![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 62 to 86 of 86. Go back in thread:
Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 13:22:00
In reply to Mary Bowers, posted by NikkiT2 on October 21, 2004, at 13:04:35
> Sorry, this only came to me last night.
>
> Is this a Dr Bob thing, or are you doing the same for other Doctors who run peer support sites?? Are you also building a case against Dr Grohol for example?
>
> Thankyou,
>
> NikkiI understand this discussion has grown lengthy and not all of the content is clear, potentially frustrating the efforts of some to understand my style of support education.
I think I stated early on that our reviews have suggested sites administered by medical professional where administration is the product of an interactive group of professionals tend to be less harmful to a minority of participants than are sites such as this where a single practitioner formulates policies for use of an emerging technology without the benefit of an empowered and interactive group of administrative peers. Evidence that some people have expressed a sense of being hurt while participating here is abundant, especially in the archives of this administrative page. Robert Hsiung's consistent reply has been that this site can't be all things to all people, and that those who might feel hurt here can go elsewhere. Our hypothesis is that if there is a way for him to reduce the frequency of incidences of harm here, including participating in an empowered administrative group of peers that can override his policies, he has an obligation to either provide those protections or to advise participants he is not employing available means to protect them from his own misjudgements or from harm resulting from his experimental approaches.
Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 13:26:51
In reply to Re: A civil venue for accusations » Mary_Bowers, posted by SLS on October 21, 2004, at 6:51:49
> > Do they claim to be interactive medical education sites administered by a physician?
>
> What if this same site were administered by a plumber?
>
>
> - Scott
Then no one could reasonably develop an expecation that they are participating in a site administered by a medical professional, and no one could appeal to medical licensing authorities for relief. But if the plumber suggested that he or she is offering the benefit of clinical and professional medical experience in administration of the site, he could potentially be called before licensing authorities for practicing without a license.
Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 13:45:38
In reply to Re: A civil venue for accusations » Mary_Bowers, posted by SLS on October 21, 2004, at 7:10:00
Persistent offerings of opinions by a psychiatrist deliniating what is civil and what is not civil can be viewed as medical opinions about appropriate behavior. If a licensed plumber called people uncivil for posting information that conflicts with the opinion of the plumber, he could potentially face action by other plumbers whose opinions he has called people uncivil for embracing. People can civilly call other peoples opinins wrong, or specious. But they may not call other people uncivil for holding those reasonable opinions contradicting the opinions of others. The plumber can offer contrary opinions, but when he calls expressin of those respected opinions of other professionals uncivil, he would seem to be committing an element of a libelous offense, specifically by suggesting that others are earning a living my innappropriate means.
I am starting to wonder if the interpretation of civil Hsiung proffers is in fact composed by attorneys. Statements that could make others feel hurt or put down could be interpreted as libelous, so he might have a compelling reason to systematically exclude them. But since an attorney might have offered a legal opinion that Hsiung offers as the opinion of a phsyciatrist about what is "Civil", it is easy for clients to reach the conclusion that civility is a medical, rather than a legal standard. Civility, from the perspective of a doctor, implies behavioral and character standards. The standard at play, however, seems to be a legal standard designed to protect Hsiung not from malpractice suits, but from libel suits for facilitating the publication of libelous statements.
From a medical regulatory standpoint, questions might arise over his failure to recognize as an artifact of his experience repeated misunderstandings among those he says have not been civil. I don't think we will find any other places on the Internet, certainly not at medically oriented sites operated by medical professionals, where a mental health practitioner persistently identifies writings of invited guests as not civil.
In case anyone is mulling over the related question, criticisms posted here of Robert Hsiungs practices are not liable to be seen as actionable libel because this is a context in which Hsiung has invited review of his administrative practice.
Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 13:48:02
In reply to Re: A civil venue for accusations, posted by alesta on October 21, 2004, at 4:00:56
Posted by partlycloudy on October 21, 2004, at 16:42:16
In reply to Re: A civil venue for accusations, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 13:45:38
Posted by SLS on October 22, 2004, at 8:22:38
In reply to Re: A civil venue for accusations » SLS, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 13:26:51
> > > Do they claim to be interactive medical education sites administered by a physician?
> >
> > What if this same site were administered by a plumber?
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
>
> Then no one could reasonably develop an expecation that they are participating in a site administered by a medical professional, and no one could appeal to medical licensing authorities for relief. But if the plumber suggested that he or she is offering the benefit of clinical and professional medical experience in administration of the site, he could potentially be called before licensing authorities for practicing without a license.
>
It doesn't appear to me that Dr. Hsiung is practicing medicine. This is where all of your arguments might fall short. The presumptions of those who might interact here are just that, presumptions. It is up to the individual across the entire Internet to apply caution when using any site as a source of information or socialization. Caveat emptor must be the motto for anyone surfing the Net.Are the civility guidelines and their enforcement the only aspects of this site that troubles you? If not, can you be specific as to what are the others?
- Scott
Posted by SLS on October 22, 2004, at 8:50:15
In reply to Re: A civil venue for accusations, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 13:45:38
> Persistent offerings of opinions by a psychiatrist deliniating what is civil and what is not civil can be viewed as medical opinions about appropriate behavior.
Again, this is an assumption being made by the individual for which there are no stated prescriptions of medical practice anywhere on the site.
> If a licensed plumber called people uncivil for posting information that conflicts with the opinion of the plumber, he could potentially face action by other plumbers whose opinions he has called people uncivil for embracing.
Can you cite a precedent for this in law? I don't think so.
> Civility, from the perspective of a doctor, implies behavioral and character standards.
Again, this would be an assumption made on the part of the individual for which the individual is solely responsible. Dr. Hsiung is acting as a moderator of his site, nothing more.
> From a medical regulatory standpoint, questions might arise over his failure to recognize as an artifact of his experience repeated misunderstandings among those he says have not been civil.
Again, Dr. Hsiung is not practicing medicine. I doubt his behavior here could possibly fall under the perview of a medical regulatory agency. Whether or not his behavior is liable for civil action is a point of law for which you might want to provide precedents.
> I don't think we will find any other places on the Internet, certainly not at medically oriented sites operated by medical professionals, where a mental health practitioner persistently identifies writings of invited guests as not civil.
The uniqueness of any site on the Internet is irrelevant to the issues you are proclaiming as actionable.
> In case anyone is mulling over the related question, criticisms posted here of Robert Hsiungs practices are not liable to be seen as actionable libel because this is a context in which Hsiung has invited review of his administrative practice.
Where do you get this stuff from? There can't possibly be any such limit to libel in law. Can you cite any precedent for this? If not, you should not make such statements as if they were points of law.
I think you might be investing your time in an endeavor for which you have little chance of succeeding. I am counting on your not knowing anything about which you speak.
- Scott
Posted by AuntieMel on October 22, 2004, at 10:18:54
In reply to Re: A civil venue for accusations » Mary_Bowers, posted by SLS on October 22, 2004, at 8:50:15
Things were a lot more interesting when our opinions differed.
Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 22, 2004, at 11:52:20
In reply to Re: A civil venue for accusations » Mary_Bowers, posted by SLS on October 22, 2004, at 8:50:15
> > Persistent offerings of opinions by a psychiatrist deliniating what is civil and what is not civil can be viewed as medical opinions about appropriate behavior.
>
> Again, this is an assumption being made by the individual for which there are no stated prescriptions of medical practice anywhere on the site.
>Medicine is the art or science of maintenence of health, and the prevention or cure of disease. At this site, Robert Hsiung practices administration of a health maintenance facility. A doctor who administers a hospital might be liable for medical mistakes he allows under his watch. One reason doctors steer away from administrative positions except those that oversee other trained and insured practitioners is because of the unique liabilities associated with holding a medical license. Whether self-help groups meet in a clinic under the supervision of clinical staff or elsewhere under self-directed leadership is a question often related to liability. If a doctor were holding a party at his home, and a guest fell ill, the doctor would not excuse himself of medical liability by standing back and limiting his contribution to abritrating which of the house guests was civil enough to provide information that could lead to the recovery of the doctors guest.
One standard a board might consider is how the doctor presents himself. In this case, Hsiung calls himself "Doctor", provides links to information about e-therapy, and about electronic clinical environments. His disclaimers scattered about the site might not outweigh his statements elsewhere asserting what is a clinical environment and whether the admittedly intentional therapeutic effect of an electronic site is a primary or secondary goal. Simply put, he cannot sustain a claim made here that this is not a clinic while claiming elsewhere that environments such as this are clinical.
If Hsiung is operating this pseudo-clinical facility with no liability protection for himself, that is his prerogative. He asserts he moved the servers to a facility he pays for because the University wanted to follow the money they were spending. But his book promo still asserts the Dr. Bob sites are affiliated with the University of Chicago. The university's insurers might not be fully aware of their risk profile in relation to his unique activities.
> > If a licensed plumber called people uncivil for posting information that conflicts with the opinion of the plumber, he could potentially face action by other plumbers whose opinions he has called people uncivil for embracing.
>
> Can you cite a precedent for this in law? I don't think so.A common element of the descriptions of libel in many states is the inference that a person is earning a living by dishonorable means. It is fair to criticize particular practices, but when the proponent of a practice is characterized as dishonorable, the matter often becomes the subject of a libel action. If however, a professional invites criticisms, the nature of the criticism has less standing than one that is advanced ad hoc outside a forum the professional created to invite review of his or her practices. I'll respond later in this post to your question about the implications of inviting criticism.
>
> Again, this would be an assumption made on the part of the individual for which the individual is solely responsible. Dr. Hsiung is acting as a moderator of his site, nothing more.
>You are repeating an assertion that is the foundation of our investigation, so it is not new information. Obviously, our opinion differs. It would be up to a regulatory body to decide who is responsible for commonly held percptions of a facility supervised by Robert Hsiung, M.D.
> > From a medical regulatory standpoint, questions might arise over his failure to recognize as an artifact of his experience repeated misunderstandings among those he says have not been civil.
>
> Again, Dr. Hsiung is not practicing medicine. I doubt his behavior here could possibly fall under the perview of a medical regulatory agency. Whether or not his behavior is liable for civil action is a point of law for which you might want to provide precedents.Any practice that is relevant to a medical review board is likely to be cause for civil action. I have doubts about the interest of a medical review board in some of his practices. I am aware it could be related to political issues. Since pharmaceutical companies are sometimes major contributors to the campaigns of politicians who appoint those boards, an understanding of the political climate that led to the current board make up is likely to effect the merits of your doubts or mine about a board's interest in protecting clients of a physician's medical self-help practice.
Depending on the particular inclinations of a board, his efforts to proclaim as not medical his offerings to people suffering the ailments he is trained to treat might very well be weighed against perceptions that he is presenting as a doctor. A board might listen long and hard to the complaint of a person about the man in a white coat that holds a medical degree, a license, and presents himself as the "doctor" in charge of a self-help group, and who posts at the top of each page citations of his book about electronic clinical environments and electronicly facilitated therapy.
> The uniqueness of any site on the Internet is irrelevant to the issues you are proclaiming as actionable.
>Let's classify that as "considering" not as "proclaiming." The uniqueness of a practice can be relevant to whether it is a medically accepted practice. Medical review boards determine what is actionable under their jurisdiction. Doctors who introduce unique practices may be the subject of closer scrutiny by review boards. If a person wants to advise a medical review board they are suffering at the hands of a physician who is administering purported self-care facilities which are unique, untried and unproven, and about which he is authoring books, journal articles and conference presentations, your authority to consider it irrelevant is no greater than my authority to consider it relevant. The real contest here, in matters that you or I can effect, is our individual authoritative tones. Your tone of authority will probably carry more weight with people inclined to agree with your point of view.
> > In case anyone is mulling over the related question, criticisms posted here of Robert Hsiungs practices are not liable to be seen as actionable libel because this is a context in which Hsiung has invited review of his administrative practice.
>
> Where do you get this stuff from? There can't possibly be any such limit to libel in law.
There can't? Are you familiar with libel laws of each of the 50 states? Have you heard of the "clean hands" doctrine?
>Can you cite any precedent for this?Yes. Will I for you? No.
>If not, you should not make such statements as if they were points of law.
>
>I am counting on your not knowing anything about which you speak.
Keep counting, then. I am counting instances in which clients of "Doctor Bob's" medical information service have claimed to have been hurt while using his services.
Posted by SLS on October 22, 2004, at 13:48:56
In reply to Re: A civil venue for accusations » SLS, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 22, 2004, at 11:52:20
Hi Mary.
I wish I didn't have to plead ignorance regarding the points of law you bring up. It would make for a more enlightened discussion.
The law is interminably complex. I understand much of what you have to say, and can see how some of it might reach a threshold of foundation to be accepted for hearing in a court of law. Ultimately, I don't think anything will come of it because moderation of bulletin boards is a common practice, and I don't think that an argument describing an enforcement of civility as being a medical prescription will be accepted. Also, I am dubious that it can be found that Dr. Hsiung is practicing medicine here.
I think you will find that most everyone here who was present before the administration of civility guidelines will agree that many, many more people were being harmed by malicious posters than might be offended by the site's current moderation. This is something you should perhaps take into consideration.
I can't stress enough how important a resource this site is for the mentally ill. I am still depending on it for an answer to the treatment-resistant disorder I suffer from. It has been the best clearinghouse for treatment modalities and coping mechanisms I have seen. This is something you should perhaps take into consideration.
Your lawyerly arguments are interesting and sophisticated. Your resolve is firm. I wish neither were true. I guess you will do what you feel is right. I can tell that you are unwavering in your belief as to what that is. Such a huge number of people will be harmed should you be successful. This is something you should perhaps take into consideration.
I wish my illness would allow me the ability to read with comprehension, remember, and learn new things. It would make for a fair fight. I am convinced that I would kick your butt. :-)
I am grateful that you have decided to come to this site to interact with its participants. Thank you for the opportunity to dissuade you from your goal. Please forgive me should I overlook any of the details of your posts here. My reading abilities are limited to cursory skimming. This is something you should perhaps take into consideration.
- Scott
Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 22, 2004, at 14:33:43
In reply to Re: A civil venue for accusations » Mary_Bowers, posted by SLS on October 22, 2004, at 13:48:56
Thanks for the considerate reply.
More precise research on my part could also improve the quality of dialogue. Our research, to inform either "side" in this argument, could be helpful to anyone seeking counsel in these matters, or to counselors considering the merits of various matters related to this topic. I wonder if that is not a part of some fears expressed in reaction to my contribution -- not that I will complain to a medical review board, but that somebody with the professional standing and expertise will recognize the logical foundation I sketched out.
> I think you will find that most everyone here who was present before the administration of civility guidelines will agree that many, many more people were being harmed by malicious posters than might be offended by the site's current moderation. This is something you should perhaps take into consideration.
>This site is archived, so we can and to some extent have compared those data. We are not reaching the same conclusions as you have. It would be helpful to us if we could find site traffic statistics for the entire history of the site, rather than for the past 12 months.
> I can't stress enough how important a resource this site is for the mentally ill. I am still depending on it for an answer to the treatment-resistant disorder I suffer from. It has been the best clearinghouse for treatment modalities and coping mechanisms I have seen. This is something you should perhaps take into consideration.
>We believe we have seen better. We have not yet found a standard by which to measure, qualitatively, the merits of various sites, but open complaints of harm will probably be an element of any standard we might propose. It is possible that changes in administrative approach could move this site from near the bottom of our unqualified ranking of clinically facilitated mental health self-help sites to a position nearer the top.
> Your lawyerly arguments are interesting and sophisticated. Your resolve is firm. I wish neither were true. I guess you will do what you feel is right. I can tell that you are unwavering in your belief as to what that is. Such a huge number of people will be harmed should you be successful. This is something you should perhaps take into consideration.
>If people can be harmed by loosing the site, that suggests people who have lost access to the site because of adminstrative mandates might have been harmed. Doc Hsiung's position appears to be that noone can be harmed because they can always go somewhere else.
> I wish my illness would allow me the ability to read with comprehension, remember, and learn new things. It would make for a fair fight. I am convinced that I would kick your butt. :-)
>Maybe. Or your improved performance might require me to bone up some more, thereby strengthening my presentation and increasing the likelihood that my efforts will lead to substantive change in operation of the site. I can't assure you that you will find similar opportunities, but is possible that exercising to improve my comprehension, memory and capacity to learn have been therapeutic and have been a significant part of how I confronted problems in my own life such as those you suffer.
> I am grateful that you have decided to come to this site to interact with its participants. Thank you for the opportunity to dissuade you from your goal. Please forgive me should I overlook any of the details of your posts here. My reading abilities are limited to cursory skimming. This is something you should perhaps take into consideration.
>
>
> - Scott
>Very gracious of you, Scott. You are welcome, and thank you in return. We - you and I - are composing dialogue among a virtual large group, not writing courtroom briefs, so our level of expertise is probably appropriate for the venue. Whether or not you find the capacity to improve your virtual dialogue, your contributions - like mine - could become foundation for exchanges in more authoritative venues.
Posted by Toph on October 22, 2004, at 14:44:16
In reply to Re: A civil venue for accusations » SLS, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 22, 2004, at 11:52:20
To be sufficient, consideration must have some value. Something that is completely worthless cannot constitute sufficient consideration. Promises by the parties bargained for and given in exchange for each other constitute consideration.
Consideration is what distinguishes enforceable promises from those promises which are gratuitous. Courts will not enforce gift or gratuitous promises but they will enforce promises which are supported by consideration. Consideration may consist of an act, i.e., doing that which one is not legally obligated to do, or a forbearance, i.e., refraining from conduct which one is privileged to engage in. Consideration is not simply doing what you are legally obligated to do in any event.
The compromise of a doubtful claim is supported by consideration so long as the claim is pressed in good faith and is the subject of a bona fide dispute. It is sufficient that the parties entering into the settlement or compromise thought at the time that there was a bona fide question between them, even if it later turns out otherwise. On the other hand, the release from the mere annoyance of unfounded litigation does not furnish valuable consideration.
In addition to meeting the above test, consideration must arise in the context of a bargained for exchange. This means that the promise must induce the detriment and the detriment must induce the promise. Stated another way, the act or forbearance must have been bargained for and given in exchange for that very promise for legal consideration to be present.
Mary, if Bob and I to have entered into a legal contract, what consideration did I offer Bob in exchange for his (or the group's) psychotherapy that I received?
-Toph
Posted by SLS on October 22, 2004, at 15:19:15
In reply to Re: A civil venue for accusations » SLS, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 22, 2004, at 14:33:43
Hi Mary.
I thought of a good question to ask you, but you might have already answered it elsewhere.
What would you like to see happen with Psycho-Babble?
Thanks.
- Scott
Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 22, 2004, at 15:44:51
In reply to Re: PBC - Please be considerate » Mary_Bowers, posted by Toph on October 22, 2004, at 14:44:16
Most medical services provided pro bono by a licensed practitioner are not exempt from state regulation. Good Samaritan laws in some states provide some exemptions.
I don't know what you gave Robert Hsiung, but I had to give him permission to use my posts in his publication ventures before I could post here.
Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 22, 2004, at 15:59:42
In reply to Re: A civil venue for accusations » Mary_Bowers, posted by SLS on October 22, 2004, at 15:19:15
> Hi Mary.
>
> I thought of a good question to ask you, but you might have already answered it elsewhere.
>
> What would you like to see happen with Psycho-Babble?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> - ScottGood question, Scott. I have mentioned elsewhere, but don't mind repeating, that several of us recognize the difference between this site and other quasi-clinical sites is that others are administered by a group of professionals, and are insured under policies purchased by their clinical affiliates.
The problem as we recognize it is that Robert Hsiung has established himself as a leader in publishing academic material about virtual large clinical groups, but he does not recognize the large virtual group he established as having any obligations typical of clinically affiliated services. I and some of my colleagues would prefer to see this site administered by a body of professionals, and administrative chores be established through approved policies formulated among qualified administrators, so the dynamic is not one of a medical doctor being the sole arbiter of permissible behavior. That would tend to negate the ongoing perception among some that his administrative decisions are based in clinical knowledge and medical authority. It would also provide infrastructure for an administrative presence 24/7 rather than whenever the doctor gets time to make the rounds.
Posted by SLS on October 22, 2004, at 16:57:44
In reply to Re: A civil venue for accusations » SLS, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 22, 2004, at 15:59:42
Hi Mary.
> > What would you like to see happen with Psycho-Babble?> I and some of my colleagues would prefer to see this site administered by a body of professionals, and administrative chores be established through approved policies formulated among qualified administrators, so the dynamic is not one of a medical doctor being the sole arbiter of permissible behavior.
How do you feel this would benefit the site? What changes do you think you'd see in the way things happen here?
- Scott
Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 22, 2004, at 19:26:13
In reply to Re: A civil venue for accusations » Mary_Bowers, posted by SLS on October 22, 2004, at 16:57:44
> Hi Mary.
>
> > > What would you like to see happen with Psycho-Babble?
>
> > I and some of my colleagues would prefer to see this site administered by a body of professionals, and administrative chores be established through approved policies formulated among qualified administrators, so the dynamic is not one of a medical doctor being the sole arbiter of permissible behavior.
>
> How do you feel this would benefit the site? What changes do you think you'd see in the way things happen here?
>
>
> - Scott
>
Those are very constructive questions, Scott.It could facilitate administrative presence seven days a week, 24 hours a day, or at least more presence than one administrator can afford in his spare time.
It might depend on who formulates this theorized administrative body, but it could lead to more precise incidental statements of unpermissible behavior than "Please be civil". It could result in more consistent application of administrative policy, and perhaps more depth to behavioral guidelines, especially those forbidding anything that could lead others to feel some way or the other. Administrators might recognize varying rhetorical skills among writers and better assist less skilled writers in composing their contributions to comform with rules.
Some members apparently appreciate the current minimalist guideline, others have found it to be glib -- if an improved approach better satisfied both groups, that would be an improvement.
It might result in administrators reviewing other sites, and being more open to adopting techniques employed elsewhere. Nowhere else have I found guidelines that describe narrow behaviors allowed within a particular site as "civil". Whether that approach changed or others, it could generally result in an administrative approach less typical of Robert Hsiung, and more typical of tried and true practices among virtual large self-help groups for people with mental health concerns.
It also would probably lead to a group decision among administrators that there are liabilities associated with operating a virtual large group, and hence would add insurance coverage to the costs of operating a site. With increased costs, the group might need to appeal to someone besides Robert Hsiung alone for ongoing financial support, and that appeal could result in a larger pool of interests and talents to contribute to the quality of administration.
Posted by Dinah on October 22, 2004, at 21:05:12
In reply to Re: A civil venue for accusations » SLS, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 22, 2004, at 19:26:13
If there are all these perfectly run sites out there, and Babble suffers in comparison in the consideration of some, why don't those some just post links the perfectly run sites and urge people to run towards the light?
Or the perfectly run sites could take out ads on Yahoo and get still more posters. Soon, Babble would be but a ghost town, inhabited only by the few who prefer the way Dr. Bob runs his site.
Dr. Bob doesn't prevent the linking to other sites here. And voting is done with the fingers on the internet.
Why does Babble have to become a clone of other sites? Sounds dreadfully dull to me. I like the way my son's school is run, and I greatly dislike the way XXX school is run. But I don't go to XXX school and tell them they need to change their operating procedures. I happily tell parents of newly school aged children how happy we are with our school. But if they prefer something different, that's cool too. If Babble were the equivilant of public school, with no school choice, that'd be different. But if there are tons of sites run just the way certain people like...?
Posted by gardenergirl on October 22, 2004, at 21:57:08
In reply to Re: A civil venue for accusations » Mary_Bowers, posted by SLS on October 22, 2004, at 13:48:56
Please forgive me should I overlook any of the details of your posts here. My reading abilities are limited to cursory skimming. This is something you should perhaps take into consideration.
>Yawn, I'm pretty much at that point, too. Sleep is more inviting.
Take care, Scott. Always appreciate your posts.
gg
Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 23, 2004, at 0:57:46
In reply to One thing I still don't quite understand, posted by Dinah on October 22, 2004, at 21:05:12
The first argument is constructed as a straw horse - an argument against a proposal that has not been offered. Nobody has suggested a comparison with perfectly run sites.
The second argument presents a false delima. It presumes a delima involving merely inferior conditions when the delima at hand is one involving a second school where students are often hurt.
The argument is not that people helped by this site would be better helped by other sites. The argument is that people unwittingly hurt by participation in this site could be protected by measures employed at most sites.
Perhaps someone can seek a determination from the doctor as to whether the application of formal logic in discussions about how to administer a medical information site is "civil."
Posted by Dinah on October 23, 2004, at 6:25:26
In reply to Re: One thing I still don't quite understand » Dinah, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 23, 2004, at 0:57:46
> The first argument is constructed as a straw horse - an argument against a proposal that has not been offered. Nobody has suggested a comparison with perfectly run sites.
But I thought that by saying how well run sites (by the standards of the group known as "Mary Bowers" - and again, since you use "we" I assume you are announcing that you are spokesperson for a group - otherwise "I" is generally used) were run, and "contrasting" that with how Babble was run a comparison was automatically being made. However, I have no knowledge of formal debating techniques. Perhaps there is a distinction made in the textbook definitions.
> Perhaps someone can seek a determination from the doctor as to whether the application of formal logic in discussions about how to administer a medical information site is "civil."
Ummm... Perhaps. But it certainly wouldn't apply to me. I haven't the slightest training in formal logic. Not only have I never been part of a debate team, but I chose to take an ethics course in college.
Oh well, I tried. I think apples and oranges again.
Posted by alesta on October 23, 2004, at 12:15:30
In reply to Re: think about it, posted by bride2be on October 15, 2004, at 18:59:34
> maybe this mary lady popped out after reading all this shit that went on with me. did yall ever think about that. she may be looking out for innocent people like me that gets really hurt on a website like this. i dont know that that is true, but if there is a complete stranger looking out for me, thats more then i can say for dr bob and a couple others. that is really sad. quit being so mean to her. she helps people out. you all are so quick to jump on people. do you guys kill for dr bob too? i am beginning to wonder.
bride2be, i understand exactly where you're coming from sweetheart and am really concerned about you. i would've babblemailed you but you aren't active. i want to stay completely out of the line of fire here, so i'll keep this brief. i, too, was hurt by a very unempathetic dr. bob. you and i matter. our experience matters, and, according to mary, there are others. only people who've been there will understand, i guess. perhaps if they really understood the level of trauma we experienced it would be different. although i can't say i understand the anger directed towards you. please babblemail me or email me at enchantedmystic0 at aol dot com. i could use someone to talk to also. please, no one post to me except bride2be, okay? i only posted to support her, not to be involved in any arguments.
take care,
amy
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2004, at 14:24:13
In reply to i understand » bride2be, posted by alesta on October 23, 2004, at 12:15:30
> > maybe this mary lady popped out after reading all this sh[*]t that went on with me.
Sorry to be such a prude, but please don't use language that could offend others -- even if you're quoting someone else.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
> please, no one post to me except bride2be
I'm sorry you feel hurt, but if you don't want people to post to you, please follow these steps:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#harassed
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by mair on October 26, 2004, at 8:13:15
In reply to Re: please be civil » alesta, posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2004, at 14:24:13
Bob, am I missing something here. Alesta isn't the person who used the "word;" it was the poster to whom she was responding. And I hope you're not giving her a PBC just because she didn't use the correct procedures in asking others not to post to her. That's an education process for all of us.
I realize this is a couple of days stale. I just didn't want to see her blocked for some future transgression on the theory that you'd already told her to "be civil" when in fact your previous admonishment was directed to the wrong person.
Mair
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 26, 2004, at 9:28:18
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by mair on October 26, 2004, at 8:13:15
> Alesta isn't the person who used the "word;" it was the poster to whom she was responding.
I know, but I'd like people not even to quote language that could offend others.
Bob
This is the end of the 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.