![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 56 to 80 of 157. Go back in thread:
Posted by fayeroe on December 26, 2006, at 17:44:43
In reply to I am protesting!, posted by Happyflower on December 26, 2006, at 17:29:54
i also understand and support you completely on this issue. i am sorry that i didn't post this sooner. you're not alone here. xoxox pat
Posted by ClearSkies on December 26, 2006, at 18:39:50
In reply to I am protesting!, posted by Happyflower on December 26, 2006, at 17:29:54
> It just seems to me that the rules are protecting the wrong people, that if somone can still blackmail and manipulate others, as long as they stay within the lines. But the ones harmed has to jump through hoops to have anything done to protect them.
I think that reporting a harassment (as Dinah outlined) would be a way to stop the problem. I thought of the dinner with Dr Bob as a casual get together. I didn't realize that you had expected a follow-up to your comment at the time, or else I would have brought it up with Dr Bob and the other deputies for further discussion.
I have to say that that evening was a whirl of sensations for me and I don't actually remember all of our conversations (plus I plain couldn't hear everyone).
ClearSkies
Posted by madeline on December 26, 2006, at 20:10:41
In reply to I am protesting!, posted by Happyflower on December 26, 2006, at 17:29:54
I support you on this HF. I would hate to see you leave, and hope that this situation can be resolved.
Maddie.
Posted by Deneb on December 26, 2006, at 20:21:07
In reply to Re: Restate - *Trigger*, posted by notfred on December 25, 2006, at 23:23:53
I'm not reading this thread. It upsets me too much. I saw you posted something above. I just realized I rescinded my DNP when I replied to you. I'm reinstating my DNP.
Please do not post to me Notfred. Thank-you
Deneb*
Posted by madeline on December 27, 2006, at 7:26:25
In reply to Re: Restate - *Trigger*, posted by notfred on December 25, 2006, at 23:23:53
I know that documenting harrassment in chat maybe a little hard to do, but I can honestly say that I have seen this harrassment myself in chat and have had to use the "ignore" option.
Posted by Farkus on December 27, 2006, at 7:34:17
In reply to I am protesting!, posted by Happyflower on December 26, 2006, at 17:29:54
> It just seems to me that the rules are protecting the wrong people, that if somone can still blackmail and manipulate others, as long as they stay within the lines. But the ones harmed has to jump through hoops to have anything done to protect them.
I also wish this would be addressed for the sake of what's "good" (IMO) for the community. I do not wish for anyone to be hurt but I am having a difficult time figuring out why some posters get warning after warning without being blocked and this practice is not applied to others. There must be something I don't know as it feels unequally applied to me - then again, that's a concern that been brought up over and over.
Posted by Farkus on December 27, 2006, at 8:15:42
In reply to Re: I am protesting! » Happyflower, posted by Farkus on December 27, 2006, at 7:34:17
I got quick on the submit button....
To add:
In regard to wording, the behavior of posting content linking “talk” of suicide (ideation, planning, action, fantasy - feel free to add ---) as being a potential consequence of the information, content, actions, etc. posted or not posted by other posters, well, despite semantics, I feel that type of message creates a link implying a cause and potential effect relationship. I feel that is harmful to the board at large and individual posters.
Posted by madeline on December 27, 2006, at 9:00:17
In reply to *Trigger*, posted by Farkus on December 27, 2006, at 8:15:42
I agree, but would potentially take it beyond an implied link. I think it clearly says that "what you did/said (didn't do/didn't say) made me feel like committing suicide".
If that doesn't satisfy the requirement of making someone feel put down or accused, then I don't know what does.
In certain cases I even think it goes beyond simple manipulation or pressure and straight into coercion.
M
Posted by Happyflower on December 27, 2006, at 9:08:06
In reply to Re: *Trigger* » Farkus, posted by madeline on December 27, 2006, at 9:00:17
Yes, I agree, it goes well beyond being civil. In fact it is also a symptom of anti social personality disorder.
People with this disorder may appear charming on the surface, but they are likely to be aggressive and irritable as well as irresponsible across all areas. They may have numerous somatic complaints and possibly attempt suicide but due to their use of manipulative behavior, it is difficult to separate what is true and what is not.
Posted by Happyflower on December 27, 2006, at 9:11:33
In reply to Re: *Trigger* » madeline, posted by Happyflower on December 27, 2006, at 9:08:06
Definition of Antisocial Personality Disorder
Personality denotes characteristic ways of thinking, feeling, behaving, and reacting to the environment. A personality disorder is said to exist when a person chronically uses mechanisms of coping in an inappropriate, stereotyped, and maladaptive fashion. Personality disorders are enduring and persistent styles of behavior and thought, not atypical episodes.
So this scares the heck out of me especially since I can't be left alone. My mother has this, and it just hits too close to home for me.
Posted by Happyflower on December 27, 2006, at 9:14:03
In reply to More symptoms of antisocial behavior, posted by Happyflower on December 27, 2006, at 9:11:33
my words directly.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2006, at 9:52:58
In reply to *Trigger*, posted by Farkus on December 27, 2006, at 8:15:42
Friends,
It is written here,[...this is harmfull to..posters...].
There is a good study about suicide from about 5 years ago called The Great Smoky Mountains Study. The research indicated that there is a relationship to those having depression and suicide, but those that also had an anxiety disorder ran 50 times the risk for suicide behavior.
If this research is valid, and I have not found any contradictory research to show that it is not, then this brings up what IMO is a valid discussion as to this thread as to what could be a contributory factor , or not, in relation to aspects of the administration of this site.
One aspect is that if the population here could contain those of GAD, how could that validate or not, some of the aspects of, let's say, Happyflower's posts?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on December 27, 2006, at 9:54:38
In reply to Re: *Trigger* » madeline, posted by Happyflower on December 27, 2006, at 9:08:06
From Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
It's ok to ask for rule changes, or to complain about how rules are applied.
But it is not ok under the rules here to bring it to a personal level and talk about an individual poster in negative terms.
I'm not positive whether that's been done since my last PBC's, and Dr. Bob might decide that it has been done. But I want to remind everyone to keep it theoretical on this board, and not post anything directed toward any poster that could lead them to feel accused or put down. Hypotheticals are good, and so is a reporting of the behavior only - without any characterization of the behavior in negative terms.
In addition I will say that PBC's have already been given on this thread. To several people. So at this point, please just report any continuation of offenses to Administration.
Please do not refer to any poster, whether by name or by clear implication, in negative terms. This is in violation of board civility policies, and PBC's have already been issued on this issue.
If anyone has any questions about what they're about to post, and whether it's ok under the rules, you can babblemail it to me or to another deputy for review before posting.
Posted by madeline on December 27, 2006, at 10:17:28
In reply to Reminder, posted by Dinah on December 27, 2006, at 9:54:38
I think that is very fair Dinah.
I don't want to double post, but over on the psych board I posted something that I learned about myself too about this whole discussion.
I know that this can be resolved with no more hurt to any of the parties involved.
I'm sorry If I contributed to that hurt in any way. Sincerely sorry.
Maddie
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2006, at 10:20:38
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of Farkus' post, posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2006, at 9:52:58
Friends,
In reading Happyflower's posts, I find that there are IMO very valid aspects for discussion here and think that there is merit to a continued discussion. In reading those posts, however, I am seeing into perhaps a deeper meaning than what is shown. This may be because of other aspects of the forum that could be interelated to what Happyflower has posted and could be discussed by email if you like. I think that this thread and some of the aspects of Happyflower's posts, has the potential to be very fruitfull in relation to support and education about many aspects of this forum.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2006, at 10:32:02
In reply to Re: *Trigger* » madeline, posted by Happyflower on December 27, 2006, at 9:08:06
Friends,
It is written here,[...anti social personality disorder....].
This aspect brought up here , I think has great merit for discussion. It could be that Happyflower has a very deep understanding of the nature of support and education as to how things are interelated that I may share with her/him.
I would hope that this thread continues to allow development of these aspects that IMO could facilitate support and education here.
Lou
Posted by Happyflower on December 27, 2006, at 10:47:05
In reply to Reminder, posted by Dinah on December 27, 2006, at 9:54:38
I for one have not directed my comments on this torwards anyone in paticular, I am only talking in general terms the effects of sucidal threats against posters who don't do what the sucidal person requests. This a real issue, in fact it is in administration because many are having problems with this behavior on the boards, in chat, and in babblemails.
If someones see's their behavior that we are talking about, it is purely conciceidencal as no names were used. But of course it is about certain posters behaviors, if it wasn't then there would be no general complaints. But names were left out on purpose to keep it civil.I think it is completely valid to talk about why this happens, and what to do about it.
The only person talked about was directly violations of "don't post to me" , in which a paticular poster violated twice with 2 different babblers, in this exact thread, babblers who requested that they not be posted to. I for one, reported one this morning, but have yet to see anything done about it.
But the overall discussion here is about there needs to be changes in how we deal with sucidal threats against indivduals who don't do what they say.
I think discussing the charatersics of behaviors of someone who does this behavior is valid, because knowing what we are dealing with will help in how to deal with it. If it is personality disorders, or just those characteristics of the symptoms, then that needs to be taken into concederation.
I have not publicly talked about anyone in paticular, and to my knowledge nobody else has. What are we suppose to do, not talk about this and allow it to keep happening. I am glad I am taking a stand against it, and I am glad others have supported me for doing so either publicly or privately. Rules need to be changed to protect innocent people. If I get blocked for complaining about feeling blackmailed, threatened, then that is what it takes. But I haven't implied anyone, and if they think they are being talked about, then that isn't my fault they feel guilty for their behaviors. You can't talk about this behavior without implying that some babblers are doing this, but nobody was named.
Posted by Happyflower on December 27, 2006, at 10:54:26
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of Happyflower's post, posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2006, at 10:32:02
I agree, one of the charactisics of anti-social behavior is threatening sucide as a form of manipulation. I am not trying to put anyone down if they have this disorder, I am simply talking about one of the symptoms. I have learned about this through living with somone who has this, and through pysch classes at school. I am required to know this stuff, and I see the signs easier than someone who hasn't been exposed to it in their life.
What do we do about the manipulation threats of sucide on this site? Do we take into concideration of disorders in blocking them for the behavior. Do we allow this behavior to continue and to harm innocent people by it? It seems like something needs to be done, no matter who it is happening to, and who is doing the behavior.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2006, at 11:29:03
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of Happyflower's post » Lou Pilder, posted by Happyflower on December 27, 2006, at 10:54:26
FRiends,
I think that this discussion that Happyflower is posting about could involve the study that I mentioned. I do not have a link for it, but I think it was from the University of Virginia if you do a search for it to get the entire study.
Lou
Posted by Happyflower on December 27, 2006, at 12:18:03
In reply to Re: My T was right TRIGGER internet sites can be bad » Happyflower, posted by jammerlich on December 26, 2006, at 14:47:13
> Happyflower, you're right, they can be bad. But, they can be good, too. Do you think there's any way you could find ways to minimize the bad stuff here so you can still stick around for the good parts?
I am trying, I reported it, athough I didn't know I had to do it exactly in a certain way. Reading babble rules is like trying to read an instruction manal for a computer.
>
> The ignore feature in chat is pretty handy. And, there's always the option of deleting babblemail without opening it. Maybe other people can come up with better suggestions.I have tried using these messure, hopefully the actions will stop, but they haven't yet.
> As for the "take you outside" comment, that wouldn't sit well with me either. I was once asked if I was "ready for a spanking"; and, while I'm sure the person probably meant nothing by it, it still leaves a sour taste in my mouth.I don't think this comment should of ever been made on a mental health site, especially by a deputy. Threatening or even using in a joke like fashion isn't funny, especially to those who have been abused, which are many on this site.
Posted by Happyflower on December 27, 2006, at 12:18:04
In reply to Re: My T was right TRIGGER internet sites can be b » Happyflower, posted by ClearSkies on December 26, 2006, at 23:27:43
I feel the comment about "taking us outside" at least deserved a "please be sensitive" warning. But she is a deputy, and it seems like they are allowed to make comments like this when others are not.
Maybe the comment was meant to be funny, but using this comment on a mental health forum, is being really insensitive to the many who have been abused, and have been told this comment before they were abused.
This shouldn't have happened especially from a deputy. Especially since my request for a deputy interaction on the posts, was ignored.
Posted by AuntieMel on December 27, 2006, at 12:18:08
In reply to Re: My T was right TRIGGER internet sites can be b » Happyflower, posted by ClearSkies on December 26, 2006, at 23:27:43
1) I was posting as a poster - maybe out of practice because I haven't been here much lately. I didn't want to act as a deputy because I hadn't been around much.
2) I *was* just trying to diffuse a situation. My intentions were good - if the execution wasn't.
3) The post was for everyone, not just one person.
4) I apologized as soon as I realized it wasn't taken as intended.
What else is there to do?
Posted by Happyflower on December 27, 2006, at 12:18:09
In reply to A couple of notes, posted by AuntieMel on December 27, 2006, at 9:57:11
Why didn't you receive a "please be sensitive"? I am not the only one who was upset by your comment. I realize you didn't mean to cause distress, but as a deputy, whether or not you are posting as one, shouldn't you be more careful in what you post especially since it was directed to everyone? I do accept your apology though.
Posted by AuntieMel on December 27, 2006, at 12:22:06
In reply to Re: A couple of notes » AuntieMel, posted by Happyflower on December 27, 2006, at 11:08:15
Maybe I didn't get one because I apologized as soon as I realized it bothered people.
We are, after all, all human and we all do make mistakes.
Thank you for accepting my apology. I'll go back under my rock now.
Posted by ElaineM on December 27, 2006, at 12:33:25
In reply to *Trigger*, posted by Farkus on December 27, 2006, at 8:15:42
I agree with what you've written and support the need to find an appropriate resolution to suicide being used as a threat -- direct or implied. I've said a couple of my thoughts before, and don't really have anything new to add, but I support the efforts of this thread.
I agree that a link can be there even if "appropriate" wording is used. Perhaps by taking one or two questionable sentences out of a post/thread it's possible to argue that nothing further than what the language specifically suggests is implied. But I think it can become evident within the context of an entire post, or a string of post/replies in a thread (if such are written). I don't have a problem with posting of suicidal ideation, or wanting to kill oneself, just when it's connected to the actions, or non-actions of other posters. I'm personally extremely sensitive to the word "if", in that context. I'm confused because I've seen posters get blocked for, what I'd consider, much less. Perhaps I'm too sensitive, but I don't know what could be worse on a mental health forum than not ensuring that suicide is always treated with the utmost sensitivity, respect and gravity.
This is also something that's probably just my own personal thing but it's along similar lines, so I figured I'd add it in here. Theoretically, I would feel manipulated if suicide was repeatedly, and knowingly, used inplace of a (perhaps less loaded) emotion. I feel that reducing such a devastating act to a synonym for "confused", "hurt", "angry", "afraid", "rejected", "lonely", or any other emotion makes light of that type of death. I would feel offended if a process like that could be acknowledged by each party involved, "apoligized" for, and yet repeated over - without consequence. It would make me feel manipulated and unsafe - but that's just me.
It is true that I, as others, have some transference issues regarding behaviours and subjects encountered when using this or other forums, but I don't think that that should detract from the concurrant, in-the-moment interaction happening here, or provide a reason for it to be ignored or consequence-free -- whenever it occurs, and by whomever. I'd think lack of appropriate use of consequences fosters repetition, not discussion or re-education -- if anything I'd think it would only do the opposite.
I'm sorry that so many involved with this thread are hurting - everyone.
blove, El
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.