![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 46 to 70 of 96. Go back in thread:
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 13:16:15
In reply to Re: I feel put down » so, posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 12:35:38
> I'll butt out now, I know you are very capable of fighting your own battles. I get annoyed on behalf of others too often I think.
Thank you for the compliment, but you are more than welcome to stand with me, or to take the lead when you see fit.While this doctor seems inclined to require me to confront this extremely negative labeling of faithful people out of self interest, my motivation is to stand by my friends. That is why I refuse to be put in the position of defending my faith, and assert a right to ask for protection of "others" as is guaranteed by the site terms of service. I value defense of others moreso than I value defense of self.
Robert Hsiung has so far refused to address the fact that his FAQ prohibits things that could offend "others" but that when it suits his desire, he defines "others" solely as members of this group who assert a particular interest of their own.
Posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 13:39:11
In reply to Re: I feel put down, posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 13:16:15
> > I'll butt out now, I know you are very capable of fighting your own battles. I get annoyed on behalf of others too often I think.
>
>
> Thank you for the compliment, but you are more than welcome to stand with me, or to take the lead when you see fit.Thanks then, I know it can feel intrusive to some.
> While this doctor seems inclined to require me to confront this extremely negative labeling of faithful people out of self interest, my motivation is to stand by my friends. That is why I refuse to be put in the position of defending my faith, and assert a right to ask for protection of "others" as is guaranteed by the site terms of service. I value defense of others moreso than I value defense of self.
>
Yes I understood your point in the first post And had a similar reaction (though I'm not really thinking Dr.Bob's motives for asking are nefarious) I think he too missed the point. It's a principal and who belongs to what is not the issue. Assuming that you are not comfortable with stating your personal beliefs because of that particular response to Dr. Bob is incorrect and if it was true, it would be irrelevent to the issue regardless.
Posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 13:43:24
In reply to Re: I feel put down » so, posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 13:39:11
I think it would be impossible for someone to be both "uncomfortable stating their religious beliefs" and proselytizing at the same time.
That would be quite a trick. Unless perhaps the proselytizing was not meant to be connected to religious views, but that's often what the word is associated with, so I took it in that context.
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 13:43:43
In reply to Re: what about my religion?, posted by Dr. Bob on July 17, 2005, at 1:34:54
Your FAQ says: "Please don't ... jump to conclusions about others, post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, harass or pressure others, use language that could offend others ..."
however, you wrote that "So far I am allowing" members to call adherents to certain religous groups "Creepy". Further, you asserted that my refusal to repeat my confession of faith comprised a racantation of my faith. I can only conclude that this means you believe refusal to repeat a position on demand comprises abandonment of that position.
So you have retracted your rules against jumping to conclusions or posting things that could lead others to feel put down?
Posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 13:46:59
In reply to Re: I feel put down, posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 13:16:15
Hi So,
> Robert Hsiung has so far refused to address the fact that his FAQ prohibits things that could offend "others" but that when it suits his desire, he defines "others" solely as members of this group who assert a particular interest of their own.I do feel that the doctor has been pretty even-handed in his enforcement of civility. He has allowed some pretty noxious posts directed at him and the operation of his bulletin board remain posted without taking any action other than dole out PBCs to some of the posters who reacted quite intensely to those posts. Perhaps I am not one of his favorites that I should get PBC'd along this thread. Perhaps... I try not to psychoanalyze the doctor and his toilet habits for every PBC I recieve. I actually find him quite lenient when it comes to passing out posting blocks. I might not feel the same way once I recieve my first, however.
I guess the question that comes to my mind is if the original "creepy" post would have been allowed unsanctioned in the Faith forum. I think passing or failing that scrutiny would be a litmus test of sorts.
- Scott
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 13:52:47
In reply to Re: I feel put down, posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 13:46:59
> I guess the question that comes to my mind is if the original "creepy" post would have been allowed unsanctioned in the Faith forum. I think passing or failing that scrutiny would be a litmus test of sorts.
>
>
> - ScottThat is a valid question, of course, but the broader question is whether calling a particular group of people "creepy" conforms to the site rules. The rules don't differentiate standards for the faith board, the politics board or any other board.
Generally speaking, as understood by the vast majority of the English-speaking world, civility implies that one in a leadership position will be true to his word.
Posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 14:02:18
In reply to Re: I feel put down--And, posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 13:43:24
> I think it would be impossible for someone to be both "uncomfortable stating their religious beliefs" and proselytizing at the same time.
I'm not sure SO has shown any evidence of proselytizing so much as he might be simply protecting a group from defamation, a cause often taken up by unaffiliated agencies like the ACLU and others like it. Sometimes, it is more effective to debate and influence anonymously and without association to a particular group on behalf of that group as it helps mitigate prejudice and stereotyping.
I am hoping that he does at some point focus his attentions on proselytizing Scientology on the main medical board with respect to psychiatry. Debate there should be interesting.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 14:20:15
In reply to Secret rules? » SLS, posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 13:52:47
I think one of the things you miss by simply reviewing the archives is the dynamics of communication and moderation on the website. That you are unaware of the "secret" that the Faith board is scrutinized very closely indicates to me that you simply haven't been around that long. Although I agree with your position on the "creepy" thing, I think you should allow yourself some time to observe the boards in real-time before condemning the moderator and their operation entirely. If you have indeed been lurking over the past two years or so since the inclusion of a Faith board and its evolution, I apologize for deducing otherwise.
As for what develops here along this thread, I will be very interested to see how the moderator and you negotiate your ways through it.
I have never been wrong about anything. Once, I thought I was wrong, but it turned out that I was mistaken.
- Scott
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 14:39:55
In reply to Re: Secret rules? » so, posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 14:20:15
> That you are unaware of the "secret" that the Faith board is scrutinized very closely indicates to me that you simply haven't been around that long.
But since I am aware that there is a "secret" unpublished standard for that board, and since I revealed my knowledge of that secret in the title of my post, you can conclude that I have careully reviewed the history and dynamics of how this site is administered.
Since I am more aware of "secret" unpublished policies than you previously realized, you might also consider that I have access to additional insight about other "secret" unpublished policies that are widely understood by more involved members of this group.
One of those policies includes the unwritten addendum "except regarding Scientologist" in the "civility" FAQ, which was not included in the FAQ, but secretly published in an obscure post at the top of this thread which apparently even you did not locate without my assistance.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050716/msgs/528618.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050628/msgs/527014.html>Although I agree with your position on the "creepy" thing, I think you should allow yourself some time to observe the boards in real-time before condemning the moderator and their operation entirely.
I am not allowed to publish here a condemnation of the owner of this site, and I have not. I am addressing administration of a particular policy, which is the stated purpose of this particular board. And I maintain my reaction to this particular circumstance is not an isolated reaction based in self-interest, but instead based on my lengthy review of operation of this site, a review the scope of which you are expressing unawareness.
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 14:49:56
In reply to Re: I feel put down--And » gabbii, posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 14:02:18
> I am hoping that he does at some point focus his attentions on proselytizing Scientology on the main medical board with respect to psychiatry. Debate there should be interesting.
>
>
> - ScottThere are at least three reasons that won't happen.
First, the discussion would likely be relocated to Faith, though posting to the Meds board could force the admin to show his hand and acknowledge either that he does or does not agree with the Courts of the United States of America which have concluded that Scientology is a religion.
Secondly, I have no reason to believe that Scientology is the right thing for anybody reading the meds board. Scientololgy information is widely available elsewhere and there would be more productive places for me to make such information available. Scientologists generally seek to provide information, not to persuade others to accept available information, so we wouldn't have much of a debate. More likely, if we found a setting where I felt comfortable sharing my faith, I would explore with you areas in which we might share scepticism regarding the authors of Scientology, and only then would I ask you to consider meritous aspects of the faith.
Thirdly, if I were to declare that my reluctance to use psyhciatric medicines was based on the opinions and religious doctrines of a former science fiction writer, people might not as readily believe me when I state my reluctance to use certian drugs is a result of scientific testing and government regulations that have led manufacturers of some psychiatric drugs to publish warnings that use of their drugs can sometimes lead to thoughts of suicide.
Posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 15:16:21
In reply to Re: I feel put down--And » gabbii, posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 14:02:18
That was exactly my point Scott, but I appreciate your tactful approach.I was actually referring to a post made by Jen Star, which has rolled over I think.
But here's a combination of what she said, and my response
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050716/msgs/528956.html
Posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 15:18:48
In reply to Re: Secret rules? » so, posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 14:20:15
> > As for what develops here along this thread, I will be very interested to see how the moderator and you negotiate your ways through it.
>
> I have never been wrong about anything. Once, I thought I was wrong, but it turned out that I was mistaken.
Scott I agree with So on this one, yes the faithboard is closely monitored, but Larry hoover and ISOm both were given P.B.C's for stereotyping r*dnecks, and that was on the Social Board.
Posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 15:20:29
In reply to Re: Secret rules? S.L.S, posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 15:18:48
Posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 15:25:10
In reply to Re: I feel put down--And, posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 14:49:56
> > I am hoping that he does at some point focus his attentions on proselytizing Scientology on the main medical board with respect to psychiatry. Debate there should be interesting.
> There are at least three reasons that won't happen.
What first drew your attention to Psycho-Babble?What is your agenda?
Why are you targeting Dr. Hsiung?
Why should you care what one person thinks? In this case, I am referring to the doctor. Why are his beliefs and behaviors so important to you? As you have stated in your three reasons, the beliefs and behaviors of people on Psycho-Babble are not sufficient reason for you to participate here.
Would you feel more comfortable if this website were to discontinue operation?
- Scott
Posted by Nickengland on July 17, 2005, at 15:33:18
In reply to Re: I feel put down--And, posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 14:49:56
Interesting So, - Would you be willing to share you real name by the way?..so is just so...lol..ahh well I think it speaks volumes in some respects, but I just wondered is it short for a real name or is it just saying "so" as in "so what" I find it a very interesting posting name..
I've been reading your posts about the "creepy" issue with Scott and gabbii. I must say I will be interested to see the outsome of this...
>Thirdly, if I were to declare that my reluctance to use psyhciatric medicines was based on the opinions and religious doctrines of a former science fiction writer, people might not as readily believe me when I state my reluctance to use certian drugs is a result of scientific testing and government regulations that have led manufacturers of some psychiatric drugs to publish warnings that use of their drugs can sometimes lead to thoughts of suicide.
I am interested also with this statement. I have noticed that you tend to post mainly in Administration (although I read the debate in politics also) and I know that you have been "lurking" for quite a while.
What I am most curious is though, is to why, if your against psychiatry and psychiatric drugs...and also the psychiatrist that runs this site.....what exactly is it that you gain from posting here with regards to education and support?
I was just trying to think if it was the other way round...for example if someone who was against the scientology beliefs of treating mental illness (but who was pro psychiatry) had choosen to post at a scientology mental health forum...but only post to the administration/moderator to complain....why would they choose to do this when they do not agree with the whole concept of the treatment of scientology in the first place? It appears to be like a double negative so to speak. I just find the motives interesting as to why someone would pusue so much time finding out about something they dont agree/believe in and only make themself "visible" to complain about the admistration of the forum, which in turn is based on what they dont agree with in the first place?
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 15:58:33
In reply to Re: Secret rules? S.L.S, posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 15:18:48
Hi Gabbii.
> That was exactly my point Scott, but I appreciate your tactful approach.
Sorry. I didn't really understand where you were coming from. I took your words literally.
As to whether or not you agree with SO, I think it is pretty clear that the original "creepy" post deserves a reappraisal by the moderator to preserve consistency. As to the other posts you referred to being submitted by Larry Hoover and IsoM, I would not have seen them as I don't frequent the Social board. Nor for that matter do I frequent the Administration board. I am ignorant to what transpired. I am sad that those two people are no longer here, though. They have been very important contributors in my estimation.
Gabbii, when was the last time you saw Dr. Bob reverse a decision of his? Has he ever admitted a mistake? Has he ever made one? If I never do, perhaps he is just as capable as I am of never being wrong.
> I have never been wrong about anything. Once, I thought I was wrong, but it turned out that I was mistaken.
I appreciate your having allowed my attempt at wit be brought forward twice more. I hope someone other than me appreciates it. If not, it has served its purpose of self-amusement.
- Scott
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 16:05:04
In reply to Re: I feel put down--And, posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 15:25:10
>
> What first drew your attention to Psycho-Babble?Search engine results.
> What is your agenda?
With regards to what? It is clear my "agenda" in this thread has to do with an administrative policy you and others, including implicitly the administrator ("I'm letting these go") have acknowledged is not consistent with the site FAQ. Unless of course Scientologists are not human and hence are not "others".
> Why are you targeting Dr. Hsiung?I am responding to the administrator of a Web site about administration of the Web site, in an area exclusively dedicated to that purpose. How does this comprise targeting? Do you imply something untoward in the term "targeting" or is it simply a synonym for "directing messages to"? This particular post (the one you are reading) targets you, because you asked me a question and it is appropriate to target, or direct, the reply to you.
> Why should you care what one person thinks? In this case, I am referring to the doctor. Why are his beliefs and behaviors so important to you?His beliefs are important because they effect his behavior. His behavior is important because it effects others. Others are important because I care.
Because that person to whom you refer has established himself as a limited public figure, whose behavior is a proper topic for discussion, and because he publishes a Web site where he allows opinions to be published about private persons, including myself.
As you have stated in your three reasons, the beliefs and behaviors of people on Psycho-Babble are not sufficient reason for you to participate here.
I did not state that. I am more than my faith du jour. I stated, in reply to your published desire to debate with me the merits of Scientology, that I saw no clear reason to proselytize recruits to a particular faith on a board primarily oriented toward information about medications. As I stated, any information I post there about medications would be based on scientific research such as that which has led drug companies to advise customers that their products are known to cause thoughts of suicide in some cases.
> Would you feel more comfortable if this website were to discontinue operation?I would feel more comfortable on a cool spring day in a serene natural setting, or maybe sitting beside a swimming pool with no chores on my "to do" list. I would have more confidence that people are receiving valuable information untainted by subjective opinions if the information was organized systematically rather than in a conversational format that tends to emphasize the opinions of whomever might be reading the site at that time.
Posted by chemist on July 17, 2005, at 16:08:39
In reply to Re: Secret rules? S.L.S » gabbii, posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 15:58:33
Scott does know quite a bit, in truth...even where my mom lives!...yours, c
> > I have never been wrong about anything. Once, I thought I was wrong, but it turned out that I was mistaken.
>
> I appreciate your having allowed my attempt at wit be brought forward twice more. I hope someone other than me appreciates it. If not, it has served its purpose of self-amusement.
>
>
> - Scott
>
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 16:36:39
In reply to Re: I feel put down--And » so, posted by Nickengland on July 17, 2005, at 15:33:18
> I must say I will be interested to see the outsome of this...
Then you probably understand my interest better than you realize. Whatever faith I hold is not the only dimension of who I am or how I think.
> What I am most curious is though, is to why, if your against psychiatry and psychiatric drugs...and also the psychiatrist that runs this site.....what exactly is it that you gain from posting here with regards to education and support?
>When and where have I declared an opposition to psychiatry or psychiatric drugs? Having doubts about efficacy does not imply wholesale opposition. Or does participation in a community interested in mental health --- which is what this site is ostensibly about --- require that one have *faith* in the efficacy of the current pharmacopea of psychiatric drugs?
> I was just trying to think if it was the other way round...for example if someone who was against the scientology beliefs of treating mental illness (but who was pro psychiatry) had choosen to post at a scientology mental health forum...but only post to the administration/moderator to complain....why would they choose to do this when they do not agree with the whole concept of the treatment of scientology in the first place?
Why would a person who does not espouse Scientology ask to be greeted with the same cordiality afforded among adherents in a group of adherents? Maybe because they want to create a reasonable environment where ideas can be explored. Besides, poeple are not always reasonable, which is to say, people don't always have a rational interest in things. Our minds are reactive as were the minds of our ancestors. Our capacity to reason is a recent addition, and reason buffers our reactions, but we are still motivated by unexplained interests. One of those interests, as Maslow posited, is the need for respect among peers. Being called "creepy" can tend to make one feel peers are not ready to recognize that interest.
>It appears to be like a double negative so to speak. I just find the motives interesting as to why someone would pusue so much time finding out about something they dont agree/believe in and only make themself "visible" to complain about the admistration of the forum, which in turn is based on what they dont agree with in the first place?I'm not the only person here who has doubts about the efficacy of current psychiatric treatments. Others who doubt the efficacy of these treatments post here and are welcomed. If I have doubts about the efficacy of psychiatric treatments, it is sound and reasonable that I would read information that is predominatly in conflict with my beliefs. This is called having an open mind.
If you review this board, you will see that my posts have never before dealt with defending Scientologists against things that are not tolerated in reference to other religions. My posts on this board have generally addressed administration of a site which I read but at which I find little other reason to engage in dialogue.
Do you recognize that editors specialize -- some edit content, some edit for slant, some edit design, others simply proof-read. My interest in reading a periodical doesn't mean that I am going to get heavily involved in editing content, though I might get involved in review of how content is selected. I might not care what a periodical writes about, but I might write to the editor about how a particular subject is treated, whether I agree with the slant or not. The reason I do not engage in other dialogue at this site is because any questions I would ask or responses I might post are generally posted by others.
The "so much time" aspect is a result of your interest. You or others post to me, and I reply. Otherwise, my commitment of time conversing with the administrator is very limited. Are you asking why I reply to your interest? That's easy ... I reply because answering questions directed to a person is "civil", though a civil person could as well ignore questions from those not dependant on the person for a response.
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 16:42:18
In reply to Re: Secret rules? S.L.S » gabbii, posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 15:58:33
> As to whether or not you agree with SO, I think it is pretty clear that the original "creepy" post deserves a reappraisal by the moderator to preserve consistency.(snip)
> Gabbii, when was the last time you saw Dr. Bob reverse a decision of his? Has he ever admitted a mistake? Has he ever made one? If I never do, perhaps he is just as capable as I am of never being wrong.
>
Or just as reluctant to admit a mistake.
> I appreciate your having allowed my attempt at wit be brought forward twice more. I hope someone other than me appreciates it. If not, it has served its purpose of self-amusement.
>
>
> - Scott
Of course you directed this post to Gabbi, but I want to acknowledge that your humor indicates to me a lack of entrenched malice and a recognition on your part of difficulty you might have seeing beyond your own profound knowledge. Your humor tends to temper your expressed confidence in your apparently well-informed points of view.
>
Posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 17:52:08
In reply to Re: Secret rules? S.L.S » gabbii, posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 15:58:33
>> Sorry. I didn't really understand where you were coming from. I took your words literally.
>Oh Maybe I missed your point then?
No matter, I think we agree on everything.
Of course I'd have to agree with someone who never makes a mistake, otherwise I'd be making a mistake : )> As to whether or not you agree with SO, I think it is pretty clear that the original "creepy" post deserves a reappraisal by the moderator to preserve consistency. As to the other posts you referred to being submitted by Larry Hoover and IsoM, I would not have seen them as I don't frequent the Social board. Nor for that matter do I frequent the Administration board. I am ignorant to what transpired. I am sad that those two people are no longer here, though. They have been very important contributors in my estimation.
>I really Miss IsoMs presence here.
Obviously Lar's too, but I never need to really miss him.> Gabbii, when was the last time you saw Dr. Bob reverse a decision of his? Has he ever admitted a mistake? Has he ever made one? If I never do, perhaps he is just as capable as I am of never being wrong.
He did once, When he accidentally blocked Alex.
He did another time with me, a long time ago when he blocked me for posting under two names,
which I had not.
And another time I read in the archives him saying "Okay I was WRONG, did you hear that I'm WRONG :-)"
>
> > I have never been wrong about anything. Once, I thought I was wrong, but it turned out that I was mistaken.*snort*
Posted by Nickengland on July 17, 2005, at 19:04:13
In reply to Re: I feel put down--And, posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 16:36:39
Hello again So
>When and where have I declared an opposition to psychiatry or psychiatric drugs? Having doubts about efficacy does not imply wholesale opposition. Or does participation in a community interested in mental health --- which is what this site is ostensibly about --- require that one have *faith* in the efficacy of the current pharmacopea of psychiatric drugs?
You havent declared an "opposition" to psychiatry or psychiatric drugs in that post..the exact word you used was a "reluctance" So, are you "for" any psychiatric drugs or psychiatry for the treatment of mental illness?
Let me get this right, you're a Scientologist and because of this you are deeply offended because as you stated, "dont call me creepy" because you're a Scientologist - Thats perfectly understandable within the civility rules here.
Its my understanding (and please correct me if i'm wrong) do people who practice Scientology as a faith - does that faith support the use of psychiatric drugs?...or conversely, does it oppose them and psychiatry? I was under the impression that Scientology did not recommend the use of psychiatric drugs or psychiatry in the practice of its religion. Does Dianetics support psychiatric drugs or psychiatry?
When did you declare your opposistion to psychiatry/drugs? - When you declared that you felt put down because of feeling "creepy", you declared you was a Scientologist. When you declared you was a Scientologist, I then thought you must be lets say, not exactly "pro psychiatry" as your faith (which I take it must mean alot to you) holds the "believes" which are not for psychiatry in general, with regards to mental health - Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. (taken from the church of scientology website)
Which treatment programme do you follow?..The mental health treatment of your relgion or that of psychiatry? Do you possibly use a combination of both?
You see something so controversial as psychiatry and something possibly considered equally controversial as Scientology in similar respects with regards to mental health..Hmmm Muslims and Alcohol, they just dont mix...as in Muslims who follow their faith are not supposed to drink Alcohol. The same way I would have thought, a scientologist was not supposed to touch Psychiatry - Tom Cruise certainly isnt a fan, are you?
However though, the actual question with which you responded to the above was.....how do you gain education and support from this forum?
>Why would a person who does not espouse Scientology ask to be greeted with the same cordiality afforded among adherents in a group of adherents? Maybe because they want to create a reasonable environment where ideas can be explored. Besides, poeple are not always reasonable, which is to say, people don't always have a rational interest in things. Our minds are reactive as were the minds of our ancestors. Our capacity to reason is a recent addition, and reason buffers our reactions, but we are still motivated by unexplained interests. One of those interests, as Maslow posited, is the need for respect among peers. Being called "creepy" can tend to make one feel peers are not ready to recognize that interest.
I can completely understand what you say there, thats a fair comment. Do you feel that it was yourself being called directly, "creepy"? Either way though I guess if it was any other religion a PBC would have been issued. It would be good if you would perhaps post in faith about Scientology..that way maybe people would not think it was "creepy" as you could explain how it isnt. Or offer some kind of education to people, so that they wouldn't perhaps jump to the same conclusion which brought them to use the word "creepy" in the first place.
>If you review this board, you will see that my posts have never before dealt with defending Scientologists against things that are not tolerated in reference to other religions. My posts on this board have generally addressed administration of a site which I read but at which I find little other reason to engage in dialogue.
I have read most, if not all your posts. (and with great interest) I realise you didn't want to answer about your posting name "so" I wonder though, you said you have been lurking, but never mentioned for how long? I also wondered if you have ever posted before under a different name? - I would be interested to read the archives if you do have more posts under previous name(s) ?
>Do you recognize that editors specialize -- some edit content, some edit for slant, some edit design, others simply proof-read. My interest in reading a periodical doesn't mean that I am going to get heavily involved in editing content, though I might get involved in review of how content is selected. I might not care what a periodical writes about, but I might write to the editor about how a particular subject is treated, whether I agree with the slant or not. The reason I do not engage in other dialogue at this site is because any questions I would ask or responses I might post are generally posted by others.
I recognise what you say there and understand why you do not sometimes engage in other posts and subjects.
>I reply because answering questions directed to a person is "civil", though a civil person could as well ignore questions from those not dependant on the person for a response.
Are you suggesting that I should be grateful that you are replying to me in someway? Are you suggesting you could quite easily ignore me - just because that is "civil"
I understand the concept of reading and replying to a message, I think I did at a very early age.
>Are you asking why I reply to your interest?
I wasn't asking this, however you replied to your own question "that easy" I think you find the playful use of words very easy indeed, again especially with that sentance....
"I reply because answering questions directed to a person is "civil", though a civil person could as well ignore questions from those not dependant on the person for a response.
Why would you feel the need to remind me of that at the final part of your message? What was your motive with that?
I like to end the message with "kind regards"
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 19:09:18
In reply to Re: I feel put down--And, posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 16:36:39
Hi So.
I just wanted to compliment you on your clarity of thought and prowess as a writer. You remind me very much of someone who had been posting here by the name of Larry Hoover. That is about as high a compliment as could be paid anyone.
- Scott
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 19:56:30
In reply to Re: I feel put down--And, posted by Nickengland on July 17, 2005, at 19:04:13
> Hello again So
> So, are you "for" any psychiatric drugs or psychiatry for the treatment of mental illness?I am for you making up your own mind and for me making up my own mind about what we will do to get what we want with regards to our subjective mental outlook. Beyond that, I think the collective work of researchers over the course of a century has done quite a lot more than L. Ron Hubbard did to describe the role of life experiences in development of an individual human mind, though Mr. Hubbard did offer some unusual insight for his time, which I believe continues to offer some valuable insight in how our minds work.
>
> Let me get this right, you're a Scientologist and because of this you are deeply offended because as you stated, "dont call me creepy" because you're a Scientologist - Thats perfectly understandable within the civility rules here.Actually, my deep feelings have more to do with some of my most mature, generous, community minded friends being called creepy. Step on my toes, you'll get a hard look, but step on my friends toes and it's Katie bar the doors. That's the warriors' way. However, the administrator has demonstrated more ability to recognize the impact of such statements when one describes how it affects them personally, so I made it obvious that the comment was directed at me individually as a member of a specific group.
> Its my understanding (and please correct me if i'm wrong) do people who practice Scientology as a faith - does that faith support the use of psychiatric drugs?...or conversely, does it oppose them and psychiatry? I was under the impression that Scientology did not recommend the use of psychiatric drugs or psychiatry in the practice of its religion. Does Dianetics support psychiatric drugs or psychiatry?
Generally, Scientology has led the organizational opposition to the administration of psychiatric drugs in the Western world. But individuals who hold faith in Scientology teachings are free to believe or practice anything they choose. Scientology does recognize such conditions as "psychosis" but practitioners offer alternative approaches to treating those conditions. There are spiritual aspects of the approaches, but practically they rely heavily on mega-vitamins and cleansing proceedures such as saunas, which have a basis in some of the most historic systems of medicine in the world.>
>
> Which treatment programme do you follow?..The mental health treatment of your relgion or that of psychiatry? Do you possibly use a combination of both?My understanding of how I developed as a person is informed by concepts espoused by some psychiatrists or psychologists, though for the large part, pscyhiatry today spends far less time exploring social and developmental causes of personal distress than it does dispensing chemicals with the hope of treating the result of those causes.
> You see something so controversial as psychiatry and something possibly considered equally controversial as Scientology in similar respects with regards to mental health..Hmmm Muslims and Alcohol, they just dont mix...as in Muslims who follow their faith are not supposed to drink Alcohol. The same way I would have thought, a scientologist was not supposed to touch Psychiatry - Tom Cruise certainly isnt a fan, are you?If I had no interest in psychiatry, I wouldn't be here. If Tom Cruise had me for a PR hack, he might be less vulnerable in his public appearances. My best Scientology friend drinks more than I do. Some of the WTC bombers, though many don't recognize their loyalty to Islamic faith, were seen drunk in the weeks before the attack. I know Muslims who drink, and cannibas use was widespread in the Islamic world, certainly bfore the 1960s.
>
> However though, the actual question with which you responded to the above was.....how do you gain education and support from this forum?Just like this - by posting and responding to messages from other members.
> >> I can completely understand what you say there, thats a fair comment. Do you feel that it was yourself being called directly, "creepy"?
the statement "they" didn't include any exclusions, so I presume it included me. I wondered if the person who wrote the comment knows any scientologists.
> Either way though I guess if it was any other religion a PBC would have been issued. It would be good if you would perhaps post in faith about Scientology..that way maybe people would not think it was "creepy" as you could explain how it isnt. Or offer some kind of education to people, so that they wouldn't perhaps jump to the same conclusion which brought them to use the word "creepy" in the first place.
Maybe my contribution on this page will have the same effect. I'm not really out to defend Scientology, as a faith, I'm just interested in having my faith and that of my friends treated the same as any other system of faith, or otherwise exposing and educating people about contradictions in administration of this site, if it turns out that people here can call members of any particular faith creepy while they are forbidden from saying the same of other faiths.
>
>> I have read most, if not all your posts. (and with great interest) I realise you didn't want to answer about your posting name "so" I wonder though, you said you have been lurking, but never mentioned for how long?You can presume that, though there are obviously threads I haven't read or don't recall, I am familiar with the entire archive. As can anyone who reads the archives, I have identified when registration process was introduced, and when the administrator started intervening and sanctioning people for their activities here.
> I also wondered if you have ever posted before under a different name? - I would be interested to read the archives if you do have more posts under previous name(s) ?
I had another before I started using this one, but if people get too interested in who I am, I'll change my handle and decline to say who I was previously.
> >I reply because answering questions directed to a person is "civil", though a civil person could as well ignore questions from those not dependant on the person for a response.> Are you suggesting that I should be grateful that you are replying to me in someway? Are you suggesting you could quite easily ignore me - just because that is "civil"
I'm just trying to avoid the insinuation that if someone doesn't reply to a direct question it's not civil. I'm saying I reply because that's what people sometimes do. I don't know that you should feel grateful -- maybe you could feel powerful that you can cause me to write interesting prose. With that skill, maybe you could be an acquisitions editor, or a creative-writing-group leader...
> >Are you asking why I reply to your interest?
>
> I wasn't asking this, however you replied to your own question "that easy" I think you find the playful use of words very easy indeed, again especially with that sentance....I'm just saying, since you asked why I spend so much time, that I do it in part because you asked me to. That gives you something you can work with, because if you were to think I spend too much time at this, you could help by not asking me questions. But I consider it time well spent, though I could be doing something that pays.
> "I reply because answering questions directed to a person is "civil", though a civil person could as well ignore questions from those not dependant on the person for a response.
>
> Why would you feel the need to remind me of that at the final part of your message? What was your motive with that?Well, I got hung up on the implications. It wouldn't be "Civil" for a parent to refuse to answer questions of a child about important subjects, such as safe behavior. Along those lines, I have questions about the merit of an administrator suspending for several days his response to a request that he treat all religions the same. But I was just following the train of thought that developed from your inquiry about why I spend so much time at this. My time is spent because of my interest in psychiatry and in administration of this board, but also as a result of my interest in you, which you implicity requested by asking me questions.
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 20:04:00
In reply to Re: I feel put down--And » so, posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 19:09:18
> Hi So.
>
> I just wanted to compliment you on your clarity of thought and prowess as a writer. You remind me very much of someone who had been posting here by the name of Larry Hoover. That is about as high a compliment as could be paid anyone.
>
>
> - Scott
Larry has a bit more command of chemistry, and would definately be more willing to encourage someone to comply with a doctor's instructions.Thanks for the compliment though. If I really am all that, I hope the administrator doesn't let these things simmer just to create an occassion for writers like me to perform under pressure, thus letting the group learn from my style. We would learn more from seeing an adminstrator working to enforce his own rules on a consistant and timely basis, and perhaps expounding on the difficulties he encounters trying to do so.
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.