![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 2 to 26 of 156. Go back in thread:
Posted by Simcha on February 19, 2003, at 0:38:09
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Bob to stop the defamation, posted by Lou Pilder on February 18, 2003, at 20:58:50
Lou,
I think it comes down to the simple fact that this guy had no respect for anyone else on the PB board.
I find your defense of him intriguing. It would seem to me if this guy was telling us to accept Buddha, Gaia, Apollo, or whoever else instead of Jesus that you might support him less.
I found his comments to be very insulting and rude. His entire beginning post belonged on the PB faith board. He had no business shouting to us. He also has no business prosthelytizing to us.
I am Jewish and happily so. I see no reason why I should be reading messages on why I should be accepting Jesus as my savior in order to "cure" my mental illness on the meds board.
I believe that you support this guy just because this guy touts a "Christian" message. Am I off-base?
Let me tell you Lou, I was offended by this guy and it takes a whole lot to get under my skin...
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 19, 2003, at 7:42:47
In reply to Stop the defamation of the mentally ill Non-Xian, posted by Simcha on February 19, 2003, at 0:38:09
Simcha,
You wrote,[...he had {no} respect for anyone else on the PB board...]. Could yoou clarify how you made the conclusion that he had [...no respect for anyone on the PB board...]? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of your post and be better able to respond to it.
You also wrote,[...find your defense... intriguing...if he was telling us to accept...instead of jesus you might support him less...].
It has been, and is now, and will be, my position here that evryone is welcome to post on any thread his/her response to another's post. I object to others telling others to [...not post..]or [...to leave...] regardless of how they state that. Titleistguy's post is just as valuable to the board, IMO, as yours or anyone elses. If a poster wrote about Buddha or Mulhammad or others, I would defend those also to post their thoughts.
You wrote,[...I am jewish and happily so...]. I am also jewish and happily so. Titleist's posts were from someone that said that they had their life saved by their faith. But that is what he [believes]. and Dr. Bob has written here that one can post [...what they believe...]or [...what they feel...].Titleistguy has not yet written here the complete explination of what he means by [...you need jesus christ...]. Perhaps if he could clarify that, then we could have a better understanding of what he means by,[...you need jesus christ instead of pills...]. Since he is expelled, I do not consider it civil to call him [ignorant] or anything else, particulary when he does not have the right to respond to those posts untill he returns. This is the administrative issue that I am addressing here. I am asking for a halt to people posting defaming posts to him and others that are not allowed to reply to those that defame them. You also wrote,[...am I off-base about supporting him because of his message...]? Yes, it is not his message that I am supporting, but his [welcomness or not welcomness]. He was blocked for what he wrote, and I am objecting here to the continuing defamation towads him after he wes expelled and can not reply to those posts directed toward him.
You then wrote,[..let me tell you...takes a lot to get under my skin...].You also wrote,[...his comments are insulting and rude...]. Are you then subscribing to some concept that responses that are defaming to a poster are acceptable here , like using the word [ignorant] toward him, because the poster made [insulting] comments that [got under someone's skin]? Some one asked me once if I bekieved in [...an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth...]. My answer to him was,[...love your enemies, bless those who curse you,do good to those that hate you,and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.]
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 19, 2003, at 13:07:48
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Bob to stop the defamation, posted by Lou Pilder on February 18, 2003, at 20:58:50
> I am requesting that you put an immediate end to the unmurcifull defamation and degrading posts that titleistguy has to absorb here.
I'm doing what I can... Thanks for your concern,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 19, 2003, at 13:09:33
In reply to Stop the defamation of the mentally ill Non-Xian, posted by Simcha on February 19, 2003, at 0:38:09
> I think it comes down to the simple fact that this guy had no respect for anyone else on the PB board.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, thanks.
Bob
Posted by Simcha on February 19, 2003, at 18:27:21
In reply to Re: please be civil » Simcha, posted by Dr. Bob on February 19, 2003, at 13:09:33
Dr. Bob,
This is outrageous!
I was being very civil. I find it outrageous that this guy was allowed to prey on people on the Psychobabble Board. Now we have Lou attempting to defend the guy and you too.
This is a travesty! This is clear cut discrimination. I firmly believe that this guy has been given more latitude because of his "Christian" stance. That he was allowed to harangue people about taking meds in the first place is a disgrace to this board.
I am seriously questioning my continuing participation on this board. I will not be a part of a place that protects people who prey on those who are only looking for help.
Also, if nothing is done on the PB Board about Eloise and her shaming posts to Seemsnormal, I am most definitely out of here.
I have been a member here for a couple of years and I have never been so outraged as I have been reading some of the stuff that passes by on the PB Board lately. I think something is going awry!
I hope I'm wrong.
Posted by Simcha on February 19, 2003, at 18:31:48
In reply to Lou's response to Simcha's post » Simcha, posted by Lou Pilder on February 19, 2003, at 7:42:47
> Simcha,
> You wrote,[...he had {no} respect for anyone else on the PB board...]. Could yoou clarify how you made the conclusion that he had [...no respect for anyone on the PB board...]? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of your post and be better able to respond to it.No respect because he refused to follow the rules of netiquette. He also called people "idiots" and was proselytizing on Babble.
> You also wrote,[...find your defense... intriguing...if he was telling us to accept...instead of jesus you might support him less...].
> It has been, and is now, and will be, my position here that evryone is welcome to post on any thread his/her response to another's post. I object to others telling others to [...not post..]or [...to leave...] regardless of how they state that. Titleistguy's post is just as valuable to the board, IMO, as yours or anyone elses. If a poster wrote about Buddha or Mulhammad or others, I would defend those also to post their thoughts.I highly doubt this. That is a med board. There is a Faith board for those issues.
> You wrote,[...I am jewish and happily so...]. I am also jewish and happily so. Titleist's posts were from someone that said that they had their life saved by their faith. But that is what he [believes]. and Dr. Bob has written here that one can post [...what they believe...]or [...what they feel...].Titleistguy has not yet written here the complete explination of what he means by [...you need jesus christ...]. Perhaps if he could clarify that, then we could have a better understanding of what he means by,[...you need jesus christ instead of pills...]. Since he is expelled, I do not consider it civil to call him [ignorant] or anything else, particulary when he does not have the right to respond to those posts untill he returns. This is the administrative issue that I am addressing here. I am asking for a halt to people posting defaming posts to him and others that are not allowed to reply to those that defame them. You also wrote,[...am I off-base about supporting him because of his message...]? Yes, it is not his message that I am supporting, but his [welcomness or not welcomness]. He was blocked for what he wrote, and I am objecting here to the continuing defamation towads him after he wes expelled and can not reply to those posts directed toward him.
> You then wrote,[..let me tell you...takes a lot to get under my skin...].You also wrote,[...his comments are insulting and rude...]. Are you then subscribing to some concept that responses that are defaming to a poster are acceptable here , like using the word [ignorant] toward him, because the poster made [insulting] comments that [got under someone's skin]? Some one asked me once if I bekieved in [...an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth...]. My answer to him was,[...love your enemies, bless those who curse you,do good to those that hate you,and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.]
> Lou
>Sheesh, nothing but shame and ignorance.
That's it Dr. Bob. Ban me... I won't be returning to this board. I've seen how it works now. I hope you all don't damage people too much. Maybe I should report this board to your professional organisation in Illinois. I'm sure that they would find all of this very interesting.
I'm outta here...
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 19, 2003, at 20:12:04
In reply to Re: please be civil Dr. Bob -- Read This!, posted by Simcha on February 19, 2003, at 18:27:21
> I was being very civil. I find it outrageous that this guy was allowed to prey on people on the Psychobabble Board.
Sorry, but I don't consider it civil to say someone was preying on others, so I'm going to block you from posting for a week.
> I will not be a part of a place that protects people who prey on those who are only looking for help.
IMO, leaving some people unprotected wouldn't make it more supportive. And support is the idea here... This isn't always easy, and I know I'm not perfect. But I'm trying to do my best to be fair and to do what will be good for this community as a whole.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on February 19, 2003, at 21:33:43
In reply to Re: blocked for week » Simcha, posted by Dr. Bob on February 19, 2003, at 20:12:04
I don't know if Dr. Bob explained his policy as well as he could, but the general idea (as I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong Dr. Bob) is that he discourages uncivil comments even in the face of incivility. If you check the archives you'll see that this is true, and that this particular case has nothing to do with the religious content of the original comments.
In other words, even after Dr. Bob has flagged a post in some way by blocking or PBC'ing, the rule is that further comments directed towards that poster still have to follow the civility guidelines.
I'm tired and perhaps not explaining this well, but Dr. Bob also protects the blocked poster under the civility guidelines. Which I think is pretty cool, under a whole lot of situations. And in the few cases where I would like to continue to say something, I remember that the overall rule is good and try to follow it.
(My own personal preference for my own posting is that if I can't honestly say "ow. sorry, poster. see you in a week" I don't say much at all. When Dr. Bob has blocked a poster, I kind of feel like he's spoken on my behalf and I needn't say anything else. But that's just me, and I know it isn't Dr. Bob's policy to discourage further posts on a blocked post.)
So Simcha. Ow. That must hurt. I hope to see you again in a week. (understanding smile)
Posted by Alii on February 20, 2003, at 0:09:19
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Simcha's post, posted by Simcha on February 19, 2003, at 18:31:48
> Sheesh, nothing but shame and ignorance.> That's it Dr. Bob. Ban me... I won't be returning to this board. I've seen how it works now. I hope you all don't damage people too much. Maybe I should report this board to your professional organisation in Illinois. I'm sure that they would find all of this very interesting.
>
> I'm outta here...Simcha,
Here is a wonderful post put together by oracle (st.james?)with reporting agencies for anything to do with this site and the U of C.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020725/msgs/7467.html
The next step
Posted by oracle on September 15, 2002, at 19:09:26Since may feel Dr. Bob is not listening to us, the below would be the next step up to take your conserns.
Elliot Gershon M.D. Chairman egershon@yoda.bsd.uchicago.edu
Don Michael Randel
President of the University
Administration Building
5801 South Ellis Avenue
(773) 702-8001
drandel@uchicago.eduJames L. Madara
Vice President for Medical Affairs and Dean of the Division of the Biological Sciences and the Pritzker School of Medicine
Medical Center
5841 South Maryland Avenue
(773) 702-3004
jmadara@bsd.uchicago.eduBeth A. Harris
Vice President and General Counsel
Administration Building
5801 South Ellis Avenue
(773) 702-7241
ba-harris@uchicago.eduGregory A. Jackson
Vice President and Chief Information Officer
Administration Building
5801 South Ellis Avenue
(773) 702-2828
gjackson@uchicago.edu
Web Hosting provider:I find that along with other issues, it is unethical to be both moderator and researcher:
Ethics
Find the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct and Rules and Procedures at http://www.apa.org/ethics/.To file an ethics complaint, please send a short note by regular mail or fax (not by e-mail) to the Ethics Office. Please provide the name of the individuals(s) against whom you wish to file your complaint and the state in which they practice. Address it to the APA Ethics Office, 750 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002. The FAX number is (202) 336-5997. Please note that APA has jurisdiction to investigate complaints regarding only APA members.
Questions about the Ethics Code and noncomplaint-related ethics issues should be emailed to the Ethics Office. We cannot give opinions regarding specific situations, but will provide general information regarding your question.
American Psychiatric Association
1400 K Street N.W., Washington, DC 20005
(888) 357-7924 | FAX 202-682-6850 | apa@psych.orgGood luck Simcha. I hope you find some information in this that can help.
~Alii
Posted by shar on February 20, 2003, at 0:30:33
In reply to Simcha.....some information for you!, posted by Alii on February 20, 2003, at 0:09:19
> Good luck Simcha. I hope you find some information in this that can help.
And, when someone is successful in shutting down this website, the benefit will be...???
In the politically correct atmosphere of this time, and the extent to which people wish to avoid litigation, and the general misunderstanding of mental health issues by even those in the field (not to mention webmasters and others who don't necessarily have the knowledge or education to determine what is "abusive" on this site)...it concerns me that PB runs the risk of being shut down. And not, IMO, for a good reason (such as the systematic harmfulness of its mission) but because of instances in which people have been upset about and not in agreement with dr. bob's decisions.
There have been attempts to shut down this site (which I refer to collectively as the Babbles because there are so many of them now, PB, PSB, PB Faith, etc.) I'm sure there will be in the future, complaints may be filed, and maybe someday someone will have "success" and the Babbles will be gone. Just what they've won us by eliminating this resource remains the question in my mind.
I just wouldn't want anybody doing me any favors, or anything....
Shar
Posted by Dinah on February 20, 2003, at 0:46:51
In reply to Shutting down the Babbles, posted by shar on February 20, 2003, at 0:30:33
Posted by Alii on February 20, 2003, at 0:47:11
In reply to Shutting down the Babbles, posted by shar on February 20, 2003, at 0:30:33
> > Good luck Simcha. I hope you find some information in this that can help.
>
> And, when someone is successful in shutting down this website, the benefit will be...???
>
> In the politically correct atmosphere of this time, and the extent to which people wish to avoid litigation, and the general misunderstanding of mental health issues by even those in the field (not to mention webmasters and others who don't necessarily have the knowledge or education to determine what is "abusive" on this site)...it concerns me that PB runs the risk of being shut down. And not, IMO, for a good reason (such as the systematic harmfulness of its mission) but because of instances in which people have been upset about and not in agreement with dr. bob's decisions.
>
> There have been attempts to shut down this site (which I refer to collectively as the Babbles because there are so many of them now, PB, PSB, PB Faith, etc.) I'm sure there will be in the future, complaints may be filed, and maybe someday someone will have "success" and the Babbles will be gone. Just what they've won us by eliminating this resource remains the question in my mind.
>
> I just wouldn't want anybody doing me any favors, or anything....
>
> Shar
Shar,Life is change. One of those changes might be that these sites may not run forever. You just never know.
This resource is harming people and these people are not reporting their adverse advent reports since Bob has hidden it somewhere within the PBA posts. I feel that the folks being harmed the most by this site have just as much right to speak to the appropriate persons or organizations so that their voices are heard.
The same right that you have to voice your discord with anyone who dares to question the fashion under which these Babble sites are run.
There are ethical and moral questions regarding testing on human subjects and I'm not sure that Dr. Bob is fully aware of the impact these sites have on those subject since he tends to respond in a cut and paste fashion to most kurfuffles.
~A.
Posted by NikkiT2 on February 20, 2003, at 6:52:25
In reply to Shutting down the Babbles, posted by shar on February 20, 2003, at 0:30:33
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 20, 2003, at 8:35:00
In reply to Re: Shutting down the Babbles » shar, posted by Alii on February 20, 2003, at 0:47:11
> This resource is harming people and these people are not reporting their adverse advent reports since Bob has hidden it somewhere within the PBA posts.
Please don't jump to conclusions about others or their experiences.
It's a good idea, making the adverse event form easier to find, so I've added something to the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#advent
> Life is change. One of those changes might be that these sites may not run forever. You just never know.
Now, how are we to recognize Nature's most excellent web sites? Whatever does not kill them makes them stronger.
--Friedrich Nietzsche, Ecce Homo (adapted), 1889
http://www.cwu.edu/~millerj/nietzsche/eh1.htmlBob
Posted by Alii on February 20, 2003, at 9:35:51
In reply to Re: please be civil » Alii, posted by Dr. Bob on February 20, 2003, at 8:35:00
> > This resource is harming people and these people are not reporting their adverse advent reports since Bob has hidden it somewhere within the PBA posts.
>
> Please don't jump to conclusions about others or their experiences.
>
> It's a good idea, making the adverse event form easier to find, so I've added something to the FAQ:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#advent
>
> > Life is change. One of those changes might be that these sites may not run forever. You just never know.
>
> Now, how are we to recognize Nature's most excellent web sites? Whatever does not kill them makes them stronger.
> --Friedrich Nietzsche, Ecce Homo (adapted), 1889
> http://www.cwu.edu/~millerj/nietzsche/eh1.html
>
> BobSo Nietzsche's "god is dead" is a no-no here on the Babble sites but you are able to adapt his words for your own usage? (anyone remember another poster being blocked for using Nietzche's quotes?)
Dr. Bob you continue to amaze me with your inconsistency.
~Alii
Posted by shar on February 20, 2003, at 14:04:21
In reply to Re: Shutting down the Babbles » shar, posted by Alii on February 20, 2003, at 0:47:11
> Shar,
>
> Life is change. One of those changes might be that these sites may not run forever. You just never know.........Too true.
>
> This resource is harming people........you know, this statement has been made many times by many people, and in my experience, it's when someone disagrees with or is ticked off by an administrative type decision (to block or not block someone, for example).
.........I would like to hear how this resource harms people, from a mental health perspective. Not just ticks them off, or upsets them, or doesn't do what they want...but really harms them.
.........Harm, to me, would entail a setback in one's recovery, it would mean that a person is less able to go on in their life due to this board, or that they ended up in the ER or hospitalized due to this board. And, not just because some other poster said something that had a negative impact (like touting Jesus to an atheist, or name-calling) on the reader.
........To me, this board is a microcosm of life. There are good and bad things being said, but, unlike life, there is some effort to moderate the bad things. Now, things don't get moderated to everyone's satisfaction--including mine. I have been pissed about administrative decisions, and said so, and I've been upset at other poster's writings at times, and said so, and sometimes join the fray. And, I've had times where I've stayed away from topics because I know that they would upset me, so I could choose to bypass them and did.
.......Harm needs to be carefully defined, in my opinion. And, if people are, in fact, being harmed--their recovery from mental illness is compromised due to the Babbles--and this happens to people on a regular basis, then maybe the boards should be shut down.
.......From my perspective, I see more help and support than hindrance here. For the people who have been upset or maybe blocked, some return to do mischief, stir things up, and some return after looking for a better place to be and not finding it and give and receive support here.
........So, back to the issue of harm. It's easy to toss that out there, and it's a good 'hook' as well. I hope that people who do make adverse event reports are not allowed to just say "the site harmed me" but need to provide some detailed information on how that occurred, and the impact it had on their recovery, and their ability to go forward with their lives.
>and these people are not reporting their adverse advent reports since Bob has hidden it somewhere within the PBA posts.
........but, almost always when a person says 'I'm going to report you' someone jumps in with information on exactly how to do so. And, I was glad to see that how to report has been put in the FAQs.
>I feel that the folks being harmed the most by this site have just as much right to speak to the appropriate persons or organizations so that their voices are heard.
........me, too.
>
> The same right that you have to voice your discord with anyone who dares to question the fashion under which these Babble sites are run.
>......very true, unless it happens to be dr. bob who is the recipient of my voiced discord at the moment. :)
> There are ethical and moral questions regarding testing on human subjects
.......yes, and I fully support those guidelines, and in many cases feel they need to be stronger and applied to non-human subjects also.
>and I'm not sure that Dr. Bob is fully aware of the impact these sites have on those subject since he tends to respond in a cut and paste fashion to most kurfuffles.
..........this is another type of statement, similar to the "harm" one, where "impact" is not very descriptive of what actually occurs. I am assuming you mean negative impact, and I would be very interested to know exactly what you mean by that. Just like saying this site is harming people, it sounds good, raises eyebrows, generates concern, but doesn't tell the story. And, with all the "harm" and "negative impact" we have in our society and around the world to all factions of the population in many different ways, the words themselves become a trigger.
Shar
>
> ~A.
Posted by Miller on February 20, 2003, at 15:52:14
In reply to Re: Shutting down the Babbles » Alii, posted by shar on February 20, 2003, at 14:04:21
Shar,
Thank you for saying a lot of what I have been thinking since reading this thread. I too have gotten irritated at times, was put off abit from posts, and have had to realign some of my communication style to adjust to this site.
However, in no way have I been harmed or feel like I may be harmed. I have met very supportive and caring people, have seen the hurt in other posters as they try to make sense of their emotions, and have seen posts that made my eyes pop.
This site is a micro-society of our making. We make as we want it, with the supervison of Dr. Bob. I hope he never gets too discouraged from the complaining and closes the site. It will be a loss to all involved.
:)
-Jyl
Posted by coral on February 20, 2003, at 19:09:20
In reply to Re: Shutting down the Babbles » Alii, posted by shar on February 20, 2003, at 14:04:21
Would it be possible to speak from the "I" position on these issues, such as harm? Given the anonymity of any internet site, it would be difficult (without proper documentation) to have any veracity to a plural statement. Like you, I don't equate harm with being ticked off, upset, etc., and, in fact, agree with your definition of harm.
What I don't understand is if a person is being harmed, why would a person continue to come to the site?
Coral
Posted by justyourlaugh on February 20, 2003, at 22:25:24
In reply to Shar- Very well put » shar, posted by Miller on February 20, 2003, at 15:52:14
jyl,
very well said as well,
however(i use that word alot eh?)i think the "eye popping"post should not ever be deleated.
an angry post,or a "nonpleasant one"
is a valid post,
are we all sunshine and lollipops?
i think not,
if the world is suppose to be passive..
i want out....
jyl
-hay miller-i think i should shannon now,
shannonjyl
Posted by Miller on February 20, 2003, at 23:54:55
In reply to Re: Shar- Very well put » Miller, posted by justyourlaugh on February 20, 2003, at 22:25:24
Hello my friend,
As for deleting posts...
I guess I am mixed on that. I did have a post of mine delted due to it's content. Although I meant no harm, other's didn't see it that way. I was not hurt that it was deleted (the punishment) I was hurt because I felt so inadequate. Does that make any sense?
Anyway, I have definate opinions on some of the rules here, but, I have to accept I don't make them. If I want to stay, I have to follow them.
:) Welcome, Shannonjyl.
-Miller (Jyl) **people are going to think we are talking in a secret "Jyl" language!!**
Posted by Dinah on February 21, 2003, at 10:16:48
In reply to Re: Shutting down the Babbles » Alii, posted by shar on February 20, 2003, at 14:04:21
I have to be completely honest here, Shar. There was a time when my participation was harmful to me in the way you describe. It wasn't anything Dr. Bob did though. It was more the nature of the internet and blank screen it provides, and my lack of experience in interacting with others (beyond family and a few long term friends).
Dr. Bob's involvement in the board minimized rather than exacerbated my difficulties. Things would have been much worse in a free for all board. No, they wouldn't have been because I wouldn't have stayed more than five minutes, judging by my reaction to other sites.
I am completely at a loss for why people who conclude that this isn't the right setting for them feel that they need to take it away from those for whom it is the right setting.
Due to my own personality, I also am perplexed that people are so upset by the completely reasonable civility rules of the site. There are standards of expected behavior wherever you go. I employ the civility standards... Well I employ them everywhere, so I'm not a good example. But I imagine most people apply them at work and at their kids schools and at church and so on.
It used to make me nervous for fear that I would inadvertantly cross the line when I was trying to express myself. It still does sometimes. I have my moments were I am relieved to find out I haven't crossed the line.
Dr. Bob's not perfect, but he's as close to it as any human being can be. Don't get a big head Dr. Bob :). None of us would be perfect, although we might all be imperfect in different directions.
I also have this burning desire to know how people think Dr. Bob would run this board if he were doing it purely for altruistic reasons, with no research involved (instead of mostly for altruistic reasons - the amount of research he can glean from this place could not possibly make up for the headaches). I can't imagine that he would possibly do anything differently. I think he runs this site as he thinks it should be run, and his research has nothing to do with his administrative decisions. But I would be fascinated by hearing that others, for example, think that Dr. Bob would have no civility standards except for the research. Or that they think he gives more blocks or PBC's because of his research. Or see how others would complete the sentence "If there were no research involved, Babble would be different in the following ways:"
I worked through my problems with my therapist, and in the relatively safe experimental (experimental for me, for me not Dr. Bob) space this board provides, and I think I ended up better off in the long run. So short term regression follwed by long term emotional gain from these boards has been my own experience.
But I don't think it could be said that there is *no* potential for harm by participating in these boards.
Posted by shar on February 21, 2003, at 12:45:22
In reply to Re: Shutting down the Babbles » shar, posted by Dinah on February 21, 2003, at 10:16:48
> I have to be completely honest here, Shar. There was a time when my participation was harmful to me in the way you describe.
> But I don't think it could be said that there is *no* potential for harm by participating in these boards.
I agree, Dinah, and wasn't trying to say there is no potential for harm. I was trying to get clarification on what someone meant when they said "this board is harming people." I just wasn't able to, on my own, think of a way that the Babbles were harming people.
(If you're willing to share this info...) When you felt harmed here, did you consider it an adverse event, and file an adverse event report? I would be interested in what that process required in terms of describing the nature of the event, if you are willing to share it.
If you didn't file, was there a reason you chose not to? Or, maybe you didn't realize you could, and would have if you'd known?
Please don't feel pressured to share any of the info I asked about, as I understand it's very personal stuff, and it is only my curiosity that leads me to ask. I don't know what they look for in an adverse event report.
Shar
Posted by Dinah on February 21, 2003, at 17:38:02
In reply to Re: Shutting down the Babbles » Dinah, posted by shar on February 21, 2003, at 12:45:22
This was a while back, Shar. But even if it had been more recent, after the adverse event info, I doubt I would have filed a report.
I emailed Dr. Bob a few times about it and explained the problem as best I could, so that he would have the information for his research. I trusted and do trust Dr. Bob to take the information seriously.
Psycho-Babble can be a powerful force, and powerful forces can have a positive or negative influence. Overall it's been positive for me.
But it had nothing to do with Dr. Bob being authoritarian. :)
Posted by kara lynne on February 22, 2003, at 23:28:35
In reply to Re: blocked for week » Simcha, posted by Dr. Bob on February 19, 2003, at 20:12:04
I'm a little confused. I don't want to read through all of these posts, so maybe my response will be too uninformed to be valid. But what I'm getting is that if someone's being tyrannical we're not supposed to say that it's tyrannical because that's uncivil? So to call the uncivil "uncivil" is uncivil?
Posted by stjames on February 23, 2003, at 2:35:31
In reply to To call the uncivil uncivil is uncivil?, posted by kara lynne on February 22, 2003, at 23:28:35
>But what I'm getting is that if someone's being >tyrannical we're not supposed to say that it's >tyrannical because that's uncivil? So to call >the uncivil "uncivil" is uncivil?
yes and no. Just because someone is uncivil
does not allow you to be uncivil. I suspect
"tyrannical" would be uncivil but "I notice you have alot of anger and it is difficult for me to take" or "I feel putdown by some of your statements" ect would be civil.It is not always easy to hold back when buttons are pushed. I have gotten blocked for letting someone have it from time to time. I have never disagreed with bobs blocking of myself. But, tempting though it be to lash back, it is really a much more powerful stance to return I statements; "When you say these
things is feel .....". Some just want to come here
a cause trouble, an I statement is not what they want to here. For others, it is a chance to see how the effect others.
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.