![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 125 to 149 of 158. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by Timne on July 9, 2009, at 12:09:52
In reply to Re: Apologies, posted by Dinah on July 9, 2009, at 12:05:16
> beg pardon?
>
> I'm afraid I don't understand.
>I sometimes feel pressured when someone tells me my rational fears are unfounded.
Posted by Dinah on July 9, 2009, at 12:17:30
In reply to Re: Apologies, posted by Timne on July 9, 2009, at 12:09:52
I've no wish to pressure you. Nor did I attempt to do so. My intent was to present my own point of view and express my distress at seeing some of the things addressed to Dr. Bob.
I think you took my useage of the word hate a bit more literally than I meant it. I didn't mean it as I mean "I hate heat".
Sorry for any confusion.
Posted by Timne on July 9, 2009, at 12:37:07
In reply to Re: Apologies, posted by Dinah on July 9, 2009, at 12:17:30
> I've no wish to pressure you. Nor did I attempt to do so. My intent was to present my own point of view and express my distress at seeing some of the things addressed to Dr. Bob.
>
> I think you took my useage of the word hate a bit more literally than I meant it. I didn't mean it as I mean "I hate heat".
>
> Sorry for any confusion.
Maybe I presumed that your leadership experience moderating a forum where infractions are adjudged based on the way they affect readers instead of on what the writer intended caused me to believe you would be sensitive to the affect of your words more so than reiterating intent.My belief was probably informed by my effort to explain in a previous post, to which you responded, the difference between an author's intent and the affect of the author's work, with reference to standard practices in literary review.
Posted by muffled on July 9, 2009, at 12:40:05
In reply to Re: Apologies, posted by Dinah on July 9, 2009, at 8:14:49
Awwwww ((((Dinah))))
I don't fear Bob per se, but y'know how words can get so mixed up w/posting. Same old, same old.
Just I don't understand Bob at all. Why he does what he does. Cuz he <seems> to have some good motivations, but then he says/does the strangest things.
I just don't know what to make of him. And i don't even think meeting him IRL would help, from what I have heard he is as inscrutable ( asian thing y'know... LOL!) IRL as he is here.
Yet Bob DOES have power here, and maybe thats what it comes down to. I don't trust him to use his power here wisely. I don't trust his judgement as far as running this site. It may be fne for many, but it is not for me.
This is not meant to put Bob down. I do think he tries. I do not hate him. I guess i don't even fear him, as I am not here much, but I do not trust him to make good descions.
That doesn't mean he is a bad person at all. He is who he is, I am who I am, and at this point i just can't deal w/him. And beleive me I REALLY tried, and he did too, but it just can't seem to work.
There are so many sites on the 'net. Nowhwhere is safe. Right now I have found a place that suits me at this time, but I expect that will change someday. LOL, mebbe I'll end up back here!
Please take care. I do read your posts, just haven't been posting much. Glad things are kinda OKish for you.
M
Posted by Dinah on July 9, 2009, at 12:44:05
In reply to I explain » Dinah, posted by muffled on July 9, 2009, at 12:40:05
And I'm sorry, Muffled. I sort of crammed many thoughts about Admin right now into my post to you. I have a tendency to do that with people I feel comfortable with, as I do with you. I need to try to recognize it in myself.
I think it's great that you found somewhere where you are comfortable. I think that Babble might be like therapy. If I leave it, I'm pretty sure I don't want to have to struggle to get acquainted with anywhere else.
Posted by Timne on July 9, 2009, at 12:55:39
In reply to Re: Apologies, posted by Timne on July 9, 2009, at 12:37:07
> Maybe I presumed that your leadership experience moderating a forum where infractions are adjudged based on the way they affect readers instead of on what the writer intended caused me to believe you would be sensitive to the affect of your words more so than reiterating intent.
>I think I could edit better in a larger edit field. That sentence runs on and on, but doesn't conjugate well.
"My limited knowledge of your leadership experience in a forum where affect sometimes seems to me to be valued more highly than intent informed my notion that you would be more concerned about the immediate affect of written words than about others' ability to discern one's intent in writing the words."
I can find only a few administrative messages here where the reply to a message that might have caused someone to feel put down is "but they really didn't intend it." If my quick read of the algorythm is correct, intent is a compounding factor, but not the basis in determining whether something that might have the affect of causing someone to feel something is in fact an infraction.
Which is not to suggest anything you've written is (or is not) an actionable infraction. We're asked to consider our affect as well as our intent when we write here, which is why I find cause to explore the nature of intent and affect in literary review.
I really have no way of knowing what someone means when they say "hate" in reference to someone else's belief. I only know what the term generally means, and that some times some social contexts allow some people to express preferences in terms of hatred, while others may not use the same expression in the same context. I don't think guidelines or enforcement practices here would allow me to say about anyone "I hate it when you do that" except perhaps in jest. Maybe I just don't understand the rules here, and maybe I don't understand literary review in general, but people sometimes do cite my skills at the latter.
Posted by Dinah on July 9, 2009, at 13:00:06
In reply to Re: Apologies, posted by Timne on July 9, 2009, at 12:55:39
I'm afraid I don't really understand. My fault entirely. My talents at literary review have never been cited by anyone at all.
I do my best in posting to be civil.
I do my best as deputy to apply the rules.
If I have failed in either, I regret it, but since I have tried my best I see no remedy at hand.I have nothing more to say on this matter.
Posted by SLS on July 9, 2009, at 15:31:05
In reply to Re: Apologies, posted by Timne on July 9, 2009, at 12:55:39
> Maybe I presumed that your leadership experience moderating a forum where infractions are adjudged based on the way they affect readers instead of on what the writer intended caused me to believe you would be sensitive to the affect of your words more so than reiterating intent.
Actually, I don't think that intent or reception are used as factors to be adjudicated upon. Although I find it sterile (which is often desirable), I think it is the deed itself - the composition of words - upon which moderating actions are based. Although civility, like democracy, is in the eye of the beholder, I should expect that the framework of defining civility would comprise a certain amount of subjectivity and personal preference. It might necessarily be constructed upon how words may be received, although not necessarily intended. However, to attempt to evaluate and factor in making administrative decisions based upon intent or reception would lead to selective enforcement, as two people can write exactly the same thing and be charged differently. Once the precedents for judging verbiage as being uncivil are established, it seems to me that they are enforced consistently.
I do see that the doctor offers the individual the opportunity to describe the intentions behind their words as well as allow others to described how those words were received. This is less sterile, and perhaps contradictory, but might accomplish more in improving communication and promoting civility.
It sometimes occurs to me that Psycho-Babble must be the only game in town. Why else would so many people look to challenge its manager with such vigor rather than simply move on to another website? Altruism perhaps?
How would you prefer to see this website moderated, if at all?
Psycho-Babble. Sometimes I like it. Sometimes I don't. Still, I respect the efforts of its founder to maintain it and choose the way he wishes to administer it. I am grateful that this website exists. For now, I find its idiosyncrasies tolerable.
- Scott
Posted by Timne on July 9, 2009, at 15:50:40
In reply to Re: Apologies » Timne, posted by SLS on July 9, 2009, at 15:31:05
> > Maybe I presumed that your leadership experience moderating a forum where infractions are adjudged based on the way they affect readers instead of on what the writer intended caused me to believe you would be sensitive to the affect of your words more so than reiterating intent.
>
> Actually, I don't think that intent or reception are used as factors to be adjudicated upon."Don't... post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down"
That seems a very direct reference to effect, potential effect and potential reception.
> It sometimes occurs to me that Psycho-Babble must be the only game in town. Why else would so many people look to challenge its manager with such vigor rather than simply move on to another website? Altruism perhaps?Maybe it seems that way because you're not privy to dialogue at other sites. Maybe other sites minimize the appearance of having managers challenged by moving conflict away from the public eye. The number of people challenging the manager here is obviously far less than that, for example, at popular news sites such as CNN or MSNBC, where many feel they have a civic duty to assure fair treatment of public discussion. I'd need to conduct more research to cite practices at other mental-health oriented sites, but I can think of two or three where the manager does not maintain an ongoing dialogue in defense of managerial style. They just enforce their guidelines and sweep appearance of conflict out of the area as soon as possible.
> How would you prefer to see this website moderated, if at all?
I don't really have a stake in this site, but if I were managing a mental-health site, I would find people with no professional or personal interest in outcomes of conflicts to operate the site.
Can you imagine if John Walton or his heirs acted as full-time greeters at a local WalMart? He'd have a hard time masking his concern that some customers might be secret shoppers from the competition, others might be shoplifters and yet others might be former employees who told him off but still buy his low-cost merchandise. By recruiting greeters just to do the job of greeting, he removes from the formula himself and any attitudes he might leak.
>
> Psycho-Babble. Sometimes I like it. Sometimes I don't. Still, I respect the efforts of its founder to maintain it and choose the way he wishes to administer it. I am grateful that this website exists. For now, I find its idiosyncrasies tolerable.
>
>
> - ScottI'm here. That's not a compliment to the site? An agreement to try to recognize and comply with guidelines is reasonable as long as the guidelines are presented in advance and applied consistently. But we weren't asked to take an oath of allegiance, or to call this heaven on earth. We're just asked to play nice, and people don't seem to agree on what nice is, or to understand fully what a well-payed university doctor considers nice.
Posted by jane d on July 9, 2009, at 19:26:48
In reply to Re: Apologies » Timne, posted by SLS on July 9, 2009, at 15:31:05
> It sometimes occurs to me that Psycho-Babble must be the only game in town. Why else would so many people look to challenge its manager with such vigor rather than simply move on to another website? Altruism perhaps?
Yeah. You do have to wonder. But perhaps it's simply that this is one of the few sites that doesn't kick people out permanently for repeated rule violations. We may be seeing the long term consequences of that now.
Posted by Nadezda on July 9, 2009, at 19:44:07
In reply to Re: Apologies, posted by Dinah on July 9, 2009, at 8:14:49
I'd like to add my strong agreement to the idea that Bob has shown a tremendous commitment and generosity to us on Pbabble.
I'm amazed by the comments that people have made recently.
I just want to say that I very much admire Bob's efforts here. I wish he had somewhat different rules, and I wish he were more loquacious, because the terseness of his posts, I think, puts people off and makes them feel, incorrectly, disrespected.
But that's a rhetorical limitation. He is who he is--and his style of expression doesn't take away from his contribution to us. Nor does his terseness does take away the often-thoughtful point of his comments-- or his willingness to allow people to say things that I would never be able to endure. I think it's a shame that his comments are misinterpreted.
I think he does regret hurting Alex. And that doesn't require his apologizing, as Dinah pointed out in another thread. I take him at his word that he genuinely regrets the effect on Alex of his actions-- which he may well still believe were appropriate under the circumstances.
I personally regret how many people have been hurt here, and that there's so much pain under the surface-- even if I don't share the reactions that others have.
Maybe none of us understands the reasons for the rules-- the history that led to their evolution to their present form-- And certainly none of us knows the effect of other possible rule sets--- And as importantly, I wonder if people consider the ways in which ongoing revisions and reworkings of rules would destabilize the environment, when there may be many vulnerable people here who need consistency and stability.
Nadezda
Posted by muffled on July 9, 2009, at 19:54:53
In reply to Re: only available game in town perhaps » SLS, posted by jane d on July 9, 2009, at 19:26:48
> > It sometimes occurs to me that Psycho-Babble must be the only game in town. Why else would so many people look to challenge its manager with such vigor rather than simply move on to another website? Altruism perhaps?
>
>
> Yeah. You do have to wonder. But perhaps it's simply that this is one of the few sites that doesn't kick people out permanently for repeated rule violations. We may be seeing the long term consequences of that now.*I had a hard time leaving my friends here, but I have found another site, but I still miss my friends....
I used to try and help this to be a better site for all, but it was WAAAAYYY to crazymaking. So I (lol! mostly) left, can't hack it.
Posted by muffled on July 9, 2009, at 19:56:11
In reply to Bob's commitment to Babble, posted by Nadezda on July 9, 2009, at 19:44:07
"And as importantly, I wonder if people consider the ways in which ongoing revisions and reworkings of rules would destabilize the environment, when there may be many vulnerable people here who need consistency and stability."
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 9, 2009, at 20:05:32
In reply to Re: only available game in town perhaps » SLS, posted by jane d on July 9, 2009, at 19:26:48
> > It sometimes occurs to me that Psycho-Babble must be the only game in town. Why else would so many people look to challenge its manager with such vigor rather than simply move on to another website? Altruism perhaps?
>
>
> Yeah. You do have to wonder. But perhaps it's simply that this is one of the few sites that doesn't kick people out permanently for repeated rule violations. We may be seeing the long term consequences of that now.jane d,
You wrote,[...We may be seeing the long term consequesnces of that (not expelling members permanently)now.
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A. In your opinion, do you see any long-term consequences now, because some members have not been expelled permanently?
B. If so, what are those consequences that you see, if you see them?
C. Are you aquainted with the historical record that describes what happens to a community that expells people permanently?
D. If not, could you do a search for;
1. the expulsion of peoples permanently by Queen Isabella of Spain in 1492
2. The expulsion of peoples permanently in Germany from 1933 to 1945
E. If you could look up some of the above, what were the (redacted by respondent)
F. other aspects not stated
Lou
Posted by greywolf on July 10, 2009, at 6:20:39
In reply to Lou's request- » jane d, posted by Lou Pilder on July 9, 2009, at 20:05:32
It's hard for me to believe that all of this was triggered by my comment that:
"I love this place, all the great people posting here and helping me, and I pay little attention to the rules because almost eveyone I've been helped by has been very sincere and kind.
Just my experience, but it's been a good one."
I certainly never envisioned anything negative flowing from that simple statement.
Greywolf
Posted by SLS on July 10, 2009, at 8:31:29
In reply to I love this place despite the rules, posted by greywolf on July 10, 2009, at 6:20:39
> It's hard for me to believe that all of this was triggered by my comment that:
>
> "I love this place, all the great people posting here and helping me, and I pay little attention to the rules because almost eveyone I've been helped by has been very sincere and kind.
>
> Just my experience, but it's been a good one."
>
> I certainly never envisioned anything negative flowing from that simple statement.
There you are!I was looking for you over on the Medication board. I'm glad to see you post.
You know, of course, that some of the most benign of posts can trigger a domino effect that ends up having nothing to do with the original post or poster.
I would look at the posts subsequent to yours as being of dramatic interest, but not to take them personally. I would certainly understand if you were to feel responsible somehow for initiating the contentious discourse that "your" thread led to. If anything, it was my post in response to that of Alexandra_K that set off the chain of events that followed. Even so, I am not taking responsibility for the subsequent behavior of others. You might be looking at this situation in terms of cause-and-effect. Ultimately, the cause of this thread heading in the directions it has can be traced to the establishment of the Internet. Perhaps Al Gore is responsible for this thread. :-) I hope I made some sense here.
That's the way I see it, anyway.
- Scott
Posted by Sigismund on July 10, 2009, at 15:14:15
In reply to I love this place despite the rules, posted by greywolf on July 10, 2009, at 6:20:39
And you did say 'despite the rules' not 'because of the rules'.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2009, at 18:04:17
In reply to Lou's request- » jane d, posted by Lou Pilder on July 9, 2009, at 20:05:32
> > > It sometimes occurs to me that Psycho-Babble must be the only game in town. Why else would so many people look to challenge its manager with such vigor rather than simply move on to another website? Altruism perhaps?
> >
> >
> > Yeah. You do have to wonder. But perhaps it's simply that this is one of the few sites that doesn't kick people out permanently for repeated rule violations. We may be seeing the long term consequences of that now.
>
> jane d,
> You wrote,[...We may be seeing the long term consequesnces of that (not expelling members permanently)now.
> I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> A. In your opinion, do you see any long-term consequences now, because some members have not been expelled permanently?
> B. If so, what are those consequences that you see, if you see them?
> C. Are you aquainted with the historical record that describes what happens to a community that expells people permanently?
> D. If not, could you do a search for;
> 1. the expulsion of peoples permanently by Queen Isabella of Spain in 1492
> 2. The expulsion of peoples permanently in Germany from 1933 to 1945
> E. If you could look up some of the above, what were the (redacted by respondent)
> F. other aspects not stated
> Lou
>
jane d,
You wrote,[...kicked out permanently...]
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by posting such here. If you could answer the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
G. If you see members here that because they have not been kicked out permenently that they have caused long-term consequences, could you name them here?
H. If you see members of that nature,and you choose to not name them, could you post here why you will not post their names here?
K. If you do not have any members of that nature in mind, could you post why you wrote the statement in question here?
L. Are you aware that others could have the potential to be led to think that there are members here that fit the conditions that you have posted?
M. If so, could you (redacted by respondent)
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.