![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 8 to 32 of 34. Go back in thread:
Posted by ed_uk2010 on November 12, 2010, at 15:10:49
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » Christ_empowered, posted by Dr. Bob on November 5, 2010, at 16:06:29
>I guess my problem with the anti-psychiatry movement is that they don't seem to take madness seriously.
>
> But that's about them again, not you. Saying they don't take something seriously could lead them to feel put down. Could you please rephrase that again?I don't understand the purpose of this. Who exactly would feel put down? Chris_emp simply said that in his opinion, members of the anti-psychiatry movement (mentioning no one in particular) don't *seem* to take madness seriously. I found his post extremely civil. Why does he need to rephrase everything?
Posted by sigismund on November 12, 2010, at 19:04:23
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » Dr. Bob, posted by ed_uk2010 on November 12, 2010, at 15:10:49
I have the greatest (well, almost) sympathy for the anti-psychiatry movement and I do not feel at all put down by CE's post.
Posted by Dinah on November 14, 2010, at 8:14:23
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » Dr. Bob, posted by ed_uk2010 on November 12, 2010, at 15:10:49
It's been my observation that once a please rephrase has been issued, Dr. Bob sees it as a learning opportunity. I could be wrong.
Please don't get discouraged, Christ empowered. I think Dr. Bob intended his please rephrase to mean that he would like you to instead talk about your feelings and your experiences without any negative statements about the anti psychiatry movement in a more objective sense.
Along the lines of "I don't feel respected by them" rather than "they don't respect". The first is a statement about you. A subtle difference, but that's probably why Dr. Bob is persisting.
Another possibility would be "Sometimes I wonder if those in the anti-pyschiatry movement have had experience with madness, and truly understand its power." That's a you statement, but isn't accusing them of anything.
At least I think that's what Dr. Bob is saying, and he's probably saying it *because* it's part of a rephrase and he wants to make sure he isn't giving something the seal of approval unless he means to. If I'm wrong about any of this, I'm sure he'll point it out.
I hope you'll forgive me if I butted in where I don't belong.
Posted by Christ_empowered on November 23, 2010, at 19:26:41
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » Christ_empowered, posted by Dr. Bob on November 5, 2010, at 16:06:29
OK, I've kind of been at a loss here...I don't know how to re-phrase w/o making it sound like I don't think something that I do think, or w/o stating something I think to be so is something I feel to be the case, which I think is an important distinction. Still, here goes...
I realize that the antipsychiatry movement has done a lot of good for mental patients (consumers, whatever) over the years. As a sometimes difficult patient, patient rights have kept me out of some potentially tough spots. Back in the day, I probably would've been given all kinds of ECT, Thorazine, lobotomies, etc.
Now, here's my problem: in trying to apply Dr. Szasz's idea of personal responsibility to my own life, I found it lacking. Szasz denies being anti-psychiatry, but..whatever, the dude works for the CCHR.
Now, I realize that the antipsychiatry movement has helped a lot of people, but I haven't found myself able to live medication-free and I think there may be something to the idea of madness being if not a disease state then at least something undesirable that sometimes responds to treatment.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 24, 2010, at 17:34:15
In reply to Re: please rephrase that, posted by Christ_empowered on November 23, 2010, at 19:26:41
> OK, I've kind of been at a loss here...I don't know how to re-phrase w/o making it sound like I don't think something that I do think, or w/o stating something I think to be so is something I feel to be the case, which I think is an important distinction.
Thanks for working on this with me. Rephrasing can be actually rephrasing, for example, expressing something as an I-statement instead of as a you-statement. Or it can be not stating something you think. I wouldn't ask anyone to state something they didn't think.
> Now, here's my problem: in trying to apply Dr. Szasz's idea of personal responsibility to my own life, I found it lacking.
>
> I haven't found myself able to live medication-freeThat's saying it doesn't work for you, not that it doesn't work for anyone. That's an I-statement.
> I think there may be something to the idea of madness being if not a disease state then at least something undesirable that sometimes responds to treatment.
That's fine, too, that's saying what you believe, not that what someone else believes is wrong. Good work! Does this make more sense to you now?
Bob
Posted by morgan miller on November 26, 2010, at 21:47:46
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » Dr. Bob, posted by ed_uk2010 on November 12, 2010, at 15:10:49
Christ_Empowered should be the one feeling put down in this thread after Dr. Bob patronized him repeatedly in a sad attempt to force him to do exactly what he believes is the perfect way to do things, not necessarily the best way.
No offense Dr. Bob, but you went a little too far with this one brotha.
Posted by morgan miller on November 26, 2010, at 21:51:54
In reply to Re: please rephrase that, posted by Dinah on November 14, 2010, at 8:14:23
Dinah, I feel like you might not be seeing things objectively here. I hope you understand where I'm coming from with this. I'm just glad that the numbers for CE are greater than the numbers against. And yes, there are posts that are against CE and his expressing of his thoughts here. It's so obviously rude what you guys are doing here.
Posted by morgan miller on November 26, 2010, at 21:54:04
In reply to Re: thanks » Christ_empowered, posted by Dr. Bob on November 24, 2010, at 17:34:15
>That's fine, too, that's saying what you believe, not that what someone else believes is wrong.
Yet we cannot always just say what we believe, even if done with civility.
I can't believe what's going on here.
Christ Empowered, you're a better man than I am.
Posted by Dinah on November 27, 2010, at 7:40:14
In reply to Re: please rephrase that, posted by morgan miller on November 26, 2010, at 21:51:54
I don't see how you can see me as being against Christ Empowered, when my attempt was to help him.
I saw Dr. Bob was asking for multiple rephrases, and I know that it's not always easy to know what he's wanting. I didn't want to see Christ Empowered blocked, or have to continue to try to rephrase again and again.
I was objective in that I saw a situation with Dr. Bob that I recognized, and I tried to help a fellow poster.
I had no other motive.
Posted by morgan miller on November 27, 2010, at 11:20:45
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » morgan miller, posted by Dinah on November 27, 2010, at 7:40:14
I guess that was a knee jerk reaction on my part. I understand what you were trying to do. It just bothered me to see one more person come on here trying to get Christ Empowered to do something differently that appeared to be very acceptable, especially after the first and second time he rephrased what he initially said. I understand you were trying to help Christ Empowered, but you really just came across, at least to me, as a diplomat of Dr. Bobs. I guess your really not in a position to come on here and stick up for members of babble under these circumstances are you. Sorry if I offended you. I probably should not have used the word against.
Posted by Dinah on November 27, 2010, at 12:56:00
In reply to Re: please rephrase that, posted by morgan miller on November 27, 2010, at 11:20:45
I appreciate your trying to see things from another point of view.
Posted by morgan miller on November 27, 2010, at 21:49:32
In reply to Thank you » morgan miller, posted by Dinah on November 27, 2010, at 12:56:00
I think I was just pissed and in a bit of a mood after reading the whole thread. I'm always willing to see when I may have made a mistake somewhere. None of us are perfect, but we can try to be better. I think the person in charge of moderating may want to think about trying to be better. The moderating could use some moderating, ya know what I mean.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 28, 2010, at 11:32:32
In reply to Re: Thank you, posted by morgan miller on November 27, 2010, at 21:49:32
> I'm always willing to see when I may have made a mistake somewhere.
Thanks, keeping in mind that the idea here is not to post anything that could lead others to feel accused, could you please rephrase:
> Dr. Bob patronized him repeatedly
Please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person, and I'm sorry if this hurts you.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express yourself, including a link to a nice post by Dinah on I-statements, are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceYou might want to consider asking another poster to be your "civility buddy" and to preview your reply before you submit it.
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
--
> Yet we cannot always just say what we believe, even if done with civility.
No, your freedom of speech is limited here. It can be therapeutic to express yourself, but this isn't necessarily the place.
> It just bothered me to see one more person come on here trying to get Christ Empowered to do something differently ... I guess your really not in a position to come on here and stick up for members of babble under these circumstances are you.
I guess it depends on what you consider sticking up for someone. Did you think he wanted to be blocked or to keep posting? Was it sticking up for him to let him get blocked or to help him keep posting?
I didn't want to see him blocked, I don't want to see you blocked, and I hope others don't want to see you blocked, either, and help you, if needed, to keep posting.
Bob
Posted by morgan miller on November 28, 2010, at 13:02:51
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » morgan miller, posted by Dr. Bob on November 28, 2010, at 11:32:32
Sorry Bob, I don't think I can rephrase that. It's the best word I could find to describe what was taking place. Patronize does not always have a derogatory meaning.
Morgan
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 28, 2010, at 13:46:49
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » Dr. Bob, posted by morgan miller on November 28, 2010, at 13:02:51
> Sorry Bob, I don't think I can rephrase that. It's the best word I could find to describe what was taking place.
Hi, everyone,
I'd like Morgan to remain an active member of the Babble community. I'd like to ask those of you who feel the same way to encourage them to avoid another block by rephrasing or apologizing. Perhaps you could also volunteer to help them avoid future blocks. Thanks,
Bob
Posted by morgan miller on November 29, 2010, at 7:45:39
In reply to Re: opportunity to support Morgan, posted by Dr. Bob on November 28, 2010, at 13:46:49
I just don't think it was necessary to continue to push Christ Empowered to express himself in the perfect way that you believed he should have. I did feel like you were constantly correcting him in a way that a teacher corrects their student. And I admit, I used the word patronize in part to describe what I saw as a sort of condescending interaction between you and Christ Empowered. I'm assuming this is why you did not like my use of the word.
Posted by ed_uk2010 on November 29, 2010, at 16:07:24
In reply to Re: opportunity to support Morgan » Dr. Bob, posted by morgan miller on November 29, 2010, at 7:45:39
This is ridiculous.
Posted by ed_uk2010 on November 29, 2010, at 16:21:07
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » Dr. Bob, posted by morgan miller on November 28, 2010, at 13:02:51
> Sorry Bob, I don't think I can rephrase that. It's the best word I could find to describe what was taking place. Patronize does not always have a derogatory meaning.
>
> MorganHi Morgan,
I'll be your buddy (if you like), but not your civility buddy.
It is highly unfortunate if posts on a mental health forum now have to be so sanitised that it is virtually impossible for posters to express their beliefs and emotions.
I do not understand what Dr. B is trying to achieve here. Is it an expression of power? Or perhaps some perculiar attempt to be therapeutic? Sorry, but I don't get it. In my opinion, the forum is being damaged, which really is unfortunate.
I have often wondered whether Dr. B has been affected by so much criticism. It has to have an effect. I know it would affect me. Criticism is often extremely difficult to deal with, and the way in which people deal with it is often detrimental.
Ed
Posted by Christ_empowered on November 29, 2010, at 16:34:07
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » morgan miller, posted by ed_uk2010 on November 29, 2010, at 16:21:07
I ought to finally chime in on this one. I didn't much enjoy my experience...it felt like I was being coaxed and cajoled into saying something so bland as to be meaningless. Anyway, I didn't think the original posts were that terrible.
Thanks for your support, Morgan+ed_uk.
Posted by sukarno on November 30, 2010, at 0:30:46
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » morgan miller, posted by ed_uk2010 on November 29, 2010, at 16:21:07
There was another bulletin board run by a psychiatrist for a few years for panic disorder patients and things were fine until one day one of the members posted something ridiculing Scientology. One day after that post was made, the psychiatrist shut down the entire bulletin board permanently without saying why.
I believe it was due to fear of Scientology and their powerful legal machine which can easily shut down websites and/or character-assassinate people who post personal opinions critical of the anti-psychiatry movement. I've seen this done in the past. I do not like Scientology and firmly believe they are 100% behind the anti-psychiatry movement and started the anti-psychiatry movement themselves decades ago.
This is only my opinion, however the German government's BfV (Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution) has determined that Scientology is undermining democracy and democratic institutions.
http://www.verfassungsschutz.de/en/en_fields_of_work/scientology/
"The "Scientology Organisation" (SO) is still being monitored by the offices for the protection of the constitution. Concrete evidence of activities directed against the free democratic basic order continues to be available. This is why the legal requirement for the organisation to be monitored by the offices for the protection of the constitution is met. Therefore, the relevant decision made in 1997 by the Permanent Conference of the State Ministers of the Interior and the State Senates remains valid."
I feel Dr Bob has no choice but to be careful and prudent by encouraging "I" statements. I feel that if Dr Bob allowed people to post objective criticism of the "anti-psychiatry movement" (code word, in my opinion, for Scientology) that this website could fall prey to Scientology's legal team.
In my opinion I think this is what it is about and I don't fault Dr Bob.
If I have said anything which has offended anyone or caused them to feel put down, then I apologize in advance.
Posted by sigismund on November 30, 2010, at 1:30:39
In reply to mental illness as a believer, posted by Christ_empowered on October 30, 2010, at 23:40:05
This is an example of how it spreads.
Posted by sigismund on November 30, 2010, at 1:40:29
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » ed_uk2010, posted by sukarno on November 30, 2010, at 0:30:46
Paul, I have no liking for Scientology, its theory of our origin, its celebrity or its legal machine.
Nevertheless I cannot forget what happened at Chelmsford, and the fact that it was the CCHR(sp?) which pressed to expose the abuses.
>Deep sleep therapy was also notoriously practised (in combination with electroconvulsive therapy and other therapies) by Harry Bailey between 1962 and 1979 in Sydney, at the Chelmsford Private Hospital.
>As practised by Bailey, deep sleep therapy involved long periods of barbiturate-induced unconsciousness. DST was prescribed for various conditions ranging from schizophrenia and depression to obesity, PMS and addiction.
>Twenty-six patients died at Chelmsford Private Hospital during the 1960s and 1970s, with only perfunctory investigation by authorities. After the failure of the agencies of medical and criminal investigation to tackle complaints about Chelmsford, a series of articles in the early 1980s in the Sydney Morning Herald exposed the abuses at the hospital and forced the authorities to take action, and a Royal Commission was appointed.[2] In 1978 Sydney psychiatrist Brian Boettcher had convened a meeting of doctors working at Chelmsford and found there was little support for deep sleep therapy (Harry Bailey did not attend). However the treatment continued to be used into the following year.[3] In the report of the Royal Commission, it was determined that the deaths had been disclosed after the doctors' meeting called by Boettcher; and the commission recommended that Boettcher be commended for his actions. Subsequently the Australian Medical Association gave him an award for outstanding services to psychiatry.[citation needed] Legal action on behalf of former patients was and is still being pursued in New South Wales.[4][5][6] Those treated at Chelmsford included Stevie Wright, the former lead singer of the 1960s pop band The Easybeats; another was musician Bobby Limb. Limb was one of the ex-patients of Chelmsford who took part in the 1992 documentary about the deep sleep scandal, Deep Sleep, made for Channel Four in the UK's Secret History series by filmmaker John Edginton. The film was also shown on ABC Television in Australia and A&E in America.I should add that the Royal Commission established that over 100 former patients had been permanently damaged by the treatment.
So, I'm ambivalent.
Posted by Christ_empowered on November 30, 2010, at 3:02:36
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » sukarno, posted by sigismund on November 30, 2010, at 1:40:29
I don't really have any problems with the CCHR. I think they may be the only well-funded legal organization willing and able to help people with psychiatric diagnoses. The ACLU, for instance, will help convicted felons, but I don't think they've taken up for mental patients.
My original statement was about my inability to make anti-psychiatry work in my own life. I've simply found medication indispensable, although I do at times have problems with mental health professionals. I can certainly see the need for an anti-psychiatry and/or patient's rights movement.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 30, 2010, at 13:45:36
In reply to Re: please rephrase that, posted by morgan miller on November 26, 2010, at 21:47:46
> Dr. Bob patronized him repeatedly
Please don't post anything that could lead others (including me) to feel accused.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person, and I'm sorry if this hurts you.
I do hope that you choose to remain a member of this community and that members of this community help you, if needed, to avoid future blocks.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express yourself, including a link to a nice post by Dinah on I-statements, are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
PS: This block is the result of one action, but its length is the result of a pattern of actions. The block length formula:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
takes into account how long the previous block was, how long it's been since the previous block, and how uncivil the current post is:
duration of previous block: 1 week
period of time since previous block: 29 weeks
severity: 2 (default) + 1 (uncivil toward particular individual) = 3
block length = 1.87 rounded = 2 weeks
Posted by ed_uk2010 on November 30, 2010, at 13:59:56
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » morgan miller, posted by Dr. Bob on November 30, 2010, at 13:45:36
> > Dr. Bob patronized him repeatedly
>
> Please don't post anything that could lead others (including me) to feel accused.Dr. Bob, if you were C_emp, wouldn't you feel patronized? I believe that I would.
I do not understand why you have blocked Morgan for expressing his opinion. It seems completely disproportionate. I find Morgan to be civil.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Faith | 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.