![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 73 to 97 of 157. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by gardenergirl on December 27, 2006, at 12:35:37
In reply to Re: Maybe... » Happyflower, posted by AuntieMel on December 27, 2006, at 12:15:40
> Maybe I didn't get one because I apologized as soon as I realized it bothered people.
That's exactly why I did not act on it. I found your apology sincere and timely.
Take care,
gg
Posted by Happyflower on December 27, 2006, at 12:37:49
In reply to Re: Maybe... » Happyflower, posted by AuntieMel on December 27, 2006, at 12:15:40
> Maybe I didn't get one because I apologized as soon as I realized it bothered people.
So If I say I am sorry some people felt accused by my post discribing manipulating behavior torwards me, then I would be exempt from being blocked?
Well then I am so sorry that some have felt accused by me. I don't know who I am appolizing to , since I didn't mention anyone.
I am so sorry for trying to help innocent people, like myself who have been victims of blackmailing and manipulation. I am so sorry for giving a darn, for putting my neck on the chopping block. Isn't it true, victims often get the blame? I guess so. Speaking only from my own experiences.
Posted by gardenergirl on December 27, 2006, at 12:50:37
In reply to Re: Reminder, posted by Happyflower on December 27, 2006, at 10:47:05
> 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...Please don't post anything that could lead others to accused. Concerns about whether a poster's behavior is civil are to be communicated via the "Notifiy the administrator" form at the bottom of every post. Since you've been asked before to be civil, I'm blocking you from posting. I've asked Dr. Bob to determine the length of the block.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should of course be civil. Dr. Bob has oversight over deputy decisions. Thus, you can always appeal this decision to him, and he may choose a different action.Regards,
gg acting as deputy
Posted by Maxime on December 27, 2006, at 13:45:22
In reply to Good Bye Posts, posted by Maxime on December 24, 2006, at 1:18:05
I have to say that I did not expect this thread to explode the way it has. I didn't think it was going to turn into a battle ground.
But all the posts are making feel very unsafe here at PB.
Time for a long break.
Maxime
Posted by Farkus on December 27, 2006, at 14:01:28
In reply to Re: Good Bye Posts, posted by Maxime on December 27, 2006, at 13:45:22
I am saddened by some of the turns the thread has taken. I do appreicate others bringing up and adding their input to an issue I have been and, no doubt, will continue to be impacted by. It is not unusual for intense feelings to lead to heated discussions. I would like to see the behavior discussed stop and I would like to see accountibility. I'm not sure I'll see either - time will tell. Maybe, just maybe, highlighting how impacted people have been by this behavior may actually stop this type of posting.
I am sorry to see the emotional carmage.
Posted by AuntieMel on December 27, 2006, at 14:12:38
In reply to Re: Good Bye Posts, posted by Farkus on December 27, 2006, at 14:01:28
It is a multi-faceted problem.
It is hard, if not impossible, to know when someone is serious or if someone is "crying wolf."
I would hate to assume one thing, just to find out I was wrong. The guilt would be overwhelming.
Should we refuse to help someone in crisis? I don't think anyone would want that.
I do understand people thinking "crying wolf" or "melodrama." Once I thought the same thing about someone. Later I found out from someone in phone contact that the person *was* really in crisis.
Luckily nothing came of it, but I felt horrible just the same.
Posted by fayeroe on December 27, 2006, at 15:41:28
In reply to Re: Do I have to take y'all outside? » AuntieMel, posted by Happyflower on December 26, 2006, at 13:11:54
> I will calm down when this matter is taken seriously and not made light of by asking us if you should take us all outside. Geeze my mother did do that, and beat the sh*t out of me until I couldn't stand anymore or sit for that matter for days.
> Rules have been broken, and nothing is done except threatening to take us outside. If that abusive comment was meant to be funny, well it isn't to anyone who has been "taken outside" and was abused afterwards.
>
> I guess I expected more from a deputy.
it's too bad when something like this is said, even if the deputy thought she was making a joke. as much hurt as there was in the thread, i don't see how making a joke would have helped anything anyway.there are numerous abuse victims here and everyone has heard that one many more times that they should have had to hear it.
Happyflower, i am appalled, but not surprised, that you got blocked. it is the one size fits all remedy.
i am proud of you for taking the stand that you took and support you, as i've said before, and will see you if you come back......xoxoxo pat
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2006, at 16:03:30
In reply to Re: *Trigger* Happyflower and » Farkus, posted by ElaineM on December 27, 2006, at 12:33:25
> 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, ElFriends,
It is written here,[...I..support the need to find a resolution to suicide being used as a threat..direct or implied...I support the efforts of this thread...suicide treated with the utmost...].
I am tremendously interested in this thread and its development to, in my hopes, to reach a higher level of understanding about suicide as a result of the efforts of posters here , for it is a very stressfull topic, even in a mental-health forum.
Looking at what Dr. Hsiung has posted here in 716245, he writes,[..online..of suicide ideation can be..suicide prevention..enable to receive more..support...stressfull for others..attract..false reports...]
In this administrative discussion, many have posted what their thoughts are concerning this important topic and how the administration could be used accordingly.
My views are that aspects that arrise out of this discussion can have the potential to have a preventative effect to others that read this thread if some of the issues could be explored more. But this could be problematic.
Looking back at ElaineM's statement,[...resolution of suicde being used as a threat..] and coupled with Dr. Hsiung's statemnet,[...enable to receive more support...], then I think that a different forum here for just being about suicide, with a different set of guidlines for discussion could IMO facilitate a more supportive millieu for this unique aspect that IMO is deresrving of special circumstatnces.
Looking again at DR. Hsiung's post here, he writes that others could be attracted to this forum for these type of threads. Well, if there was a forum here only for that, then could there not be the potential for that circumstance to be welcomed? Any ideas?
Lou
Posted by bottomfeeder on December 27, 2006, at 17:12:42
In reply to Re: Good Bye Posts *Trigger*, posted by Dr. Bob on December 24, 2006, at 23:55:56
> I've said elsewhere that: The online ventilation of suicidal ideation can be an important part of suicide prevention, and the expression of suicidal thoughts and feelings is not prohibited here. This may enable suicidal posters to receive more effective support, but there are trade-offs: it may also be stressful for other members, attract suicidal posters (and thereby increase the incidence of suicide in the group), and make the group more vulnerable to false reports.Let me get this straight....someone talking about suicide here can be given support and may change their mind, but the "trade-off" is that it can increase the incidence of suicide in the group...hmmmm....so save 1 and maybe lose more than that....is this trade-off worth it Dr. Bob?????
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2006, at 17:32:28
In reply to Re: Trade-offs}} Dr. BOB, posted by bottomfeeder on December 27, 2006, at 17:12:42
>
> > I've said elsewhere that: The online ventilation of suicidal ideation can be an important part of suicide prevention, and the expression of suicidal thoughts and feelings is not prohibited here. This may enable suicidal posters to receive more effective support, but there are trade-offs: it may also be stressful for other members, attract suicidal posters (and thereby increase the incidence of suicide in the group), and make the group more vulnerable to false reports.
>
> Let me get this straight....someone talking about suicide here can be given support and may change their mind, but the "trade-off" is that it can increase the incidence of suicide in the group...hmmmm....so save 1 and maybe lose more than that....is this trade-off worth it Dr. Bob?????Friends,
It is writen here,[...can increase the incidence of suicide in the group...]. The exact wording by Dr. Hsiung was,[..{and thereby} increase the incidence...].
I think that the grammatical structure of Dr. Hsiung's statement could mean something different than,[... that it can increase the incidence...]. I think that there is the potential for Dr. Hsiung's statement, in toto, to have the potential to mean that because there could be more posters of that nature comming into the forum, that the number of suicides could be, as a number, more than if those posters were not attracted to come here. I think that there is the potential to think that Dr. Hsiung's statement is not suggesting a cause and effect , but suggesting an increase in the number due to the increase in the number of posters of that nature.
To try and make this simple without going into statistical inferences and grammatical inferences, we could look at this, if my interpretation is correct, as if the forum attracted by having a separate forum here for, let' say, skydivers and deep-sea divers and mountain climbers and formula-one and stock car NASCAR racers, that we could have an increase in the number of deaths of members, not that the forum caused their deaths.
Lou
Posted by fayeroe on December 27, 2006, at 20:23:40
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of bottomfeeder's post, posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2006, at 17:32:28
well, lou, i don't understand you.
this is a mental health forum where people come that are far more likely to committ suicide than nascar drivers would be dying just because they had their own forum. what would be in the postings for the nascar drivers to cause more deaths with them?
the whole point of this line of thinking is that "yes, suicide ideation is discussed here and, yeah, we need to discuss it and, oh, by the way, it may cause problems for our group as more of them may kill themselves..........
did that help?
Posted by laima on December 27, 2006, at 21:00:06
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of bottomfeeder's post » Lou Pilder, posted by fayeroe on December 27, 2006, at 20:23:40
I think what Lou is saying is that if the site is attractive to suicidal individuals, they will come here and post, but that doesn't mean that the site made them suicidal. They came to the site because they were suicidal, or, they came to the site because they were suicidal, and posted, because they were able to, because they were looking for someone to listen, etc. Not that they came to the site and became suicidal because of what they read. At least that's my understanding. In other words, is the site particularly attractive to suicidal people because they can post about their thoughts?
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2006, at 21:15:53
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of bottomfeeder's post » Lou Pilder, posted by fayeroe on December 27, 2006, at 20:23:40
> well, lou, i don't understand you.
>
> this is a mental health forum where people come that are far more likely to committ suicide than nascar drivers would be dying just because they had their own forum. what would be in the postings for the nascar drivers to cause more deaths with them?
>
> the whole point of this line of thinking is that "yes, suicide ideation is discussed here and, yeah, we need to discuss it and, oh, by the way, it may cause problems for our group as more of them may kill themselves..........
>
> did that help?fayeroe,
You wrote,[...Lou, I don't understand you..people (here) are..more likely to commit suicide than NASCAR drivers would be dying..because they had their own forum. What would be in the postings..to cause more deaths with them?...suicide ideation is discussed here..it may cause..more of them may kill themselves...].
I think that if one interprets Dr. Hsiung's statement in question here as that he means that if suicide ideation is discussed here that there will be a cause and effect situation sponsored here as a result of that, which would cause more people to commit suicide, then that is one interpretation. But I think that there is the potential for the grammatical structure of Dr. Hsiung's statement to mean something different from that, as in my previous post.
But let's suppose a new forum was created here for stamp-collectors, butterfly collectors, bottle collectors, and such. I do not think that there would be more deaths of members here because of the establishment of a forum like that because those hobbies are not considered to be hazzardous. But sky-diving and race-car driving is, according to the insurance industry.
Lou
Posted by ElaineM on December 27, 2006, at 23:19:29
In reply to Lou's response -aspects of ElaineM's post-newfrm?, posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2006, at 16:03:30
In my point of view, the issue doesn't seem so multi-faceted. But perhaps were are focusing on different aspects. I'm not arguing here, just clarifying my own standpoint by using parts of your post AuntieMel.
>>>>It is hard, if not impossible, to know when someone is serious or if someone is "crying wolf."
>>>>Should we refuse to help someone in crisis?For just me personally, I am bothered by the issue of repetition, and the acknowledgement that suicide talk is possibly, or sometimes, used as a medium for elliciting immediate responses. But again, this may be just one of my own issues.
But in terms of the more general concern of the thread, I don't see the issue as being that people shouldn't be allowed to "cry wolf" or that "crying wolf" should be punishable [though I'm not saying that AuntieMel's post suggested that], but rather being when the "crying wolf" (or true, actual intent) is stated to be somehow caused by another poster or posters. I don't have a problem with people expressing their wanting to commit suicide - afterall, that's what peer forums usually are for. I'd also be equally upset if people were NOT allowed to talk of suicide, suicidal ideation, self-harm etc. But I would have a major problem with that desire/plan being threatened as a reaction (explicit or implicit) to the behaviour of fellow posters (keeping in mind that their communications must too be civil).
But also, as far as starting a new forum, I myself, don't think that's necessary. I think this place already has appropriate places to discuss death, suicide, and any other tough, sensitive subjects - I think the issue is more that it is discussed/written about/whatever appropriately, and that that's always enforced consistently. I think that the person asking for help (whatever form that ends up taking) must be equally as sensitive and respectful to the community as a whole, as the replies that are being asked for. I know that sounds strange considering that this is a forum where mental illness is going to be a factor, but as far as I know, being symptomatic has never been considered a sufficient reason for leniency before in regards to other issues here, or other types of posts. If I'm not mistaken the administrative position has been stated as something along the line of "for the good of the whole", which to me implies that someone asking for help in a crisis, or "crisis", must still be held equally accountable in their conduct. But I could be wrong - I'm not often on admin.
But to reiterate, the issue in this thread I'm most concerned with isn't the pure talking of suicide or suicidality, or even someone reporting that they are gonna do it and then taking it all back, but rather somehow threatening it, or implying it, as a consequence of other fellow posters responses.
I just worry that the several slightly different issues coming out in the thread may get confused.
Thanks for listening, EL
Posted by ClearSkies on December 28, 2006, at 8:30:33
In reply to Re: Lou aspects of El's post, and others, etc, posted by ElaineM on December 27, 2006, at 23:19:29
Elaine, I think that your post gets us back to the initial discussion, and I appreciate your clarity.
ClearSkies
Posted by fayeroe on December 28, 2006, at 8:33:02
In reply to Lou's reply to fayeroe » fayeroe, posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2006, at 21:15:53
that is too many "what ifs" to add to this thread.......let's keep it the way it was.
it will be less confusing for those of us who are very concerned by the policies concerning suicide threats............
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 28, 2006, at 10:03:50
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to fayeroe » Lou Pilder, posted by fayeroe on December 28, 2006, at 8:33:02
> that is too many "what ifs" to add to this thread.......let's keep it the way it was.
>
> it will be less confusing for those of us who are very concerned by the policies concerning suicide threats............fayeroe,
You wrote,[...that is {too many}("what ifs")...]
and,[..less confusing to those..concerned {by the policies}...]
Could you clarify:
A.What constitutes something to be a {"what if"}?
B.What then under your definition are the {"what ifs") that you are referring to?
C. What is the authority that you use to declare what is {too many}?
D. Are you saying that a suggestion for a policy to incorporate a separate thread for suicide threats here could cause {confusion}? If so, why?
E. Are you saying that in my reply to you that there is something that could cause confusion? If so, could you clarify how my reply to you about my clarifying what IMO Dr. Hsiung's statement has the potential to mean could cause {confusion}? If you could, I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
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.