![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 6 to 30 of 96. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 13, 2005, at 7:23:29
In reply to Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung's replyto Lou-correction, posted by Lou Pilder on July 13, 2005, at 6:18:13
Dr. Hsiung,
Could you consider what is written in the following link?
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020110/msgs/89798.html
Posted by so on July 15, 2005, at 14:02:55
In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on July 13, 2005, at 1:13:46
You publish a message board in which you allowed an anonymous poster to write:
-------------
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/2000/20041213/msgs/525416.html
"Scientology has very weird ideas about psychiatry, mainly because the religion/ cult is all about brainwashing. You have to go through auditing sessions to get cleared, and they try to separate you from your family.Honestly, I think there's even a free Katie movement. They're that creepy."
-----------------Regardless your persistent behavior intervening in conversations you deem uncivil, you have stated that you will not intervene in response to the statements above in which I am called "creepy" because of my religious beliefs.
Curious that this religous intolerance is allowed only in regard to a particular religion that considers the pratice of psychiatry to be a religion.
Please to not publish a message board in which you selectively allow members to call members of particular religions "Creepy", or where particular religious ideas are characterized as "weird" or particular religions are accused of "brainwashing."
------------------------------
> > I am requesting that you write a determination as to if the following is acceptable or not in relation to the guidlines of the forum.
>
> So far, I've let these go...
>
> Bob--------------------------------
Indeed you have. And for what reason?
Posted by so on July 15, 2005, at 14:07:59
This message is an open reply to a message on the "2000" board, where responses are restricted only to members who care to acknowledge participation during this forum's third year.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/2000/20041213/msgs/525416.html
Please don't call me creepy. Regardless my religion, and regardless what the psychiatrist who runs this board allows, don't call me creepy.
A lot of things can seem "weird" to a person who has no information abotu a particular subject. The ideas taught as Scientology might seem "weird" to some, but as a group, Scientologists have demonstrated considerable legal savy in protecting their ideas against libel.
Posted by gabbii on July 15, 2005, at 16:08:41
In reply to Please don't call me creepy » Dr. Bob, posted by so on July 15, 2005, at 14:02:55
Dr. Bob I agree wholeheartedly with So.
If you allowed all comments on religion that would be one thing. To allow disparaging comments toward only those which are not commonly accepted is at the heart of prejudice.
There are many things about the "great" religions which I find more than just creepy, and far more disturbing than Scientology, but I am not allowed to discuss that in any detail at all here.
Posted by Dinah on July 15, 2005, at 17:49:16
In reply to Re: Please don't call me creepy, posted by gabbii on July 15, 2005, at 16:08:41
FWIW, I agree. I don't think that scientology should be exempted from the generally accepted guidelines on the board.
I think it should be perfectly ok to comment on statements made by scientologists, as long as the group of people is respected.
Posted by so on July 15, 2005, at 18:50:38
In reply to Well, I wouldn't., posted by Dinah on July 15, 2005, at 17:49:16
> FWIW, I agree. I don't think that scientology should be exempted from the generally accepted guidelines on the board.
>
> I think it should be perfectly ok to comment on statements made by scientologists, as long as the group of people is respected.
You have the authority to deal with this. I feel (deleted out of mistrust) when I find administrators refusing to enforce rules consistently.
Posted by gardenergirl on July 15, 2005, at 18:52:22
In reply to Don't call me creepy, posted by so on July 15, 2005, at 14:07:59
Hi,
I would not like feeling that someone is calling my spirituality "creepy". Even if it is to someone, I would not want to have that fact posted right in front of me. But what's up with that last sentence? I am interpreting it one way, but I wonder what you were thinking when you included that sentence in your post.And I suppose calling you Shirley is right out, then? ;-)
gg
Posted by so on July 15, 2005, at 18:53:20
In reply to Re: Well, I wouldn't., posted by so on July 15, 2005, at 18:50:38
or who allows it to be done when they have the power to intervene ....
Posted by so on July 15, 2005, at 18:57:21
In reply to Re: Don't call me creepy » so, posted by gardenergirl on July 15, 2005, at 18:52:22
> Hi,
> I would not like feeling that someone is calling my spirituality "creepy".I don't feel someone called Scientolgists creepy. I know they did. It is in print, on an electronic distribution service solely owned by Dr. Robert Hsuing. It is not the feeling that bothers me. It is the circumstance.
Posted by crushedout on July 15, 2005, at 19:25:49
In reply to Re: Don't call me creepy » so, posted by gardenergirl on July 15, 2005, at 18:52:22
i was puzzling over the meaning of that last sentence also gg. and so didn't seem to answer your question at all. or am i missing something? hmmm.
Posted by Dinah on July 15, 2005, at 19:39:46
In reply to Re: Well, I wouldn't., posted by so on July 15, 2005, at 18:50:38
If Dr. Bob has been over the boards, and not judged something uncivil then I do not in fact have the authority to do anything about this.
A deputy can not override a decision of Dr. Bob's. Dr. Bob can override a decision of a deputy.
Posted by so on July 15, 2005, at 20:40:47
In reply to Re: Don't call me creepy » gardenergirl, posted by crushedout on July 15, 2005, at 19:25:49
The last sentence apparently refers to efforts interfere with a personal relationship between Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. This from a person who claims Scientologists "try to separate you from your family."
Posted by so on July 15, 2005, at 20:46:38
In reply to Re: Well, I wouldn't. » so, posted by Dinah on July 15, 2005, at 19:39:46
> If Dr. Bob has been over the boards, and not judged something uncivil then I do not in fact have the authority to do anything about this.
You impose your own limits on your authority, and you alone are responsible for the sort of people you choose as allies. If Robert Hsuing advocates calling Scientologists "Creepy" it is reasonable to ask whether his subordinates hold likewise.
Posted by Racer on July 15, 2005, at 21:05:35
In reply to You wouldn't? » Dinah, posted by so on July 15, 2005, at 20:46:38
> > If Dr. Bob has been over the boards, and not judged something uncivil then I do not in fact have the authority to do anything about this.
>
>
> You impose your own limits on your authority, and you alone are responsible for the sort of people you choose as allies. If Robert Hsuing advocates calling Scientologists "Creepy" it is reasonable to ask whether his subordinates hold likewise.
>No, I believe Dr Bob has limited the authority of deputies here.
Also, Dr Bob did not "advocate calling Scientologists "Creepy" " An individual posted something on one of the boards here, and I'm not sure Dr Bob even saw that post. Now that you've brought it to everyone's attention that someone felt accused and/or put down by the comment, I am certain Dr Bob will step in.
Dr Bob did not step in when someone on Social said that Tom Cruise -- who happens to be a Scientologist -- was saying things a lot of us find problematic, about psychiatry and psychotropic drugs and so on. That isn't the same as saying that Scientologists as a group are "creepy", which isn't within the civility guidelines -- either of this site, or the world in general, really, since it is characterizing an entire group solely by their inclusion in that group.
Dr Bob is apparently going to be back tonight, when he will be reading all of this. How about waiting for his determination, and letting Dinah have a rest? Dinah is a voluntary deputy here, and I would hate to see her suffer for voluntarily stepping up to take on more responsibility here. I would hate even more to see Dinah feel attacked, when she is providing a service to the community as a whole.
Posted by gabbii on July 15, 2005, at 21:13:59
In reply to You wouldn't? » Dinah, posted by so on July 15, 2005, at 20:46:38
>
> You impose your own limits on your authority, and you alone are responsible for the sort of people you choose as allies. If Robert Hsuing advocates calling Scientologists "Creepy"it is reasonable to ask whether his subordinates hold likewise.
>
Not if you read Dinah's posts it isn't.Rather than see Dinah as a panderer to Dr. bob's authority, I see her as someone who has taken the job as deputy in order to be a liason between those who post here and Dr. Bob. If she "allies" it's as much with us as it is with Dr. Bob.
She can offer him ideas and speak on our behalf and sometimes even influence his decision making.
Dinah holds her own council and maintains her integrity in every situation I've seen her in, without fail.
Posted by Dinah on July 15, 2005, at 23:25:14
In reply to You wouldn't? » Dinah, posted by so on July 15, 2005, at 20:46:38
I do not set the limits on my own authority. I follow the guidelines set out by Dr. Bob to the best of my authority. I'm a deputy, not a moderator.
I do choose the sort of people I choose as friends and the sort of people I choose to support. I stand by my choices.
Posted by Dinah on July 15, 2005, at 23:28:49
In reply to Hey hey hey !!! whoa . So. » so, posted by gabbii on July 15, 2005, at 21:13:59
I mainly chose to volunteer because things sometimes get out of hand when Dr. Bob is gone, and people get admin actions for reacting. I always hate to see that. But my authority is limited to when Dr. Bob isn't on board.
I don't really have any more influence on him than any other poster, darn it. :) I get mad and fuss at him just like everyone else. And it makes just about as much difference. lol.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 16, 2005, at 0:37:46
In reply to Please don't call me creepy » Dr. Bob, posted by so on July 15, 2005, at 14:02:55
> > Scientologsy has very weird ideas about psychiatry, mainly because the religion/ cult is all about brainwashing. You have to go through auditing sessions to get cleared, and they try to separate you from your family.
> >
> > Honestly, I think there's even a free Katie movement. They're that creepy.
>
> I am called "creepy" because of my religious beliefs.You're a Scientologist?
Bob
Posted by so on July 16, 2005, at 2:12:01
In reply to Re: calling people creepy » so, posted by Dr. Bob on July 16, 2005, at 0:37:46
> You're a Scientologist?
>
> BobThat is irrelevant to the question of whether you allow people to call members of certain religions "creepy".
And what does your question have to do with the title of your post?
Posted by Dinah on July 16, 2005, at 8:22:03
In reply to Re: calling people creepy » so, posted by Dr. Bob on July 16, 2005, at 0:37:46
Dr. Bob, I don't think anyone on this site needs to be a Scientologist or Muslim or black or Republican or Southern or a member of the Armed Services, or whatever, in order for the civility rules to apply to those groups. As you say, many more people lurk than read. It's fine to disagree with policy as long as the people in the group are treated respectfully, wouldn't you agree?
Posted by SLS on July 16, 2005, at 8:53:35
In reply to Please don't call me creepy » Dr. Bob, posted by so on July 15, 2005, at 14:02:55
You are SO right.
:-)
I am pretty sure that such a statement would be considered uncivil if posted on the Faith board.
This, of course, begs the question: Are the standards of civility different for the Faith board than it is for other boards?
I am curious though, is Scientology considered a religion? The answer to this question really doesn't matter, but I am very interested to know. What did E. Hubbard consider it to be? If you are not a Scientologist or don't know the answers, that's ok. I don't think that it reduces the validity of your arguments.
> You publish a message board in which you allowed an anonymous poster to write:> -------------
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/2000/20041213/msgs/525416.html
>
> "Scientology has very weird ideas about psychiatry, mainly because the religion/ cult is all about brainwashing. You have to go through auditing sessions to get cleared, and they try to separate you from your family.
>
> Honestly, I think there's even a free Katie movement. They're that creepy."
>
> -----------------
If someone wanted to voice an opinion about Scientology, I am guessing that they could do it in any number of ways.1. I don't agree with Scientology.
2. The beliefs of Scientology are in conflict with mine.
3. The beliefs of Scientology are in conflict with those of modern science, and the following in an example: (yada yada yada)
4. I believe that for many people, indoctrination into Scientology includes methods of brainwashing, and the following are anecdotes as reported by following people whom have experienced this: (yada yada yada)
5. I agree that the faithful practice of Scientlology can be dangerous, and the following are examples of this: (yada yada yada)
6. I believe the media reports describing the deaths of children who were denied medical procedures by parents whose practice of Scientology proscribes such medical practices.Stuff like that.
Some of these statements might be wrong, but I think they are examples of how posters might be able to express their opinions more constructively and civily. That you don't agree with these statements might motivate you to reply with similar civility. BIG PROBLEM: Because the post that you found objectionable appears in an exclusive forum precludes you from doing this. For this, I am sorry. I am having trouble with this practice of exclusivity right now.
SO, I wish you luck in your pursuit of your belief system. If Scientology truly is integral to it, I must say that I am dismayed that it so vehemently discredits any practice of psychiatry, a proven medical paradigm that is critical to the betterment of the functionality of civilization and the reduction of the pain, dysfunction, and disability of the individual.
Just to help you out a little bit, if you haven't come across this guy already, Peter Breggin, MD argues passionately against the use of psychiatric medications.
- Scott
Posted by so on July 16, 2005, at 13:07:12
In reply to Re: Please don't call me creepy, posted by SLS on July 16, 2005, at 8:53:35
Yes, Scientologists fought long in court to have their faith recognized as a religion. Scientologists have also realized considerable success in court combatting libels against their faith.
Scientology generally holds that the practice of psyhchiatry requires faith, and as such is a state religion. To test the proposed list of statements as they might be tested in a libel trial, we can simply reverse them, replacing the faith-system of Scientology with the faith-system of psychiatry. Would the campus psychiatrist who operates this site deem them "civil" according to his unique system of civility if they were presented as below?
> 1. I don't agree with psychiatry.
> 2. The beliefs of psychiatry are in conflict with mine.
> 3. The beliefs of psychiatry are in conflict with those of modern science, and the following in an example: (yada yada yada)
> 4. I believe that for many people, indoctrination into psychiatry includes methods of brainwashing, and the following are anecdotes as reported by following people whom have experienced this: (yada yada yada)
> 5. I agree that the faithful practice of psychiatry can be dangerous, and the following are examples of this: (yada yada yada)
> 6. I believe the media reports describing the deaths of children forced to undergo medical procedures by parents whose faith in psychiatry requires such practices.
Posted by so on July 16, 2005, at 13:50:35
In reply to Re: You wouldn't? » so, posted by Racer on July 15, 2005, at 21:05:35
>
> Dr Bob is apparently going to be back tonight, when he will be reading all of this. How about waiting for his determination, and letting Dinah have a rest?
As I accurately anticipated, the campus psychiatrist who operates this site avoided for the second time the obvious quandry presented in my querry, but instead asked me a question about my religious faith.
I suggest nobody will find any other circumstance, among the half-million posts on this board, in which this psychiatrist has asked someone to disclose their faith.I am precluded from presenting here further analysis of his methods because he is not nearly as tolerant of criticisms of his own actions as he is of those who use his forum to describe his professional critics as "creepy". More likely he would sanction me for describing "creepy" as a disparaging remark.
He claims that he is doing his best and demands that we accept the same. Fine. This must be the best he can do.
>I would hate even more to see Dinah feel attacked, when she is providing a service to the community as a whole.
What you choose to hate is entirely your own choice. If the woman wants to take a role in this community, it is entirely appropriate of me to inquire of her about her execution of that role.
By the way, Racer , how many consecutive PBC's have you received this year without having been blocked? I counted three.
Posted by SLS on July 16, 2005, at 14:00:10
In reply to Re: Please don't call me creepy, posted by so on July 16, 2005, at 13:07:12
> Yes, Scientologists fought long in court to have their faith recognized as a religion. Scientologists have also realized considerable success in court combatting libels against their faith.
>
> Scientology generally holds that the practice of psyhchiatry requires faith, and as such is a state religion. To test the proposed list of statements as they might be tested in a libel trial, we can simply reverse them, replacing the faith-system of Scientology with the faith-system of psychiatry. Would the campus psychiatrist who operates this site deem them "civil" according to his unique system of civility if they were presented as
below?I believe he would. That is exactly my point. The way Dr. Bob attempts to enforce his guidelines of civility is with logic regardless of content. I am glad you chose to simply substitute "Scientology" with "psychiatry". The resulting statements are no more and no less civil than the originals. You should hang-out here for a little while to see the board in action. It usually, but not always, works.
> > 1. I don't agree with psychiatry.
> > 2. The beliefs of psychiatry are in conflict with mine.
> > 3. The beliefs of psychiatry are in conflict with those of modern science, and the following in an example: (yada yada yada)
> > 4. I believe that for many people, indoctrination into psychiatry includes methods of brainwashing, and the following are anecdotes as reported by following people whom have experienced this: (yada yada yada)
> > 5. I agree that the faithful practice of psychiatry can be dangerous, and the following are examples of this: (yada yada yada)
> > 6. I believe the media reports describing the deaths of children forced to undergo medical procedures by parents whose faith in psychiatry requires such practices.
I do not agree with the above statements, and here is why: (yada yada yada)BTW, if it means anything to you, I went out of my way to capitalize the word "Scientology" in my posts.
- Scott
Posted by so on July 16, 2005, at 14:16:47
In reply to Re: Please don't call me creepy » so, posted by SLS on July 16, 2005, at 14:00:10
> You should hang-out here for a little while to see the board in action. It usually, but not always, works.
That I'm invisible doesn't mean I don't "hang out" here. I've read the archives extensively, and have observed chronic inconsistency in enforcement of the so-called civility guidelines.
Scott, I've reviewed extensively the enforcement activities here as well as efforts by community members to describe and defend those actions. I have also presented some of the rhetorical arguments for "I-statements" and "civility" guidelines to long-time members of language and literature departments. I have failed to find anyone in that capacity who concurs with members of this group who assert the guidelines are internally consistent.
I don't agree that the statements below would be accepted. If I had the time, I could collate the statements with specific occassions when a similar statement has been dissallowed, which is the reason I switched nouns to render this list as counterpoint.
>
>
> > > 1. I don't agree with psychiatry.
> > > 2. The beliefs of psychiatry are in conflict with mine.
> > > 3. The beliefs of psychiatry are in conflict with those of modern science, and the following in an example: (yada yada yada)
> > > 4. I believe that for many people, indoctrination into psychiatry includes methods of brainwashing, and the following are anecdotes as reported by following people whom have experienced this: (yada yada yada)
> > > 5. I agree that the faithful practice of psychiatry can be dangerous, and the following are examples of this: (yada yada yada)
> > > 6. I believe the media reports describing the deaths of children forced to undergo medical procedures by parents whose faith in psychiatry requires such practices.
>
>
> I do not agree with the above statements, and here is why: (yada yada yada)
>
> BTW, if it means anything to you, I went out of my way to capitalize the word "Scientology" in my posts.
>
>
> - ScottThat is courteous of you, but this is a message board, not the New York Times. I expect people here to be casual and imprecise in their writing styles.
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.