.
Dr. Bob, I know you ARE doing your best, & it IS very difficult to know where to draw the line, but you DID ask for feedback & this is simply my feedback on the subject. I wanted to let you know how I felt, if you were interested.
Posted by kiddo on May 23, 2002, at 2:54:41
In reply to Re: right to laugh, etc., posted by Dr. Bob on May 23, 2002, at 2:03:30
This post: http://dr-bob.org/babble/social/20020517/msgs/24134.html speaks of PB as a board for people trying to free themselves from the addiction of BZDs.
I don't want to see Lou blocked, however, it would be easier if we could discuss another topic.
I wouldn't have even read it, however, I saw the subject of Benzo's in the subject line.
----
> > you have to look at the entire post, know the 'person', etc.....sarcasm, disagreement, etc., are valid reasons to add a URL to a post without adding an "Official Disclaimer".
>
> > What I'm saying is that this is an online forum-no body language, tone or facial expression to discern what the poster is intending. If you are familiar with a poster, their style, sense of humor, etc., then it's much easier to understand.
> >
> > Kiddo
>
> Yes, it's easier if you know the poster, but you shouldn't *have* to know them, since there are always new people here. And sarcasm isn't a valid reason to post anything.
>
This was completely misunderstood. I didn't meant this the way it sounded and part of the reason I haven't been posting as much lately, the words aren't coming out right. I didn't *have* as in a requirement- and as for the sarcasm, I didn't mean directed to someone.----
> > I think that anyone can post anything they want according to the FAQ.
> >
> > Kiddo
>
> That's not what it says at all! You didn't really mean that, did you?
Absolutely NOT!! I can't believe I even posted that-What I meant by according was using the FAQ as a reference....
---->
> > Why not ask Dr. Bob to create a religious/theology site
> >
> > Kiddo
>
> Hmm, it sounds like a can of worms, but OTOH...Several ppl think it's a good idea (unless they change their mind)-it can also be a good thing. Is your glass half full or half empty Dr. Bob? :-)
Don't you think wellness of mind and body include spirit? It's just a thought.
----
> This isn't always easy, and I know I'm not perfect. I want to be open to feedback, but if you could also please try to accept what I decide and to trust that I'm doing my best to be fair and to do what I think will be good for this community as a whole, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks.
>
> Bob
I'm doing my best, but trust is a *big* thing :-)
Kiddo
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 23, 2002, at 7:49:29
In reply to Re: right to laugh, etc. » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on May 23, 2002, at 2:49:03
ISO M,
You said that since I include my email addresss,that by doing so, It "seems like a subtle form of pressue".
In this board, the inclusion of a persons email address is a privledge given to all posters.
Could you clarify to me why by me including my email address that I cause a "subtle form of pressue?
If you can clarify that to me, then I could have a better understanding of what you mean by your statement that I seem to cause a subtle form of pressue. Do you mean that I am not allowed to include my email address and others are? Do you mean that if I do not include my email address then my posts would not seem to be a subtle form of pressure?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 23, 2002, at 8:03:36
In reply to Re: right to laugh, etc., posted by Dr. Bob on May 23, 2002, at 2:03:30
Dr. Bob,
Thank you for the consideration in this matter. The overiding statement that you made that I am extreamly thankful for that you made was :
"Please do not post links to anti-Semitic sites, period."
Thanks again,
Lou
Posted by BeARdEdLaDY on May 23, 2002, at 8:36:17
In reply to Re: right to laugh, etc. » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on May 23, 2002, at 2:49:03
One could argue that the sensitive people, for whom many others speak, are too sensitive to say something about Lou's posts. Or one could argue that there's really no pressure, that no one is going to discard common sense and meds because of Lou's white horse and crowns and gates.
Maybe what we all find so frustrating is the relentlessness.
When the conversation turns to knights and thorns, I go away. No one is pressuring us to read Lou's posts. And if we have internet addiction and can't help but read everything that's posted, it's really not Lou's fault. And if we are so prone to suggestion that we would follow what a guy on a discussion board has said, well that's another thing altogether.
We all tell people what works for us! But just because one person with insomnia finds relief with a hot bath doesn't mean another will. And trying a hot bath could be dangerous for someone who has high blood pressure.
I know that, in certain cases, we have an obligation to speak for the victims. When dogs or children are abused, for instance. But this?
beardy : )>
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 23, 2002, at 9:30:57
In reply to Pressure? Oh, C'mon., posted by BeARdEdLaDY on May 23, 2002, at 8:36:17
Beardedlady,
Thank you for your observations here about pressure. It is insight like yours that enriches these boards.
Thanks again,
Lou
Posted by krazy kat on May 23, 2002, at 10:11:48
In reply to Re: right to laugh, etc., posted by Dr. Bob on May 23, 2002, at 2:03:30
> > Yes, there often will be someone in this community whose dander is up. So please be careful what you post. Laugh to yourself if you like, but it isn't necessarily civil to do so "out loud".-- I saw a post from kid_a, looked at it briefly, thought what i saw was funny, wanted to support him, esp. since i know he's still hurting from a recent DEATH on this site. What's the deal? I can't do this????
> > and so ends my part in the search for the crowns that sit on the gate that surround the white horse that ate the last pie that fell from the sky before the soldiers came marching in.
> >
> > - kk
> > It's also unnecessary to tell someone that you're tired of their posts. And please don't be sarcastic.-- I wasn't being sarcastic, i was being humurous which is WHAT YOU JUST TOLD ME TO DO ABOVE!!!!!
> > See above. Do you feel he's just sharing what's worked for him or also pressuring you to do the same?
-- Did I not make that clear? Yes, he's pressuring.
Posted by krazy kat on May 23, 2002, at 10:16:29
In reply to Thank you , Beardedlady » BeARdEdLaDY, posted by Lou Pilder on May 23, 2002, at 9:30:57
obviously. There is no one who feels his constant postings are potentially dangerous? What about the fifteen-year-old kid who, instead of telling her Mom that she's cut her wrists once already, and going to a Dr., decides God alone will save her. Then, a year later, when she'sw suicidal again, she won't seek medical help because of the guilt associated with not being able to handle on her own with God's help? She must be sinning, or not praying enough to feel this way. So she does it again. Only this time she succeeds.
This is a real danger. I'm surprised I haven't received much support.
Posted by kid_A on May 23, 2002, at 10:35:52
In reply to Re: right to laugh, etc., posted by Dr. Bob on May 23, 2002, at 2:03:30
>Laugh to yourself if you like, but it isn't necessarily civil to do so "out loud".
so laughing about someone else's post is considered uncivil? I don't quite follow this logic... I don't think -anyone- was laughing at the fact that said site happened to contain what could be considered offensive material to some... but more on that below...
> It's also unnecessary to tell someone that you're tired of their posts.
I understand what you are saying here, but I think this statement is grounded in the notion that people are starting to take offense at the content, and constancy of these posts. We aren't talking about one post here, we are talking about several that more than one person has voiced their concern over...
> You don't "need" to apologize, but if you hurt someone's feelings, *even unintentionally*, it's nice to do so...
I do in fact apologize, twice in my text...
> Are you saying that diatribes by David Duke do make sense? Please don't post links to anti-Semitic sites, period.
NO! Good god, no... I am saying that I am not posting a link which has overtly obvious anti-semitic content... I'm not posting links to the Aryan Nation... Also, though I was entirely unaware of the fact that the site did contain anti-semitic content, the site ALSO contends that the George Bush presidency was responsible for the events of 9/11... That amoungst many other conspiratorial theories that seem laughable to me at least... The man is running for president and his site looks like it was designed by an 8 year old kid who hasn't been taking his Ritalin... That is what I find funny about the link... In the future I'll try to structure my posts in the most unoffensive manner possible...
> > > it's OK to share what's worked for you. But it's not OK to pressure others to do the same or to put them down for doing something else.
Keep in mind that the poster originally started posting on the MED related board, in the notion that this person's way may be preferable to medication, this person has also made claims that generally state that medication is something to be 'overcome', even though for many people it is a helpfull if not necisary part of their attempts at combating depression... I think these statements are dangerous to people that may be new to medication, and are exactly the same as statements made to me by others who had not suffered severe depression, ie "you dont need to take that stuff...", "you should be stronger, its weak to need to take that medication" etc etc...
Okay, there is far too much quoted text to address every single statement, and I'm sure you are tired of reading this anyways, so I'll try to wrap this up...
Basically what we have here is a ONE-WAY communication device, a person who states their opinion and yet any discussion or request for elucidation to these statements is responded to with more questions or comments not much different than the original statements...
If you notice, most of these posts result in long and meandering threads of diatribe, questions, more diatribe, and then generally the thread breaks down by people tired of the remarks who then make attempts to steer the thread in a different direction...
Personally, I'm offended by constant religious preaching, I grew up with enough of that at home... But I don't supose that my opinion is valid for some reason.
I hope you can see some of my points of view, and that I am simply trying to protect and better a board I find of great use and service to me.
Posted by BeARdEdLaDY on May 23, 2002, at 11:33:57
In reply to Thank you , Beardedlady » BeARdEdLaDY, posted by Lou Pilder on May 23, 2002, at 9:30:57
Please get through this; there's a message for just about everyone.
I don't support Lou's posts; I support his right to post them. I don't like them because I don't like being spoon fed religion. But I'm not being force fed. It's my choice not to read it. And that's the choice I made.
I support US--our right to laugh when we want to laugh, to tell someone off when we want to, to tell others what worked for us. If someone wants to listen, great. If not, we would hope that the person gets the message.
KK, although you did give an example of a dangerous result, I'm not sure it's a result that's going to come from Lou's posts! It's a slippery slope that one would lead to the other.
Don't we have some important things to do? Like some Thai food to eat or some babies to take care of, some sun to sit in?
Because truth be told, I think you all are terrific. I like something about everyone on the board, whether I agree with him or not. (Lou has said some astonishingly clever things as of late; and KidA's poetry sings to me; and Alii, angry as she is, is quite righteous; and KK has that great energy and conviction and sense of humor; and IsoM knows just about all there is to know about everything, but isn't a know-it-all; and Zo has become my dear, dear friend, which is something I promised myself would not happen.)
And I could go on to say great things about Wendy, the smarty pants; and Sid and Kiddo, but do you get my drift?
Hokey as it is, I am, through and through, a Libra, maker of peace, restorer or justice (maker of peas, restorer of jesters).
C'mon, y'all? Ain't we got fun?
beardy : )>
P.S. Oh My God--PHIL! And SHAR! And--oh, this is like Romper Room.
Posted by BeARdEdLaDY on May 23, 2002, at 11:35:05
In reply to Support for opinions, etc., posted by BeARdEdLaDY on May 23, 2002, at 11:33:57
Posted by krazy kat on May 23, 2002, at 11:56:59
In reply to Support for opinions, etc., posted by BeARdEdLaDY on May 23, 2002, at 11:33:57
I'm an Aquarius. We should all post our signs sometime and see how they fit. :)
Well, I stand by concern re: Lou's posts - it's one of the few areas I have extensive experience in.
But I greatly appreciate your kind and observational words.
- kk
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 23, 2002, at 12:10:56
In reply to Support for opinions, etc., posted by BeARdEdLaDY on May 23, 2002, at 11:33:57
Beardedlady,
Thank yu for your post. When I was in the City of Pace, I asked what I could do to recieve a blessing from God. I was told, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for thy shall be called the sons of God.
Lou
Posted by Ron Hill on May 23, 2002, at 12:16:19
In reply to Re: right to laugh, etc., posted by Dr. Bob on May 23, 2002, at 2:03:30
> > Why not ask Dr. Bob to create a religious/theology site
> >
> > Kiddo
> Hmm, it sounds like a can of worms, but OTOH...
>
> Bob
----------------This proposed solution sounds similar to relegating African Americans to the rear of the bus. They can ride, but not with the white folks. Just my opinion.
-- Ron
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 23, 2002, at 12:20:03
In reply to Re: Step to the Rear of the Bus » Dr. Bob, posted by Ron Hill on May 23, 2002, at 12:16:19
Ron Hill,
I wholheartedly agree with your assesment to "separate but equal"
Lou
Posted by kid_A on May 23, 2002, at 12:58:13
In reply to Separate but equal? » Ron Hill, posted by Lou Pilder on May 23, 2002, at 12:20:03
There is a MED board to discuss medication, this usually consists of "what is med X like", or "should I try med X or med Y", or "does anyone feel like this when they take med X"... sometimes you get scare posts where people who've had a bad experience on a med try to warn others to stay away from it at all costs, but such is life...There is a social board whose concepts are loose, but at the same time involve mutual support for people who are feeling depressed and may seek input from others to help them get through their problems... In the majority of cases I dont think telling people that "God" is the answer is helpfull to their situation, as we all have different opinions on what "God" is, etc etc... It's not unlike telling people that they probably wouldn't be so depressed had they voted Republican...
Now, we also have the book club board, where people can discuss particular books that they are reading. I am supossing that this board was set up seperately so that the Social board did not become clogged up with these book posts...
And then of course there are all the other boards...
Religion is a very special and personal subject whose idealogy might not appeal to everyone, and who's presence may not make everyone feel comfortable...
I don't think that setting up a board to discuss religion is a bad idea, nor do I think that it is comes equivical to something like racial segregation.
Posted by kiddo on May 23, 2002, at 13:48:24
In reply to Support for opinions, etc., posted by BeARdEdLaDY on May 23, 2002, at 11:33:57
Posted by kiddo on May 23, 2002, at 14:59:57
In reply to Re: Step to the Rear of the Bus » Dr. Bob, posted by Ron Hill on May 23, 2002, at 12:16:19
Ron-
http://dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
1. Please respect the views of others, even if you think their wrong.
I don’t discriminate regardless of race, age, gender, sexual orientation, beliefs, social status, or in any other way.
2. Please be sensitive to their feelings even if they hurt yours.Comparing my suggestion to what happened to African-Americans really bothers me and hurts to think someone could even think I’d be so cruel. I’m part Cherokee, so I hope you understand what I mean.
3. Please don’t jump to conclusions about others or their experiences.In my opinion, you were jumping to conclusions for the fact you didn’t bother to even ask what I meant, or even phrase it as a question, you just came to the conclusion I was trying to ‘get rid’ of Lou, when in fact that isn’t the case at all.
Why not have a religious/spiritual board? There is more than one person on this site who refers to their faith regardless of being public or private about their faith. Why not add a place for those people to get together and have that ability while allowing those who don't want to participate the option of not utilizing it?
I'm offended that you make a racial discrimination/segregation reference to something that I authored for the fact you have no idea what race, religion, age and perhaps gender that I am-so please don't assume things about me that you don’t know.
4. Please don’t post anything that others could take accusatory.This comment felt accusing to me and I’d appreciate it if in the future you wouldn’t make these kinds of statements. I’m not discriminatory towards anyone. If you’d like to know something about me, please ask.
5. Please don’t exaggerate or over-generalize.I feel as if this is an over-generalization in the largest sense of the word. It’s like you have lumped me in with the KKK or whomever to make a point from a statement that wasn’t even there in the first place.
There are several boards on this website, categorized for CONTENT, not trying to shove them out the door. I thought it would be rather nice to have one like this. Other people have made references to reading their Bible and helped them through depression and were given the 3rd degree for it. Why not have a place where they may speak of it freely without repercussion?
6. It’s fine to give others feedback as long as it’s constructive.Please let me know if I've taken this statement wrong and there is something constructive that I have missed.
Posted by mair on May 23, 2002, at 15:12:30
In reply to Please Be Civil » Ron Hill, posted by kiddo on May 23, 2002, at 14:59:57
You can all talk until you're blue in the face about whether Lou's posts are dangerous to newcomers, but the people engaged in this dabate are all seasoned posters. Check out PSB and see how long Lou's threads go on. I know it's hard to ignore his posts, but really, if no one responded to them, I think they'd become very short threads very quickly. Think of the perspective of someone who comes to the Board for the first time. The fury with which we all try to counter Lou IMO elevates him and his message, and I think it would be totally impossible for a newcomer not to check out these threads. This may or may not be a free speech issue - but how it affects us is something we can control. It's pretty clear that Lou loves a debate and he loves the attention, and the furor over his rights does nothing to quiet him and everything to encourage him.
Mair
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 23, 2002, at 15:39:06
In reply to Here's What I Don't Understand, posted by mair on May 23, 2002, at 15:12:30
Mair,
Thank you for joining this discussion. You have a good insight to the issues at hand. In a sense, you have uncovered an issue that could result in a great awakining on this board. Pleses continue with yur contributions as you percieve them.
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on May 23, 2002, at 16:01:34
In reply to I'm losing my mind..., posted by krazy kat on May 23, 2002, at 10:16:29
You're not losing your mind... i support you, but have found it hard to build a post that won't get me a pbc!!
nikki
Posted by krazy kat on May 23, 2002, at 16:11:04
In reply to Re: I'm losing my mind... » krazy kat, posted by NikkiT2 on May 23, 2002, at 16:01:34
though, Kiddo's use of the civil rules helped me think it out better. I hope to make one more lucid (?) post about it, also addressing why I haven't ignored his threads, because I agree that's the best thing to do.
Then I think I'll go to the 2001 board and Babble only for awhile. I don't think he can post there.
So all my ranting and raving about how the old timers boards were exclusive and bad, has come back to bite me on the butt. Now I need them for a safe haven. :)
Thanks, Nikki. Are you 2000 or 2001?
- kk
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 23, 2002, at 16:18:47
In reply to Please Be Civil » Ron Hill, posted by kiddo on May 23, 2002, at 14:59:57
Kiddo,
The allegations that yo have made against Ron Hill are ,to me, outrageous IMHO. If your allegations are held to be against the rules of this board, then no poster could disagree with anyone or they could be repremanded IMHO. Now John has evry right to see, in his experiances in his life, that segregation is, indeed segregation by any mode or means IMHO. Whenever you separate peoples, by any criteria, you end up with the possibility of demaening one or both of the groups IMHO. For you must examine the purpose that the segregation is being advocated IMHO. If it is to separate people on the basis that they have a religious beliefe in God, then, IMHO, it is abhorrant to all. The separation of race, religion, gender, handicap, ethnicicity, intellegance, height, weight, hair type, and 1000 other distinctions, all are in the same Kingdom IMHO. The genus/spieceis may be different, but segregation is segregation no matter what is the charactoristic to be srgreagated IMHO. That is why I tried to not be relegated to another board. I wanted us all to be one people. I would want the book club on the one board also. John's perception of the back of the bus is a valid assesment by him as he sees it IMHO and he and others here have diverse opinions and they should all be welcome,IMHO.
Lou
Posted by kid_A on May 23, 2002, at 16:26:26
In reply to I imagine I'll be blocked soon... » NikkiT2, posted by krazy kat on May 23, 2002, at 16:11:04
A. Respond to every post that even remotely defends your position with praises and back patting.B. Either ignore entirely any Civil post which questions your position, or answer said post with the same type of content that is being questioned.
...why?
Posted by Ron Hill on May 23, 2002, at 16:47:54
In reply to Please Be Civil » Ron Hill, posted by kiddo on May 23, 2002, at 14:59:57
Kiddo,
My comment was directed to Dr. Bob. The idea of relegating constituently guaranteed speech to an isolated corner of the web site is almost certainly illegal. In this regard, it would be similar to some of the events associated with the civil rights movement (e.g. separate but equal). I was merely drawing an analogy.
I meant absolutely no insult to you in any way.
> I don’t discriminate regardless of race, age, gender, sexual orientation, beliefs, social status, or in any other way.
Kiddo, where did I say that you do?
> Comparing my suggestion to what happened to African-Americans really bothers me and hurts to think someone could even think I’d be so cruel. I’m part Cherokee, so I hope you understand what I mean.
I don't think you are cruel, Kiddo. Heck, I don't even know you! From your posts that I've read on the various boards, you seem like a nice person. My comments were directed to Dr. Bob. I did so because he seemed to leave the door open to the idea of restricting speech at the conclusion of his brief reply: "Hmm, it sounds like a can of worms, but OTOH..."
I was merely conveying my opinion to Dr. Bob that "separate but equal" is probably not a good idea. IMHO, discrimination is a bad thing in any of its various faces, including discrimination against people of faith.
> In my opinion, you were jumping to conclusions for the fact you didn’t bother to even ask what I meant, or even phrase it as a question, you just came to the conclusion I was trying to ‘get rid’ of Lou, when in fact that isn’t the case at all.
>
> Why not have a religious/spiritual board? There is more than one person on this site who refers to their faith regardless of being public or private about their faith. Why not add a place for those people to get together and have that ability while allowing those who don't want to participate the option of not utilizing it?As I've stated above, to restrict religious speech in the manner suggested is likely illegal. The legal term for such activity is "viewpoint discrimination".
> I'm offended that you make a racial discrimination/segregation reference to something that I authored for the fact you have no idea what race, religion, age and perhaps gender that I am-so please don't assume things about me that you don’t know.
I made NO assumptions about you. I didn't even think of you while I was writing the post. My post was directed to Dr. Bob.
> This comment felt accusing to me and I’d appreciate it if in the future you wouldn’t make these kinds of statements. I’m not discriminatory towards anyone. If you’d like to know something about me, please ask.
I made NO assumptions about you. I didn't even think of you while I was writing the post. My post was directed to Dr. Bob.
> I feel as if this is an over-generalization in the largest sense of the word. It’s like you have lumped me in with the KKK or whomever to make a point from a statement that wasn’t even there in the first place.I made NO assumptions about you. I didn't even think of you while I was writing the post. My post was directed to Dr. Bob.
> There are several boards on this website, categorized for CONTENT, not trying to shove them out the door. I thought it would be rather nice to have one like this. Other people have made references to reading their Bible and helped them through depression and were given the 3rd degree for it. Why not have a place where they may speak of it freely without repercussion?
Yes, I hear ya Kiddo. That's all fine well and good so long as religious speech is not restricted to only that particular web page on this site. Such restriction is viewpoint discrimination. The law requires that religious speech be given equal status as other forms of speech in the market place of ideas. As an aside, it would seem to me that giving someone the 3rd degree is uncivil, and that it should be dealt with as such.
> Please let me know if I've taken this statement wrong and there is something constructive that I have missed.
Kiddo, I’m sorry for your hurt feelings. That was certainly NOT my intent.
-- Ron
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.