![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 35 to 59 of 156. Go back in thread:
Posted by stjames on February 24, 2003, at 10:42:04
In reply to Re: To call the uncivil uncivil is uncivil?, posted by kara lynne on February 23, 2003, at 16:16:45
> ...also, some people *are* tyrannical-- it doesnt seem like *calling* them tyrannical is uncivil. Would calling Hitler a tyrant be uncivil? I don't think so.
Well is is not really up to you or me to deside what is or is not civil, is it. You and I singed and agreed to conditions when you started on this board. If we don't like them, we don't post.
It is Bob call on what is civil.
Posted by kara lynne on February 24, 2003, at 12:45:43
In reply to Re: To call the uncivil uncivil is uncivil?, posted by stjames on February 24, 2003, at 10:42:04
Posted by gabbix2 on February 27, 2003, at 16:55:35
In reply to To call the uncivil uncivil is uncivil?, posted by kara lynne on February 22, 2003, at 23:28:35
Posted by kara lynne on February 28, 2003, at 12:52:38
In reply to Re: To call the uncivil uncivil is uncivil?, posted by kara lynne on February 23, 2003, at 22:12:35
Posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 11:25:43
In reply to Re: Shutting down the Babbles » shar, posted by Dinah on February 21, 2003, at 10:16:48
Dinah, I haven't read anyone else's response to your post, but I was perusing the thread concerning Dr. Bob's administration of this board and the use of blocking people, and as a researcher, I wanted to offer my opinion that perhaps stymies the average user of this board:
First of all, I think it was another post of yours in which you said you were looking at the message boards of a news site and you implied that the lack of moderation makes it difficult to bear. I have had the same problem, to where I've notified the FCC about some of those sites because of the filthy and hateful language that can be seen by anyone. You are right that Dr. Bob's civility standards make this a much more pleasant board.
To answer your question in this thread, though, Dr. Bob IS conducting research. It is counter-productive to the researcher when people just start name-calling and arguing. He is looking for specific information, and that information is obscured by incivility. He did not set up these boards so that people can verbally abuse others, he is looking at the psychology behind interactions of people who are supposedly under psychiatric care of some kind. If he wasn't conducting this research, my guess is that hosting a board like this would not be productive to his career, as it seems to take a lot of his time and patience just to moderate this board.
I am perplexed by those people who do not agree with Dr. Bob's moderation, and who submit posts criticizing him. They have the choice of just not reading this board ever again, and why they insist on being troublemakers instead is beyond me. Their meds may not be working! Or they are not on them, and may need to be. This is not a public forum, though people may think it is because it is on the Internet. It is really a private forum, we "sign" agreements to use this board according to Dr. Bob's rules, and anyone who ends up disagreeing with those rules just needs to un-bookmark this site from their browser.
In addition to moderating this site, Dr. Bob and his staff still need to evaluate every post for the research information they are seeking, which I always assumed was much more about medication and psychiatric care than about the administration of this site.
I commend Dr. Bob for conducting this kind of research, because it is the hardest to evaluate yet is probably going to be very helpful to the psychiatric community as a whole.
Posted by lou pilder on March 23, 2003, at 11:53:14
In reply to Re: Shutting down the Babbles » Dinah, posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 11:25:43
ayuda,
You wrote,[...those that criticize Dr. Bob...have the choice of not reading...why they insist on being {troublemakers}instead is beyond me...].
Could you clarify if you are saying that those that criticize Dr. Bob are thearfore {troublemakers}? If you are concluding that those that criticize Dr. Bob are troublemakers, then could you clarify what your rational is to make that conclusion? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of what you wrote, for it is my understanding that no one is infallible and that different points of view about the administration of this site, as well as other topics, is welcomed by Dr. Bob in the administrative board.
Lou
Posted by Lou pilder on March 23, 2003, at 13:24:29
In reply to Re: Shutting down the Babbles » Dinah, posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 11:25:43
ayuda,
You wrote,[...as a {researcher},I wanted to offer my {opinion}...].
Are you saying that you are presenting yourself with some type of credential, as being a researcher, so that a degree of credibility would be projected to the content of your post? If so, could you identify the credential that you have to purport that you are a {researcher}? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of the credential and how, if at all, it gives more credibility to this discussion vs. someone else's post that is not presenting themselves with a credential, and be better able to respond to your post.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2003, at 13:38:22
In reply to Re: Shutting down the Babbles » Dinah, posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 11:25:43
Hi Ayuda,
Good heavens! I had forgotten making that post. And reading it over, I am almost embarassed. A clarification. When I said that Dr. Bob did as good a job as anyone could, I am sure I meant that no one could do a perfect job, and his errors were no greater or less than anyone would make. I didn't mean to puff Dr. Bob up there. :)
But I still can't imagine that Dr. Bob gets nearly enough research material to justify the trouble involved in running this site. And in that I'm not commenting on his research. I'm saying that I can see the not inconsiderable trouble and headaches.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 13:40:32
In reply to Re: Shutting down the Babbles » Dinah, posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 11:25:43
ayuda,
You wrote,[...their meds are not working...or are not on them...and may need to be...]. You associated the people that [...do not agree with Dr. Bob's moderation...] with the people who may need to be on {med}s, and are the meds that you are referring to, psychotropic drugs?
If so,are you implying that:
A. People that do not agree, may need to be on psychotropic drugs?
B. Just people that do not agree with Dr. Bob's moderation of this board, may need to be on psychotropic drugs?
C. The only way to treat these afflictions is with neuroleptic or psychotropic drugs?
D. some combination of the above which is___
E. none of the above
F. something different which is_____
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 13:44:43
In reply to Re: Shutting down the Babbles » ayuda, posted by Dinah on March 23, 2003, at 13:38:22
Dinah,
You wrote,[...I can not see the {not}...trouble and...].
Could you write that statement over again with ,perhaps, a correction to it? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of the statement.
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2003, at 13:49:49
In reply to Lou's question to Dinah » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 13:44:43
Sorry Lou. I'm rather fond of double negatives used with purpose. I meant that it is apparent that running this site is a lot of trouble and headaches. I really can't be more clear than that.
And if you don't think this site is a lot of trouble to administrate, I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Best wishes to you Lou.
Dinah
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 14:00:39
In reply to Re: Lou's question to Dinah, posted by Dinah on March 23, 2003, at 13:49:49
Dinah,
Thanks for the clarification by rewriting your statement so that the {not}, as it was placed in your original statement, was taken out so that I could have the understanding that I requested.
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2003, at 14:05:48
In reply to Re: Lou's question to Dinah » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 14:00:39
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 14:22:10
In reply to Re: Lou's question to Dinah, posted by Dinah on March 23, 2003, at 13:49:49
Dinah,
You wrote,[...and if you don't think this site is a lot of trouble to administrate,...].
Well, I do not recall any posts by Dr. Bob with {him} complaining about {headaches} or {trouble} in relation to his administration of this site, but if you know of one, could you give me the URL so that I can examine the post and see for myself, or are you saying that ,[in general], it is [assumed] that running a site like this is a lot of trouble and headaches? If you could clarify that, then I could have a better understanding about what you wrote as to [...we will have to agree to disagree...]and be better able to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 14:46:34
In reply to Re: Shutting down the Babbles » Dinah, posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 11:25:43
ayuda,
You wrote,[...Dr. Bob's research here will probably be very helpful to the psychiatric community as a whole...].
Could you expound on one of the research aspects that you see here that you think will be helpfull to the psychiatric community? If you could, then I feel that that would be a topic that could be helpfull for this board to innitiate a discussion about.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 23, 2003, at 16:15:12
In reply to Lou's question to Dinah-2 » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 14:22:10
If you have ever been a moderator, or an owner, of a group of people in an internet message board, you would know it is hard work to keep a balance of good Vs bad. A board the size of this one, would, in my experience, cause ALOT of headaches. I don;t think Dr Bob has say that it is for us to be able to appreciate that it must do.
This is as clearly as I can state my feelings.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 17:44:06
In reply to Re: Lou's question to Dinah-2 » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on March 23, 2003, at 16:15:12
NikkiT2,
You wrote,"I don;t think Dr Bob has say that it is for us to be able to appreciate that it must do."
Could you examine your statement above and see if there are any words that are either misspelled or have some other grammatical error? If you could, and you do find such, could you correct the words and grammer? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of your post and respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 18:31:06
In reply to Re: Shutting down the Babbles » Dinah, posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 11:25:43
ayuda,
You wrote,[...it is counter productive to the researcher when people use {name calling}.
The situation that caused a thread here was about that Dr. Bob [allowed, innitually] {name calling} in the form of anti-Semitic language being used. Posters were outraged that Dr. Bob allowed the {name calling}, such as [greedy jew], and Dr. Bob at first wrote that he would allow the [racist language] for spacific cause of his own. The posters were still outraged and wanted the poster that used the anti-Semitic language to be santioned. Dr.Bob , then, warned the poster to post in a non-racist manner.
I agree that racist language should not be permitted to be posted here, and I objected to that poster and to othere here that posted that type of language. Are you saying, that when you wrote,[...I am perplexed by those people that do not agree with Dr. Bob's moderation, and submit posts criticizing him. They have the choice of just not reading this board ever again, and why they insist on being troublemakers instead is beyond me,...], that you consider those that object to the way Dr. Bob moderates the board, in respect to him allowing, innitually, anti-Semitic language to be posted here, to be {troublemakers}? If so, could you clarify why you consider Dr. Bob's innitual allowing of anti-Semitic language to be permissible when you wrote that you ,[...notified the FCC about sites that allowed,({filthy} and [hatefull]) language?
If you could, then I could have a better understanding of what you have written and be better able to respond to it accordingly.
Lou
Posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 20:06:34
In reply to Lou's respomse to ayuda's post » ayuda, posted by lou pilder on March 23, 2003, at 11:53:14
> ayuda,
> You wrote,[...those that criticize Dr. Bob...have the choice of not reading...why they insist on being {troublemakers}instead is beyond me...].
> Could you clarify if you are saying that those that criticize Dr. Bob are thearfore {troublemakers}? If you are concluding that those that criticize Dr. Bob are troublemakers, then could you clarify what your rational is to make that conclusion? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of what you wrote, for it is my understanding that no one is infallible and that different points of view about the administration of this site, as well as other topics, is welcomed by Dr. Bob in the administrative board.
> Lou
>I mean the people who keep arguing with him concerning his standards. His standards are outlined in the agreement that we all sign, and if someone doesn't like them, they are not required to read this board or post to it. When people keep up arguments with someone who has already set the parameters that have been agreed to, then I feel that is being a troublemaker, because it certainly isn't being cooperative.
Posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 20:07:37
In reply to lou's response to ayuda's post-2 » ayuda, posted by Lou pilder on March 23, 2003, at 13:24:29
> ayuda,
> You wrote,[...as a {researcher},I wanted to offer my {opinion}...].
> Are you saying that you are presenting yourself with some type of credential, as being a researcher, so that a degree of credibility would be projected to the content of your post? If so, could you identify the credential that you have to purport that you are a {researcher}? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of the credential and how, if at all, it gives more credibility to this discussion vs. someone else's post that is not presenting themselves with a credential, and be better able to respond to your post.
> LouI am a second-year PhD student and a published author in history, which is completely a research field.
Posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 20:17:17
In reply to Lou's respons to ayuda's post-3 » ayuda, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 13:40:32
> ayuda,
> You wrote,[...their meds are not working...or are not on them...and may need to be...]. You associated the people that [...do not agree with Dr. Bob's moderation...] with the people who may need to be on {med}s, and are the meds that you are referring to, psychotropic drugs?
> If so,are you implying that:
> A. People that do not agree, may need to be on psychotropic drugs?
> B. Just people that do not agree with Dr. Bob's moderation of this board, may need to be on psychotropic drugs?
> C. The only way to treat these afflictions is with neuroleptic or psychotropic drugs?
> D. some combination of the above which is___
> E. none of the above
> F. something different which is_____
> Lou
>No, again, I am saying that NO ONE IS REQUIRED TO READ OR POST TO THIS BOARD. Everyone does it of his or her own free will. Dr. Bob is researching people on psychiatric meds, so what is anyone posting to this board for if they are not participating in his research? That is the sole purpose of this board. It is not a general-purpose discussion section, it concerns his research on patients on psychiatric meds, and when we all sign that agreement concerning this board, he makes all that clear.
And yes, I believe that people who are incapable of understanding that they signed an agreement to use this site in a particular manner, and then who keep arguing with him about those parameters, have emotional problems, because they can't see that the simple answer is to just leave the site alone. And he keeps saying that, if you want to have particular discussions, there are other internet places to do so, and people keep arguing with him, even when he repeats what we all agreed to.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 20:28:09
In reply to Re: Lou's respomse to ayuda's post » lou pilder, posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 20:06:34
ayuda,
You wrote,[...I mean the people that keep arguing with him concerning his standards and perameters...I feel that those people are troublemakers because...it is not being cooperative...].
Sorry, but this forum has a provision to object. There have been changes by Dr. Bob, for he says that he [...is open to feedback...]and,[...I am not perfect...].
The administrative board is for [...improvments...]. and how can one write that they want things improved here if they can not object to what they percieve to be something that must be improved? When you wrote that,[...those that keep arguing with him are troublemekers..], are you saying that evryone is really not supposed to argue with him, because evryone must [accept] what they percieve as an injustice or they could be labled by you as an {uncooperative person}? If so, then could you clarify whether or not you favor the provision of the administrative board that Dr. Bob has provided here for those that want [improvement of the site]or if you think that the admin. board should not exist? If you could, then I could respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 20:35:03
In reply to Lou's response to ayuda's post-4 » ayuda, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 14:46:34
> ayuda,
> You wrote,[...Dr. Bob's research here will probably be very helpful to the psychiatric community as a whole...].
> Could you expound on one of the research aspects that you see here that you think will be helpfull to the psychiatric community? If you could, then I feel that that would be a topic that could be helpfull for this board to innitiate a discussion about.
> LouMost psychiatrists only know how their own patients are responding to meds, or they have to wait until studies are done, and then there's the debate that studies are slanted if they are done by the pharmaceutical company, or if they are done by another entity with its own interests, etc. So, even though this is not a perfect form of research by far, at least Dr. Bob is getting to see patients he would not normally come into contact with (nor who would normally come into contact with each other) debating amongst themselves concerning the efficacy of their treatments.
We get to talk about the side effects and how we feel about them. For instance, a side effect could be listed on the med info as sexual dysfunction. What form does that really take? How do patients rate that side effect as far as whether or not they will stay on that med due to it? How important to a patient (and is there a difference between male and female) is this med that they are willing to live with this side effect? Those are things that a psychiatrist may know from their individual patients, or that a patient may have an opinion about, but Dr. Bob learns how people are handling them, what advice they have for each other, how many people agree or disagree with the "self" help, etc.
So in this respect, he is learning a lot more than, say my own doctor, who only knows either what his patients say as individuals, or what the published tests show. So I think that Dr. Bob is getting to the human side of these treatments through this board.
There are drawbacks -- this is not exactly a "control" group. People have to find this site, it doesn't come to them, and so you have to be interested in "talking" with strangers over the internet -- and have internet access in the first place. And you have to be literate -- which may sound dumb, but this board automatically leaves out illiterate people. There are many reasons why this isn't an exact science, getting people's stories from them (historians experience much the same problems when they take oral histories, which I could explain more in detail at some other time). As many of us admit, we have our good days and our bad days posting to this board. But all in all, I think that the interaction that we all have with each other concerning our treatments and how we interact with each other is something that psychiatrists usually only get in group therapy, and then only their own patients. So I think this idea of strangers who are only brought together through their interest in helping each other through this board -- or in letting out how they feel about their treatment through this board -- is fairly interesting.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 20:39:32
In reply to Re: Lou's respons to ayuda's post-3 » Lou Pilder, posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 20:17:17
ayuda,
you wrote,[...this is the sole purpose of this board...].
It is my understanding that a purpose of this board is for,{support and education...]. It is my understanding that one does not have to be currently taking psychotropic drugs to qualify as a discussant here. In fact, Dr. Bob has allowed me to post an alternitive to taking psychotropic drugs as a treatment for these afflictions. He has answered objections by posters that would like my thought to be censored by writing that he will allow me to post because,[...if it worked for him, then it has the potential to work for others...]. If you are saying that only those on psychotropic drugs are allowed to post here, could you referr me to that statement, if it has been stated by Dr. Bob? If you could, then I could respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 20:39:51
In reply to Lou's respomse to ayuda's post-FM » ayuda, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 20:28:09
> ayuda,
> You wrote,[...I mean the people that keep arguing with him concerning his standards and perameters...I feel that those people are troublemakers because...it is not being cooperative...].
> Sorry, but this forum has a provision to object. There have been changes by Dr. Bob, for he says that he [...is open to feedback...]and,[...I am not perfect...].
> The administrative board is for [...improvments...]. and how can one write that they want things improved here if they can not object to what they percieve to be something that must be improved? When you wrote that,[...those that keep arguing with him are troublemekers..], are you saying that evryone is really not supposed to argue with him, because evryone must [accept] what they percieve as an injustice or they could be labled by you as an {uncooperative person}? If so, then could you clarify whether or not you favor the provision of the administrative board that Dr. Bob has provided here for those that want [improvement of the site]or if you think that the admin. board should not exist? If you could, then I could respond accordingly.
> LouI think that maybe we are talking about two different things, because I don't disagree with you. I am referring to those people who repeatedly do things like run other people down or make disparaging remarks about other people's ethnicity or religion, and then get mad at Dr. Bob for blocking them. I agree that sometimes somethings need to be debated, as you say, and that Dr. Bob understands that this board can benefit from some dissention.
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.