![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 60 to 84 of 156. Go back in thread:
Posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 20:44:00
In reply to Lou's respons to ayuda's post-FN » ayuda, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 20:39:32
> 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.
> LouHe's a psychiatrist, and his main interest is people who are under psychiatric care. Again, I do not disagree with you -- yes, there are alternatives, and Dr. Bob certainly has not limited anyone's discussion of alternatives to medication. However, his interest seems to be more in the interaction among people who are feeling their way around psychiatric problems, what information we share with each other that perhaps we are not getting from our doctors -- for the purpose of making treatment better by being a fly on the wall when our pdocs aren't around.
Posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 20:57:00
In reply to Lou's response to ayuda's post-6 » ayuda, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 18:31:06
> 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.
> LouLou, I think #5 is missing, so sorry if it's there and I didn't answer to it.
No, I would never support anyone's desire to use slurs or other offensive terms or language -- and I agree that they should never be allowed in a board in which people discuss such sensitive information as we do about our psyches. As a historian, I do not think that slurs have ever served any useful purpose, and I certainly see a lot of them every day in my research.
When I spoke of the sites I have notified the FCC about, they are ones that are from news sites, which any child could go to, that have subject lines with expletives and other offensive language just out there for everyone to see. I am saddened by the amount of anger and spite people seem to have and feel free to express on the internet. It scares me.
I did not get a chance to read all the posts associated with this thread, and did not know that there was that issue that you described. To be honest, I was just looking for some new debate to get into because the Lexapro thread has gotten kind of boring, and I am procrastinating writing a research paper I've been working on for months. And I get interested in those people Dr. Bob blocks, and the reasons behind it. And it usually is for being uncivil, so I am astonished that he would permit some level of incivility. I apoligize if it ever appeared that I support or agree with any sort of labeling or name-calling, because it upsets me greatly that people do that.
Posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 21:01:30
In reply to Lou's question to NikkiT2's post » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 17:44:06
> 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.
> LouAs I am constantly correcting my student's papers, I think that I can clarify that what NikkiT2 meant was: "I don't think that Dr. Bob has to say that it is difficult [to administrate this board] for us to be able to appreciate that it must be so."
NikkiT2 can correct me if I interpreted that incorrectly.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 21:04:32
In reply to Re: Lou's respomse to ayuda's post-FM » Lou Pilder, posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 20:39:51
ayuda,
You wrote as an answer to my request for clarification that you were referring to [...the people that continue to make disparging remarks about a person's ethniciicity or religion and then get mad for being blocked...].
Could you identify where this has happened here? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of your post, for I have never read a post by someone that wanted to be allowed to use anti-Semitic language , or racial or religious disparging remarks and was objecting to one being blocked for doing so.
Lou
Posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 21:13:38
In reply to Lou's respomse to ayuda's post-Fo » ayuda, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 21:04:32
> ayuda,
> You wrote as an answer to my request for clarification that you were referring to [...the people that continue to make disparging remarks about a person's ethniciicity or religion and then get mad for being blocked...].
> Could you identify where this has happened here? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of your post, for I have never read a post by someone that wanted to be allowed to use anti-Semitic language , or racial or religious disparging remarks and was objecting to one being blocked for doing so.
> LouPeruse the "please be civil" and "you are blocked" messages from Dr. Bob and their threads, that's what I did. I'm not saying that anyone wants to persist in using slurs, I am saying that when Dr. Bob notifies people of incivility, sometimes they argue with him about being blocked.
My interpretation of this site, and no one has to agree with me on this, is that this is Dr. Bob's treehouse, and he doesn't have to let us play in it if he doesn't want.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 21:23:12
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,[...And yes, I believe that people who are incapable of understanding...have emotional problems...and can't see the simple answer is to just leave the site alone...].
I feel extreamly hurt by your statement because I feel that you are jumping to a conclusion about people that use the administrative board to request address of what [they percieve to be injustices] when they are invited to do so by Dr. Bob and then you conclude that they are {...incapeable of understanding and... have emotional problems...].
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 21:30:21
In reply to Re: Lou's respomse to ayuda's post-Fo » Lou Pilder, posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 21:13:38
ayuda,
You wrote that [... it is my intrepretation of this site is that it is Dr. Bob's treehouse and he doesn't have to let us play in it if he doesn't want...].
I feel very sad that you interpret this site as such. This is a forum open to evryone, for the word, "welcome" is used by Dr. Bob .
Lou
Posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 22:02:24
In reply to Re: Lou's respons to ayuda's post-FP » ayuda, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 21:23:12
> ayuda,
> You wrote,[...And yes, I believe that people who are incapable of understanding...have emotional problems...and can't see the simple answer is to just leave the site alone...].
> I feel extreamly hurt by your statement because I feel that you are jumping to a conclusion about people that use the administrative board to request address of what [they percieve to be injustices] when they are invited to do so by Dr. Bob and then you conclude that they are {...incapeable of understanding and... have emotional problems...].
> Lou
>Well, number one, most everyone who is human has some problem or other. But I don't even understand how you are interpreting what I've said. I am at a loss for understanding your confusion. People who get surly when corrected, or who are argumentative when criticized, have emotional problems. If an adult person is not capable of accepting criticism without lashing out, then they have emotional problems. I don't think that is something that is just my opinion, or is irrational to state. I think that is one of the bases for psychiatry, which is what this discussion board is about.
Posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 22:10:16
In reply to Lou's respomse to ayuda's post-FQ » ayuda, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 21:30:21
> ayuda,
> You wrote that [... it is my intrepretation of this site is that it is Dr. Bob's treehouse and he doesn't have to let us play in it if he doesn't want...].
> I feel very sad that you interpret this site as such. This is a forum open to evryone, for the word, "welcome" is used by Dr. Bob .
> LouNo, this isn't an open forum. It is a private forum. That is why we sign consent forms to be able to participate in it. What makes you think that it is an open forum? Because it is on the internet? What role do you think that the consent forms play if this is an open forum? Do you know of any other "open forums" that require you to sign a consent form prior to usage? It was evident to me when I agreed to the use of this site that I was signing-on to participate in a private research project. Was that not clear to everyone? Dr. Bob DOES welcome people, but they also have to agree to the terms of the site. That is not consistent with an "open" forum, that is consistent with a private research forum.
Posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 22:39:50
In reply to Lou's respomse to ayuda's post-FQ » ayuda, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 21:30:21
Just out of curiosity, why do you participate in Psycho-Babble?
For example, when I first went on Lexapro, it was newly approved for use in the US, and there was very little public information about it. When I did an internet search on Yahoo! for it, Psycho-Babble came up as the first "hit." I became interested in the idea that I could find out how Lexapro was working (or not) for others, what their side effects were and compare that with my own experiences. Also, I have gotten some good advice that I may not have been able to get from my doctor concerning medications and other psychiatric care-related topics from people who have experienced them. I have been able to make suggestions concerning my care with my doctor through this learning experience.
So what attracted you to Psycho-Babble? In the FAQ's for the site, Dr. Bob says that: "Another goal of these boards is to help us understand how online communities work and affect the mental health of their members...." What do you think about that goal? Do you think that it implies that how we interact -- like what questions we ask each other, what kind of information we ask for clarification on, and what responses we prepare for each other -- are also under the microscope? Do you think that it implies that interaction on this site may have either positive or negative effects on the mental health of the participants?
I'm just curious as to your opinion about that.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 23, 2003, at 23:14:33
In reply to Re: Shutting down the Babbles » Dinah, posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 11:25:43
> 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 intent may be not to cause trouble (though I have to admit I used to think that sometimes), but, for example, to show support for another poster who's been blocked.
> 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
Well, it's not completely open, but it's not by invitation only, either...
Bob
Posted by ayuda on March 24, 2003, at 7:21:13
In reply to Re: people who do not agree, posted by Dr. Bob on March 23, 2003, at 23:14:33
> > 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 intent may be not to cause trouble (though I have to admit I used to think that sometimes), but, for example, to show support for another poster who's been blocked.
>
> > 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
>
> Well, it's not completely open, but it's not by invitation only, either...
>
> BobI should not have used the term "troublemaker," it is a generalization and a label and I should know better than to use such terms, so I apologize, even though you didn't chastise me for it (I chastise myself).
I think of your creation and moderation of this site like a shopping mall: malls are in the public domain, and anyone can enter them and shop (and without that access the mall would not be profitable), but they are privately owned and operated, and there are rules to follow, and a customer who breaks a rule (no matter how "unfair" the owner's rule may seem for a public place), risks at least temporary banishment by the management. People often think they are in a public place in a mall because it is also not by invitation only, but in fact are in a private realm where not everything "goes." Does that seem like a fair analogy?
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 24, 2003, at 14:44:25
In reply to Lou's question to NikkiT2's post » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 17:44:06
apart from a ; instead of a ' in don't, no other error. I think it could quite easily be assumed that this typo meant '
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 24, 2003, at 14:47:52
In reply to Re: Lou's question to NikkiT2's post » Lou Pilder, posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 21:01:30
Thanks for that.. I'm always hitting ; instead of '... short finger syndrome!! *laugh*
Nikki
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 24, 2003, at 14:50:39
In reply to Lou's respomse to ayuda's post-FQ » ayuda, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 21:30:21
Lou.. the mat at my front door has welcome on it.. infact, it says "welcome all species".. This does not mean that I welcome people into my home who I do not want there at that particular time. I do not welcome strangers into my home. I do not welcome local cats into my home. I only welcome those that I have asked to visit me.
Welcome is a greeting, not an invitation.
Nikki
Posted by Jonathan on March 25, 2003, at 0:14:08
In reply to Re: Lou's respons to ayuda's post-FP » ayuda, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 21:23:12
Lou,
If you quote what others have posted, please do not edit their words in a way which substantially changes their meaning.
You claim that Ayuda wrote, in http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030221/msgs/211952.html :
"...And yes, I believe that people who are incapable of understanding...have emotional problems...and can't see the simple answer is to just leave the site alone..."
Shall we look at what (s)he really wrote? (I'm very sorry, Ayuda — I tried but I cannot infer your gender from your recent posts!). I have enclosed in «guillemets» the sections which you (Lou) deleted:
"... 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 [Dr. Bob] about those parameters,» have emotional problems, «because» they can't see that the simple answer is to just leave the site alone."
I see nothing wrong in omitting words which aren't essential to the argument, as I have omitted "And yes," from the beginning of the sentence; nor in changing, as I have, "him" to "[Dr. Bob]" because our removal of the sentence from its original context makes it no longer obvious to whom "him" was meant to refer.
However, by deleting Ayuda's words "that they signed an agreement to use this site in a particular manner, and then who keep arguing with him about those parameters," you are not only transforming "understanding" from a transitive verb, the object of which is the noun phrase "that they signed an agreement to use this site in a particular manner", into an intransitive verb with the implicit meaning "understanding anything". You are also obscuring the fact that Ayuda is not talking about all who use the Admin Board, as you later imply with absolutely no justification, but only about those who, having agreed when they registered to observe Dr. Bob's rules, then use this board solely to argue persistently and specifically against those same rules with which they agreed to comply. I do not consider you to be such a person, nor do I believe that you think of yourself in that way.
I am sorry, Lou, that you feel "extremely hurt" by Ayuda's post, but I think that the cause of your hurt is not the words that Ayuda used but your own, perhaps inadvertent, misquotation of them. I think this explains Ayuda's justifiably bewildered response, in http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030221/msgs/211992.html :
"... I don't even understand how you are interpreting what I've said. I am at a loss for understanding your confusion."
Your post concludes with the following words, which I find shockingly out of character for the civil and honourable gentleman I know you to be :)
"I feel extreamly hurt by your statement because I feel that you are ... incapeable of understanding and... have emotional problems..."
To ensure that no-one is misled by my deliberate misquotation of Lou's post, I wish to explain that I substituted an ellipsis (...) for the following words between "you are" and "incapable":
"jumping to a conclusion about people that use the administrative board to request address of what [they percieve to be injustices] when they are invited to do so by Dr. Bob and then you conclude that they are {..."
Please try to observe the Golden Rule, Lou — http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil :
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." — Matt. 7:12.
"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. That is the law: all the rest is commentary." — Talmud, Shabbat 31a.Please treat the words that others have posted with the same respect which you would like others to show for your words.
Respectfully,
Jonathan.
> ayuda,
> You wrote,[...And yes, I believe that people who are incapable of understanding...have emotional problems...and can't see the simple answer is to just leave the site alone...].
> I feel extreamly hurt by your statement because I feel that you are jumping to a conclusion about people that use the administrative board to request address of what [they percieve to be injustices] when they are invited to do so by Dr. Bob and then you conclude that they are {...incapeable of understanding and... have emotional problems...].
> Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 6:17:36
In reply to Misrepresentation » Lou Pilder, posted by Jonathan on March 25, 2003, at 0:14:08
Jonathan,
You wrote,[...if you quote what others have posted...]. Quotes and paraphraseing are not the same. The 3 dots indicate that there have been words left out,which is an idication that what I had written was not a quote, but it is not my {intention} to change the meaning of what was written, but only to shorten my writing, by paraphrasing.
I did not quote ayuda .If you are saying that I did quote ayuda, then I would consider that statement of yours to be a false conclusion, for no quotqtion marks were given.
I do not feel that parapharsing changes the meaning of what was written, but if it did, clarification and discussion could still continue and be {civil} on this forum. If you are requesting clarification of the paraphase, then the following will be my clarification for such.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 7:15:57
In reply to Misrepresentation » Lou Pilder, posted by Jonathan on March 25, 2003, at 0:14:08
Jonathan,
You wrote your subject line, [misreprentation..Lou Pilder].
Are you accusing me of [deliberatly] misrepresenting something in the post that you are writing about that was written by ayuda? If not, could you clarify your use of the word,"misrepresentaion" and the association with my name in your subject line? It is not my intention to misrepresent what others post here, for when I use paraphasing, what is written by me is just what I remember of what was written by the other person. What I remember as to what was written by another person is not [deliberatly] misrepresenting. If clarification is needed, a civil discussion could continue , which could rule out any misconceptions, miisunderstandings and such. I feel that your subject line,[misrepresentation..Lou Pilder] has the potential for others to associate me with [deliberatly] misrepresenting , before I have an opportunity to clarify any misunderstandings that others may have about what I wrote, and it is not my intention to deliberatly misrepresent.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on March 25, 2003, at 7:39:46
In reply to Lou's response to Jonathans post-FR » Jonathan, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 6:17:36
Lou, Dr. Bob has made it easy for you to quote someone without having to write at all. You can just click the box that says include previous post, and the exact words of the previous poster will pop up. Then you can comment on those exact words.
That way you don't have to remember exactly, or to type so much. And there is no chance that the meaning of the original poster will be unintentionally lost.
It still is possible to misunderstand of course, but with the actual words there, perhaps the possibility is less?
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 8:00:19
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Jonathans post-FR » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on March 25, 2003, at 7:39:46
Dinah,
Thank you for the infomation about how to include the previous post. I was not aware of that function. I preferr to paraphrase, though, and if someone sees a parapharse, I feel that they can just as easily go to the post in question to read the entire post if they desire. I feel that it [goes without saying] that a paraphrse is not a [quote] and that the nature of a paraphrse is that there are some parts not included, and that a paraphrase is not a [deliberate] misrepresentation.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on March 25, 2003, at 8:28:28
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah's post » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 8:00:19
I think Jonathan made it clear the he didn't think you were deliberately misrepresenting, just that unintentional misrepresentations are a lot more likely with paraphrases.
May I ask why you prefer paraphrasing? I realize that it makes it easier to highlight certain words, but doesn't highlighting certain words in a whole statement almost by definition change the meaning and intent of the original statement, since the words were not highlighted in the original statement?
Or of course your preferance for paraphrasing might be for some entirely different reason.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 8:39:10
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah's post » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on March 25, 2003, at 8:28:28
Dinah,
You wrote,[...I think Jonathan {made it clear}that he did not think that you were deliberatly misrepresenting...]. Could you point out what he wrote that makes you think that [he made it clear?}. If you could, then I could be better able to see what you see in what he wrote as to substantuate what you think.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on March 25, 2003, at 8:43:47
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah's post » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 8:39:10
Because he called you a civil and honourable gentleman, of course. That implies, to me at least, that he doesn't consider you to be deliberately misrepresenting (since what civil and honourable gentleman would do that), but rather to be inadvertantly misrepresenting by the use of paraphrase rather than quote.
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 25, 2003, at 9:07:33
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah's post » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 8:00:19
Lou,
I believe, in the past, when I paraphrased something someone had wrotten, you pulled me up on this, and asked that I use their exact words.
I believe paraphrasing can be a dangerous thing, as it leads to many misunderstandings.
I do not have the post I am reffering to to hand I'm afraid, and really don't have the time to go find it. But it was on Admin, I know that.
Please, in future, use exact words, and not *your* understanding of them.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 9:29:31
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah's post » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on March 25, 2003, at 8:43:47
Dinah,
You wrote that [...he called you ...a gentleman...],[...that implies to me... that he doesn't consider you to be deliberatly misleading...].
If you examine the context of that statement, he writes that he [....finds it out of character...](because I wrote that I was [hurt by the statement]). The subject that he is refering to is that he finds it out of character for me to feel {hurt}. I feel that the context of the statement that you referr to to inply that Jonathan does not consider me to be [deliberatly] misleading also has the potential for a reasonable person to {not} imply that Johnathan doesn't consider me to be deliberatly misleading on the basis of your statement.
Lou
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.