![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 92. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by europerep on February 17, 2012, at 12:56:21
Written by ed_uk2010:
> Sorry
(from this thread: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20120212/msgs/1010450.html)
This is absolutely ridiculous. Ed is probably the nicest, most helpful member of this whole board, and it is him who has to apologize for saying what probably 85% of the board thinks?I don't remember who said it just a week ago or so, but really everything points to the fact that Lou is an untreated paranoid schizophrenic who is posting stuff in here that is patently false AND a real threat to members who are seeking help. This is of course even more true for members whose illness includes features of paranoia. Yet, the administrator of this forum lets it be, while handing out bans for people who don't censor themselves when saying the word 'shit'.
It is a mystery to me how a forum maintained by Dr. Bob could ever attract so many users whose collective potential is quite enormous. It's not a mystery to me however that this process has come to an end, and people who post are either old members that haven't left yet or new members who come here via google, ask a question or two and then disappear.
It's sad to see a forum with this much potential slowly go down, but that's what seems to be happening.
Posted by SLS on February 17, 2012, at 14:54:21
In reply to This is ridiculous..., posted by europerep on February 17, 2012, at 12:56:21
> Written by ed_uk2010:
> > Sorry
> (from this thread: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20120212/msgs/1010450.html)
>
>
> This is absolutely ridiculous. Ed is probably the nicest, most helpful member of this whole board, and it is him who has to apologize for saying what probably 85% of the board thinks?
>
> I don't remember who said it just a week ago or so, but really everything points to the fact that Lou is an untreated paranoid schizophrenic who is posting stuff in here that is patently false AND a real threat to members who are seeking help. This is of course even more true for members whose illness includes features of paranoia. Yet, the administrator of this forum lets it be, while handing out bans for people who don't censor themselves when saying the word 'sh*t'.
>
> It is a mystery to me how a forum maintained by Dr. Bob could ever attract so many users whose collective potential is quite enormous. It's not a mystery to me however that this process has come to an end, and people who post are either old members that haven't left yet or new members who come here via google, ask a question or two and then disappear.
>
> It's sad to see a forum with this much potential slowly go down, but that's what seems to be happening.
Have you used the "Notify Administrators" located at the bottom of the post page?I am guessing that Dr. Bob has not yet found equitable grounds for censoring Lou Pilder. The doctor used to proscribe "over-generalization" and "exaggeration". Perhaps they can be used again. Is a post an exaggeration if it reflects accurately a citation located elsewhere on the Internet? Historically, many life-saving innovations were at one time considered to be bunk by the majority medical opinion. Lou Pilder does bring to the table challenges against mainstream thought regarding the safety of psychotropic drugs.
12 years ago, I was laughed at for this:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000526/msgs/35096.html
"* Does Prozac cause suicide? Yes."
This sounds a lot like the stuff Lou Pilder is writing now, right?
Time has demonstrated the legitimacy of my concerns as is demonstrated by the placement of a black-box warning on antidepressants.
- Scott
Posted by europerep on February 17, 2012, at 15:59:38
In reply to Re: This is ridiculous..., posted by SLS on February 17, 2012, at 14:54:21
> I am guessing that Dr. Bob has not yet found equitable grounds for censoring Lou Pilder. The doctor used to proscribe "over-generalization" and "exaggeration". Perhaps they can be used again. Is a post an exaggeration if it reflects accurately a citation located elsewhere on the Internet? Historically, many life-saving innovations were at one time considered to be bunk by the majority medical opinion. Lou Pilder does bring to the table challenges against mainstream thought regarding the safety of psychotropic drugs.
The point is, as Ed pointed out, that Lou does not *want* a discussion, or he isn't capable of having a "normal" discussion. Either way, whatever it is that he wants to bring to this forum, it doesn't contribute anything positive.
And, regarding the link to your post from 2000: when I was prescribed amitriptyline first in 2002, the package insert already contained warnings of possible suicidality. It's not exactly absurd to believe that a class of drugs that shares properties with and is used for the same purposes as another class of drugs, may also share "side effects" with that second class of drugs. Compare that to anything that Lou says here. His "sources", which he never cites, "reveal" to him, in a way he isn't willingly to explain, one crazy idea after another. I think that his sources are simply his delusions, and you will have a hard time finding someone who would claim that delusions are a valid source for any type of discussion.
Lastly, this is a forum about psychiatric *practice*. It's not about formulating hypotheses that could be beneficial for the progress of psychiatry as a science. It's about which drug to try next, about combinations of and interactions between drugs, about side effects, and so on. The people who post here (including me) are almost all in a very vulnerable and weak state of mind, and the nature of diseases like depression makes that they are especially susceptible to negative and pessimistic thoughts. What Lou does, when confronting posters with his "revelations", is to exploit the weakness of psychiatric patients to further his own personal agenda. This is beyond reprehensible; it's egoistic, disgusting and profoundly sick. I consider Dr. Bob's decision to not censor Lou on this board is bordering malpractice. If he had his own doctor's office, would he accept that people like Lou hang out in the waiting room, telling them about how he has seen the light and how the treatment that Dr. Bob would prescribe is the same that the Nazis used in their medical experiments? If so, Dr. Bob should switch from being a doctor to being a patient.
However, the very fact that we are still discussing all this shows that Dr. Bob has decision on whose side he stands. Of course, he will quote this and neatly lay out how he isn't technically choosing sides. I would expect him to be on the side of this forum, in order to ensure that it remains healthy, but he obviously thinks differently about that.
Posted by SLS on February 17, 2012, at 16:31:06
In reply to Re: This is ridiculous... » SLS, posted by europerep on February 17, 2012, at 15:59:38
> And, regarding the link to your post from 2000: when I was prescribed amitriptyline first in 2002, the package insert already contained warnings of possible suicidality.
Sorry, I must have missed that one.
> It's not exactly absurd to believe that a class of drugs that shares properties with and is used for the same purposes as another class of drugs, may also share "side effects" with that second class of drugs.
Of course, 20/20 hindsight will make anyone look like a genius.
> Lastly, this is a forum about psychiatric *practice*.
Sorry, I must have missed that one, too.
> It's not about formulating hypotheses that could be beneficial for the progress of psychiatry as a science.
Could you please direct me to your source of information?
- Scott
Posted by Phillipa on February 17, 2012, at 18:04:22
In reply to This is ridiculous..., posted by europerep on February 17, 2012, at 12:56:21
I and others unnamed have sometimes thought something strange could be going on between said poster and said administration. What who knows not I. Phillipa
Posted by SLS on February 17, 2012, at 21:41:42
In reply to Re: This is ridiculous... » europerep, posted by Phillipa on February 17, 2012, at 18:04:22
> I and others unnamed have sometimes thought something strange could be going on between said poster and said administration.
What do you mean?
- Scott
Posted by 10derheart on February 17, 2012, at 23:02:28
In reply to Re: This is ridiculous... » Phillipa, posted by SLS on February 17, 2012, at 21:41:42
Posted by sleepygirl2 on February 17, 2012, at 23:22:54
In reply to This is ridiculous..., posted by europerep on February 17, 2012, at 12:56:21
I've been wondering what the best way to approach this might be.
Yes, I believe Lou's comments and preoccupations are the result of illness. I also believe that his statements can be harmful. The thing is that it's fairly obvious that the statements are illogical, but some might not realize it at first. Anyone who spends a lot of time on the boards is well aware.
Since he really believes what he says, I can't presume that he is trying to be hurtful.
So, it could be a bit of a dilemma.
However, his comments, wherever they come from could be harmful.
Posted by Phillipa on February 17, 2012, at 23:31:53
In reply to Re: This is ridiculous... » Phillipa, posted by SLS on February 17, 2012, at 21:41:42
I truly don't know. Just seems like some connection. As it seems that others might or likely might get blocked. Why not in this situation. It's strange. I don't know how else to explain it. Maybe someone else can better if they understand or have thought same? Phillipa
Posted by 10derheart on February 18, 2012, at 1:04:44
In reply to Re: This is ridiculous... » SLS, posted by Phillipa on February 17, 2012, at 23:31:53
I'm more confused. Cryptic things often unsettle me.
Ah, well. No matter.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 18, 2012, at 1:06:17
In reply to Re: This is ridiculous... » SLS, posted by europerep on February 17, 2012, at 15:59:38
> Lou is an untreated paranoid schizophrenic
> Lou does not *want* a discussion, or he isn't capable of having a "normal" discussion. Either way ... it doesn't contribute anything positive.
>
> What Lou does, when confronting posters with his "revelations", is to exploit the weakness of psychiatric patients to further his own personal agenda. This is beyond reprehensible; it's egoistic, disgusting and profoundly sick. I consider Dr. Bob's decision to not censor Lou on this board is bordering malpractice.Hi, everyone,
I'd like europerep to remain an active member of the Babble community. If you do, too, please encourage him to avoid another block by rephrasing or apologizing. Perhaps you could also volunteer to help him avoid future blocks by being his civility buddy:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#buddies
--
> This is absolutely ridiculous. Ed is probably the nicest, most helpful member of this whole board, and it is him who has to apologize for saying what probably 85% of the board thinks?
>
> I don't remember who said it just a week ago or so, but really everything points to the fact that Lou is an untreated paranoid schizophrenic who is posting stuff in here that is patently false AND a real threat to members who are seeking help. This is of course even more true for members whose illness includes features of paranoia.
>
> It's sad to see a forum with this much potential slowly go down, but that's what seems to be happening.Thinking is one thing and saying is another.
This site is here for paranoid schizophrenics, too. Paranoid schizophrenics might be able to use, and to give, support.
If you think information here is false, please post what you consider to be true.
I'd also like to see this site become more active again. How do you think you might be able to help turn things around?
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by sigismund on February 18, 2012, at 1:09:14
In reply to Re: This is ridiculous... » SLS, posted by Phillipa on February 17, 2012, at 23:31:53
I had more problems with what Lou said about sorcerers and witches than with anything he has said about psychiatric drugs.
Yes, he doesn't often do dialogue.
But some people, including myself, have found his poetic posts very generous. Others have felt differently.
Posted by SLS on February 18, 2012, at 7:33:38
In reply to Re: This is ridiculous..., posted by sigismund on February 18, 2012, at 1:09:14
> I had more problems with what Lou said about sorcerers and witches than with anything he has said about psychiatric drugs.
>
> Yes, he doesn't often do dialogue.
>
> But some people, including myself, have found his poetic posts very generous. Others have felt differently.I'm not sure exactly why, but some people, including me, have developed a certain affection for Lou Pilder. I guess I don't have to understand him in order to like him.
Lou honestly and passionately wants to save lives.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on February 18, 2012, at 8:12:00
In reply to Re: This is ridiculous... » SLS, posted by europerep on February 17, 2012, at 15:59:38
Hi Europerep.
> Dr. Bob should switch from being a doctor to being a patient.
For me:There are quite a few things posted on Psycho-Babble that elicit anger in me as my initial reaction after reading them. When I recognize these feelings of frustration and anger, I usually find that it is worthwhile to allow some time to pass so as to post a more tactful and effective reply. I am not always successful at doing this, but I find that I insult people less often and regret fewer of my posted words.
For you:What I wrote above might not apply to you at all.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 18, 2012, at 8:15:23
In reply to Re: This is ridiculous... » sigismund, posted by SLS on February 18, 2012, at 7:33:38
Friends,
If you are considering posting in this thread, I am requesting that you read the following article. The article identifies a particular type of Fallacy in discussions that I think if it is identified, members could post without using the fallacy.
Lou
To see this article:
A. Pull up Google
B. Type in:
[Fallacy:Poisoning The Well]
usually comes up first...see that {nizor} is in the site that it comes from
Posted by sleepygirl2 on February 18, 2012, at 9:23:30
In reply to Re: opportunity to support europerep, posted by Dr. Bob on February 18, 2012, at 1:06:17
It's an interesting thing, tolerating distorted views of reality, because someone else believes them.
How much can we tolerate because we know someone is not well?
It's an important thing I think.
There's schizophrenia in my family, not dealt with well at all, so it interests me.
Posted by Twinleaf on February 18, 2012, at 9:40:50
In reply to Re: opportunity to support europerep, posted by Dr. Bob on February 18, 2012, at 1:06:17
Just addressing one small aspect of Bob's request for suggestions to help make this site more active: I personally find requests for other posters to join Bob in encouraging posters to apologize ( or change their wording) for things which Bob has found uncivil to be inappropriate. Others may well not have the same reaction that Bob had. Their purpose here is to speak for themselves and to help and support others in ways which originate with them. Bob is of course expected to state his views, but not necessarily to request others to back up his requests.
On a related issue, I think it is demeaning and patronizing to ask others to be civility buddies; this assumes that the poster in question is incapable of making intelligent, civil choices of their own. This is almost never the case, and is certainly not with Eduk, one of our most thoughtful, supportive and well-informed contributors over the years.
To sum up, genuine respect for contributing posters would mean, to me, not asking people to support Bob's views ( but just letting them do so if they wish), and not asking for civility buddies. Just these two small changes would improve the atmosphere a lot.
Posted by Dinah on February 18, 2012, at 9:42:34
In reply to Re: opportunity to support europerep, posted by Dr. Bob on February 18, 2012, at 1:06:17
Please guys, I empathize. But Dr. Bob has been clear about his values all along. There is more than one value at issue here, and he's chosen to emphasize the value of inclusiveness and (his idea of) fairness above all others. He will tolerate anything not specifically against his rules, and he will enforce that tolerance on his boards.
So many have floundered on these rocky shoals. I don't want to see any more casualties. Just consider this a very dangerous area, and navigate around it. Think of it as a force of nature, that you can't change, but just have to deal with as is.
I wish it were different, but it's not, and there it is.
Each member of the Babble family is too valuable to lose. Ed, you are definitely too valuable. Dr. Bob will likely disappear again soon, anyway.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 18, 2012, at 10:06:16
In reply to Re: opportunity to support europerep, posted by Dr. Bob on February 18, 2012, at 1:06:17
Mr. Hsiung,
I am requesting that you post here clarification as to what your response in the post that referrs to someone being a paronoid schzophrenic.
As your posted response stands at this time, there is the potential IMHHHHHO, due to your grammatical structure of your statement, to have the potential for some people to be led to think that I am diagnosed as such, which is a false statement, if that is what you are intending to lead people here to think.
I think it would go a long way to avoid any false concepts of me here, as well as permitting a medical diagnosis to be posted about someone, if you would post an immediate clarification as to what you are or are not intending to mean by your statement concerning paronoid schzophrenics.
Lou Pilder
Posted by ed_uk2010 on February 18, 2012, at 12:05:25
In reply to This is ridiculous..., posted by europerep on February 17, 2012, at 12:56:21
>Ed is probably the nicest, most helpful member of this whole board, and it is him who has to apologize....
Thanks! I am *usually* nice, I just get mad sometimes. My post to Lou was crude and unpleasant. I should have said it differently...
I get frustrated by Lou's posts because I think many of them could be frightening to new posters and vulnerable people. Lou does not discuss things as such, but I'm not sure he can. His posting style is rather cryptic. Threads tends to go off course and the original poster's question is lost.
Like Sigi said, Lou's poetic moments can be excellent but I do not think he is going about 'saving lives' in the right way. When discussing the risks of a particular drug, it would be better to post a link to an article, study or case report. It's particularly important to maintain a balanced viewpoint. All psychiatric drugs have risks, we know this, but we need to look at the benefits too. Drug treatment is usually about balancing the risks and side effects against the benefits. Scare tactics are not very helpful.
Perhaps you would like to be my civility buddy!!! ;-)
Posted by sleepygirl2 on February 18, 2012, at 13:06:43
In reply to Re: opportunity to support europerep, posted by Twinleaf on February 18, 2012, at 9:40:50
I'm not sure that the request is about supporting Dr. Bob's views. It could be about supporting each other when we react strongly, so that we might do it as respectfully as possible.
Posted by sigismund on February 18, 2012, at 14:56:22
In reply to Re: opportunity to support europerep, posted by Twinleaf on February 18, 2012, at 9:40:50
Yep. It's been done before and we know where it leads.
Posted by sleepygirl2 on February 18, 2012, at 17:00:21
In reply to Re: opportunity to support europerep » Twinleaf, posted by sigismund on February 18, 2012, at 14:56:22
Can anyone say how dr bob, or we, can/should handle this? Or should things just run their natural course?
Posted by sigismund on February 18, 2012, at 19:18:45
In reply to Re: opportunity to support europerep » sigismund, posted by sleepygirl2 on February 18, 2012, at 17:00:21
I suppose he is handling it in the right way since he wants civility.
My concern is with backing someone into a corner. Once you do that the outcome is almost predetermined. We are a stubborn species.
So yes, I do think it might be better to let things run their course.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 18, 2012, at 21:07:59
In reply to Re: opportunity to support europerep, posted by Twinleaf on February 18, 2012, at 9:40:50
> Just addressing one small aspect of Bob's request for suggestions to help make this site more active: I personally find requests for other posters to join Bob in encouraging posters to apologize ( or change their wording) for things which Bob has found uncivil to be inappropriate. Others may well not have the same reaction that Bob had. Their purpose here is to speak for themselves and to help and support others in ways which originate with them. Bob is of course expected to state his views, but not necessarily to request others to back up his requests.
>
> On a related issue, I think it is demeaning and patronizing to ask others to be civility buddies; this assumes that the poster in question is incapable of making intelligent, civil choices of their own. This is almost never the case, and is certainly not with Eduk, one of our most thoughtful, supportive and well-informed contributors over the years.
>
> To sum up, genuine respect for contributing posters would mean, to me, not asking people to support Bob's views ( but just letting them do so if they wish), and not asking for civility buddies. Just these two small changes would improve the atmosphere a lot.Tl,
You wrote the above. As I understand what the thrust of your post could be, it is that the owner/operator of this site is in some way part of your thinking on ways to make the site have an improved atmosphere. In this case, you could see that him redacting his policy in his TOS concerning civility buddies and requests to members to apologize to remain members, could improve the atmosphere here.
This opens the door to more introspection concerning the operation of this site by the owner and his deputy. They can control the content by either performing what their functions are in the TOS here, or not, as one way for an indoctrination to happen. They can effect the psychological/emotional state of person also by either performing their functions or not. If a statement could inflict emotional distress upon another member, and the owner and his deputy allow it to stand, then that can be a way for the psychological/emotional state of the member that the statement is diresct to , to have the infliction of the emotional disterss to continue and/or be made a deeper pain.
What your introspection shows here to me is that the site is a {union} of the members and the administration members. And if one in the union is not performing their stated function, or has a policy that could in your opinion have a detrimental effect psychologically/emotionally on some members, then that could be part of the atmosphere here.
And there is much more to this that I think could come out of this discussion. But in my thinking, as long as my requests here to Mr. Hsiung and his deputy remain outstanding, and all of the notifications from me to the administration remain outstanding, that could hold back improving the atmosphere for me. I do recognize your contribution here as that I am in agreement with your thinking about the situation with asking a person to change their wording to fit someone else's thinking. And what good could it do for someone to post an apology? Is not the way an apology is accepted or not determined by the one that the statement that is apologised for considers the apology acceptable, not someone else? An apology is generally accepted if the apology is judged to be sincere and sufficiant by the one the statement is agaainst, not someone else. I do not know how that could be done here as to be able to judge if something posted is sincere, maybe someone else does?
So what I see is the policy of apologizing a way for the one apologizing to remain a member here. How, then, could anyone judge if the apology is sincere?
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.