![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 2 to 26 of 26. Go back in thread:
Posted by SLS on July 15, 2005, at 9:35:31
In reply to Administration - Education and Support, posted by Nickengland on July 15, 2005, at 8:55:26
> In light of what most recently, and what the majority of the posts on this board are about....
What is it that has happened most recently?
> Who feels they recieve education and support from the admistration board?
I do. It actually give me an opportunity to sharpen my writing skills so that they are more civil. More important than that, it helps me to learn how to be more patient and tolerant of peoples opinions when they are in opposition to mine. I feel that I am emotionally more mature for having interacted on this board.
> And conversely, who feels that it does more harm and than good to post here?I do. I know that for some people, it is an intensely upsetting emotional experience that is probably best to avoid. It is our right not to read the posts in this forum. Some people are best served by taking advantage of this right.
> I look forward to hearing from anyone who wishes to discuss this :-)I've been here for a few years, and I have seen heated, emotionally charged debates occur from time to time. It usually serves the entire website well when these debates act to either allow posters a forum to vent frustration and anger or to help produce positive change.
- Scott
Posted by Jen Star on July 15, 2005, at 9:50:00
In reply to Administration - Education and Support, posted by Nickengland on July 15, 2005, at 8:55:26
hi Nick,
For myself, I don't feel that admin is primarily about support or education. For me, it's more a lesson in patience, the lack of patience, and how each affects me & others. It's a place to find people who know how to push the civility guidelines to the very brink, testing the boundaries.It's a great case study (if I'm able to think about it dispassionately) in human nature, prickly relationships, and power struggles. I think it's interesting to see how people interact, who supports whom, who irritates whom, and how the dynamics play out. Of course it seems less than fascinating when I am embroiled in one of the spats. But if I'm feeling "Outsider-ish" I think it's very interesting to see how it all plays out. There is a lot of drama here, a lot of action, a lot of sentiment running high.
It's a place to which people seem drawn irresistably -- we all seem to feel the urge to post, just as we feel the urge to look at a gory roadside accident (even if part of us knows it won't be good!)
But of course the board also contains the odd snippet of help & assistance for those who can't get a password, need to change names, have questions on where to find something, etc -- so there is that kind of "education" too.
I DO think that much of the conversations start here because it's the one and only place where people can elicit a response from Dr. Bob. Part of me believes (in a way) that when a person wants attention from an authority figure, they will get it any way they can -- and some of those ways here include rebukes, PBC's, and multiple requests for determination. It's a way to force a relationship, weak as it is, with someone who is otherwise completely unaccessible. It's a way to get attention and notoriety, a kind of status.And then other posters respond to those "attention seeking" requests and things spiral out of control.
What do YOU think?
JenStar
Posted by Jen Star on July 15, 2005, at 9:58:07
In reply to Re: Administration - Education and Support » Nickengland, posted by Jen Star on July 15, 2005, at 9:50:00
hi all,
I just want to clarify that my previous post was NOT meant to be a dig or a jab at any one poster or group of posters. I include myself when I make generalizations! I really do think that the board is a place where people (including me) struggle to interact with each other, and a place where people try to make contact with Dr. Bob. I don't think that it's bad to struggle or make contact. I was just trying to explain what I think admin is, and what happens here.I know some people might disagree with my assessments (in fact, I'd be surprised if someone doesn't -- I know we don't all agree here). But I want to make it clear that I was not trying to hurt anyone's feelings. I'm just trying to describe how I see things here.
thanks!
JenStarSo
Posted by Nickengland on July 15, 2005, at 10:39:16
In reply to Re: Administration - Education and Support, posted by SLS on July 15, 2005, at 9:35:31
Hi Scott :-)
To answer,
>What is it that has happened most recently?
I'm talking about the 137 posts and still rising (yep I counted them lol) which arose from Lou in response to this sentence:
"Sometimes it's more "conducive to civic harmony and welfare" just not to reply. If it's hard not to reply, another alternative is not even reading in the first place."
"Bob"
Very intelligent what you said about how you gain education and support..likewise with how you feel it also does more harm than good..
At first for me persoanally, I felt that perhaps it did more harm than good either posting or replying to most of the messages of this board. Now though, among all the pain and hurt that I see here, I feel I am actually ganing some kind of understanding (education) and in turn I guess I am learning a new outlook of support that I didn't have before.
Kind regards
Nick
Ps Thanks for your message to my temporary "good bye" post...lol..I started posting again yesterday and replied to that old thread...
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 10:47:19
In reply to Re: Administration - Education and Support » SLS, posted by Nickengland on July 15, 2005, at 10:39:16
Friends,
It is written here,[...Now though...I am... gaining...understanding...I am learning a new outlook of support that I did not have before...].
I appreciate statements like this.
Lou
Posted by Nickengland on July 15, 2005, at 11:25:22
In reply to Re: Administration - Education and Support » Nickengland, posted by Jen Star on July 15, 2005, at 9:50:00
Hi Jen Star..
I totally understand and relate to everything you said and in a very similar sense I feel the exact same way as you do....very well explained by the way :-)
>What do YOU think?
Well at first I thought Admin was all about techinal issues mainly (lost password, how to use babblemail etc.) I then learn that it wasn't really all about that - the majority of posts on here certainly aren't anyway. To be honest my first reaction was that Admin did more harm than good...I didn't think it was a very nice place at all.
Since then though i've realised that perhaps I've learnt not to take things too seriously...in this way you can distance youself from the bad feeling that goes on in here - to get caught up too much in that only causes bad feeling from what I can see...I certainly didnt come here to make myself feel worse or anyone else, you know?
One really important thing that i've learnt for educational purposes is actually something through all the correspondence with Lou and Dr Bob (and there is certainly enough of that)
What i've learnt from that, is quite personal to me and may even appear selfish. But that said its something i'm glad i've learnt and a good reminder for myself.
I hope people dont take offence of this as it is not my purpose and only a fact that I feel I have witnessed...
Lou, from what I understand from reading previous posts is Bipolar. He is also dead against psychiatric drugs and from reading the links he puts up and what he says - he is Anti Psychiatry and against medications.
This to me equals someone who has a known severe mental illness - but someone who is un-medicated. Very dangerous indeed. I feel this is reflected in the style of his posts, the repeating and his overall mind set and outlook.
I feel Lou is someone who as an illness that is getting worse, mainly because it is not being treated (as he surely doe not take medication from reading his previous posts)
So as im bipolar, for me this is education, as it serves as a reminder that medication is much needed to control such a servere mental illness...and if I was let go of my treatment...well I can think of what the consquences maybe for me. However I don't feel my bipolar is quite the same as Lou's, and am unsure if Lou has other diagnosis(s) whether (un)recognised, but im fairly sure they are not being treated with psychiatric drugs adequately.
The support, in this matter is more for the support of myself. I would try and have done in the past to offer support for Lou with medication advice etc, but sadly he choose not to respond...
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by 10derHeart on July 15, 2005, at 12:20:51
In reply to Re: Administration - Education and Support » Jen Star, posted by Nickengland on July 15, 2005, at 11:25:22
> I hope people dont take offence of this as it is not my purpose and only a fact that I feel I have witnessed...
I appreciate the above, and I get from all your posts that you are mindful of the feelings of others. But...you still have to stay within the site's civility guidelines, particularly in regard to not saying things that could lead to someone feeling put down and/or jumping to conclusions...(see below)
> Lou, from what I understand from reading previous posts is Bipolar...>
> Very dangerous indeed.
> I feel Lou is someone who as an illness that is getting worse, mainly because it is not being treated (as he surely does not take medication from reading his previous posts)
>...and am unsure if Lou has other diagnosis(s) whether (un)recognised, but im fairly sure they are not being treated with psychiatric drugs adequately.
Nick, I think it's reasonable to believe some of your statements here could tend to make Lou feel put down. If I were Lou, I would be hurt by any poster discussing their view of my illness or [alleged?] diagnoses with another poster, "right in front of me," so to speak. It would probably be best to address these kinds of questions - kindly and civily - directly to Lou. Can you see what I mean?
Hope you can see my concern for all, including you, of course. Want to keep you around as much as you choose to be...without any *official* PBCs! :-)Respectfully, - 10Der
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 12:31:43
In reply to Re: Maintaining Civility » Nickengland, posted by 10derHeart on July 15, 2005, at 12:20:51
> > I hope people dont take offence of this as it is not my purpose and only a fact that I feel I have witnessed...
>
> I appreciate the above, and I get from all your posts that you are mindful of the feelings of others. But...you still have to stay within the site's civility guidelines, particularly in regard to not saying things that could lead to someone feeling put down and/or jumping to conclusions...(see below)
>
> > Lou, from what I understand from reading previous posts is Bipolar...>
> > Very dangerous indeed.
> > I feel Lou is someone who as an illness that is getting worse, mainly because it is not being treated (as he surely does not take medication from reading his previous posts)
> >...and am unsure if Lou has other diagnosis(s) whether (un)recognised, but im fairly sure they are not being treated with psychiatric drugs adequately.
>
> Nick, I think it's reasonable to believe some of your statements here could tend to make Lou feel put down. If I were Lou, I would be hurt by any poster discussing their view of my illness or [alleged?] diagnoses with another poster, "right in front of me," so to speak. It would probably be best to address these kinds of questions - kindly and civily - directly to Lou. Can you see what I mean?
>
> Hope you can see my concern for all, including you, of course. Want to keep you around as much as you choose to be...without any *official* PBCs! :-)
>
> Respectfully, - 10Der
>
Friends,
I am very appreciative of the post by 10derHeart here.
Lou
>
Posted by 10derHeart on July 15, 2005, at 12:37:28
In reply to Lou's response to 10derHeart's post-strgrsinthengt, posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 12:31:43
Posted by NikkiT2 on July 15, 2005, at 13:20:39
In reply to Re: Maintaining Civility » Nickengland, posted by 10derHeart on July 15, 2005, at 12:20:51
" If I were Lou, I would be hurt by any poster discussing their view of my illness or [alleged?] diagnoses with another poster"
Remember - those type of responses come from pain caused by Lou himself accusing them.
Swings and roundabouts is a phrase that comes to mind..
if Lou ceased posting about others, they would also cease posting about him.
Nikki
Posted by Nickengland on July 15, 2005, at 13:23:16
In reply to Re: Maintaining Civility » Nickengland, posted by 10derHeart on July 15, 2005, at 12:20:51
Thanks for pointing that out for me 10Der and reminding me of the civility. I was perhaps not thinking as much for Lou's feelings as I should have been when I wrote parts of that post...
I do appologise to you Lou if that post did upset you, that was not my intention...
I do stand by what I said though, although I realise it was pushing the boundaries and I was perhaps treading water with it becoming uncivil, and I realise it could be seen that I maybe oversteped the mark.
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by Nickengland on July 15, 2005, at 13:41:09
In reply to Re: Maintaining Civility » 10derHeart, posted by NikkiT2 on July 15, 2005, at 13:20:39
Hi Nikki,
Yes I agree with you. "What goes around comes around" is another saying.
I was addressing something else in my post too...but didn't quite get around to saying it...
That is when someone is mentally ill, for example they are depressed, do you fuel their depressive thoughts? - Of course not
When someone is suffering from mania, would you fuel their racing thoughts? - of course not.
And finally, when someone is suffering from obsessive compulsive thoughts, would you fuel these obsessive thoughts? - No you wouldn't
What if you didn't realise you was fueling these thoughts and "perhaps" making someones condition worse? Maybe you would keep doing it until you realised otherwise...
More importantly, when you finally did realise that maybe, just maybe you wasn't actually helping someone get better, in fact you was actually making tham worse. What would you do?
For me i'm trying to figure out what is helping, and what is making things worse. I think I know whats making things worse and i'll try my best to help. Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind - and in doing so i'll do my best to remain civil
Kind regards
Nick
Ps Nikki - Apart from the first part of my message..the rest was kinda addressed to the rest of the board, just incase that sounded confusing :-O
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 16, 2005, at 2:03:06
In reply to Re: Maintaining Civility » 10derHeart, posted by NikkiT2 on July 15, 2005, at 13:20:39
> pain caused by Lou himself
Sorry, but please 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, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by SLS on July 16, 2005, at 6:55:18
In reply to Re: Administration - Education and Support » SLS, posted by Nickengland on July 15, 2005, at 10:39:16
Hi Nick.
> Ps Thanks for your message to my temporary "good bye" post...lol..I started posting again yesterday and replied to that old thread...
You are such a pain in my as*. You brought me to tears again! :-)
Or maybe it's just my meds. Ah, that's it. There is no way I could be so sensitive and vulnerable without having some sort of chemical imbalance at work. Phew... That was a close one.
:-)
Glad you're still here.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on July 16, 2005, at 7:30:45
In reply to Re: Maintaining Civility » NikkiT2, posted by Nickengland on July 15, 2005, at 13:41:09
See Nick? The process works. Your post has given me sometining important to think about. Am I fueling the mental illness of another poster?
Of course, there will be those who don't feel that such "lessons" and the potential for emotional maturation that exists here have a place on the Administration board, and that Lou Pilder should be banned from posting on Psycho-Babble because of the turmoil they claim he provokes here. To those people whom find themselves experiencing intense emotional upset reading posts along such threads, I say, "You have the option to not read those posts.", even if for the upset person this means avoiding the submissions of only one individual poster.
As for me, I would continue to read and reply along such threads taking the position that Mr. Pilder and his privelege to post here at Psycho-Babble be maintained. I would have taken this same position and argued on behalf of Mr. Pilder and all other participants here as vehemently a year ago as I would today.
- Scott
-------------------------------
> Hi Nikki,
>
> Yes I agree with you. "What goes around comes around" is another saying.
>
> I was addressing something else in my post too...but didn't quite get around to saying it...
>
> That is when someone is mentally ill, for example they are depressed, do you fuel their depressive thoughts? - Of course not
>
> When someone is suffering from mania, would you fuel their racing thoughts? - of course not.
>
> And finally, when someone is suffering from obsessive compulsive thoughts, would you fuel these obsessive thoughts? - No you wouldn't
>
> What if you didn't realise you was fueling these thoughts and "perhaps" making someones condition worse? Maybe you would keep doing it until you realised otherwise...
>
> More importantly, when you finally did realise that maybe, just maybe you wasn't actually helping someone get better, in fact you was actually making tham worse. What would you do?
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Nick
>
> Ps Nikki - Apart from the first part of my message..the rest was kinda addressed to the rest of the board, just incase that sounded confusing :-O
Posted by so on July 16, 2005, at 13:12:27
In reply to Re: Administration - Education and Support » Nickengland, posted by SLS on July 16, 2005, at 6:55:18
> There is no way I could be so sensitive and vulnerable without having some sort of chemical imbalance at work.
> - Scott
Exactly. The imbalances that drive normal human emotions are widely described. The concept of chemical balance, however, is seldom found in any literature and relies implicitly on anecdotes refering to preferred subjective conditions.
Posted by chemist on July 17, 2005, at 16:27:55
In reply to Chemical imbalance: the joy of emotion » SLS, posted by so on July 16, 2005, at 13:12:27
hello there, your friend chemist here...the ``concept of chemical balance'' - known to chemists and non-chemists alike as chemical equilibrium - is explained exhaustively in the literature and is based explicitly on observations that are repeatable, quantifiable, and objective in nature...all the best, chemist
>
> Exactly. The imbalances that drive normal human emotions are widely described. The concept of chemical balance, however, is seldom found in any literature and relies implicitly on anecdotes refering to preferred subjective conditions.
>
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 17:01:32
In reply to Chemical balance: The gift of LeChatlier et al. » so, posted by chemist on July 17, 2005, at 16:27:55
> hello there, your friend chemist here...the ``concept of chemical balance'' - known to chemists and non-chemists alike as chemical equilibrium - is explained exhaustively in the literature and is based explicitly on observations that are repeatable, quantifiable, and objective in nature...all the best, chemist
>
>I understand there is a significant body of literature about equilibrium in organic chemistry, but based in part on the opinions of many scientists, I do not have as much confidence in literature that attempts to correlate well-defined tendencies toward equilibrium with preferred subjective sensations.
As I understand it, chemical equilibrium -- especially the tendency of molecules to seek a balanced contingent of 8 electrons -- eventually leads us all to a condition we call "death" and which is nothing to fear or regret, according to many faiths.
Is the subjective sensation of happiness a result of equilibrium or of an upset equilibrium? What about sorrow? Would you describe depression as "serontonin deficiency" or "monoamine oxidase poisoining"? What imbalanced chemicals tell us the difference between appropriate situational sadness and conditions described as temporary chemically induced depression? Which condition is chemically balanced - happiness or stoicism?
Perhaps you can redirect your reply to the drugs board, where I or others can reply with further questions if we feel we can gain information from your answer.
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 17:33:38
In reply to Re: Chemical balance: The gift of nature, posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 17:01:32
> Perhaps you can redirect your reply to the drugs board, where I or others can reply with further questions if we feel we can gain information from your answer.And here's a link:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20050713/msgs/529166.html
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 21:48:51
In reply to Re: Chemical balance: The gift of LeChatlier et al » chemist, posted by Sarah T. on July 17, 2005, at 21:18:39
> > as for re-labelling, this discourse might best be filed under "apoptosis," in the end :) ...yours, c
Can you explain why your conversation with me should be filed under "programmed cell death"?
Posted by Deneb on July 17, 2005, at 21:53:59
In reply to Programmed cell death, posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 21:48:51
> Can you explain why your conversation with me should be filed under "programmed cell death"?
Maybe they mean that you're on the right track. ;-)
Apoptosis is crucial for proper development of an organism. ;-)
Deneb
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 21:58:34
In reply to Re: Programmed cell death » so, posted by Deneb on July 17, 2005, at 21:53:59
> > Can you explain why your conversation with me should be filed under "programmed cell death"?
>
> Maybe they mean that you're on the right track. ;-)
>
> Apoptosis is crucial for proper development of an organism. ;-)
>
> DenebThen maybe they are saying the death of old rhetorical concepts is part of the development of more mature concepts?
>
Posted by chemist on July 17, 2005, at 22:08:49
In reply to Programmed cell death, posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 21:48:51
> > > as for re-labelling, this discourse might best be filed under "apoptosis," in the end :) ...yours, c
>
> Can you explain why your conversation with me should be filed under "programmed cell death"?no, as i cannot and do not have to: the person to whom i was responding - Sarah T. - is also the person with whom i was having "this discourse."
you will be aware when i am addressing you when i use your nom de plume in the body of my post and include your name in the subject line by checking the box to ``add name of previous poster.''
i hope the mode of communication is clear to you, so.
all the best, chemist
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 23:21:15
In reply to Re: Programmed cell death » so, posted by chemist on July 17, 2005, at 22:08:49
> no, as i cannot and do not have to: the person to whom i was responding - Sarah T. - is also the person with whom i was having "this discourse."
>
> you will be aware when i am addressing you when i use your nom de plume in the body of my post and include your name in the subject line by checking the box to ``add name of previous poster.''I am not suggesting that you "have to" reply to me, but you have corresponded with me several times today, suggesting that you have some interest in correspondence with me.
Since you choose to have your conversation with SarahT in a public forum provided so anyone can benefit from reading it, could you clarify whether your reference to programmed cell death implied the retirement of an old term in favor of a more apt term, as you suggested in the statement that "homeostasis would, as you note, be far more apt".
If you cannot explain this, as you seem to have written ("I cannot and do not have to") can you eleborate on why you cannot explain it?
Posted by chemist on July 17, 2005, at 23:39:48
In reply to Re: Programmed cell death, posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 23:21:15
>
> > no, as i cannot and do not have to: the person to whom i was responding - Sarah T. - is also the person with whom i was having "this discourse."
> >
> > you will be aware when i am addressing you when i use your nom de plume in the body of my post and include your name in the subject line by checking the box to ``add name of previous poster.''
>
> I am not suggesting that you "have to" reply to me, but you have corresponded with me several times today, suggesting that you have some interest in correspondence with me.
>
> Since you choose to have your conversation with SarahT in a public forum provided so anyone can benefit from reading it, could you clarify whether your reference to programmed cell death implied the retirement of an old term in favor of a more apt term, as you suggested in the statement that "homeostasis would, as you note, be far more apt".
>
> If you cannot explain this, as you seem to have written ("I cannot and do not have to") can you eleborate on why you cannot explain it?
>
>hello there, chemist here...yes, i can elaborate on why i cannot explain to which you refer, but my choice is not to do so, at this time or in the future. all the best, chemist
This is the end of the 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.