![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 21 to 45 of 179. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou PIlder on May 2, 2013, at 19:33:49
In reply to Re: please be civil » baseball55, posted by Toph on May 2, 2013, at 11:13:03
> Since Bob doesn't engage in these discussions like he used to years ago, we are left to speculate on his thinking. Like how should he preserve the rights of all posters to warn others of the dangerous side-effects of medications or should he permit posters the right to offer their faith as a panacea for mental health suffering? This individual has become so strident on these issues of late that I think it crosses the line that Scott mentions. Kind of similar to what Justice Stewart said about pornography - It's hard to define, but I know it when I see it. It's unclear if this individual is not civil by Bob's standards, but posters know. Sometimes it seems as if Bob gives a pass to offenders who have been here from the beinning as if there is an inertia to his pardons. All I know is I gave up thinking this poster is capable of changing a long time ago.
Toph,
You wrote,[...should he permit posters the right to offer their faith as a panacea for mental health suffering...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting readers to think when they read the statement here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could respond accordingly.True or false
A. You know that offering what one's faith entails so others could adopt it, could never help anyone overcome addiction and/or depression.
B. You know that Judaism has never enabled one to overcome addiction and/or depression
C. You know that depression is a result of a chemical imbalance and no faith could ever cure the imbalance
D. You know what the scriptures that the Jews use prescribe to those that use or prescribe or manufacture mind-altering drugs.
E. You know what causes depression
F. You know what The Great Deception is that is written in the scriptures thousands of years ago.
G You know what will be good for all the readers here.
H. You know (redacted by respondent)
Lou
Posted by Lou PIlder on May 2, 2013, at 20:47:08
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on April 30, 2013, at 22:33:38
> Dr. Bob, I definitely appreciate and support your new approach of accepting and separating differing views. It also seems reasonable and fair to give posters a warning when they make comments which could be hurtful, such as the ones directed at Lou which you cite.
>
> However, Lou has made even more frequent comments which many in the community find personally harmful and even threatening, and yet, to my knowledge, you have never given him a civility warning. No-one can understand why you are applying your very reasonable contemporary civility rules so completely differently to different posters. We all hope and expect that you will apply the rules equally and fairly, and are shocked and disillusioned when you don't. It is also undoubtedly not healthy for Lou to be repeatedly given the message here that the minimal civility rules apparently do not apply to him.Friends,
It is written here,[...Lou has made..comments which many in the community find personally harmful and even threatening...].
Psychologists write that statements of that nature can induce disparaging, hostile or disagreeable opinions or feelings toward me. But it is much more than that, for the statements have what is known as {foreseeable harm} because the statement can humiliate, degrade and dehumanize me, which is what hatetred posted toward another can do. And what would it profit for anyone to entertain in their mind what the poster has written about me here? Psychologists say that when one adopts the hate that another writes or says about another, that they can turn that hate to others in threats and insults that could poison the person so that they could commit even mass-murder. And this is allowed here under the guise that I have "never been given a civility warning" which is a lie. And lies about me here if adopted by you could infuse hatred toward me, but that hatred could be transferred to others. And how could one in that state ever overcome addiction and/or depression? My friends, I say to you that when you see this type of hate posted here about me, or anyone else, tell them to (redacted by respondent) where the sun don't shine.
Lou
Posted by Lou PIlder on May 2, 2013, at 21:43:10
In reply to Lou's warning- pstykihtt, posted by Lou PIlder on May 2, 2013, at 20:47:08
> > Dr. Bob, I definitely appreciate and support your new approach of accepting and separating differing views. It also seems reasonable and fair to give posters a warning when they make comments which could be hurtful, such as the ones directed at Lou which you cite.
> >
> > However, Lou has made even more frequent comments which many in the community find personally harmful and even threatening, and yet, to my knowledge, you have never given him a civility warning. No-one can understand why you are applying your very reasonable contemporary civility rules so completely differently to different posters. We all hope and expect that you will apply the rules equally and fairly, and are shocked and disillusioned when you don't. It is also undoubtedly not healthy for Lou to be repeatedly given the message here that the minimal civility rules apparently do not apply to him.
>
> Friends,
> It is written here,[...Lou has made..comments which many in the community find personally harmful and even threatening...].
> Psychologists write that statements of that nature can induce disparaging, hostile or disagreeable opinions or feelings toward me. But it is much more than that, for the statements have what is known as {foreseeable harm} because the statement can humiliate, degrade and dehumanize me, which is what hatetred posted toward another can do. And what would it profit for anyone to entertain in their mind what the poster has written about me here? Psychologists say that when one adopts the hate that another writes or says about another, that they can turn that hate to others in threats and insults that could poison the person so that they could commit even mass-murder. And this is allowed here under the guise that I have "never been given a civility warning" which is a lie. And lies about me here if adopted by you could infuse hatred toward me, but that hatred could be transferred to others. And how could one in that state ever overcome addiction and/or depression? My friends, I say to you that when you see this type of hate posted here about me, or anyone else, tell them to (redacted by respondent) where the sun don't shine.
> LouFriends,
The statement about me here is allowed to be posted in other types by the other posters in this thread. Notice that in reading the statement, there are presumptions about me. And when presumptions written about another can induce others as seeing me , as in this case here, as someone that is harming others or as an enemy, that is a very special type of hate. And for it to be allowed here by Mr Hsiung and his deputy could lead you to think that it is supportive, for support takes precedence according to Mr Hsiung. And one could think that it will be good for this community as a whole for this type of hate to stand here, for Mr Hsiung states that one match could cause a forest fire so that he does not wait.
Look at the other posts in this thread. Now we have a group. My friends, psychologists write about group hate and how the members of the group get a (false) sense of superiority which can give them a distorted mind-set to think that they can ridicule or bully others or even commit mass-murder. Look at the common thread that is woven in this thread about me. Is that not what can open the door to persuasion and indoctrination? Is that what you want to be involved in and swept into the sewer of hate? I say to you that if you want to be healed, the darkness of hate can keep you from finding the path to healing
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 3, 2013, at 1:33:13
In reply to Re: please be civil » baseball55, posted by Toph on May 2, 2013, at 11:13:03
Hi, everyone,
You can help this site run smoothly by notifying me of issues you see on the boards. Please don't do that in posts, however; posting that others are annoying, hurtful, self-centered, etc., can lead them to feel accused. Instead, use the "notify administrators" buttons below the posts:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#help
This applies even to those who have difficulty understanding how, or why, it applies to them. I feel this guideline is benign and helpful. It's reasonable and fair to apply it to everyone equally.
Lately, I've been trying to separate the sides in conflicts. If two sides are too far apart, giving them separate threads may lessen conflict between them without invalidating either of them:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1042870.html
I support efforts to protect and reassure other posters. Lou may express what they think and fear. What would reassure posters who feel frightened? Blocking Lou?
Some posters may not want to hear what Lou has to say, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's uncivil. Some posters may be extremely limited in their ability to be empathic with him. Instead, they may obsess and perseverate about their agendas and perceived harms.
I don't think I underestimate the intelligence and deliberative capacities of posters. I start with the assumption that they, especially with the help of others, can decide what information to trust and what information to ignore:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#trust
Which side is more capable of changing? Maybe it's an inevitable dialectic.
Bob
--
> However, Lou has made even more frequent comments which many in the community find personally harmful and even threatening
>
> Twinleaf> I agree with Twinleaf. I don't understand why your discouragement of exaggerations and overgeneralizations have not applied to Lou Pilder over the last few years. In addition, I feel that he is badgering other posters, especially when those posters ask him to desist.
>
> - Scott> I think many here interact with him not because they're interested in what he says, but because they're trying to protect others here, and especially newcomers, who may be upset and possibly driven away by his unrealistic but frightening comments. I myself have done this, because it's not fair to those who are unaware of his actions and history.
>
> Also to leave his voice unopposed seems wrong and disloyal to oneself and others who struggle with depression and go through difficult times, when what sometimes feel more like threats, than helpful warnings, may accord with someone's own thoughts or fears.
>
> Willful> I think the basic message he brings is great, and sometimes its difficult to get the message across that he brings to this site because no one wants to hear the very bad things about a pill they swallow every day.
>
> We all have flaws in how we go about doing things, but its wouldn't be good if everyone around you pointed them out to you at every single chance. Just turn the other cheek.
>
> poser938> Perhaps you underestimate the intelligence and deliberative capacities of the people who choose to take these pills.
>
> - Scott> He seems to be relying more and more on the community to manage its own problems. Yet I think it is especially difficult when someone is paranoid or narcisistic because they are extremely limited in their ability to be empathic or have a shared dialogue with another person. Instead, they obsess and perseverate about their agenda and percieved harms. It's both frustrating and sad how impaired socially these individuals can be.
>
> Toph> I would very much like to see minimal civility requirements applied, even to those who might have difficulty understanding how, or why, they apply to them. I feel that the present civility rules are benign and helpful. It would be reasonable and fair to apply them to everyone equally, and might have a beneficial effect that we will not know about. In their current form, they are simply normal social expectations and could be helpful to people who may have become extremely isolated.They certainly won't hurt anyone.
>
> Twinleaf> Without the administration drawing the line, as you put it, participants are left with just ignoring these individuals, I'm afraid. Pointing out how annoying, hurtful and self-centered they are sure hasn't helped.
>
> Toph> People who are not familiar with the authors of such posts don't know to ignore them.
>
> - Scott> All I know is I gave up thinking this poster is capable of changing a long time ago.
>
> Toph
Posted by SLS on May 3, 2013, at 8:43:43
In reply to Re: changing, posted by Dr. Bob on May 3, 2013, at 1:33:13
Hi Doctor.
I appreciate the time and effort it took for you to consider and opine on these issues and compose your post.
Thanks.
- Scott
Posted by Twinleaf on May 3, 2013, at 9:10:13
In reply to Re: changing, posted by Dr. Bob on May 3, 2013, at 1:33:13
Unfortunately, this suggestion does not address the problem which is concerning many of us: the inequitable application of "please be civil" warnings. Burying all complaints in private administrative messages allows even freer rein to the uncivil behavior which is disturbing so many people here in the first place.
Posted by Toph on May 3, 2013, at 10:13:27
In reply to Re: changing, posted by Dr. Bob on May 3, 2013, at 1:33:13
When you list my posts like this it makes me feel a little like a bully. Then I think of the posters who this individual has upset over the years and I fell less so.
Posted by SLS on May 3, 2013, at 16:02:48
In reply to Re: changing, posted by Dr. Bob on May 3, 2013, at 1:33:13
> What would reassure posters who feel frightened? Blocking Lou?
Yes, of course.
Whether or not Lou scares people is not a criterion for his being blocked. However, he could be blocked for overtly and repeatedly violating your FAQ rules of civility. Change? It may be that Lou would change his uncivil posting behaviors rather than be blocked interminably for exaggerating, overgeneralizing, and implying that the posts of others are antisemitic. As always, you can begin this process of change by first issuing PBCs.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on May 3, 2013, at 18:38:54
In reply to Re: changing » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on May 3, 2013, at 10:13:27
If you are considering being a discussant in this thread, I am requesting that you read the following:
To see this post, go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in:
[admin,1035095]
Very nice.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on May 3, 2013, at 18:44:15
In reply to Re: changing, posted by SLS on May 3, 2013, at 18:38:54
> If you are considering being a discussant in this thread, I am requesting that you read the following:
>
> To see this post, go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in:
>
> [admin,1035095]
>
> Very nice.
Best to start at the beginning of the thread...
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 3, 2013, at 23:45:03
In reply to Scott's response - justdoit » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on May 3, 2013, at 16:02:48
> Unfortunately, this suggestion does not address the problem which is concerning many of us: the inequitable application of "please be civil" warnings. Burying all complaints in private administrative messages allows even freer rein to the uncivil behavior which is disturbing so many people here in the first place.
>
> TwinleafThe guidelines here apply even to those who have difficulty understanding how, or why, they apply to them. Some posters may obsess and perseverate about their agendas and perceived harms.
--
> When you list my posts like this it makes me feel a little like a bully. Then I think of the posters who this individual has upset over the years and I fell less so.
>
> TophThank you for sharing that. You felt less like a bully, or more justified in bullying?
Those who see others being bullied, or are bullied themselves, can start to feel justified in bullying others. If you felt more justified in bullying, you may have experienced firsthand how that can happen. And you may now be able to feel more empathy for bullies.
Not that empathy is the answer to everything.
--
> > Lou may express what they think and fear. What would reassure posters who feel frightened? Blocking Lou?
>
> Yes, of course.Maybe. But if I were frightened of medication, I don't think blocking someone who expressed fear of medication would reassure me.
> Whether or not Lou scares people is not a criterion for his being blocked. However, he could be blocked for overtly and repeatedly violating your FAQ rules of civility.
You can help this site run smoothly by notifying me of issues you see on the boards. Use the "notify administrators" buttons below the posts:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#help
> Change? It may be that Lou would change his uncivil posting behaviors rather than be blocked interminably ... As always, you can begin this process of change by first issuing PBCs.
>
> - ScottIn fact, I've issued more than one PBC to Lou, and IMO his posting behavior has changed. Which side is more capable of changing?
--
I sense a theme of powerlessness. Some posters may feel powerless to change how Lou behaves. Some posters may feel powerless to change how I behave. I may feel powerless to change how some posters behave. All of us may feel powerless against mental illness.
Bob
Posted by SLS on May 4, 2013, at 2:12:15
In reply to Re: feeling powerless, posted by Dr. Bob on May 3, 2013, at 23:45:03
> I sense a theme of powerlessness.
Okay.
> Some posters may feel powerless to change how Lou behaves.
I care more how you might feel powerless to change how Lou Pilder behaves. He is quite clever, you know. You see, the real sense of powerlessness evolves as it is perceived that you actually empower Lou Pilder by not sanctioning him as you have done so to others in the past for the same behavior. If I were to say the things that he says, I can't imagine that you would allow me to continue posting here freely.
You say that Lou Pilder's behavior has changed as a result of your interactions with him. Perhaps I haven't noticed these changes in his most recent posts because I have largely ignored them, unless I become concerned that the disinformation he promulgates might be too persuasive if left unchallenged. I understand that it is not my job to challenge him. However, I sometimes feel that it is my duty to. After all, following his advice will lead to death.
I will try to be more observant of Lou Pilder's posts as they change over time as the result of your interactions with him on the board. It is true that I haven't seen benzene mentioned this past week. This is good because benzene is healthy for us. Compounds containing benzene rings keep our food safe to eat. Even aspirin is made using benzene. Our neurotransmitters contain benzene rings, as do several of the amino acids we must eat to stay alive. You see, we actually eat benzene. God gave us benzene so that we may remain alive outside of the Garden.
Please disregard the previous paragraph. I have decided not to endorse its contents, as its wording might be misinterpreted and lead to unhealthy beliefs. Do not ingest benzene. You may, of course, continue to consume the amino acids, tryptophan, tyrosine, and phenylalanine, so that you may remain alive, even though they contain benzene rings. In addition, you may continue to use your monoamine neurotransmitters to think about how silly this all is, despite the fact that benzene rings are integral to their chemical structure.
Do not consume benzene.
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on May 4, 2013, at 12:14:04
In reply to Re: feeling powerless, posted by Dr. Bob on May 3, 2013, at 23:45:03
I hate to suggest a new board, but perhaps the medication board could be left for those posts involving searching into the possibilities medications offer into a general treatment plan, while recognizing and discussing negative side effects.
With another board for posts about quitting medications entirely, the evils of medications, the poisonous ingredients in medications, and the possibilities of medications leading to violence and murder (whether or not it directed towards an identified group of persons).
That, along with perhaps a bit of administrating along already existing rules on accusing others, would probably solve the current problem.
So that the current board could still be used to discuss negative experiences with medications, in the context of the conversation, but with the idea that medication is still considered an alternative.
It would sort of be like keeping the faith board for those who aren't anti-faith, while still allowing for the anger and confusion of those who are legitimately exploring faith as a possibility in their lives.
After all, wasn't that why you originally established the medication board? To allow those who were seeking answers about medications from others using those medications a place to do so? At a time when doctors were still denying that SSRI's caused sexual dysfunction?
I think that function may be compromised by the large number of posts that are anti medication, and that aren't really written by users of psychiatric medications or those who are seeking information with the idea of using them in the future.
Yet, this would also be in keeping with your newest philosophy on board management. It would be the separation of two philosophical viewpoints so that each could discuss it freely.
Posted by Twinleaf on May 4, 2013, at 12:38:01
In reply to Re: feeling powerless, posted by Dr. Bob on May 3, 2013, at 23:45:03
I didn't realize that you had given pbcs to Lou in the past, and that you felt they had helped him . Why aren't you continuing something which has had a constructive effect? I would much prefer seeing pbc's having a constructive effect, and would not like to see Lou blocked. However, a short block of a week is not unduly punitive if the pbc's do not improve posting behavior which many other members of the board find harmful. It is actually far more destructive than the "uncivil" behavior which has resulted in pbc's and blocks in the past. I don't think there is anything in your guidelines which covers posting behavior of this kind .
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 5, 2013, at 2:19:36
In reply to Re: feeling empowered.... » Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on May 4, 2013, at 12:38:01
> > Some posters may feel powerless to change how Lou behaves.
>
> I care more how you might feel powerless to change how Lou Pilder behaves. He is quite clever, you know. You see, the real sense of powerlessness evolves as it is perceived that you actually empower Lou Pilder by not sanctioning him as you have done so to others in the past for the same behavior.
>
> - ScottI wonder if seeing me as empowering Lou might be connected with feeling powerless to change how I behave.
--
> I didn't realize that you had given pbcs to Lou in the past, and that you felt they had helped him . Why aren't you continuing something which has had a constructive effect? I would much prefer seeing pbc's having a constructive effect, and would not like to see Lou blocked. However, a short block of a week is not unduly punitive if the pbc's do not improve posting behavior which many other members of the board find harmful. It is actually far more destructive than the "uncivil" behavior which has resulted in pbc's and blocks in the past.
>
> TwinleafBe careful what you wish for:
> You have the power to pick your battles.
>
> Battling Dr. Bob on PB Admin? Generally results in frustration and effects on policy ranging from
> - none
> - the exact opposite of what you intended to accomplish
> - some other seemingly random policy change that isn't what you wanted.
>
> Choose wisely!http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090302/msgs/893534.html
Bob
Posted by SLS on May 5, 2013, at 5:13:04
In reply to Re: feeling empowered, posted by Dr. Bob on May 5, 2013, at 2:19:36
> I wonder if seeing me as empowering Lou might be connected with feeling powerless to change how I behave.
Of course it does. This is the crux of the behavioral dynamic that produces the frustration and sense of powerlessness many of us feel here. It appears to me that you have established new precedents and policies for determining what is permissible posting behavior. They seem to be different from those you instituted in the past. You have accomplished this tacitly through inaction. I think it unlikely that you would reverse these changes at this juncture. They are simply too new. You must feel strongly that they are healthy and desirable.
Can you please define or give examples of the following terms used on this website's FAQ page to determine civility? This would help me - and perhaps others - better understand your inaction in allowing posts that many of us feel are uncivil as they relate to these terms.
1. Exaggerate
2. Overgeneralize
3. Etc.http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Thanks.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 5, 2013, at 6:30:16
In reply to Re: changing, posted by Dr. Bob on May 3, 2013, at 1:33:13
> Hi, everyone,
>
> You can help this site run smoothly by notifying me of issues you see on the boards. Please don't do that in posts, however; posting that others are annoying, hurtful, self-centered, etc., can lead them to feel accused. Instead, use the "notify administrators" buttons below the posts:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#help
>
> This applies even to those who have difficulty understanding how, or why, it applies to them. I feel this guideline is benign and helpful. It's reasonable and fair to apply it to everyone equally.
>
> Lately, I've been trying to separate the sides in conflicts. If two sides are too far apart, giving them separate threads may lessen conflict between them without invalidating either of them:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1042870.html
>
> I support efforts to protect and reassure other posters. Lou may express what they think and fear. What would reassure posters who feel frightened? Blocking Lou?
>
> Some posters may not want to hear what Lou has to say, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's uncivil. Some posters may be extremely limited in their ability to be empathic with him. Instead, they may obsess and perseverate about their agendas and perceived harms.
>
> I don't think I underestimate the intelligence and deliberative capacities of posters. I start with the assumption that they, especially with the help of others, can decide what information to trust and what information to ignore:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#trust
>
> Which side is more capable of changing? Maybe it's an inevitable dialectic.
>
> Bob
>
> --
>
> > However, Lou has made even more frequent comments which many in the community find personally harmful and even threatening
> >
> > Twinleaf
>
> > I agree with Twinleaf. I don't understand why your discouragement of exaggerations and overgeneralizations have not applied to Lou Pilder over the last few years. In addition, I feel that he is badgering other posters, especially when those posters ask him to desist.
> >
> > - Scott
>
> > I think many here interact with him not because they're interested in what he says, but because they're trying to protect others here, and especially newcomers, who may be upset and possibly driven away by his unrealistic but frightening comments. I myself have done this, because it's not fair to those who are unaware of his actions and history.
> >
> > Also to leave his voice unopposed seems wrong and disloyal to oneself and others who struggle with depression and go through difficult times, when what sometimes feel more like threats, than helpful warnings, may accord with someone's own thoughts or fears.
> >
> > Willful
>
> > I think the basic message he brings is great, and sometimes its difficult to get the message across that he brings to this site because no one wants to hear the very bad things about a pill they swallow every day.
> >
> > We all have flaws in how we go about doing things, but its wouldn't be good if everyone around you pointed them out to you at every single chance. Just turn the other cheek.
> >
> > poser938
>
> > Perhaps you underestimate the intelligence and deliberative capacities of the people who choose to take these pills.
> >
> > - Scott
>
> > He seems to be relying more and more on the community to manage its own problems. Yet I think it is especially difficult when someone is paranoid or narcisistic because they are extremely limited in their ability to be empathic or have a shared dialogue with another person. Instead, they obsess and perseverate about their agenda and percieved harms. It's both frustrating and sad how impaired socially these individuals can be.
> >
> > Toph
>
> > I would very much like to see minimal civility requirements applied, even to those who might have difficulty understanding how, or why, they apply to them. I feel that the present civility rules are benign and helpful. It would be reasonable and fair to apply them to everyone equally, and might have a beneficial effect that we will not know about. In their current form, they are simply normal social expectations and could be helpful to people who may have become extremely isolated.They certainly won't hurt anyone.
> >
> > Twinleaf
>
> > Without the administration drawing the line, as you put it, participants are left with just ignoring these individuals, I'm afraid. Pointing out how annoying, hurtful and self-centered they are sure hasn't helped.
> >
> > Toph
>
> > People who are not familiar with the authors of such posts don't know to ignore them.
> >
> > - Scott
>
> > All I know is I gave up thinking this poster is capable of changing a long time ago.
> >
> > TophMr Hsiung,
You wrote to advocate to members,[...notifying me of issues you see on the boards...].
I would like for you to post here answers to the following so that parents trying to make a more-informed decision as to give any credibility to what is plainly visible here as to if it is or is not going to be good for their child to be drugged in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor or not. If you could post answers to the following here, then I could respond to you and try to save lives, prevent life-ruining conditions and addictions, and prevent hate from being promulgated here.True or false.
A. Members using the notification feature to me will have their concerns about what is in the post addressed before I address the years of outstanding notifications from you, Lou.
B. Members using the notification feature to me will have their concerns addressed by me after I address the years of outstanding notifications from you, Lou.
C. There are two standards here, Lou. The notifications from you will be treated differently than notifications from other members.
D. Any stigmatization to you because there are years of outstanding notifications from you, Lou, could happen and I will now address all of your outstanding notifications so that any stigmatization of you could be removed.
E. By me leaving your notifications to me outstanding, I can control the content and any notifications involving statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings could then have the potential to infuse hatred toward the Jews because support takes precedence and those type of statements that are allowed to stand could be thought by some to be supportive.
F. It will be good for this community as a whole to leave your notifications outstanding, Lou, because any of those outstanding notifications that defame you and cause the flame of hate, could be left to be allowed to still burn.
G. I am going to leave your notifications outstanding, Lou, including any that could lead someone to their death because some could think that what is in question is supportive because it is not addressed.
H. I am going to continue to allow others here to post false accusations about you, so using the notification feature will be of no avail to you to have me stop what my own rules state is not allowed to be posted about someone here.
K. I will continue to allow others here to post what is called [manufacturing a falsehood} toward you, even though tactics like that could put you in a false light and create a {hate-group} of members here that could inflict emotional distress in you.
L. redacted by respondent
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 5, 2013, at 7:13:18
In reply to Lou's request-heytgrewp » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on May 5, 2013, at 6:30:16
> > Hi, everyone,
> >
> > You can help this site run smoothly by notifying me of issues you see on the boards. Please don't do that in posts, however; posting that others are annoying, hurtful, self-centered, etc., can lead them to feel accused. Instead, use the "notify administrators" buttons below the posts:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#help
> >
> > This applies even to those who have difficulty understanding how, or why, it applies to them. I feel this guideline is benign and helpful. It's reasonable and fair to apply it to everyone equally.
> >
> > Lately, I've been trying to separate the sides in conflicts. If two sides are too far apart, giving them separate threads may lessen conflict between them without invalidating either of them:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1042870.html
> >
> > I support efforts to protect and reassure other posters. Lou may express what they think and fear. What would reassure posters who feel frightened? Blocking Lou?
> >
> > Some posters may not want to hear what Lou has to say, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's uncivil. Some posters may be extremely limited in their ability to be empathic with him. Instead, they may obsess and perseverate about their agendas and perceived harms.
> >
> > I don't think I underestimate the intelligence and deliberative capacities of posters. I start with the assumption that they, especially with the help of others, can decide what information to trust and what information to ignore:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#trust
> >
> > Which side is more capable of changing? Maybe it's an inevitable dialectic.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > --
> >
> > > However, Lou has made even more frequent comments which many in the community find personally harmful and even threatening
> > >
> > > Twinleaf
> >
> > > I agree with Twinleaf. I don't understand why your discouragement of exaggerations and overgeneralizations have not applied to Lou Pilder over the last few years. In addition, I feel that he is badgering other posters, especially when those posters ask him to desist.
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> > > I think many here interact with him not because they're interested in what he says, but because they're trying to protect others here, and especially newcomers, who may be upset and possibly driven away by his unrealistic but frightening comments. I myself have done this, because it's not fair to those who are unaware of his actions and history.
> > >
> > > Also to leave his voice unopposed seems wrong and disloyal to oneself and others who struggle with depression and go through difficult times, when what sometimes feel more like threats, than helpful warnings, may accord with someone's own thoughts or fears.
> > >
> > > Willful
> >
> > > I think the basic message he brings is great, and sometimes its difficult to get the message across that he brings to this site because no one wants to hear the very bad things about a pill they swallow every day.
> > >
> > > We all have flaws in how we go about doing things, but its wouldn't be good if everyone around you pointed them out to you at every single chance. Just turn the other cheek.
> > >
> > > poser938
> >
> > > Perhaps you underestimate the intelligence and deliberative capacities of the people who choose to take these pills.
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> > > He seems to be relying more and more on the community to manage its own problems. Yet I think it is especially difficult when someone is paranoid or narcisistic because they are extremely limited in their ability to be empathic or have a shared dialogue with another person. Instead, they obsess and perseverate about their agenda and percieved harms. It's both frustrating and sad how impaired socially these individuals can be.
> > >
> > > Toph
> >
> > > I would very much like to see minimal civility requirements applied, even to those who might have difficulty understanding how, or why, they apply to them. I feel that the present civility rules are benign and helpful. It would be reasonable and fair to apply them to everyone equally, and might have a beneficial effect that we will not know about. In their current form, they are simply normal social expectations and could be helpful to people who may have become extremely isolated.They certainly won't hurt anyone.
> > >
> > > Twinleaf
> >
> > > Without the administration drawing the line, as you put it, participants are left with just ignoring these individuals, I'm afraid. Pointing out how annoying, hurtful and self-centered they are sure hasn't helped.
> > >
> > > Toph
> >
> > > People who are not familiar with the authors of such posts don't know to ignore them.
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> > > All I know is I gave up thinking this poster is capable of changing a long time ago.
> > >
> > > Toph
>
> Mr Hsiung,
> You wrote to advocate to members,[...notifying me of issues you see on the boards...].
> I would like for you to post here answers to the following so that parents trying to make a more-informed decision as to give any credibility to what is plainly visible here as to if it is or is not going to be good for their child to be drugged in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor or not. If you could post answers to the following here, then I could respond to you and try to save lives, prevent life-ruining conditions and addictions, and prevent hate from being promulgated here.
>
> True or false.
> A. Members using the notification feature to me will have their concerns about what is in the post addressed before I address the years of outstanding notifications from you, Lou.
> B. Members using the notification feature to me will have their concerns addressed by me after I address the years of outstanding notifications from you, Lou.
> C. There are two standards here, Lou. The notifications from you will be treated differently than notifications from other members.
> D. Any stigmatization to you because there are years of outstanding notifications from you, Lou, could happen and I will now address all of your outstanding notifications so that any stigmatization of you could be removed.
> E. By me leaving your notifications to me outstanding, I can control the content and any notifications involving statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings could then have the potential to infuse hatred toward the Jews because support takes precedence and those type of statements that are allowed to stand could be thought by some to be supportive.
> F. It will be good for this community as a whole to leave your notifications outstanding, Lou, because any of those outstanding notifications that defame you and cause the flame of hate, could be left to be allowed to still burn.
> G. I am going to leave your notifications outstanding, Lou, including any that could lead someone to their death because some could think that what is in question is supportive because it is not addressed.
> H. I am going to continue to allow others here to post false accusations about you, so using the notification feature will be of no avail to you to have me stop what my own rules state is not allowed to be posted about someone here.
> K. I will continue to allow others here to post what is called [manufacturing a falsehood} toward you, even though tactics like that could put you in a false light and create a {hate-group} of members here that could inflict emotional distress in you.
> L. redacted by respondent
> Lou PilderFriends,
If you are interested in being a discussant in this thread, I am requesting that you read he following. The paper is about how hate-groups are established in a community. I tis from notable psychologists and goes over how propaganda a and prejudice is fostered in a group. It goes on about how hate I learned.
I am trying to stop hate from being promulgated here in particular toward Jews but not limited to them. When hate is allowed to stand, others could think that the hate is {state-sponsored} and will b good for the community as a whole. And when hate is allowed, suicide and murder, even mass-murder can abound.
Lou
http://www2.webster.edu/~woolflm/HateDummies.pdf
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 5, 2013, at 9:16:06
In reply to I respectfully agree with Twinlead and SLS » SLS, posted by Willful on April 30, 2013, at 22:33:39
> I commend Twinlead and SLS for the responses they've given re Lou's not seeming to be subject to the same civility rules as everyone else.
>
> He does badger posters repeatedly, with disturbing warnings about dire consequences if they follow their prescribed treatment, and even after being politely asked to stop, he continues the harassment.
>
> I think many here interact with him not because they're interested in what he says, but because they're trying to protect others here, and especially newcomers, who may be upset and possibly driven away by his unrealistic but frightening comments. I myself have done this, because it's not fair to those who are unaware of his actions and history.
>
> Also to leave his voice unopposed seems wrong and disloyal to oneself and others who struggle with depression and go through difficult times, when what sometimes feel more like threats, than helpful warnings, may accord with someone's own thoughts or fears.
>
> I would hope that you can reconsider your view of the civility of his actions here.
>
> And I also hope that those who affirm this view will not be sanctioned as a result.
>
> WillfulFriends,
I am requesting that you take heed that no member deceives you. The falsehood that is manufactured here about me concerning the false accusation that I am badgering, is allowed to stand by the owner here so that readers could think that it is supportive. That I am supposed to stop posting concerning the aspect of that these drugs could cause death, suicide, murder and addictions and life-ruining conditions is false and a great lie about me. I was not posting {to the poster} but {responding to what the poster posted}. That is plainly visible in my subject line as a response to what is posted which all have the freedom to do here.
Now this post falsely accusing me could put a false light on me when no false light is deserved. If you are a parent trying to have more information as to drug you child with the collaboration of a psychiatrist/doctor, and you are swayed by the fact that statements that deride me, accuse me falsely, put me in a false light, defame me, then I say to you to read the other posts here that defame Jews and arouse anti-Semitic feelings and members crying out to have me blocked, which is all being allowed here. What does that tell you? Do you want hate to sway you into drugging your child?
Lou
Posted by Twinleaf on May 5, 2013, at 10:29:52
In reply to Re: feeling empowered, posted by Dr. Bob on May 5, 2013, at 2:19:36
I feel threatened by the response, "be careful what you wish for", and also by your describing my posts as "battles" . I have only said, very respectfully, that I would like to see pbc's given to Lou in the same way they are given to others. I have been especially careful to let you know that I support and appreciate how you are running the boards; whenever I have expressed my hopes concerning Lou, I have done so in this context - appreciative, respectful, courteous. I would hope we could have a difference of opinion on this issue without it being framed as a "battle" which apparently requires a threat directed towards me.
Posted by SLS on May 5, 2013, at 12:04:27
In reply to Lou's request-hetwilswey, posted by Lou Pilder on May 5, 2013, at 9:16:06
> I am requesting that you take heed that no member deceives you. The falsehood that is manufactured here about me
I think that you persistently publish falsehoods regarding the practice of psychiaty. You are presented with citations that disprove your contentions, but you never address them. So let's not accuse others of the manufacture of falsehoods. In my estimation, you do this far more often than any other poster.
> concerning the false accusation that I am badgering
* Badger: to harass or urge persistently; pester; nag
- www.dictionary.com> is allowed to stand by the owner here so that readers could think that it is supportive.
Your incessant posting of falsehoods along a thread despite the requests of its initiator that you desist is just one example of your badgering. I don't think there is a rule that explicitly uses the word "badgering". However the FAQ suggests that to "harass or pressure others" is uncivil.
* Harass: Synonyms
1. badger
- www.dictionary.com> That I am supposed to stop posting concerning the aspect of that these drugs could cause death
Almost any drug will cause death if not managed properly. Here, you exaggerate and overgeneralize. It is true that drugs in general can cause death. However, you always imply that psychiatric drugs are unique in this regard. They are not.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16294364
> suicide, murder and addictions and life-ruining conditions is false and a great lie about me.
I don't like to repeatedly invest the time and energy to contest your same litany of disinformation, exaggerations, and overgeneralizations. Historically, others have contested your assertions without your engaging them in a dialogue. You do not debate. You simply badger the entire forum
At this point, I feel that it is the responsibility of the moderator to enforce his own rules of posting conduct as described in the website FAQ page. I am less desirous of participating here today than I was yesterday. This saddens me.
> Now this post falsely accusing me
Accuses you of what?
> If you are a parent trying to have more information as to drug you child with the collaboration of a psychiatrist/doctor, and you are swayed by the fact that statements that deride me, accuse me falsely, put me in a false light, defame me, then I say to you to read the other posts here that defame Jews and arouse anti-Semitic feelings and members crying out to have me blocked, which is all being allowed here. What does that tell you? Do you want hate to sway you into drugging your child?
In the preceding paragraph, you manage to exaggerate, overgeneralize, accuse, and put down an entire forum of people. Let's see if the administration engages in moderation by issuing a PBC to you and/or me.
This whole thing sickens me.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 5, 2013, at 14:32:00
In reply to Moderation. » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on May 5, 2013, at 12:04:27
> > I am requesting that you take heed that no member deceives you. The falsehood that is manufactured here about me
>
> I think that you persistently publish falsehoods regarding the practice of psychiaty. You are presented with citations that disprove your contentions, but you never address them. So let's not accuse others of the manufacture of falsehoods. In my estimation, you do this far more often than any other poster.
>
> > concerning the false accusation that I am badgering
>
> * Badger: to harass or urge persistently; pester; nag
> - www.dictionary.com
>
> > is allowed to stand by the owner here so that readers could think that it is supportive.
>
> Your incessant posting of falsehoods along a thread despite the requests of its initiator that you desist is just one example of your badgering. I don't think there is a rule that explicitly uses the word "badgering". However the FAQ suggests that to "harass or pressure others" is uncivil.
>
> * Harass: Synonyms
> 1. badger
> - www.dictionary.com
>
> > That I am supposed to stop posting concerning the aspect of that these drugs could cause death
>
> Almost any drug will cause death if not managed properly. Here, you exaggerate and overgeneralize. It is true that drugs in general can cause death. However, you always imply that psychiatric drugs are unique in this regard. They are not.
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16294364
>
> > suicide, murder and addictions and life-ruining conditions is false and a great lie about me.
>
> I don't like to repeatedly invest the time and energy to contest your same litany of disinformation, exaggerations, and overgeneralizations. Historically, others have contested your assertions without your engaging them in a dialogue. You do not debate. You simply badger the entire forum
>
> At this point, I feel that it is the responsibility of the moderator to enforce his own rules of posting conduct as described in the website FAQ page. I am less desirous of participating here today than I was yesterday. This saddens me.
>
> > Now this post falsely accusing me
>
> Accuses you of what?
>
> > If you are a parent trying to have more information as to drug you child with the collaboration of a psychiatrist/doctor, and you are swayed by the fact that statements that deride me, accuse me falsely, put me in a false light, defame me, then I say to you to read the other posts here that defame Jews and arouse anti-Semitic feelings and members crying out to have me blocked, which is all being allowed here. What does that tell you? Do you want hate to sway you into drugging your child?
>
> In the preceding paragraph, you manage to exaggerate, overgeneralize, accuse, and put down an entire forum of people. Let's see if the administration engages in moderation by issuing a PBC to you and/or me.
>
> This whole thing sickens me.
>
>
> - ScottFriends,
Let no poster deceive you. Many will come here saying that I am against psychiatry and drugs. I am not against psychiatry and/or drugs. I am against death. It is one thing to have to take a drug or die because you do not take a medicine. But it is another thing to tell people that they have to take mind-altering drugs or they will kill themselves when it is now well-known that those same drugs can INCREASE SUICIDAL/HOMOCIDAL THINKING. It is one thing to take a drug for a few days or weeks to cure a disease that could kill you, like pneumonia, and it is another thing to take a drug for years even when there is the accepted aspect that the drug could cause you to be addicted to it, or have cardiac arrest or diabetes or liver failure, kidney failure or receive a life-long misery of hideous disfigurement from tardive dyskinesia/dystonia. It is one thing to have to take a drug make up for a lack of thyroid, but it is another thing to take a drug where people are falsely led to believe that they have a lack of fluoride in their brain and that they need to take the drug to correct a "chemical imbalance", a theory that is illegal in Ireland to use by the drug manufacturers and a theory that has been proven to be false, over and over, by medical science. Yet today, people here can tell others to take a chemical that has its origin in an era that I am prohibited by Mr Hsiung to post educational material that I think could open your eyes and save your life. And it has been revealed to me a Great Deception contained in the scriptures that if I was not prohibited to post it by Mr Hsiung, lives could be saved, the deception would be uncovered and that could open the Gate to life of abundance and peace.
Friends, be not deceived. For there will be response upon responses posted here that all members have a freedom to do. My responses to what is posted here is not disinformation, nor are my responses exaggerating or overgeneralizing. In fact, they are sometimes undergeneralizing because in the generally accepted number of deaths last year from psychiatric drugging of 42,000, that number could be 100 times more than that for the 42000 are the generally accepted reported number and there could be 100 times that unreported.
My friends, this forum is for support and education. You can not have true education without academic freedom. And Mr Hsiung as prof knows full-well that he is protected by law to have academic freedom and freedom of speech. Universities could not carry out their mission without academic freedom. And academic freedom can not be taken away because someone doesn't like what you say. That, if it happens, is (redacted by respondent) that was put away many years ago and I would not like its ugly head to rise out of its grave here. Now I am willing to wager that Mr Hsiung could well be a psychiatrist that does not accept the "chemical imbalance" theory. Just that he has a forum for what he calls medications, he could also know that there are psychiatrists that do not go along with the party line like Dr. Peter Breggin.
Friends, responding to posts here is not badgering. If it was, no one could post their responses, there could not be different points of view to be encouraged as the TOS states here. My point of view, if trampled on, IMHHHO could lead to the deaths of many here, for if you look at the reported deaths of members here that were attributed to the drugs, do you not think that there are many more that are not reported and that I know a lot outside of this forum? How many people that read here that they saw the anti-Semitic statements being allowed to stand here over my years of objections, go out and kill because they saw it on "Dr.Bobs"? You may think that it is far-fetched, but now there is a growing body of evidence that those that take mind-altering drugs in collaboration with a psychiatrist and believe that hate is supportive, can and do go out and kill themselves and/or others because the hate that they see as supportive, can be transferred to others and themselves to even kill their own mother and innocent children.
Posted by SLS on May 5, 2013, at 16:05:59
In reply to Lou's reponse-, posted by Lou Pilder on May 5, 2013, at 14:32:00
Saying the same thing over and over again will not make it true. In this website's archives, you will find that people have already debunked your statistics and their source. They have also offered a more balanced perspective than your exaggerated descriptions of death, suicide, and homicide as they relate to mental illness and its treatment and non-treatment. Numerous citations have been presented to support these alternative views and explanations. It does not matter how many times people have challenged you and educated the readers, you continue to post the same unaltered disinformation.
I have no desire to refute your writings here. I've already done so over and over again. I will let the moderator allow you to continue posting your previously disallowed exaggerations, overgeneralizations, and accusations as he currently does so over and over again.
It is too bad that you actually believe the disinformation that you perpetrate here. Only you know the extent to which you make statements that you know to be untrue.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
I'm getting tired of posting this link over and over again. I shouldn't have to.
- Scott
Posted by Twinleaf on May 5, 2013, at 16:35:16
In reply to Over and over again. » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on May 5, 2013, at 16:05:59
I respectfully but strongly support Scott. He has given extremely accurate summaries of why Lou's posts are harmful - especially to new, inexperienced posters. He should not have to do this over and over again.
We all understand that we are dealing with a serious situation which appears to be marked by inflexibility and perseveration, and where choosing new behaviors involving more responsiveness to others' views may not be a real possibility. All the more reason why we really need a moderator who will use his powers fairly and consistently so that all members of the forum have as good an experience here as possible.
Posted by Lou PIlder on May 5, 2013, at 21:50:32
In reply to Re: Over and over again. » SLS, posted by Twinleaf on May 5, 2013, at 16:35:16
> I respectfully but strongly support Scott. He has given extremely accurate summaries of why Lou's posts are harmful - especially to new, inexperienced posters. He should not have to do this over and over again.
>
> We all understand that we are dealing with a serious situation which appears to be marked by inflexibility and perseveration, and where choosing new behaviors involving more responsiveness to others' views may not be a real possibility. All the more reason why we really need a moderator who will use his powers fairly and consistently so that all members of the forum have as good an experience here as possible.Friends,
You can read here that this poster goes along with Scott that my posts are harmful and Scott says that what I have posted is disinformation.
Here is one video that I posted and I have never seen anyone here or outside of here that wrote anything to disprove what is in the video. In fact, what is stated in the video is accepted in many scientific circles and used in court cases. If anyone want to "debunk" anything that is in this video, I could have the opportunity to respond. This is my warning to those that are influenced by wha is posted here about me to discount what am writing about, that what you see in this video has not been debunked at all so it could mark the difference between you being a live person or a corpse as to what you want to discount or not by the nature of Scott's post to me here.
Lou
Here is the link and then there is the video in the link.
http://www.encognitive.com/node/886
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.