![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 41 to 65 of 96. Go back in thread:
Posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 9:56:57
In reply to Re: You wouldn't? » so, posted by Jen Star on July 17, 2005, at 0:54:21
> I think that if someone is worried about "disclosing" their faith, and is not comfortable strongly stating that they are "such and such" faith, then that person should not be prosetylizing that particular faith or using it in examples on a board such as this one. It just doesn't seem honest or authentic to me.
>I didn't see any proselytizing, or was that just a hypothetical situation? I think there is a difference though, wondering why someone needs to know what your religion is and not being comfortable saying it.
If you are referring to So, he's said a few times he follows Scientology, I don't sense any discomfort in disclosure (Except perhaps that he may not recieve the same "civility respect" as those of other religions.
In this case I don't understand why Dr. Bob need to have that information in order to answer his question about civility either. I'm not a Scientologist but I found his point valid on it's own.
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 12:01:09
In reply to Re: what about my religion?, posted by Dr. Bob on July 17, 2005, at 1:34:54
> > That is irrelevant to the question of whether you allow people to call members of certain religions "creepy".
>
> So you're retracting what you said before?
No I am not. I am stating that I should not have needed to expose matters related to my faith to have you enforce the rules you wrote and asked guests of your site to comply with.
> > I am called "creepy" because of my religious beliefs.
>
> Bob
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 12:03:06
In reply to Re: You wouldn't? » so, posted by Jen Star on July 17, 2005, at 0:54:21
> It just doesn't seem honest or authentic to me.
>
> Just my thoughts.
> JenStarI feel put down when someone chooses to publish their thought that they don't see me as honest or authentic.
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 12:16:56
In reply to Re: Please don't call me creepy » SO » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 8:53:35
> For now, SO, I hope we can remain focused on the two posts that you have taken issue with and not extrapolate a moderators' behavior regarding them to a pattern of function of the website as a whole. Perhaps you and I are adept at seeing patterns.
The pattern I hope you and other steadfast members of this group recognize, Scott, is that when some "bad members" bring valid citations of plain-sight contradictions in the rules, Bob Hsiung sometimes responds with questions, unusually delays an eventual intervention in the matter at hand for days or weeks, and as you have witnessed in this thread, uses the discussion he promotes in the mean time by allowing such clearly dissonant conditions to develop as an occassion to sanction complainants rather than addressing the complaint.
Posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 12:35:38
In reply to I feel put down, posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 12:03:06
>
> I feel put down when someone chooses to publish their thought that they don't see me as honest or authentic.For what it's worth to you, I'd have felt very put down as well, particulary as it comes across to me that you put honesty and authenticity above making yourself "Popular"
I'll butt out now, I know you are very capable of fighting your own battles. I get annoyed on behalf of others too often I think.
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 13:16:15
In reply to Re: I feel put down » so, posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 12:35:38
> I'll butt out now, I know you are very capable of fighting your own battles. I get annoyed on behalf of others too often I think.
Thank you for the compliment, but you are more than welcome to stand with me, or to take the lead when you see fit.While this doctor seems inclined to require me to confront this extremely negative labeling of faithful people out of self interest, my motivation is to stand by my friends. That is why I refuse to be put in the position of defending my faith, and assert a right to ask for protection of "others" as is guaranteed by the site terms of service. I value defense of others moreso than I value defense of self.
Robert Hsiung has so far refused to address the fact that his FAQ prohibits things that could offend "others" but that when it suits his desire, he defines "others" solely as members of this group who assert a particular interest of their own.
Posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 13:39:11
In reply to Re: I feel put down, posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 13:16:15
> > I'll butt out now, I know you are very capable of fighting your own battles. I get annoyed on behalf of others too often I think.
>
>
> Thank you for the compliment, but you are more than welcome to stand with me, or to take the lead when you see fit.Thanks then, I know it can feel intrusive to some.
> While this doctor seems inclined to require me to confront this extremely negative labeling of faithful people out of self interest, my motivation is to stand by my friends. That is why I refuse to be put in the position of defending my faith, and assert a right to ask for protection of "others" as is guaranteed by the site terms of service. I value defense of others moreso than I value defense of self.
>
Yes I understood your point in the first post And had a similar reaction (though I'm not really thinking Dr.Bob's motives for asking are nefarious) I think he too missed the point. It's a principal and who belongs to what is not the issue. Assuming that you are not comfortable with stating your personal beliefs because of that particular response to Dr. Bob is incorrect and if it was true, it would be irrelevent to the issue regardless.
Posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 13:43:24
In reply to Re: I feel put down » so, posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 13:39:11
I think it would be impossible for someone to be both "uncomfortable stating their religious beliefs" and proselytizing at the same time.
That would be quite a trick. Unless perhaps the proselytizing was not meant to be connected to religious views, but that's often what the word is associated with, so I took it in that context.
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 13:43:43
In reply to Re: what about my religion?, posted by Dr. Bob on July 17, 2005, at 1:34:54
Your FAQ says: "Please don't ... jump to conclusions about others, post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, harass or pressure others, use language that could offend others ..."
however, you wrote that "So far I am allowing" members to call adherents to certain religous groups "Creepy". Further, you asserted that my refusal to repeat my confession of faith comprised a racantation of my faith. I can only conclude that this means you believe refusal to repeat a position on demand comprises abandonment of that position.
So you have retracted your rules against jumping to conclusions or posting things that could lead others to feel put down?
Posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 13:46:59
In reply to Re: I feel put down, posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 13:16:15
Hi So,
> Robert Hsiung has so far refused to address the fact that his FAQ prohibits things that could offend "others" but that when it suits his desire, he defines "others" solely as members of this group who assert a particular interest of their own.I do feel that the doctor has been pretty even-handed in his enforcement of civility. He has allowed some pretty noxious posts directed at him and the operation of his bulletin board remain posted without taking any action other than dole out PBCs to some of the posters who reacted quite intensely to those posts. Perhaps I am not one of his favorites that I should get PBC'd along this thread. Perhaps... I try not to psychoanalyze the doctor and his toilet habits for every PBC I recieve. I actually find him quite lenient when it comes to passing out posting blocks. I might not feel the same way once I recieve my first, however.
I guess the question that comes to my mind is if the original "creepy" post would have been allowed unsanctioned in the Faith forum. I think passing or failing that scrutiny would be a litmus test of sorts.
- Scott
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 13:52:47
In reply to Re: I feel put down, posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 13:46:59
> I guess the question that comes to my mind is if the original "creepy" post would have been allowed unsanctioned in the Faith forum. I think passing or failing that scrutiny would be a litmus test of sorts.
>
>
> - ScottThat is a valid question, of course, but the broader question is whether calling a particular group of people "creepy" conforms to the site rules. The rules don't differentiate standards for the faith board, the politics board or any other board.
Generally speaking, as understood by the vast majority of the English-speaking world, civility implies that one in a leadership position will be true to his word.
Posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 14:02:18
In reply to Re: I feel put down--And, posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 13:43:24
> I think it would be impossible for someone to be both "uncomfortable stating their religious beliefs" and proselytizing at the same time.
I'm not sure SO has shown any evidence of proselytizing so much as he might be simply protecting a group from defamation, a cause often taken up by unaffiliated agencies like the ACLU and others like it. Sometimes, it is more effective to debate and influence anonymously and without association to a particular group on behalf of that group as it helps mitigate prejudice and stereotyping.
I am hoping that he does at some point focus his attentions on proselytizing Scientology on the main medical board with respect to psychiatry. Debate there should be interesting.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 14:20:15
In reply to Secret rules? » SLS, posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 13:52:47
I think one of the things you miss by simply reviewing the archives is the dynamics of communication and moderation on the website. That you are unaware of the "secret" that the Faith board is scrutinized very closely indicates to me that you simply haven't been around that long. Although I agree with your position on the "creepy" thing, I think you should allow yourself some time to observe the boards in real-time before condemning the moderator and their operation entirely. If you have indeed been lurking over the past two years or so since the inclusion of a Faith board and its evolution, I apologize for deducing otherwise.
As for what develops here along this thread, I will be very interested to see how the moderator and you negotiate your ways through it.
I have never been wrong about anything. Once, I thought I was wrong, but it turned out that I was mistaken.
- Scott
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 14:39:55
In reply to Re: Secret rules? » so, posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 14:20:15
> That you are unaware of the "secret" that the Faith board is scrutinized very closely indicates to me that you simply haven't been around that long.
But since I am aware that there is a "secret" unpublished standard for that board, and since I revealed my knowledge of that secret in the title of my post, you can conclude that I have careully reviewed the history and dynamics of how this site is administered.
Since I am more aware of "secret" unpublished policies than you previously realized, you might also consider that I have access to additional insight about other "secret" unpublished policies that are widely understood by more involved members of this group.
One of those policies includes the unwritten addendum "except regarding Scientologist" in the "civility" FAQ, which was not included in the FAQ, but secretly published in an obscure post at the top of this thread which apparently even you did not locate without my assistance.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050716/msgs/528618.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050628/msgs/527014.html>Although I agree with your position on the "creepy" thing, I think you should allow yourself some time to observe the boards in real-time before condemning the moderator and their operation entirely.
I am not allowed to publish here a condemnation of the owner of this site, and I have not. I am addressing administration of a particular policy, which is the stated purpose of this particular board. And I maintain my reaction to this particular circumstance is not an isolated reaction based in self-interest, but instead based on my lengthy review of operation of this site, a review the scope of which you are expressing unawareness.
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 14:49:56
In reply to Re: I feel put down--And » gabbii, posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 14:02:18
> I am hoping that he does at some point focus his attentions on proselytizing Scientology on the main medical board with respect to psychiatry. Debate there should be interesting.
>
>
> - ScottThere are at least three reasons that won't happen.
First, the discussion would likely be relocated to Faith, though posting to the Meds board could force the admin to show his hand and acknowledge either that he does or does not agree with the Courts of the United States of America which have concluded that Scientology is a religion.
Secondly, I have no reason to believe that Scientology is the right thing for anybody reading the meds board. Scientololgy information is widely available elsewhere and there would be more productive places for me to make such information available. Scientologists generally seek to provide information, not to persuade others to accept available information, so we wouldn't have much of a debate. More likely, if we found a setting where I felt comfortable sharing my faith, I would explore with you areas in which we might share scepticism regarding the authors of Scientology, and only then would I ask you to consider meritous aspects of the faith.
Thirdly, if I were to declare that my reluctance to use psyhciatric medicines was based on the opinions and religious doctrines of a former science fiction writer, people might not as readily believe me when I state my reluctance to use certian drugs is a result of scientific testing and government regulations that have led manufacturers of some psychiatric drugs to publish warnings that use of their drugs can sometimes lead to thoughts of suicide.
Posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 15:16:21
In reply to Re: I feel put down--And » gabbii, posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 14:02:18
That was exactly my point Scott, but I appreciate your tactful approach.I was actually referring to a post made by Jen Star, which has rolled over I think.
But here's a combination of what she said, and my response
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050716/msgs/528956.html
Posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 15:18:48
In reply to Re: Secret rules? » so, posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 14:20:15
> > As for what develops here along this thread, I will be very interested to see how the moderator and you negotiate your ways through it.
>
> I have never been wrong about anything. Once, I thought I was wrong, but it turned out that I was mistaken.
Scott I agree with So on this one, yes the faithboard is closely monitored, but Larry hoover and ISOm both were given P.B.C's for stereotyping r*dnecks, and that was on the Social Board.
Posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 15:20:29
In reply to Re: Secret rules? S.L.S, posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 15:18:48
Posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 15:25:10
In reply to Re: I feel put down--And, posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 14:49:56
> > I am hoping that he does at some point focus his attentions on proselytizing Scientology on the main medical board with respect to psychiatry. Debate there should be interesting.
> There are at least three reasons that won't happen.
What first drew your attention to Psycho-Babble?What is your agenda?
Why are you targeting Dr. Hsiung?
Why should you care what one person thinks? In this case, I am referring to the doctor. Why are his beliefs and behaviors so important to you? As you have stated in your three reasons, the beliefs and behaviors of people on Psycho-Babble are not sufficient reason for you to participate here.
Would you feel more comfortable if this website were to discontinue operation?
- Scott
Posted by Nickengland on July 17, 2005, at 15:33:18
In reply to Re: I feel put down--And, posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 14:49:56
Interesting So, - Would you be willing to share you real name by the way?..so is just so...lol..ahh well I think it speaks volumes in some respects, but I just wondered is it short for a real name or is it just saying "so" as in "so what" I find it a very interesting posting name..
I've been reading your posts about the "creepy" issue with Scott and gabbii. I must say I will be interested to see the outsome of this...
>Thirdly, if I were to declare that my reluctance to use psyhciatric medicines was based on the opinions and religious doctrines of a former science fiction writer, people might not as readily believe me when I state my reluctance to use certian drugs is a result of scientific testing and government regulations that have led manufacturers of some psychiatric drugs to publish warnings that use of their drugs can sometimes lead to thoughts of suicide.
I am interested also with this statement. I have noticed that you tend to post mainly in Administration (although I read the debate in politics also) and I know that you have been "lurking" for quite a while.
What I am most curious is though, is to why, if your against psychiatry and psychiatric drugs...and also the psychiatrist that runs this site.....what exactly is it that you gain from posting here with regards to education and support?
I was just trying to think if it was the other way round...for example if someone who was against the scientology beliefs of treating mental illness (but who was pro psychiatry) had choosen to post at a scientology mental health forum...but only post to the administration/moderator to complain....why would they choose to do this when they do not agree with the whole concept of the treatment of scientology in the first place? It appears to be like a double negative so to speak. I just find the motives interesting as to why someone would pusue so much time finding out about something they dont agree/believe in and only make themself "visible" to complain about the admistration of the forum, which in turn is based on what they dont agree with in the first place?
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 15:58:33
In reply to Re: Secret rules? S.L.S, posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 15:18:48
Hi Gabbii.
> That was exactly my point Scott, but I appreciate your tactful approach.
Sorry. I didn't really understand where you were coming from. I took your words literally.
As to whether or not you agree with SO, I think it is pretty clear that the original "creepy" post deserves a reappraisal by the moderator to preserve consistency. As to the other posts you referred to being submitted by Larry Hoover and IsoM, I would not have seen them as I don't frequent the Social board. Nor for that matter do I frequent the Administration board. I am ignorant to what transpired. I am sad that those two people are no longer here, though. They have been very important contributors in my estimation.
Gabbii, when was the last time you saw Dr. Bob reverse a decision of his? Has he ever admitted a mistake? Has he ever made one? If I never do, perhaps he is just as capable as I am of never being wrong.
> I have never been wrong about anything. Once, I thought I was wrong, but it turned out that I was mistaken.
I appreciate your having allowed my attempt at wit be brought forward twice more. I hope someone other than me appreciates it. If not, it has served its purpose of self-amusement.
- Scott
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 16:05:04
In reply to Re: I feel put down--And, posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 15:25:10
>
> What first drew your attention to Psycho-Babble?Search engine results.
> What is your agenda?
With regards to what? It is clear my "agenda" in this thread has to do with an administrative policy you and others, including implicitly the administrator ("I'm letting these go") have acknowledged is not consistent with the site FAQ. Unless of course Scientologists are not human and hence are not "others".
> Why are you targeting Dr. Hsiung?I am responding to the administrator of a Web site about administration of the Web site, in an area exclusively dedicated to that purpose. How does this comprise targeting? Do you imply something untoward in the term "targeting" or is it simply a synonym for "directing messages to"? This particular post (the one you are reading) targets you, because you asked me a question and it is appropriate to target, or direct, the reply to you.
> Why should you care what one person thinks? In this case, I am referring to the doctor. Why are his beliefs and behaviors so important to you?His beliefs are important because they effect his behavior. His behavior is important because it effects others. Others are important because I care.
Because that person to whom you refer has established himself as a limited public figure, whose behavior is a proper topic for discussion, and because he publishes a Web site where he allows opinions to be published about private persons, including myself.
As you have stated in your three reasons, the beliefs and behaviors of people on Psycho-Babble are not sufficient reason for you to participate here.
I did not state that. I am more than my faith du jour. I stated, in reply to your published desire to debate with me the merits of Scientology, that I saw no clear reason to proselytize recruits to a particular faith on a board primarily oriented toward information about medications. As I stated, any information I post there about medications would be based on scientific research such as that which has led drug companies to advise customers that their products are known to cause thoughts of suicide in some cases.
> Would you feel more comfortable if this website were to discontinue operation?I would feel more comfortable on a cool spring day in a serene natural setting, or maybe sitting beside a swimming pool with no chores on my "to do" list. I would have more confidence that people are receiving valuable information untainted by subjective opinions if the information was organized systematically rather than in a conversational format that tends to emphasize the opinions of whomever might be reading the site at that time.
Posted by chemist on July 17, 2005, at 16:08:39
In reply to Re: Secret rules? S.L.S » gabbii, posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 15:58:33
Scott does know quite a bit, in truth...even where my mom lives!...yours, c
> > I have never been wrong about anything. Once, I thought I was wrong, but it turned out that I was mistaken.
>
> I appreciate your having allowed my attempt at wit be brought forward twice more. I hope someone other than me appreciates it. If not, it has served its purpose of self-amusement.
>
>
> - Scott
>
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 16:36:39
In reply to Re: I feel put down--And » so, posted by Nickengland on July 17, 2005, at 15:33:18
> I must say I will be interested to see the outsome of this...
Then you probably understand my interest better than you realize. Whatever faith I hold is not the only dimension of who I am or how I think.
> What I am most curious is though, is to why, if your against psychiatry and psychiatric drugs...and also the psychiatrist that runs this site.....what exactly is it that you gain from posting here with regards to education and support?
>When and where have I declared an opposition to psychiatry or psychiatric drugs? Having doubts about efficacy does not imply wholesale opposition. Or does participation in a community interested in mental health --- which is what this site is ostensibly about --- require that one have *faith* in the efficacy of the current pharmacopea of psychiatric drugs?
> I was just trying to think if it was the other way round...for example if someone who was against the scientology beliefs of treating mental illness (but who was pro psychiatry) had choosen to post at a scientology mental health forum...but only post to the administration/moderator to complain....why would they choose to do this when they do not agree with the whole concept of the treatment of scientology in the first place?
Why would a person who does not espouse Scientology ask to be greeted with the same cordiality afforded among adherents in a group of adherents? Maybe because they want to create a reasonable environment where ideas can be explored. Besides, poeple are not always reasonable, which is to say, people don't always have a rational interest in things. Our minds are reactive as were the minds of our ancestors. Our capacity to reason is a recent addition, and reason buffers our reactions, but we are still motivated by unexplained interests. One of those interests, as Maslow posited, is the need for respect among peers. Being called "creepy" can tend to make one feel peers are not ready to recognize that interest.
>It appears to be like a double negative so to speak. I just find the motives interesting as to why someone would pusue so much time finding out about something they dont agree/believe in and only make themself "visible" to complain about the admistration of the forum, which in turn is based on what they dont agree with in the first place?I'm not the only person here who has doubts about the efficacy of current psychiatric treatments. Others who doubt the efficacy of these treatments post here and are welcomed. If I have doubts about the efficacy of psychiatric treatments, it is sound and reasonable that I would read information that is predominatly in conflict with my beliefs. This is called having an open mind.
If you review this board, you will see that my posts have never before dealt with defending Scientologists against things that are not tolerated in reference to other religions. My posts on this board have generally addressed administration of a site which I read but at which I find little other reason to engage in dialogue.
Do you recognize that editors specialize -- some edit content, some edit for slant, some edit design, others simply proof-read. My interest in reading a periodical doesn't mean that I am going to get heavily involved in editing content, though I might get involved in review of how content is selected. I might not care what a periodical writes about, but I might write to the editor about how a particular subject is treated, whether I agree with the slant or not. The reason I do not engage in other dialogue at this site is because any questions I would ask or responses I might post are generally posted by others.
The "so much time" aspect is a result of your interest. You or others post to me, and I reply. Otherwise, my commitment of time conversing with the administrator is very limited. Are you asking why I reply to your interest? That's easy ... I reply because answering questions directed to a person is "civil", though a civil person could as well ignore questions from those not dependant on the person for a response.
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 16:42:18
In reply to Re: Secret rules? S.L.S » gabbii, posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 15:58:33
> As to whether or not you agree with SO, I think it is pretty clear that the original "creepy" post deserves a reappraisal by the moderator to preserve consistency.(snip)
> Gabbii, when was the last time you saw Dr. Bob reverse a decision of his? Has he ever admitted a mistake? Has he ever made one? If I never do, perhaps he is just as capable as I am of never being wrong.
>
Or just as reluctant to admit a mistake.
> I appreciate your having allowed my attempt at wit be brought forward twice more. I hope someone other than me appreciates it. If not, it has served its purpose of self-amusement.
>
>
> - Scott
Of course you directed this post to Gabbi, but I want to acknowledge that your humor indicates to me a lack of entrenched malice and a recognition on your part of difficulty you might have seeing beyond your own profound knowledge. Your humor tends to temper your expressed confidence in your apparently well-informed points of view.
>
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.