![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 67 to 91 of 179. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on May 7, 2013, at 22:16:12
In reply to Re: feeling powerless » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on May 7, 2013, at 16:25:23
I totally understand your frustration, and sympathize.
I'm just looking for a way to solve the problem in whatever way is remotely possible with as little damage as possible.
BTW, I totally agree that the right medications save lives - and also make lives worth living. And I think any risk to patients can be offset with a decent psychiatrist keeping an eye on possible bad reactions.
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 8, 2013, at 5:48:27
In reply to Re: feeling powerless » Toph, posted by Dinah on May 7, 2013, at 22:16:12
Friends,
If you are a parent and attempting to decide as to drug your child or yourself or a loved one in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor, and you are following this discussion, be advised that now {anecdotal} is posted here. Some forums do not allow anecdotal, and I lean to that as being supportive. I base this on what are known as fallacies of logic and propaganda tactics used to persuade people such as {testimonial}. These type of tactics usually are used in conjunction with repression to other's speech so that a persuasion of falsity could be the result, and influence people to do something on the basis of a {testimonial}.
What I would like for readers to do is to first read the article here on anecdotal evidence. And then pull up Google to read another article concerning Lithium . You see, there is a lot of evidence-based research concerning Lithium in treatment of so-called bipolar disorder. And there are many deaths and other life-ruining conditions that Lithium has caused. And there is evidence that Lithium can cause depression and kidney failure and thyroid abnormalities, to say the least. My friends, I want you to know all the facts before you drug your child or yourself, not just anecdotal reports.
Lou
The first article that I would like those here to read is;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
Then after that, see the following by:
A. Pull up Google
B. Type in:
[Lithium for bipolar disorder is a-National health, examiner]
There could be a pic of a man and was posted on Nov 13, 2011 by Harold Mandell
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 8, 2013, at 6:43:48
In reply to Lou's warning-anecdotal, posted by Lou Pilder on May 8, 2013, at 5:48:27
> Friends,
> If you are a parent and attempting to decide as to drug your child or yourself or a loved one in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor, and you are following this discussion, be advised that now {anecdotal} is posted here. Some forums do not allow anecdotal, and I lean to that as being supportive. I base this on what are known as fallacies of logic and propaganda tactics used to persuade people such as {testimonial}. These type of tactics usually are used in conjunction with repression to other's speech so that a persuasion of falsity could be the result, and influence people to do something on the basis of a {testimonial}.
> What I would like for readers to do is to first read the article here on anecdotal evidence. And then pull up Google to read another article concerning Lithium . You see, there is a lot of evidence-based research concerning Lithium in treatment of so-called bipolar disorder. And there are many deaths and other life-ruining conditions that Lithium has caused. And there is evidence that Lithium can cause depression and kidney failure and thyroid abnormalities, to say the least. My friends, I want you to know all the facts before you drug your child or yourself, not just anecdotal reports.
> Lou
> The first article that I would like those here to read is;
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
> Then after that, see the following by:
> A. Pull up Google
> B. Type in:
> [Lithium for bipolar disorder is a-National health, examiner]
> There could be a pic of a man and was posted on Nov 13, 2011 by Harold MandellFriends,
If all the facts were allowed to be made known to you about Lithium, I think that you could make a more-informed decision as to drug your child or yourself in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor. I want to give you those facts. Facts that I think could mark the difference between you being a live person or a corpse. I do not want to post anecdotal here, but be it as it may be that it is allowed here, I had a friend that died from Lithium. YOu see, Lithium can become toxic and cause death. There could be no time to go to a doctor for the death could happen even by taking the prescribed amount. You see, Lithium is a salt type of drug. It can cause the body to be disrupted from the imbalance of sodium that it has the potential to imbalance, resulting in a disruption of bodily functions and toxicity. This can be looked up in the research that sows what happens to the body under lithium treatment. Even blindness has happened from Lithium toxicity that can happen even when taking the prescribed amount. Death is also a consequence from taking Lithium.
Here are some links to statistics involving Lithium. Notice the percentage for diabetes. It is huge, statistically that is. And I come here to show you a way to overcome depression and addiction and such without being scared that you will die from a drug or get a life-ruining condition or addiction.
Lou
http://www.ehealthme.com/ds/lithium+carbonate/diabetes+millitus
http://www.ehealthme.com/ds/lithium+carbonate/sudden+death
Posted by Toph on May 8, 2013, at 7:19:24
In reply to Lou's warning-death and diabetes, posted by Lou Pilder on May 8, 2013, at 6:43:48
No sh*t Lou, that must be why I have a blood test every 3 months, thanks. Look Lou, I'm sorry I got pissed but as a person who lost 10 precious years of my life fighting my diagnosis and resisting lithium, I would appreciate you balancing your warnings (which are well known) with the benefits of this simple salt. Most of us can't give testimonials here of how the drug allows us to live normal, I mean completely normal, lives because we are living them as I will now after I grab my coffee and travel half way across Wisconsin to do assessments on two developmentally delayed individuals. Have a nice day Lou. And I apologize for letting you and Bob piss me off. Oh, and Dinah, powerlessness just seemed like more psycho babble at the time.
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 8, 2013, at 7:41:41
In reply to Re: feeling powerless, posted by Dr. Bob on May 7, 2013, at 3:46:59
> > > 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.
>
> > Nothing will change.
> >
> > - Scott
>
> > I personally have given up completely on being able to make any sort of difference here.
> >
> > Dinah
>
> There are things I feel powerless to change, too. Does anybody here have any tips on how to deal with feelings of powerlessness?
>
> --
>
> > 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.
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Lou may express what some posters fear. What would reassure those posters who feel afraid? If I were frightened of medication, I don't think blocking someone who expressed my fears would reassure me.
>
> A reassuring statement could be developed and reused, for example:
>
> > Almost any drug will cause death if not managed properly. It is true that drugs in general can cause death. Psychiatric drugs are not unique in this regard.
> >
> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16294364
>
> Still, it takes repeated investments of time and energy to reassure other posters. I can see how that could get old. It takes repeated investments of time and energy to moderate Babble.
>
> --
>
> > C. There are two standards here, Lou.
> > F. It [may] be good for this community as a whole to leave your notifications outstanding, Lou
> >
> > Lou Pilder
>
> Lou,
>
> 1. I wonder if you feel powerless to change how I behave. If so, you and other posters may have something in common.
>
> 2. In a way, there are in fact different standards, because time to respond to notifications is limited:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#help
>
> 3. In a way, it may be good for this community to see that posts by you don't have to be responded to.
>
> 4. I should be careful what I wish for, too, but I might address more of your concerns if someone else notified me of them. Does anybody else here share your concerns? The goal here is support. Do you feel supported here? Maybe by Scott?
>
> > I'm sorry that you feel hated.
> >
> > - Scott
>
> --
>
> > Be advised that it is well-known how hate groups are fostered in a community and the horrific damage to the members that the hate induces to those that are in those groups.
> > First, psychologists have studied how hate is formed in a community to make a hate-group. It is not a mystery and you do not have to be a mastermind to foster a hate-group. For hate can be a mask that the hater wares to hide their insecurities. And then the hate elevates the hater above the ones that they are hating, (in their own minds that is). Then the hater solicits others to hate the target so that they can get what they think is validation from others to elevate (falsely) their self-worth and to prevent others from exposing them as having personal insecurities.
> > The haters thinks that they will be empowered by being in a group which they believe becomes a shield to prevent accountability for their acts of hatred. Hate ties the group together with their common cause so that they can debase the object of their hate which they think will bolster their self-image.
> > This becomes fashionable in a group where hate toward others is allowed to stand. The haters blame the victim of their hate to justify the hate. Their minds can be taken over by them falsely thinking that they will be doing good by destroying their target of hate. And then the target is not allowed to stand up to the bullies with hatred toward them.
> >
> > Lou
>
> I wouldn't disagree with the above, though I wouldn't overgeneralize, either. I wonder:
>
> 1. What leads one subgroup to become hated instead of others?
>
> 2. I could imagine some of those in the hated subgroup starting to hate those in the hating subgroup. Would the above dynamics then also start to apply also to them?
>
> 3. How might such a cycle be broken?
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,
[...in a way, it may be good for this community to see that posts by you don't have to be responded to...].
I am unsure as to what you do or doo not want posters to be led to believe by what you wrote here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could respond accordingly.
True or False
A. If it may be good, then it also may be bad for this community to see posts by you, Lou, don't have to be responded to
B. By me leaving your posts, Lou, that have requests to me outstanding , then I can control the content as to what I want others to consider to be supportive.
C. By leaving your requests to me outstanding, Lou, then readers could think that the ones that contain statements that you think could arouse anti-Semitic feelings could be thought by some to be supportive and will be god for this community as a whole
D. By leaving your requests outstanding, Lou, others could break my own rules here.
E. By leaving your requests outstanding, Lou, I could have more time to attend to pictures on the top of the page.
F. By leaving your requests outstanding, Lou, then Jews and Islamic people and others could have their faiths insulted and that will be good for this community as a whole.
G. By leaving your requests outstanding, Lou, that could encourage others to have hatred toward the Jews, and that will be good for this community as a whole.
H. By leaving all of the posts outstanding in this link, Lou, I can make it good for this community to think that (redacted by respondent)
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1042501.html
Posted by SLS on May 8, 2013, at 7:55:59
In reply to Lou's warning-anecdotal, posted by Lou Pilder on May 8, 2013, at 5:48:27
One of the most important functions of Psycho-Babble is to provide a forum for the sharing of personal experiences (anecdotes). People can glean information about treatments in real-life that is not readily available elsewhere. This includes miracles and catastrophes that may not be reported in the medical literature, despite well-scrutinized scientific observations. The value of anecdotal data is recognized by medicine as case reports (anecdotes) are ubiquitous in medical literature. These help with the often serendipitous discovery of new uses for old drugs. Testing hypotheses in proof-of-concept studies is often the motivation for more structured studies. Without the recognition and evaluation of anecdotal data, progress in medicine throughout history would have been stymied.
Regarding lithium, you fail to present statistics portraying the rate of incidence of the events you describe. Acetaminophen causes ruminant liver failure. However, this reaction is quite rare when the drug is taken as prescribed. Almost all of the cases of liver failure are due to overdose. Unfortunately, with lithium use, kidney and thyroid damage are adverse events that occur often enough to require frequent screenings to monitor for changes in function. However, the incidence of reduced kidney function is only 1.2% - 3.7%. Full renal failure occurs even less often.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19940841
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8376615
What are the consequences of discontinuing lithium? Sometimes, it is death.
"In conclusion, our biopsy-based study in a selected population of lithium-treated patients is not inconsistent with the consensus opinion that only a minority of patients receiving lithium will develop mild renal insufficiency due to lithium-associated CTIN. Furthermore, the importance of lithium for patients with affective disorders is underscored by the fact that one patient (patient 2) who discontinued lithium subsequently committed suicide."
http://jasn.asnjournals.org/content/11/8/1439.full
Thyroid abnormalities occur more often than renal impairments, particularly in middle-aged women. Clinical hypothyroidism might occur in as much at 10% of people taking lithium. However, this can easily be treated with T4 thyroid hormone.
The incidence of kidney and thyroid side-effects are dose-dependent and a function of the duration of treatment. It is therefore important to monitor for changes in function and establish the lowest effective dose. The incidence of death due to lithium toxicity is rare (< 1.0%), and is usually the result of intentional overdose.
Please redirect any further discussion of clinical matters to the Medication board. Thank you.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on May 8, 2013, at 8:14:03
In reply to Lou's warning-death and diabetes, posted by Lou Pilder on May 8, 2013, at 6:43:48
> Lou
> http://www.ehealthme.com/ds/lithium+carbonate/diabetes+millitus
> http://www.ehealthme.com/ds/lithium+carbonate/sudden+deathStill using eHealthme? Didn't I already debunk that website? Perhaps you can try using Medline Pubmed for additional citations. Ironically, the eHealthme website uses anecdotal data almost exclusively, the great majority of which are reported to their site anonymously.
Medline Pubmed:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
- Scott
Posted by SLS on May 8, 2013, at 8:56:40
In reply to Lou's reply- » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on May 8, 2013, at 7:41:41
To: Lou Pilder
Just a few observations by a fellow poster:
> True or False
> A. If it may be good, then it also may be bad for this community to see posts by you, Lou, don't have to be responded to
Haven't you said in the past that people don't have to read and respond to your posts?
> B. By me leaving your posts, Lou, that have requests to me outstanding , then I can control the content as to what I want others to consider to be supportive.
Isn't it true that a notification, if left unanswered, represents a judgment that the notification does not have merit?
> C. By leaving your requests to me outstanding, Lou, then readers could think that the ones that contain statements that you think could arouse anti-Semitic feelings could be thought by some to be supportive and will be god for this community as a whole
See "B".
Do you have any anecdotes to support you hypothesis regarding antisemitism?
> D. By leaving your requests outstanding, Lou, others could break my own rules here.
Yup.
Now, you understand why the moderator must sanction posts that break the rules, including yours.
> E. By leaving your requests outstanding, Lou, I could have more time to attend to pictures on the top of the page.
I know from personal experience that it is difficult to avoid sarcasm when one is angry. However, it remains uncivil to do so.
> F. By leaving your requests outstanding, Lou, then Jews and Islamic people and others could have their faiths insulted and that will be good for this community as a whole.
To the best of my knowledge, you are not designated to be an iconic representative of and by any religion. I don't know anyone who thinks that you are. Therefore, one would not equate your treatment by the administration of Psycho-Babble with religious bias.
> G. By leaving your requests outstanding, Lou, that could encourage others to have hatred toward the Jews, and that will be good for this community as a whole.
See "F".
> H. By leaving all of the posts outstanding in this link, Lou, I can make it good for this community to think that (redacted by respondent)
I can't respond to this qustion as it has been redacted.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 8, 2013, at 10:35:20
In reply to Lou's reply- » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on May 8, 2013, at 7:41:41
> > > > 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.
> >
> > > Nothing will change.
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> > > I personally have given up completely on being able to make any sort of difference here.
> > >
> > > Dinah
> >
> > There are things I feel powerless to change, too. Does anybody here have any tips on how to deal with feelings of powerlessness?
> >
> > --
> >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> > Lou may express what some posters fear. What would reassure those posters who feel afraid? If I were frightened of medication, I don't think blocking someone who expressed my fears would reassure me.
> >
> > A reassuring statement could be developed and reused, for example:
> >
> > > Almost any drug will cause death if not managed properly. It is true that drugs in general can cause death. Psychiatric drugs are not unique in this regard.
> > >
> > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16294364
> >
> > Still, it takes repeated investments of time and energy to reassure other posters. I can see how that could get old. It takes repeated investments of time and energy to moderate Babble.
> >
> > --
> >
> > > C. There are two standards here, Lou.
> > > F. It [may] be good for this community as a whole to leave your notifications outstanding, Lou
> > >
> > > Lou Pilder
> >
> > Lou,
> >
> > 1. I wonder if you feel powerless to change how I behave. If so, you and other posters may have something in common.
> >
> > 2. In a way, there are in fact different standards, because time to respond to notifications is limited:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#help
> >
> > 3. In a way, it may be good for this community to see that posts by you don't have to be responded to.
> >
> > 4. I should be careful what I wish for, too, but I might address more of your concerns if someone else notified me of them. Does anybody else here share your concerns? The goal here is support. Do you feel supported here? Maybe by Scott?
> >
> > > I'm sorry that you feel hated.
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> > --
> >
> > > Be advised that it is well-known how hate groups are fostered in a community and the horrific damage to the members that the hate induces to those that are in those groups.
> > > First, psychologists have studied how hate is formed in a community to make a hate-group. It is not a mystery and you do not have to be a mastermind to foster a hate-group. For hate can be a mask that the hater wares to hide their insecurities. And then the hate elevates the hater above the ones that they are hating, (in their own minds that is). Then the hater solicits others to hate the target so that they can get what they think is validation from others to elevate (falsely) their self-worth and to prevent others from exposing them as having personal insecurities.
> > > The haters thinks that they will be empowered by being in a group which they believe becomes a shield to prevent accountability for their acts of hatred. Hate ties the group together with their common cause so that they can debase the object of their hate which they think will bolster their self-image.
> > > This becomes fashionable in a group where hate toward others is allowed to stand. The haters blame the victim of their hate to justify the hate. Their minds can be taken over by them falsely thinking that they will be doing good by destroying their target of hate. And then the target is not allowed to stand up to the bullies with hatred toward them.
> > >
> > > Lou
> >
> > I wouldn't disagree with the above, though I wouldn't overgeneralize, either. I wonder:
> >
> > 1. What leads one subgroup to become hated instead of others?
> >
> > 2. I could imagine some of those in the hated subgroup starting to hate those in the hating subgroup. Would the above dynamics then also start to apply also to them?
> >
> > 3. How might such a cycle be broken?
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote,
> [...in a way, it may be good for this community to see that posts by you don't have to be responded to...].
> I am unsure as to what you do or doo not want posters to be led to believe by what you wrote here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could respond accordingly.
> True or False
> A. If it may be good, then it also may be bad for this community to see posts by you, Lou, don't have to be responded to
> B. By me leaving your posts, Lou, that have requests to me outstanding , then I can control the content as to what I want others to consider to be supportive.
> C. By leaving your requests to me outstanding, Lou, then readers could think that the ones that contain statements that you think could arouse anti-Semitic feelings could be thought by some to be supportive and will be god for this community as a whole
> D. By leaving your requests outstanding, Lou, others could break my own rules here.
> E. By leaving your requests outstanding, Lou, I could have more time to attend to pictures on the top of the page.
> F. By leaving your requests outstanding, Lou, then Jews and Islamic people and others could have their faiths insulted and that will be good for this community as a whole.
> G. By leaving your requests outstanding, Lou, that could encourage others to have hatred toward the Jews, and that will be good for this community as a whole.
> H. By leaving all of the posts outstanding in this link, Lou, I can make it good for this community to think that (redacted by respondent)
> Lou Pilder
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1042501.htmlMr Hsiung et al,
I apologize for my posted response to "E". It was not my intention to be sarcastic, but someone here has pointed out to me that one could see it that way.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 8, 2013, at 11:34:11
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-, posted by SLS on May 8, 2013, at 8:56:40
> To: Lou Pilder
>
> Just a few observations by a fellow poster:
>
> > True or False
>
> > A. If it may be good, then it also may be bad for this community to see posts by you, Lou, don't have to be responded to
>
> Haven't you said in the past that people don't have to read and respond to your posts?
>
> > B. By me leaving your posts, Lou, that have requests to me outstanding , then I can control the content as to what I want others to consider to be supportive.
>
> Isn't it true that a notification, if left unanswered, represents a judgment that the notification does not have merit?
>
> > C. By leaving your requests to me outstanding, Lou, then readers could think that the ones that contain statements that you think could arouse anti-Semitic feelings could be thought by some to be supportive and will be god for this community as a whole
>
> See "B".
>
> Do you have any anecdotes to support you hypothesis regarding antisemitism?
>
> > D. By leaving your requests outstanding, Lou, others could break my own rules here.
>
> Yup.
>
> Now, you understand why the moderator must sanction posts that break the rules, including yours.
>
> > E. By leaving your requests outstanding, Lou, I could have more time to attend to pictures on the top of the page.
>
> I know from personal experience that it is difficult to avoid sarcasm when one is angry. However, it remains uncivil to do so.
>
> > F. By leaving your requests outstanding, Lou, then Jews and Islamic people and others could have their faiths insulted and that will be good for this community as a whole.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, you are not designated to be an iconic representative of and by any religion. I don't know anyone who thinks that you are. Therefore, one would not equate your treatment by the administration of Psycho-Babble with religious bias.
>
> > G. By leaving your requests outstanding, Lou, that could encourage others to have hatred toward the Jews, and that will be good for this community as a whole.
>
> See "F".
>
> > H. By leaving all of the posts outstanding in this link, Lou, I can make it good for this community to think that (redacted by respondent)
>
> I can't respond to this qustion as it has been redacted.
>
>
> - ScottScott,
You wrote in relation to that I asked Mr Hsiung that since he stated that it may be good for this community to see posts by me not responded to, and I asked him if then it may be bad for the community to see my requests not responded to, that in the past people do not have to read or respond to my posts.
The members have no duty to read anyone's post nor to post a response to them. Mr Hsiung has in his terms of service that he or his deputies will either post to the statement(s) in the notification or contact the one using the notification procedure directly via b-mail or email. I took Mr Hsiung at his word.
Also, Mr Hsiung states in his TOS that the notification procedure is the exclusive mode to express any part of a post that one wants addressed by them, and not to post on the board anything concerning what is in a post that one thinks is not acceptable according to the rules here.
The issue is in my concern, as to if or if not Mr Hsiung and/or his deputy now, have a duty to follow their own TOS here, and if the deputies past had a duty to follow the TOS for notifications. I see Mr Hsiung leaving a notification outstanding, which is different from posters not reading my posts, as that there are consequences, including the deaths of members or readers, from notifications and/or requests to Mr Hsiung to be allowed to remain outstanding.
The question may be eventually be answered by Mr Hsiung's claim that he does what will be good for this community as a whole. Time will be the judge of that. I already know that if the historical record is correct, and what happens to communities that allow anti-Semitic statements to stand also happens here, what the results to that will be to this community if the requests from me to Mr Hsiung remain outstanding. For Mr Hsiung states that he does not wait to put out the fire of hate, even if it is a small fire from a match, for one match could start a forest fire. That is so true, and people that see anti-Semitic statements being allowed to stand could get the idea in their minds that hatred posted here, in particular but limited toward the Jews, is acceptable here. That could induce hate, and the hate could be transferred to others that are not Jews, culminating in mass-murder of innocent children and the killing of their own families and other innocent people. There are many research articles that one can read that show how this happens. I have posted a little about the mechanism of hate that drives people to murder and to kill themselves, and a search can bring this up. There are good articles out of Yale University and Ohio State University and others. If you could read those, then you could ask yourself why my notifications remain outstanding and make your own determination as to if that will be good for this community, or any community, as a whole.
Lou
Posted by SLS on May 8, 2013, at 12:30:54
In reply to Lou's reply-outstanding notifications/requests » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on May 8, 2013, at 11:34:11
> The members have no duty to read anyone's post nor to post a response to them.
> Mr Hsiung has in his terms of service that he or his deputies will either post to the statement(s) in the notification or contact the one using the notification procedure directly via b-mail or email. I took Mr Hsiung at his word.
As I recall, this issue was discussed on this board several years ago. The conclusion reached as adopted by Dr. Bob was that only those notifications that require action would be replied to - either by e-mail or by a posting on the board. This precedent was established without its being codified in the TOS or FAQ. Were you present during these discussions?
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 8, 2013, at 12:51:01
In reply to Notifications - as I recall. » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on May 8, 2013, at 12:30:54
> > The members have no duty to read anyone's post nor to post a response to them.
>
> > Mr Hsiung has in his terms of service that he or his deputies will either post to the statement(s) in the notification or contact the one using the notification procedure directly via b-mail or email. I took Mr Hsiung at his word.
>
> As I recall, this issue was discussed on this board several years ago. The conclusion reached as adopted by Dr. Bob was that only those notifications that require action would be replied to - either by e-mail or by a posting on the board. This precedent was established without its being codified in the TOS or FAQ. Were you present during these discussions?
>
>
> - Scott
>
> Scott,
If you could post a link to that, we could see.
But I have that notifications will either be posted to in the thread OR the member using the notification will be contacted. I know of no post by the admin that states otherwise.
What I am under the impression is that:
A. If there is not a post in the thread to the statement in question by Mr Hsiung or deputy, then one will receive a direct response via e or b mail from them
B. That the standard is just that, and there are not two standards in using the notification procedure.
C. The fact that it is against the rules to not use the notification system by posting that something is against the rules on the board. leaves only the notification system for one to object to what is posted to be allowed to stand.
D. If the notification remains outstanding, then others can think that what is in question is acceptable and will be good for he community as a whole. This means that if hatred toward the Jews is allowed to stand, others could think that hate is supportive and target a Jew for harm or murder, for some could think that the anti-Semitism that is allowed to stand is state-sponsored, and that they will being doing good for the community since they could think that is what Mr Hsiung wants, could they not?.
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on May 8, 2013, at 16:14:27
In reply to Notifications - as I recall. » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on May 8, 2013, at 12:30:54
Don't forget about the notifications "rule of three". I'm quite certain that applies and would be at least a partial explanation for ignored notifications, assuming it is still in effect.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080204/msgs/817448.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 8, 2013, at 17:10:11
In reply to Re: Notifications - as I recall., posted by gardenergirl on May 8, 2013, at 16:14:27
> Don't forget about the notifications "rule of three". I'm quite certain that applies and would be at least a partial explanation for ignored notifications, assuming it is still in effect.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080204/msgs/817448.html
>
> Friends,
It is written here that [... it could be good for the community to see that posts by you, (Lou), do not have to be responded to...].
The 3 rule involves that Mr Hsiung post that he considers what is in question to be acceptable. That part of the rule has not been used since the notification system started and the TOS can be seen in fact as gg says here that if the notification is more than 3 it will not be responded to, but I have not seen where Mr Hsiung posted that he thinks it is acceptable to my notifications because I post reminders.
Scott brings up another issue. There was a thread where myself and Mr Hsiung had dialog over the outstanding notifications. He stated for me to ask someone first. I told him that I would not be subject to additional terms and conditions here and that I wanted to know if he was making that a requirement to me in order to get the notifications responded to. His reply was that it is not a requirement but a suggestion.
So for those that are interested in why there are outstanding notifications/requests from me to Mr Hsiung going back years, it can be seen in this thread from Mr Hsiung that[..it may be good for the community to see posts by you (Lou), do not have to be responded to...].
Now readers here, if you would like to post why you think that it may be good for this community to see the outstanding requests from me to Mr Hsiung remain outstanding, I would like for you to post those reasons, if any, so that I could respond to whatever reason you post to me here.
Lou
Posted by SLS on May 8, 2013, at 17:48:56
In reply to Lou's response-your reasons for it to be good, posted by Lou Pilder on May 8, 2013, at 17:10:11
Do you think that Dr. Bob has singled you out to be treated differently from all other posters?
- Scott
Posted by SLS on May 9, 2013, at 5:23:54
In reply to Lou's reply-Gehybreelll » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on May 8, 2013, at 12:51:01
Lou Pilder:
I think it possible that Dr. Bob was involved in life outside of Psycho-Babble for an extended period of time. During such a time, no notifications would be attended to, regardless of their volume and degree of repetition. Over the past few years, none of the few notifications I submitted elicited a written reply nor an action on the board. I was very disappointed, as you might imagine. I didn't take it personally, though. I certainly didn't take Dr. Bob's silence and inaction to my notifications as a promotion of hate towards a group of people based upon my affiliation with that group. I don't see antisemitism in his behavior. I don't see antisemitism in the posts that have been directed at you or about you. Perhaps I am blind to it, but, as a Jew, I have a vested interest in being aware of antisemitism.
Do you see antisemitism in the behavior of the moderator towards you or anyone else?
Do you have evidence that antisemitism has been the result of administrative silence, or is this simply conjecture on your part?
Hate does not equate to antisemitism, even though antisemitism equates to hate.
If I were to hate you, would you conclude that this hate would be the result of my knowing that you were Jewish? Can no one hate you for other reasons?
Over the years, lots of people have hated me. Lots. Most of them never knew that I was Jewish. Of course, all of them were riddled with character flaws.
For what it is worth, I do not hate you. Nor do I see hate in the words of most other posters towards you on Psycho-Babble.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 9, 2013, at 6:46:49
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-Gehybreelll » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on May 9, 2013, at 5:23:54
> Lou Pilder:
>
> I think it possible that Dr. Bob was involved in life outside of Psycho-Babble for an extended period of time. During such a time, no notifications would be attended to, regardless of their volume and degree of repetition. Over the past few years, none of the few notifications I submitted elicited a written reply nor an action on the board. I was very disappointed, as you might imagine. I didn't take it personally, though. I certainly didn't take Dr. Bob's silence and inaction to my notifications as a promotion of hate towards a group of people based upon my affiliation with that group. I don't see antisemitism in his behavior. I don't see antisemitism in the posts that have been directed at you or about you. Perhaps I am blind to it, but, as a Jew, I have a vested interest in being aware of antisemitism.
>
> Do you see antisemitism in the behavior of the moderator towards you or anyone else?
>
> Do you have evidence that antisemitism has been the result of administrative silence, or is this simply conjecture on your part?
>
> Hate does not equate to antisemitism, even though antisemitism equates to hate.
>
> If I were to hate you, would you conclude that this hate would be the result of my knowing that you were Jewish? Can no one hate you for other reasons?
>
> Over the years, lots of people have hated me. Lots. Most of them never knew that I was Jewish. Of course, all of them were riddled with character flaws.
>
> For what it is worth, I do not hate you. Nor do I see hate in the words of most other posters towards you on Psycho-Babble.
>
>
> - ScottScott,
You wrote,[...nor do I see hate in the words of most other posters toward you on Psycho-Babble..].
The question here is how Mr Hsiung can influence the members here and establish what is supportive. He and his deputy now and the previous deputies cold control the thinking because of many ways. One way is that Mr Hsiung states n his TOS here that he would like people to trust him in what he does here for he does what in his thinking will be good for this community as a whole. And he states also that he would appreciate that people try to trust him in what he does here. That could lead some to accommodate his thinking here because he says that he would appreciate it to trust him, so members could think that if they accommodate his wishes, that appreciation he will have for that. There I much more to this concept that I am prevented from posting the historical parallels to Mr Hsiung's statement to the membership here.
So be it as it may be, let us look at the following post here by Mr Hsiung about me. I would like for anyone that is interested in posting in this thread to read the following to have more understanding if you are going to post a response to what Scott or myself have posted here and what could some others think when they read he post byMr Hsiung directed about me here?
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1043225.html
Posted by SLS on May 9, 2013, at 9:48:01
In reply to Lou's reply- » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on May 9, 2013, at 6:46:49
> So be it as it may be, let us look at the following post here by Mr Hsiung about me. I would like for anyone that is interested in posting in this thread to read the following to have more understanding if you are going to post a response to what Scott or myself have posted here and what could some others think when they read he post byMr Hsiung directed about me here?
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1043225.htmlAlthough not explicitly referring to you, it was an unfortunate choice of words.
What would you like for Dr. Bob to do about your concerns?
- Scott
Posted by SLS on May 9, 2013, at 17:08:09
In reply to Re: Lou's reply- » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on May 9, 2013, at 9:48:01
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1043225.html
> Although not explicitly referring to you, it was an unfortunate choice of words.Lou, I really am sorry that you were subject to such words. When you're are right, you're right. I must say, though, that I believe Dr. Bob has been civil and fair with you all of these years, despite many calls by others for you to be blocked from posting.
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 9, 2013, at 21:46:30
In reply to Re: Lou's reply- » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on May 9, 2013, at 9:48:01
> > So be it as it may be, let us look at the following post here by Mr Hsiung about me.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1043225.html
> >
> > Lou
>
> Although not explicitly referring to you, it was an unfortunate choice of words.
>
> - ScottI was referring to depression, not to Lou. And "The Wizard of Babble" was referring to, of all things, feeling powerless (while being seen as powerful).
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 9, 2013, at 23:13:56
In reply to Re: Lou's warning-death and diabetes » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on May 8, 2013, at 8:14:03
> Lou may express what some posters fear. What would reassure those posters who feel afraid?
>
> A reassuring statement could be developed and reused, for example:
>
> > Almost any drug will cause death if not managed properly. It is true that drugs in general can cause death. Psychiatric drugs are not unique in this regard.
> >
> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16294364And:
> I don't [have doubts about whether medication saves lives]. I was hospitalized five times in ten years with manic or suicidal episodes until I commited to taking lithium. I was hospitalized once in the subsequent thirty years and that when I watched my mother die. Lithium saved my life.
> I totally agree that the right medications save lives - and also make lives worth living. And I think any risk to patients can be offset with a decent psychiatrist keeping an eye on possible bad reactions.
And I thought these were nice (civil) examples of balancing one point of view with another:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1043379.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1043387.htmlhttp://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1043381.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1043388.htmlOther ways to reassure posters might include a list of Frequently Felt Worries, analogous to a FAQ, and highlighting posts with success stories or other reasons to feel hopeful.
Note that the focus here is other posters (and lurkers), not Lou. Trying to change Lou (like trying to change me) can lead to frustration.
--
> Perhaps you can see how, to people struggling to find a way out of hopelessness, despair, flatness, intense anxiety or agitation, that it could be incredibly distressing to see extreme negativity over and over and over again.
>
> DinahAs individuals may struggle with feelings of hopelessness, groups may struggle with individuals who express hopelessness. Blocking expressions of hopelessness may seem to solve the problem for groups, but how can individuals block feelings of hopelessness?
Does anybody here have any tips on how to deal with feelings of hopelessness? Can those approaches be applied here?
--
> Frustration, it's frustration that resonates with me Bob, not powerlessness. ... Lou is undoubtedly intelligent and clever. We know that because of his frustrating comunication style when there's evidence that he can communicate perfectly normally. And how in God's name does he get away with using veiled accusations ... ? It's infuriating and manipulative and uncivil. ... I'm tired of being accused of being an anti-semite ... F*ck you Lou, I'm frustrated.
>
> TophOK, frustration, not powerlessness. "I'm frustrated" is of course a more civil way of expressing frustration than "f*ck you".
I'm not saying Lou isn't intelligent and clever, but inconsistent doesn't necessarily mean intentional.
Something that's unacceptable when unveiled can be acceptable when veiled.
Posts can be infuriating without being uncivil.
It sounds like you felt infuriated because you felt accused. Would you feel infuriated if you were accused of being from Mars?
--
> > 3. In a way, it may be good for this community to see that posts by you don't have to be responded to.
>
> True or False
> A. If it may be good, then it also may be bad for this community to see posts by you, Lou, don't have to be responded toTrue
> C. By leaving your requests to me outstanding, Lou, then readers could think that the ones that contain statements that you think could arouse anti-Semitic feelings could be thought by some to be supportive and will be god for this community as a whole
> D. By leaving your requests outstanding, Lou, others could break my own rules here.
> F. By leaving your requests outstanding, Lou, then Jews and Islamic people and others could have their faiths insulted and that will be good for this community as a whole.
> G. By leaving your requests outstanding, Lou, that could encourage others to have hatred toward the Jews, and that will be good for this community as a whole.
> H. By leaving all of the posts outstanding in this link, Lou, I can make it good for this community to think that (redacted by respondent)
>
> Lou PilderI wonder if you feel frustrated by me. If so, you and Toph may have something in common.
And I may have something in common with medication. Taking medication could potentially lead to a life-ruining condition, and in an extreme case, death. And my not responding to requests could potentially lead to being hated, which could also be a life-ruining condition, and in an extreme case, death.
--
> Still, it takes repeated investments of time and energy to reassure other posters. I can see how that could get old. It takes repeated investments of time and energy to moderate Babble.
Let's make a deal. If I invest time and energy to moderate Babble, will you all invest time and energy to reassure other posters?
Bob
Posted by SLS on May 9, 2013, at 23:56:59
In reply to Re: the Prince of Death, posted by Dr. Bob on May 9, 2013, at 21:46:30
Thank you, Doctor, for clarifying the intended meaning of your words. I was taken back when I first read them, thinking that they referred to Lou Pilder. It would have been out of character for you to write them. It would have been the ONLY uncivil thing that you would have written in 14 years. That is quite a feat.
> > > So be it as it may be, let us look at the following post here by Mr Hsiung about me.
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1043225.html
> > >
> > > Lou> > Although not explicitly referring to you, it was an unfortunate choice of words.
> >
> > - Scott
> I was referring to depression, not to Lou. And "The Wizard of Babble" was referring to, of all things, feeling powerless (while being seen as powerful).
>
> BobI hope that it is your plan to continue interacting with the Psycho-Babble community. You form a matrix that helps to establish connections between people and to effect more civil and effective communication despite the emergence of very emotionally charged issues.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on May 10, 2013, at 0:01:34
In reply to Bias? » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on May 8, 2013, at 17:48:56
Hi Lou.
> Do you think that Dr. Bob has singled you out to be treated differently from all other posters?
- Scott
Posted by SLS on May 10, 2013, at 0:06:57
In reply to Lou's reply- » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on May 9, 2013, at 6:46:49
Hi Lou.
> Do you think that Dr. Bob has singled you out to be treated differently from all other posters?
- Scott
Posted by Willful on May 10, 2013, at 0:55:03
In reply to Re: the Prince of Death, posted by Dr. Bob on May 9, 2013, at 21:46:30
Thank for finally clarifying this!
The phrase seemed to be used metaphorically, although it was hard to argue for any particular clear interpretation, and there was much misunderstanding of what was meant by it. -- It's a relief to have an explanation for something that has concerned many posters here.
Willful
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.