![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 65 to 89 of 100. Go back in thread:
Posted by used2b on April 3, 2005, at 14:13:13
In reply to Re: Pfizer link offensive » ed_uk, posted by Larry Hoover on April 2, 2005, at 15:48:58
>
> I PM'd Doc John, and he was dismissive, and refused to discuss my concerns.
>
>Larry,
We probably disagree on the propriety of classifying SSRI's as Happy Pills, or of a psych-doc using the classification as parody within a quasi-clinical setting where parody is not a standard feature.
However, I recognize that you have certain rights to be heard when reporting adverse reactions to events that occur in these quasi-clinical on-line forums.
I'm not prepared with a full brief on appropriate causes or courses of action, but if he does not acknowledge the merits of your concern, he is at least obligated to record your concern, to make his collection of recorded concerns available to his peers and to allow whatever institution facilitates his on-line clinical research complete access to all complaints he receives related to the project. This is especially true of docs who posture their work, with publications and organizational memberships, as leading the way into new approaches, as these forums tend to be.
If grousing here about the offense doesn't provide the relief you seek, I encourage you to explore his institutional chain of command and use the experience to at least be sure the complaint process meets the requirements associated with whatever funding he receives.
Posted by gardenergirl on April 3, 2005, at 14:37:03
In reply to Re: Pfizer link offensive, posted by used2b on April 3, 2005, at 14:13:13
While I can certainly understand debating the merits of differing admnistration styles, perhaps that aspect of this discussion belongs on admin?
And if that discussion continues, I personally would prefer to see it continue with a focus on the strengths and weaknesses of different styles or policies without naming specific administrators.
I remember seeing a similar issue come up with discussion on this board and the one discussed above. I felt very uncomfortable posting on either site for a period of time during and after, and I witnessed friendships crack and even end. I just hate to see that happen again.
gg
Posted by used2b on April 3, 2005, at 15:18:00
In reply to Different boards, posted by gardenergirl on April 3, 2005, at 14:37:03
> While I can certainly understand debating the merits of differing admnistration styles, perhaps that aspect of this discussion belongs on admin?
>
The published criteria for the admin board is for posting "about the operation of this site." This site, of course, being http://www.dr-bob.org/babble aka Psycho-babble. Nothing in this thread can be construed as being about the operation of psychobabble except now this post asserting this discussion should go elsewhere.Posting information about one's adverse reaction in another social setting, albeit an on-line setting similar to this one, appears consistent with the purpose of this page which is for "general discussion and support."
The "alternatives" board would not be appropriate because participation in on-line discussions is not represented as a method of treatment, but rather as a source of support for those undergoing treatments. On-line forums are a social setting, and would seem appropo for discussion in a mental health social forum.
I support the style of on-line support and educational socialization where operators of experimental on-line forums adhere to requirements that they record reports of adverse reactions. Unless there are legal liabilities involved, I don't see the merit in disallowing supportive educational posts about a possible course of action in cases where a clinician has been named in relation to a hurtful circumstance.
Posted by gardenergirl on April 3, 2005, at 15:52:34
In reply to Re: Different boards, posted by used2b on April 3, 2005, at 15:18:00
I replied to you on Admin, as my concern is more admin related.
Here is a link to my reply.http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050323/msgs/479358.html
gg
Posted by used2b on April 3, 2005, at 16:00:06
In reply to Re: Different boards » used2b, posted by gardenergirl on April 3, 2005, at 15:52:34
> I replied to you on Admin, as my concern is more admin related.
> Here is a link to my reply.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050323/msgs/479358.html
>
> gg
I reviewed the organization of this site and almost put my response to you on admin, where your first post might have gone, but I'm posting about how we use language in a supportive construct more so than about how this board should be administered.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 3, 2005, at 18:59:44
In reply to Re: Different boards, posted by used2b on April 3, 2005, at 16:00:06
squish!
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 3, 2005, at 19:10:36
In reply to Happy Pills trademark, posted by used2b on April 3, 2005, at 13:38:02
Do I know you? Did you change your posting name?
> Happy Pills is the trademarked product name of a nutritional supplement offered by a German firm.
>
> http://www.worldclassnutrition.com/happypills.htmlInteresting. It contains three herbal antidepressant agents, plus a few nutritional antidepressant augments. I wonder what it's like to take them altogether like that.
> Regardless some people being offended by colloquial understandings of neuropharmacology, serontonin enhancing drugs are largely offered as a remedy for anhedonia, which is a primary symptom of depression.
Sorry to snip so much, but the etiology of the phrase really isn't the issue I address. In the now censored post I had up for consideration at that other place, I discussed what these pharmaceuticals had actually been for me. If I recall, I said something like, "I have never been given Happy Pills. I have received Insomnia Pills, Impotence Pills, Weight Gain Pills, Hepatotoxic Pills, Stupidity Pills," and some more.....something like that.
I argued that the phrase is only generally used by the lay press, and the ignorant masses. Never in a complementary way. It is derogatory, dismissive, condescending.
Anyway, I grow weary of this all. DJ is not even willing to discuss it.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 3, 2005, at 22:37:21
In reply to Re: Happy Pills trademark » used2b, posted by Larry Hoover on April 3, 2005, at 19:10:36
I should add Doc John apologized to me. I think I had him pretty PO'd with me before that. I can write some sharp rhetoric, but I don't always realize I'm doing that.
Lar
Posted by gardenergirl on April 3, 2005, at 23:40:12
In reply to Re: Happy Pills addendum, posted by Larry Hoover on April 3, 2005, at 22:37:21
Lar,
Sometimes validation lags behind. :( Glad it finally caught up.gg
Posted by partlycloudy on April 4, 2005, at 7:20:57
In reply to Re: I'm sorry... » Dinah, posted by Larry Hoover on April 3, 2005, at 10:31:52
Larry, that's been my experience over there too, and I have been slammed for even discussing it.
I understand and respect the difference in cultures between the sites. I've been criticized for even looking there since I'm not terribly comfortable with the culture. But the very reason I *do* check there is because there are former babblers who post there with whom I want to be able to keep up - how else would I do that except by looking at the site?
'Nuff said from me. I feel badly only that I replied to Em's post in the first place and starting this ball rolling downhill so quickly. My tears weren't worth it, and the invalidation of having a discussion "poofed" is really enough to keep me away from that site permanently.
pc
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 4, 2005, at 7:39:23
In reply to Re: I'm sorry... » Larry Hoover, posted by partlycloudy on April 4, 2005, at 7:20:57
> Larry, that's been my experience over there too, and I have been slammed for even discussing it.
I don't wish to broach a new topic, but I am reminded of Orwell.
> I understand and respect the difference in cultures between the sites. I've been criticized for even looking there since I'm not terribly comfortable with the culture. But the very reason I *do* check there is because there are former babblers who post there with whom I want to be able to keep up - how else would I do that except by looking at the site?
I generally only frequent the drug/medication board, updating maybe a dozen times a day. Sometimes people want/need a quick medication-related answer, and I like to be able to provide that quickly. It was seeing that banner every time I reloaded that got me so disturbed....rubbing salt, as it were.
> 'Nuff said from me. I feel badly only that I replied to Em's post in the first place and starting this ball rolling downhill so quickly.I really hope that people can disconnect from what went bad here? *I* had a dispute with another man *Doc John*, and it wasn't meant to involve anyone else. Absolutely, spectators were all over the place, but the dispute itself was one man to one man.
I know I write good prose. Meaningful, good construction, blah blah. Most of the time I'm explaining. But I use the same skills when I'm complaining, and I think I got under some skins. For that, I am sorry. For complaining at all, I am not. I received a number of quiet messages, thanking me for speaking up. There *is* a silent but hurt population segment to consider.
> My tears weren't worth it, and the invalidation of having a discussion "poofed" is really enough to keep me away from that site permanently.
>
> pcI'm sorry it upset you. Truly sorry.
Doc John told me my thread had been "moved", when I accused him of censorship. It took me a couple of pointed emails to get him to define "moved" for me. It sounded like a euphemism, and it is. The thread has been "moved" offline, until it can be considered by a group of moderators. If they verify the decision made, the "move" becomes permanent, without further notice or chance at appeal (as if). Orwell again.
I'm glad I learned how things really work over there. I am reminded of a group of people, all in a row, fingers in their ears, chanting, "There is no dissent in Psych Central Land! La La La La La La Laaa!"
Lar
Posted by partlycloudy on April 4, 2005, at 8:42:10
In reply to Re: I'm sorry... » partlycloudy, posted by Larry Hoover on April 4, 2005, at 7:39:23
...is also with person who owns the site, and it's all due to the "Orwellian" revisions that take place there. Even my reference to a particular book written by that author resulted in my hand being slapped, which stung.
I've never bothered to take it up with the man, mostly because he refered to the dispute as something immature - and by extension, I took it to mean that he considered me in the same light. I only need to be insulted once - OK, twice - to know when I am someplace I don't belong.
I did understand the "happy pill" joke as soon as I read further about it, but I consider that it was in poor taste, and my funny bone was out of joint that day, too. A bad combination, on April Fool's day.
((((Larry))))
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 4, 2005, at 8:52:47
In reply to My dispute... » Larry Hoover, posted by partlycloudy on April 4, 2005, at 8:42:10
{{{{{{{{{{{partlycloudy, changing to full sun}}}}}}}}}}}
That's one my big old bear hugs.
Lar
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on April 4, 2005, at 11:14:04
In reply to Re: Pfizer link offensive, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 2, 2005, at 17:02:31
Gabbix,
That's the spirit I took it in. If you read a lot of articles Dr. Grohol writes, it is completely obvious his disdain for pharmaceutical claims (in my opinion at least). Knowing his stance on that, and the complete overprescription of "happy pills," by general practitioners, etc., I found this quite funny!
Posted by TamaraJ on April 4, 2005, at 11:28:48
In reply to My dispute... » Larry Hoover, posted by partlycloudy on April 4, 2005, at 8:42:10
an April Fool's joke played at one site was brought to another site. Unfortunate because of what has transpired in the past between the posters of the two sites. Reading this thread was like a re-opening of an old wound that I was under the impression had begun to heal :-(
Oh well, such is life I guess.
Posted by used2b on April 4, 2005, at 11:49:26
In reply to Re: Happy Pills trademark » used2b, posted by Larry Hoover on April 3, 2005, at 19:10:36
>
> Sorry to snip so much, but the etiology of the phrase really isn't the issue I address.Okay, good enough. I stipulated that we likely disagree on whether "happy pills" is an apt euphemism, but primarily I cited that etiology as a preface to the assertion that you likely have recourse for your complaint, if it really matters.
I'd seen the name of this not-to-be-mentioned funny doctor previously and needed to look around to see if my recollection was accurate. Indeed, it is ironic a person who professionally postures as leading the way in developing ethical standards for on-line delivery of mental health services would curtly dismiss evidence of an adverse reaction to that person's casual humor in a quasi-clinical context.
Anyway, all this huggy parenthesis stuff isn't exactly my style nor do I think there is a lot to be gained beyond a brief change in one's own mood by campaigning in forums such as this. If one wants to banish the term "happy pills" or to force mental health providers to comply with ethical standards, one usually needs funding, allies and a campaign strategy. Otherwise, the myth of democracy tends to produce a clamor of idle chatter.
Posted by partlycloudy on April 4, 2005, at 12:20:27
In reply to What's unfortunate is that . . ., posted by TamaraJ on April 4, 2005, at 11:28:48
> an April Fool's joke played at one site was brought to another site. Unfortunate because of what has transpired in the past between the posters of the two sites. Reading this thread was like a re-opening of an old wound that I was under the impression had begun to heal :-(
>
> Oh well, such is life I guess.
>I think it just speaks about the difference in culture and environment between the sites. Some wounds can be covered with a bandaid - let's say, having a post or thread deleted - but won't heal unless the issues are discussed in full.
Just my thoughts. I, personally, am well and truly done with the other place and the now you see it, now you don't method of administration because it just facilitates the non-healing of these wounds.
Now I am jumping out of this thread before I get into trouble.
Posted by AuntieMel on April 4, 2005, at 13:19:42
In reply to Re: Happy Pills addendum, posted by Larry Hoover on April 3, 2005, at 22:37:21
I mean I use the term "happy pills." The pills themselve are 'marginally functional' pills.
I use it in jokes pointed at myself, or say 'I've got to take my happy pills.'
Laughing at myself robs others of the chance to do it.
And talking about 'happy pills' often results in a chance to educate others. Otherwise they are afraid to upset me by asking.
Point - almost any term can be used to advantage.
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 4, 2005, at 14:01:32
In reply to I use happy pills » Larry Hoover, posted by AuntieMel on April 4, 2005, at 13:19:42
> I mean I use the term "happy pills." The pills themselve are 'marginally functional' pills.
>
> I use it in jokes pointed at myself, or say 'I've got to take my happy pills.'
>
> Laughing at myself robs others of the chance to do it.
>
> And talking about 'happy pills' often results in a chance to educate others. Otherwise they are afraid to upset me by asking.
>
> Point - almost any term can be used to advantage.Absolutely true. Different circumstances permit this sort of thing.
I don't think Pfizer ought to be given the same latitude, even in jest.
Lar
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 4, 2005, at 14:36:50
In reply to Re: Pfizer link offensive » Gabbi-x-2, posted by Miss Honeychurch on April 4, 2005, at 11:14:04
> Gabbix,
>
> That's the spirit I took it in. If you read a lot of articles Dr. Grohol writes, it is completely obvious his disdain for pharmaceutical claims (in my opinion at least).Thanks for backing me up Miss Honey, like I said when I read the small print, it said to me that he was being cynical and I'm not biased one way or the other toward Doc John. I guess there's really no way much that he does will be seen in a positive light on Babble. The site isn't my style, too many hugs and bouncy things, but I've got to give credit to a man who does one on one chat to the members of his site, and who's given many people I care about a space that they feel good posting in.
Posted by alexandra_k on April 4, 2005, at 17:52:17
In reply to Re: Pfizer link offensive » Miss Honeychurch, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 4, 2005, at 14:36:50
I think it is hard because of the different rules between the different sites.
I have said before (only partly in jest) that it would be useful to have an admin board here for discussing issues about PC!! Because there isn't anywhere there to discuss admin issues. If you try you will be poofed.
I can understand that it is an effort to minimise conflict and make the board a safe place for people who are fragile - but me personally, well I need a place to be able to discuss things that bug me - including admin issues.
I think that is why people bring stuff over here. Because they can't be discussed over there.
But I don't think it is a good thing.
I don't think it is a good thing at all...
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 5, 2005, at 8:21:36
In reply to Re: What's unfortunate is that . . . » TamaraJ, posted by partlycloudy on April 4, 2005, at 12:20:27
> While I can certainly understand debating the merits of differing admnistration styles, perhaps that aspect of this discussion belongs on admin?
I think if it relates to the style here, that's fine, but if it's just about the style elsewhere, this board might be more appropriate.
> And if that discussion continues, I personally would prefer to see it continue with a focus on the strengths and weaknesses of different styles or policies without naming specific administrators.
>
> ggGood idea!
> Some wounds can be covered with a bandaid ... but won't heal unless the issues are discussed in full.
>
> partlycloudyPreferably with I-statements...
Bob
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 5, 2005, at 13:42:03
In reply to Re: Different boards, posted by Dr. Bob on April 5, 2005, at 8:21:36
Since this was a public scene, I think it is fair to Doc John that I update the situation.
I apologized to him for "rocking his boat" so intensely, and he apologized for failing to give me "the public validation (I) deserved".
I consider the matter closed.
I am sorry for the magnitude of the disturbance. I'll try to keep it down, in future.
Lar
Posted by sunny10 on April 6, 2005, at 10:39:22
In reply to Update, posted by Larry Hoover on April 5, 2005, at 13:42:03
Posted by deer shadow on April 6, 2005, at 18:28:44
In reply to Re: I'm sorry... » Dinah, posted by Larry Hoover on April 3, 2005, at 10:31:52
John cut off replies. I can't even imagine why that administrative function is even empowered. Look what sort of message it sends.
>
> I started a new thread, and Doc John Poofed! the whole thing, without acknowledging so much as a single word I expressed to him.
>
> I'm sorry that spilled over here, as it was a "there" thing. But I had no other forum to express myself, due to what he/they chose to do. There was a thread here, on topic, so that's where it went.
>
> I'm seriously upset about the administrative functions over there. It's almost like Soviet communism. Shut down the voices of dissent. Eliminate all evidence of their existence. I'm surprised I wasn't banished to the Gulag. I did what others suggested, and I PM'd Doc John. He did not address a single point I raised with him. All he did was repeat the same message he'd given when he closed off debate the first time. Most people finding something funny does not address the issue of stigmatization. This is not a majority vote situation.
>
> What started as a simple debate or expression about the issue of internalizing or propogating stigmatizing imagery became something else entirely. Hear me. Disagree with me. Decide the ideas have no merit. Whatever. But *hear* me. Give me a sign that you did, and I'm okay. That's all that I ask, but that's not what I got.
>
> Anyway, I had a roast chicken to get on the table, kids to feed.....I couldn't really get through it all yesterday. I wasn't finished, but I think this message wraps it up for me.
>
> Thanks for listening.
>
> LarLarry- I too was erased and then dismissed with extreme dispatch by our host. Im here now as Ive withdrawn from that site and all its petty contoversies
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | 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.