![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 10 to 34 of 96. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by SLS on July 16, 2005, at 15:18:26
In reply to Re: You wouldn't?, posted by so on July 16, 2005, at 13:50:35
Hi SO
Can you do me a favor and provide me with a link to the post in which you asked Dr. Bob to review the "creepy" post on one of the other boards, 2000 I think? I remember seeing the "creepy" post itself, but I still don't know what transpired in your interchange with him.
> > 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,I think we should give the moderator some time to reply to your posts. He rarely allows posts on the Administration board to remain unattended. Actually, he rarely allows any thread on any board to remain unattended. It still amazes me how thorough he is.
> ...but instead asked me a question about my religious faith.
I think this was a mistake on the part of the moderator. It is one that happens rarely. I was surprised when I saw it.
> 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.
It is quite possible that he didn't consider Scientology to be a religion at the time he wrote his reply to you. I think it was an innocent mistake.
> 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.
SO, I am curious as to how long you have been monitoring or posting at the Psycho-Babble website. I ask this question only to encourage you to watch how well things work here if you are new to the site.
Regardless of whether or not a mistake was made by the moderator, the site and its management usually works well under the guidelines of civility as defined and enforced by Dr. Bob. Prejudicial enforcement is something rarely, if ever, seen here. I don't usually participate on the Administration board, so I can't speak confidently on behalf of its operation. However, I can't think of a single instance on the therapeutics boards where Dr. Bob's enforcement of civility was prejudicial. That's pretty weird, huh? Not a single instance? He must certainly make mistakes? In my mind, yes he does. But his track record is a good one. One mistake I think he made was asking you if you were a Scientologist. I wouldn't read too much into that, though. I also feel that the post that upset you deserves a moderator's comment. Not to do so would be another mistake.
I must tell you, SO, that I disagree with much of what Scientology offers. For now, I would react incredulously if you were to accuse Dr. Bob as being part of a grand conspiracy by psychiatrists to purge the Earth of Scientology. From what I've read so far, though, that is exactly what Scientology is trying to do to psychiatry. I might suggest that this is not the right forum to debate the practicability of psychiatry. The main medication board would probably be the best place to start.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on July 16, 2005, at 15:46:51
In reply to Re: Please don't call me creepy » SLS, posted by so on July 16, 2005, at 14:16:47
> > BTW, if it means anything to you, I went out of my way to capitalize the word "Scientology" in my posts.
> >
> >
> >- Scott> That 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.
I don't take casually the feelings of others. Nor do I take casually the dignity of individuals or groups of individuals. Whenever my education allows, I try to demonstrate a respect of people as being no less human than I am. Simply hitting the "Shift" key is the least that I could do. That you don't appreciate it means nothing to me. I will continue to do it anyway.
I will always try to respect you as a fellow human being, but I may never come to respect you as a source of knowledge and understanding. My guess is that this means nothing to you. It shouldn't.
(It really should, though. I know everything).
- Scott
Posted by so on July 16, 2005, at 20:04:19
In reply to Re: Please don't call me creepy » so, posted by SLS on July 16, 2005, at 15:46:51
> > > BTW, if it means anything to you, I went out of my way to capitalize the word "Scientology" in my posts.
> > >
> > >
> > >- Scott
>
> > That 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.
>
> I don't take casually the feelings of others. Nor do I take casually the dignity of individuals or groups of individuals. Whenever my education allows, I try to demonstrate a respect of people as being no less human than I am. Simply hitting the "Shift" key is the least that I could do. That you don't appreciate it means nothing to me. I will continue to do it anyway.
>
> I will always try to respect you as a fellow human being, but I may never come to respect you as a source of knowledge and understanding. My guess is that this means nothing to you. It shouldn't.I take pains to assure that no one vests authority in me, so I would expect that you have no means to recognize what I might contribute to your knowledge and understanding. You would never know me as "so" even if I were sitting across the table working with you toward some mutually important goal.
With regard to punctuation, I'm more impressed by a person's ability to hit a combination of keys that reflect a capacity to understand specific merits of a particular faith system and perhaps to adjudge the relative fallacy of one system in the context of other flawed systems than I am interested in a person's attention to capitalizing a particular word.
> (It really should, though. I know everything).
At least everything you need to know to be who you are.
Posted by SLS on July 16, 2005, at 20:52:27
In reply to Re: Please don't call me creepy, posted by so on July 16, 2005, at 20:04:19
Respect for someone as a source of knowledge and understanding is earned and not bestowed. You have yet to earn mine. It is as simple as that. It is nothing personal.
If you have a problem with the practice of psychiatry, then why don't you move your focus of attention to the Psycho-Babble (medical) board and share with that forum some of your knowledge and understanding? If you don't care to, that is fine too. I really don't care. If you have a problem with Dr. Bob, then by all means stay on Administration and pursue him. You wouldn't be the first. I doubt you will be the last. I might end up doing it myself someday.
It always brings a smile to my face when someone appears who has such a vehement dislike of the doctor that they make it a project to discredit him and close his website. To me, it is comedy. Each person seems to display their weaknesses in an effort to locate those of Dr. Bob. I'm not saying that you have any weaknesses. You probably don't. Perhaps some of these other people grew up hating their fathers. I really don't know. It is just such a fanciful goal to topple the almighty authority figure that is Dr. Robert Hsiung. Go for it! LOL Most of the others have long since disappeared.
In the meantime, let us suppose that Dr. Bob is wrong about everything and you have proven your case. Now what?
That I happen to know everything should not get in the way of us being friends. It is just who I am.
In actuality, I know enough to more fully appreciate what it is that I don't know.
Ah, but enough pontificating for one post.
I wish you good luck in your ventures of benevolence, and bad luck on those that are anything but.
Peace.
- Scott
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.