![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 107 to 131 of 158. Go back in thread:
Posted by Sigismund on June 12, 2009, at 15:10:41
In reply to Apologies, Bob?, posted by fayeroe on June 11, 2009, at 11:20:42
>> a forum for support, communication, friendship and information for persons suffering from, and recovering from, emotional illnesses.~~~
>> Bob
> Wow! The last paragraph by Bob sure sounds good...I would if administration could swear that is their M.O. in dealing with the persons suffering from, and recovering from, emotional illnesses?
He must have thought that you made an environment where people could recover from 'emotional illnesses' by blocking people who said things that might have made other people feel put down. I wouldn't hold it against him. When have humans in groups done anything nice and good? OK, sometimes, but not often.
Posted by fayeroe on June 12, 2009, at 15:17:56
In reply to Lou's request-mrpoastman » fayeroe, posted by Lou Pilder on June 12, 2009, at 15:08:22
> > Bob said : Hi, everyone,
> >
> > Two new ~cases~ are open:....
> >
> > Court talk? Prison talk? Are we on trial? Going to get a case written up? That leads to segregation from the general population for 14 days. Could be the result of a fight, having contraband, inappropriate sexual remarks, inappropriate sexual activities, stealing, passing "kits", (notes) gambling, trafficking and trading. And it goes on and on.
> > Maximum segregation is 14 days. Sounds appropriate here since we never have any contraband and we haven't been trafficking and trading, etc. ....(I'll trade you some stamps for a little fun on the side)
> >
> > Pat
>
> Pat,
> You wrote,[...trade you some stamps...]
> What kind of stamps do you have?
> Lou
>
>Lou, "trading stamps" is an example of what an offender can do to get in trouble in prison. Stamps are very high in value and can bring as much as $5 each inside.
I caught an offender trading a stamp for three pencils one day. I had to write a "case" on her.
I have Alhzeimer stamps right now. But I need them for mail.......:-)
Posted by fayeroe on June 12, 2009, at 15:20:59
In reply to Re: Apologies, Bob? » fayeroe, posted by Sigismund on June 12, 2009, at 15:10:41
> >> a forum for support, communication, friendship and information for persons suffering from, and recovering from, emotional illnesses.~~~
>
> >> Bob
>
> > Wow! The last paragraph by Bob sure sounds good...I would if administration could swear that is their M.O. in dealing with the persons suffering from, and recovering from, emotional illnesses?
>
> He must have thought that you made an environment where people could recover from 'emotional illnesses' by blocking people who said things that might have made other people feel put down. I wouldn't hold it against him. When have humans in groups done anything nice and good? OK, sometimes, but not often.I have to give credit to Twinleaf for the paragraph that I thought Bob had written. I'm a bit dense these days....
However, it would be nice if Bob believed what Twinleaf said.....And I still believe with all my heart that Bob owes dozens of people here apologies for the hurt he has caused.
Anyway, you're cooking with gas today!!! P
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 23, 2009, at 4:26:32
In reply to Re: I love this place despite the rules » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on June 6, 2009, at 5:18:52
> I have been confused about this whole affair as it related to my act, including what I thought were civil and carefully chosen words. ... A few years ago, it was your wish to have us work out our differences with what was tantamount to policing ourselves for infractions of civility without the immediate intervention of deputies. ... I thought I was performing in that role.
That's still my wish, but as Kath said, it can be tricky, and it's safer to use the notification button. The downside is, that doesn't help other posters avoid blocks.
Thank you for trying to help others work out their differences. I don't doubt that you chose your words carefully. Still, I consider it possible for them to have led alex to feel accused, and I ask that you not post anything that could lead others to feel accused.
But please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person, and I'm sorry if this hurts you.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express oneself are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks, and sorry about taking so long to follow up,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 23, 2009, at 4:30:49
In reply to Re: Apologies, Bob? » fayeroe, posted by Sigismund on June 12, 2009, at 15:10:41
> I think that it is really hard to do this type of thing. There's the HUGE potential that in saying something to a fellow-poster, we'll inadvertently upset, insult, hurt them!!! It's not always easy to say clearly what we mean, I think.
>
> For me, I think it will feel MUCH safer to use the "Notify Admin" option, rather than take a chance of saying the 'wrong' thing & taking the lid off a veritable beehive, ending up with a lot of VERY **ssed-off & upset bees!!! & possibly getting stung myself!
>
> KathI agree, it can be very tricky, and it's safer to use the notification button. As I mentioned to Scott, the downside is that it doesn't help other posters avoid blocks.
--
> A group learns from their leader.....In this case I would ask you if you consistently apologize to posters when they are hurt by administration's actions?
>
> I am not referring to anyone in this thread. I'm talking about the big picture.
>
> > a forum for support, communication, friendship and information for persons suffering from, and recovering from, emotional illnesses.~~~
>
> Wow! The last paragraph ... sure sounds good...I would if administration could swear that is their M.O. in dealing with the persons suffering from, and recovering from, emotional illnesses?
>
> fayeroeGroup members sometimes learn from their leader. Yes, I consistently apologize to posters who may be hurt by my actions. I have the last dozen times, anyway.
Still, as I mentioned to twinleaf, the role of the administrators here isn't to be supportive, at least not directly. But I can understand the wish to be supported by us.
--
> He must have thought that you made an environment where people could recover from 'emotional illnesses' by blocking people who said things that might have made other people feel put down.
>
> SigismundI do think it might help people with emotional illnesses to have an environment where they don't feel put down...
Bob
Posted by SLS on June 23, 2009, at 5:40:02
In reply to Re: please be civil » SLS, posted by Dr. Bob on June 23, 2009, at 4:26:32
> > I have been confused about this whole affair as it related to my act, including what I thought were civil and carefully chosen words. ... A few years ago, it was your wish to have us work out our differences with what was tantamount to policing ourselves for infractions of civility without the immediate intervention of deputies. ... I thought I was performing in that role.
>
> That's still my wish, but as Kath said, it can be tricky, and it's safer to use the notification button. The downside is, that doesn't help other posters avoid blocks.I have continued to give this incident thought. I have trouble getting past certain things, but I understand how my original words to Alexandra could be received as being a stern accusation. I didn't mean it to be stern, but I was judging the tone of her post to Greywolf, and estimating her intent. So, yes, I now see that this was an accusation with the attendant attempt at mind reading. I apologize for this, and I will try to be more cognizant of this in the future.
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 23, 2009, at 8:22:29
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on June 23, 2009, at 5:40:02
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 23, 2009, at 20:06:39
In reply to Re: Case closed? » Dr. Bob, posted by twinleaf on June 6, 2009, at 9:33:19
> I will withdraw the word " vindicative"
Thanks.
> Where in any of this is a hint of an intent on my part to hurt anyone? ... Once again, there was simply no wish to hurt anyone ... Even though neither instance involved a wish to hurt anyone, they were instantaneously considered to be exactly that, The blocks, too, were instantaneous, without any chance for clarification. Not that it would have mattered. it would have been impossible for me to apologize for something I didn't do.
We didn't mean to imply that you intended to hurt anyone. I'm sorry you felt accused of that. But a post could be uncivil even if not intended to be. And could still be apologized for.
> There is another part of this. I felt publicly shamed and extremely embarrassed by what had happened to me here. I had been making a lot of progress in my therapy, and my depression and anxiety had almost disappeared. However, following this incident, both flared up again, severely, for a number of weeks. It was serious enough to require adding an additional therapy session each week. My analyst, who had been very interested in the possibilities this site offered to people isolated by emotional problems, was stunned and appalled by the harm which he saw occurring to me.
I realize that an administrative action can trigger a poster's battle with depression and anxiety. I'm sorry that happens. That's not our intent, but like your posts, ours can also have unintended consequences.
I trust your analyst was also appalled by the circumstances that led to your earlier experiences with depression and anxiety. He sounds very supportive. This site offers a lot of supportive posters. The role of the administrators, however, isn't to be supportive, at least not directly.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 23, 2009, at 20:08:17
In reply to Re: Case closed?, posted by alexandra_k on June 8, 2009, at 16:13:44
> I certainly didn't intend for it to be (or resemble) an attack
>
> I went to pains to check that Greywolf was okay about what I had postedThanks for clarifying the intent and following up on the effect of your post. Would you be willing to go one step further and express regret?
> Please don't post to me again.
Change is slow, but one thing that may in fact have changed since you were here before is the procedure for posters to follow if they feel harassed:
> 1. Identify a post by them to you that makes you feel harassed. Use the "notify administrators" button below that post to let me and the deputy administrators know why it makes you feel harassed and, since this should be a last resort, what steps you've already taken to address the situation.
>
> 2. If we're going to support your request, we'll post a response to their post. If not, we'll let you know why not. We may also decide their post isn't civil, but that's a separate issue.
>
> 3. If we ask them not to post to you, but they do, use the "notify administrators" button below their new post to inform us.http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#harassed
> You turned me into a troll Bob.
By hurting you really badly? I'm sorry about that. And hopeful that it'll turn out better this time.
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on June 24, 2009, at 3:47:44
In reply to Re: Case closed? » alexandra_k, posted by Dr. Bob on June 23, 2009, at 20:08:17
> > I certainly didn't intend for it to be (or resemble) an attack
> >
> > I went to pains to check that Greywolf was okay about what I had posted
>
> Thanks for clarifying the intent and following up on the effect of your post. Would you be willing to go one step further and express regret?I regret that Scott jumped in and accused me of having an intention that I did not. I attempted to sort this out with him at the time by telling him how I felt in response to his post and clarifying my intention. I regret that he saw fit to ignore what I had to say and wait for you to jump on in.
> > Please don't post to me again.
> Change is slow, but one thing that may in fact have changed since you were here before is the procedure for posters to follow if they feel harassed:
> > 1. Identify a post by them to you that makes you feel harassed. Use the "notify administrators" button below that post to let me and the deputy administrators know why it makes you feel harassed and, since this should be a last resort, what steps you've already taken to address the situation.
> >
> > 2. If we're going to support your request, we'll post a response to their post. If not, we'll let you know why not. We may also decide their post isn't civil, but that's a separate issue.
> >
> > 3. If we ask them not to post to you, but they do, use the "notify administrators" button below their new post to inform us.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#harassedBlah de blah internet costs $1 for 8 minutes and a page takes 2 minutes to load right now. I'm asking Scott (though not directly addressing him) please pretty pretty please out of the kindness of your heart as a favor to me or to Bob if you prefer don't post to me again. I think things have been working well since I made my request and I don't anticipate a problem. I certainly don't anticipate admin action in a timely fashion so no problem really.
> > You turned me into a troll Bob.
>
> By hurting you really badly? I'm sorry about that. And hopeful that it'll turn out better this time.I won't get my hopes up. Try 'by hurting you really badly over and over and over and over...' and not just me, others as well. Again and again and again.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 24, 2009, at 5:00:13
In reply to Re: Case closed?, posted by alexandra_k on June 24, 2009, at 3:47:44
> > Thanks for clarifying the intent and following up on the effect of your post. Would you be willing to go one step further and express regret?
>
> I regret that Scott jumped in ... I attempted to sort this out with him at the time by telling him how I felt in response to his post and clarifying my intention. I regret that he saw fit to ... wait for you to jump on in.Waiting to reply can make it easier to be civil...
It would be more apologetic to express regret over how you chose to act yourself. I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but would you say you also regret that you posted something that could have led him to feel accused or put down?
I regret that I hurt you really badly over and over and over and over. I didn't intend to.
Bob
Posted by SLS on June 24, 2009, at 6:46:04
In reply to Re: regret » alexandra_k, posted by Dr. Bob on June 24, 2009, at 5:00:13
Hi Doctor.
> It would be more apologetic to express regret over how you chose to act yourself. I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but would you say you also regret that you posted something that could have led him to feel accused or put down?
I don't know whom you are referring to here, but I don't feel that I need any kind of excusatory expression from Alexandra. I really didn't feel attacked. Perhaps someone else who stated that they did despite the best of intentions?
- Scott
Posted by SLS on June 24, 2009, at 6:50:14
In reply to Re: regret » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on June 24, 2009, at 6:46:04
Sorry.
Never mind.
I'm still making it my business when perhaps it shouldn't be.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on June 24, 2009, at 6:57:13
In reply to Re: regret, posted by SLS on June 24, 2009, at 6:50:14
> Sorry.
>
> Never mind.
>
> I'm still making it my business when perhaps it shouldn't be.
I am REALLY sorry. What I wrote was counterproductive and inflammatory. I didn't mean to restart this whole thing.I apologize to everyone.
- Scott
Posted by Timne on July 2, 2009, at 19:04:28
In reply to Re: Apologies, posted by Dr. Bob on June 23, 2009, at 4:30:49
> Group members sometimes learn from their leader. Yes, I consistently apologize to posters who may be hurt by my actions. I have the last dozen times, anyway.
Hmmm... you apologize but don't ask forgiveness? Or you ask forgiveness but don't repent of your actions?See, the cosmology I encountered as a young human said there is an infinite font of forgiveness in the the universe, but generally, only those who repent of their actions may drink from those healing waters. But that was cosmology, and I took interest in more practical topics, including rhetoric.
In a rhetorical sense, the "apology" you seem to offer seems more related to "apologetics" - the systematic defense of a position. You seem to acknowledge suffering some express to have felt in reaction to your actions, and express sympathy along with an explanation. That's different from an apology like "I know I scratched your car. I'm sorry. I was not paying attention. What do I owe you for the damage?"
The form of apology you cite in your opus here seems more like "I know I scratched your car and I know you truly value your paint job, but my business is so important, now you just have to live with the scratch. Good luck with your feelings."
Could you please elaborate on what you consider to be apology when you apologize to members for your actions here? Is it acknowledgment of error, or is it admission that others suffer in response to your actions but you consider your purpose to be worth their suffering, or is it something else and if so, could you explain more precisely what you do mean when you apologize for your actions here?
Posted by rskontos on July 7, 2009, at 21:42:55
In reply to Re: Apologies » Dr. Bob, posted by Timne on July 2, 2009, at 19:04:28
Excellent post.
Posted by muffled on July 8, 2009, at 14:55:45
In reply to Re: Apologies » Dr. Bob, posted by Timne on July 2, 2009, at 19:04:28
yeah cool post, wunder what Bob'll say....if anything!
Posted by Timne on July 8, 2009, at 23:40:28
In reply to Re: Apologies » Timne, posted by muffled on July 8, 2009, at 14:55:45
> yeah cool post, wunder what Bob'll say....if anything!
He might surprise me, but I don't think he'll reply. P-docs are trained to believe their silence can be healing. It seems they believe silence highlights the things they do say.
And he's probably savvy enough to realize the risk of explicitly admitting error. To put it in another context, can you imagine how many lawsuits would be filed if doctors started admitting their early efforts to treat "AIDS" with AZT were at least the direct cause (accident) and manner (poisoning) of death in many cases during the '80s, rather than the underlying syndrome symptoms? And his recent informed consent post on twitter ( http://tiny.dr-bob.org/98bm ) demonstrated an ability to recognize and plainly articulate risks associated with online activities. I'm certain he similarly assesses the distinct risks associated with his online activity.
I think like most people, unless he's stuck in his most myopic mindset, he'll find himself contemplating the way people might view his approach to a particular matter and perhaps moderating the approach, once he's seen how the approach can appear to some people.
Thanks for the feedback.
Posted by muffled on July 9, 2009, at 0:16:16
In reply to Re: Apologies, posted by Timne on July 8, 2009, at 23:40:28
he may surprize you....
I STILL don't understand that man.
I don't expect i ever will at this point.
Which is why this is not where I post much anymore.
It feels unsafe.
Best wishes.
M
Posted by Dinah on July 9, 2009, at 8:14:49
In reply to Re: Apologies » Timne, posted by muffled on July 9, 2009, at 0:16:16
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090707/msgs/905537.html
Dr. Bob is no one to fear. For heavens sake, look at Admin. The hair on my neck stands up sometimes when I read what is said about him. I'd have shut down Babble long ago if people who were effectively my guests appeared to feel that way about a service I paid for and went to the trouble to provide. I'd see no reason to continue to bother if my efforts were so regarded.
I always wonder how people can think the things they think about Dr. Bob (or the deputies for that matter) when looking at Admin would indicate that Dr. Bob was a man of boundless tolerance. And likely with a healthy self esteem.
Dr. Bob does what he thinks best for Babblers. If he gets any benefit from Babble in terms of presentations or whatever I don't think at this point it anywhere approaches the investment that Babble requires in terms of funds and time. He doesn't even spend much time here anymore, which I don't think is particularly good for Babble, but which hardly indicates a desire to exploit Babblers in any way.
He might annoy me no end sometimes. And I might get angry enough to spit sometimes. But he's a decent man and certainly no one to fear.
Posted by Timne on July 9, 2009, at 10:53:22
In reply to Re: Apologies, posted by Dinah on July 9, 2009, at 8:14:49
> . He doesn't even spend much time here anymore, which I don't think is particularly good for Babble, but which hardly indicates a desire to exploit Babblers in any way.
>
> He might annoy me no end sometimes. And I might get angry enough to spit sometimes. But he's a decent man and certainly no one to fear.His public statements tend to say otherwise. He cites reasons to fear participation in public discussions he facilitates.
I don't understand how a person can say with confidence what others should or should not fear in emerging social contexts, such as the new networks on which we are communicating. How could another possibly know what influences might negatively impact the lives of others about which they know little or nothing?
Mr. Hsuing's motivations -- or his "decency" -- are not the issue, though an understanding of his motivations can shed light on the impact of his conduct.
When we review a movie, we don't expose for readers the motivations of the producer, and tell readers how to view the movie in light of the producer's intentions. The producer's intent was finalized when editors made the final cut. Reviewers then begin to assess impact. When we analyze the life of a recently deceased top-rank pop star, we don't ask about the star's motivation in sleeping with young children -- we ask about the impact on children with whom the star slept.
Muffled said:
"It feels unsafe." (to participate in this forum.)Mr. Hsuing said:
"I welcome new followers on Twitter, but I also want you to know what you might be getting yourself into.
If you followed me, we'd be connected and you'd automatically get my tweets. Also, anyone could see you were following me. Others interested in Psycho-Babble might read your tweets (including replies to me, but not direct messages to me) and try to connect or network with you.
However, that includes University of Chicago faculty and staff, your friends and family, your present and future employers, and even the police.
* Any of them might infer that you have mental health issues. They might tell others, too. That might lead to prejudice against you.
* You might also feel stressed, harassed, threatened, etc., by interactions with them.
* If you're a member of the Psycho-Babble community, there might be no apparent connection between your posting name there and your Twitter account name, but depending on what you post and tweet, others might link the two, and that might embarrass you or even lead to the loss of your job or criminal prosecution.
I plan to follow back my followers (who may or may not be members of the Psycho-Babble community). If you'd rather I didn't follow you, please feel free to protect your updates or block me. I won't take it personally."To merely include a psychiatrist's name on one's list of Twitter followers can be cause for concern, according to Robert Hsuing M.D. How then can someone tell the world at large "don't fear him." How can one say with any authority at all that no interaction with Mr. Hsuing, or with any other P-Doc outside a medical context where one is protected by state licensure rules, regulatory boards and insurance is cause for fear?
Why did we require doctors to obtain licenses if they are not in a position to cause harm, albeit perhaps inadvertently, by nature of the unusual authority inherent to their advanced knowledge? A nurse inside a doctor's office might rightly tell a child a needle and shot is nothing to fear, but even this doctor recognizes what a patient advocate would tell prospective participants -- this process can cause harm, whether the doctor intends it or not. The mere presence of a doctor can be a contributing factor.
Yes, I fear a doctor's presence in some contexts could be less than helpful -- especially if the doctor's conduct is a fringe case, representing conduct not well-proven as efficacious by the normal process of clinical trials and peer review.
Climbing on tall buildings is nothing to fear.
Going in a cage with lions is nothing to fear.
Naivety is nothing to fear.
Taking strong opiates is nothing to fear.Said the high-rise construction worker.
Said the zookeeper.
Said the art teacher.
Said the doctor.
Wait. The only thing we have to fear is fear of fear itself. Fear is a normal emotion -- a somatic reaction to signals in the brain that tell us certain conduct could in some way cause harm. To respond to the fear instead of analyzing one's mental context can be a cognitive error, but I tend to support people who say they fear something.To do otherwise can imply the person expressing a fear might be irrational, and can put the person at risk. I'm reminded of freedom loving bikers who, in their effort to maintain their own freedom decry, the choices of others who choose to wear helmets. Do you thing that, for a person to discredit the expressions of others -- outside of an "i" statement such as "i know You fear doctor bob, but i don't" -- could lead a person to feel put down for the person's normal, rational analysis of the person's own conduct.
Does this site allow comments that tend to pressure people to accept other's position as fact? May I write:
"Getting off meds is nothing to fear."
"Taking ECT is nothing to fear."
"Trying lithium is nothing to fear."
"Checking into a state-run mental hospital (in a former Soviet Republic) is nothing to fear."
Posted by Dinah on July 9, 2009, at 11:05:56
In reply to Re: Apologies, posted by Timne on July 9, 2009, at 10:53:22
So, if I'm understanding you correctly, we don't actually disagree.
Signing up as a follower of Babble twitter is not something I would do and not something I'd advise any Babbler to do.
There are risks attendant on posting here or on any other endeavor. But Babble is not inherently unsafe (or at least not anymore so than any internet activity) and I hate for the belief that it is to be seen as undisputed truth.
What I was responding to was the comments all over Admin right now about Dr. Bob. And I disagreed with the factual basis for saying some of the things about him. Annoying he may be. Infuriating even. But to say he means anything but good for Babblers is, by everything I've ever heard out of his mouth and by his actions, the furthest thing from the truth. He does his best to provide a safe environment for Babblers at a time when it would appear that any benefit he gains from it is incidental rather than primary. Any of us may dispute his beliefs about what is best for Babble. But I see no reason to treat him with any less civility than a fellow babbler. Even if he doesn't care if we do, which he likely doesn't.
I see no basis for disagreement.
Posted by Timne on July 9, 2009, at 12:02:43
In reply to Re: Apologies » Timne, posted by Dinah on July 9, 2009, at 11:05:56
> So, if I'm understanding you correctly, we don't actually disagree.
>
> I see no basis for disagreement.I would not know if there is a basis to disagree until I saw you post as ddinah "PBC" (or not) in response to similar statements by someone else universally declaring anything else "not something to fear." If you would flag a statement that said "ECT is nothing to fear" and you assert that you may correctly write under terms of service here that "Mr. Hsuing is nothing to fear" we probably have a basis for disagreement.
As you say, reasonable people can disagree. However, we also know that not all reasonable people's disagreements are always reasonable. Hence, I disclose my reasoning.
Posted by Dinah on July 9, 2009, at 12:05:16
In reply to Re: Apologies, posted by Timne on July 9, 2009, at 12:02:43
beg pardon?
I'm afraid I don't understand.
Posted by Timne on July 9, 2009, at 12:07:45
In reply to Re: Apologies » Timne, posted by Dinah on July 9, 2009, at 11:05:56
>Babble is not inherently unsafe (or at least not anymore so than any internet activity) and I hate for the belief that it is to be seen as undisputed truth.A safety analysis would carry more weight in my opinion if it were conducted by an independent reviewer. The presence of the term "hate" in regard to other's beliefs sometimes inspires me to review whether I am in a safe environment.
I tend to trust leaders more who offer advice couched as a preference rather than as hatred.
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.