![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 74 to 98 of 100. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 6, 2005, at 19:47:54
In reply to Re: you've got a fine, strong heart, (nm) » Larry Hoover, posted by sunny10 on April 6, 2005, at 10:39:22
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 6, 2005, at 19:49:43
In reply to Re: I'm sorry..., posted by deer shadow on April 6, 2005, at 18:28:44
> Larry- 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
Welcome!
Don't be too surprised, though, if you find the odd controversy floating around, hereabouts. ;-)
Make sure you read the FAQ. It has some clear posting guidelines.
Best,
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 6, 2005, at 22:11:08
In reply to Re: I'm sorry..., posted by Larry Hoover on April 6, 2005, at 19:49:43
Posted by AuntieMel on April 7, 2005, at 11:13:21
In reply to Re: I'm sorry..., posted by deer shadow on April 6, 2005, at 18:28:44
to the land of very-little-censorship. Lar is right, read the FAQ - and you might want to cruise the archives.
Posts almost never get deleted, and you can't go back and edit them (change history) - so keep that in mind.
But also know we are very forgiving of the occasional bad day.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 8, 2005, at 2:15:59
In reply to Re: I'm sorry..., posted by deer shadow on April 6, 2005, at 18:28:44
> that site and all its petty contoversies
Please be sensitive to the feelings of others and don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
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.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Jai Narayan on April 9, 2005, at 8:48:12
In reply to Re: please be civil » deer shadow, posted by Dr. Bob on April 8, 2005, at 2:15:59
sometimes the beginning of a venture into PB can be frought with risks.
please read the rules...
we are supportive and not critical of others, other boards...etc
we are all about support.So I hope this PBC doesn't run you off.
I went through the hardest of beginnnings myself.
I learned the rules the hard way.so with all that said
WELCOME TO BABBLEJa*
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 9, 2005, at 10:46:05
In reply to Re: please be civil » deer shadow, posted by Dr. Bob on April 8, 2005, at 2:15:59
> > that site and all its petty contoversies
>
> Please be sensitive to the feelings of others and don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.deer shadow, there is a rule here that you not label others.....that's the simplest way to put it.
By using the adjective "petty", you have labelled the behaviour, and it could be felt as a put down.
Instead, we promote I-statements. Speaking of our own self, e.g. "I was frustrated with the topic of their arguments, not staying on point.....", or simply saying "that site and all its controversies", leaving out the adjective.
By receiving what we call a PBC (Please Be Civil), you are "on notice" that a similar post might receive a block. You can also get a Please Rephrase, which is a milder form of PBC.
You may want to find a "civility buddy", somebody you know on the board who can help you by checking your posts before you post them, if they involve emotional content in the interaction with others.
Also, apologies go a long way. You can't edit your posts here, but if you realize you've made a mistake, or become uncivil, you can apologize or restate what you said earlier.
It's a little challenging, sometimes, to phrase things in such a way that you're not being judgmental. But, it's a really good skill to have, in real life. I've certainly put it to good use, myself.
Lar
Posted by used2b on April 9, 2005, at 11:54:49
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by Larry Hoover on April 9, 2005, at 10:46:05
> It's a little challenging, sometimes, to phrase things in such a way that you're not being judgmental. But, it's a really good skill to have, in real life. I've certainly put it to good use, myself.
>
> LarIt might be a useful approach sometimes, but I would as soon sacrifice my life as I would sacrifice my judgement.
Applying judgement is to be judgemental. The judgemental behavior prohibited here is only that which offers certain conclusions. In most contexts that promote free thought, criticism of ideas is jealously defended, and if people feel put up or down by their association with an idea or a behavior, they can either adjust their behavior, rebut the criticism or take it for what it is -- one person's opinion not couched with any authority but that of their own voice. Read the editorial page of your paper, and consider the hundreds of English teachers who contributed to shaping the language of those opinion columns. "I" statements are seldom used in the critical discusion of ideas.
There are well-established traditions in civil law that allow people to pray to a court for relief if they believe they are slandered or libeled. The rules of language one is required to deploy here have no little or no relation to any published civil tradition.
I'm not commenting on how the board is run, except to suggest that what one person calls civility is just that -- one person's judgement. Learning the rules here is about like learning the rules of Fear Factor or Monday Night Wrestling -- they make sense in this context, and might be useful in developing an ability to apply unique rules in microcultural settings, but the actual rules have little to offer as a transferable set of standards because they are not accepted or applied an any other known settings.
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 9, 2005, at 13:01:43
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by used2b on April 9, 2005, at 11:54:49
> I'm not commenting on how the board is run, except to suggest that what one person calls civility is just that -- one person's judgement.
I have called it Bobjectivity, as it depends on his judgment.
> but the actual rules have little to offer as a transferable set of standards because they are not accepted or applied an any other known settings.
I guess we'll have to disagree on that. In online communication, where inflection, body language, tone, volume, facial expression, etc., are absent, the civility standards employed here are quite transferable elsewhere.
Moreover, in face-to-face discussions, I've found that I have more flexibility in the manner in which I present myself, to remain convincing and empathetic, while being critical of another. Your experience may differ.
And when I write to the editorial page, you can be sure that civility, as by Babble standards, is not in effect.
Best,
Lar
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.