![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 37. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Elizabeth on May 16, 2001, at 17:30:13
The following was posted by Dr. Bob on May 14, 2001, at 17:52:26
In reply to Re: Shelli, posted by Nichole on May 14, 2001, at 13:54:12
> > Are you sucking up or what?
>
> Please be civil, or I'll need to try to block you from posting.Dr. Bob,
How does one go about redirecting? I just went to www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/ and started a new thread here. Is there an easier way to do it?
BTW, I think that while accusing someone of "sucking up" is rude, calling them a drug dealer (or "opiate pusher") is downright libelous.
I'm sorry that things are rough on the Psycho-Babble board right now. It wasn't my intention to antagonise anybody, although I know my views are unpopular.
-elizabeth
Posted by MorganW on May 16, 2001, at 19:47:42
In reply to redirect from p-b Re: please be civil, posted by Elizabeth on May 16, 2001, at 17:30:13
>
> I'm sorry that things are rough on the Psycho-Babble board right now. It wasn't my intention to antagonise anybody, although I know my views are unpopular.
>
> -elizabethI guess what I don't understand then Elizabeth.. if you see you are antogonising people.. why do you keep trying to do it? I sit back and watch and it almost looks like your doing it on purpose. If I'm wrong.... I'm sorry. But you really don'thave to respond to every post.. I've talked to some outside of this board... and some don't even want to open a post if they see it's from you. I am new to the board... and To be honest, I probably wouldn't read one if you directed to it to me. It's the way you say things....I'm sure you don't mean to be condescending.. but your posts almost always are disagreeing with the person. Sorry for the honesty.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 16, 2001, at 22:40:14
In reply to redirect from p-b Re: please be civil, posted by Elizabeth on May 16, 2001, at 17:30:13
> How does one go about redirecting? I just went to www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/ and started a new thread here. Is there an easier way to do it?
There sure is:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#redirect
Bob
Posted by shelliR on May 16, 2001, at 23:03:50
In reply to Re: redirect from p-b-elizabeth, posted by MorganW on May 16, 2001, at 19:47:42
Elizabeth has had to put up with the most egregious attacks that I have ever seen on this board, simply because she takes opiates, under a physician's care for depression that has otherwise not been able to be treated.
If people don't want to read her posts, I find it strange that so many people rushed in to criticize her; obviously they read her posts.
You say you have talked to others outside of this board concerning Elizabeth's posts. Do you feel that that information actually means anything? To me it's a way of trumping up false power. If you feel something say it; but please don't include an anonymous support group.
And, as I said to one other poster on the board, why use the word sorry when you're not expressing any sorrow. What not just state directly how you feel, leave others out, and leave the I'm sorrys out. That's actually how adults communicate.
Better yet, why do you even feel the need to "share" a critique of Elizabeth's posts. If there's a post you find offensive, why not address that. But to make generalized statement about "E's posts", presumably to be helpful? reaks to me of grandeosity. You're new to the board. Maybe you could learn a bit more before you start to preach.
Shelli
Posted by shelliR on May 16, 2001, at 23:21:44
In reply to Re: redirect from p-b-elizabeth, posted by MorganW on May 16, 2001, at 19:47:42
p.s. Elizabeth is one of the most knowledgeable posters on the board. Certainly it is your option not to read a post to you from Elizabeth, but in the process you would be passing on a unique opportunity to increase your knowledge. And I assume that's why you come to this board?
Shelli
Posted by ChrisI on May 16, 2001, at 23:54:08
In reply to Re: p.s. » MorganW, posted by shelliR on May 16, 2001, at 23:21:44
I all I can say is
You two are something!!!! Is it possible for you to ever ever ever ever make anybody feel comfortable on this board besides each other... if they have differing opinions??? If you read a post you don't agree with... cant you just let it go??????????????????????????????????????????????
Instead of making people feel like they are so beneath you??????????????????????
Posted by MorganW on May 17, 2001, at 0:10:24
In reply to Re: p.s. » MorganW, posted by shelliR on May 16, 2001, at 23:21:44
Oh brother.... I was trying to let ELIZABETH know why she was making people feel that way, she admited it. And yes.... I was SORRY I had to be honest. Good by board........ this place really really stinks.
> p.s. Elizabeth is one of the most knowledgeable posters on the board. Certainly it is your option not to read a post to you from Elizabeth, but in the process you would be passing on a unique opportunity to increase your knowledge. And I assume that's why you come to this board?
>
> Shelli
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 17, 2001, at 8:55:24
In reply to Re: p.s.- Shelli AND Elizabeth, posted by ChrisI on May 16, 2001, at 23:54:08
> If you read a post you don't agree with... cant you just let it go??????????????????????????????????????????????
Sometimes easier said than done. :-)
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 17, 2001, at 8:56:10
In reply to Re: p.s. » shelliR, posted by MorganW on May 17, 2001, at 0:10:24
> Good by board........ this place really really stinks.
Well, you can't please everyone all the time. Fortunately, there *are* supportive boards with nice people out there. Best wishes,
Bob
Posted by JahL on May 17, 2001, at 14:09:22
In reply to Re: Good by board » MorganW, posted by Dr. Bob on May 17, 2001, at 8:56:10
> > Good by board........ this place really really stinks.
>
> Well, you can't please everyone all the time. Fortunately, there *are* supportive boards with nice people out there. Best wishes,Are you implying this is an unsupportive board inhabited by horrible individuals? :-)
J.
ps, as a neutral(ish) observer, having never tried opiates, & having no intention of trying full-agonist opioids, I see all the negative & unsupportive posts coming from 'anti-opiate' quarters. Seems to me that one or two individuals here are expected to defend themselves from vicious personal attacks in as meek a fashion as possible, presumably in a language that does not exhibit any *education* or intelligence.
Just a little more feedback (which you do ask for:-) ),
J.
Posted by Elizabeth on May 17, 2001, at 16:47:29
In reply to Re: redirect from p-b-elizabeth » MorganW, posted by shelliR on May 16, 2001, at 23:03:50
> If people don't want to read her posts, I find it strange that so many people rushed in to criticize her; obviously they read her posts.
Often not very carefully, though!
> You say you have talked to others outside of this board concerning Elizabeth's posts. Do you feel that that information actually means anything? To me it's a way of trumping up false power. If you feel something say it; but please don't include an anonymous support group.
The "army of back-channel supporters" is a classic internet flame technique. Once you recognise that, it's easy to ignore.
Thanks for the support, as always.
-elizabeth
Posted by Elizabeth on May 17, 2001, at 16:53:08
In reply to Re: p.s. » shelliR, posted by MorganW on May 17, 2001, at 0:10:24
> Oh brother.... I was trying to let ELIZABETH know why she was making people feel that way, she admited it. And yes.... I was SORRY I had to be honest. Good by board........ this place really really stinks.
*shrug* What I said was that it wasn't my intention to offend anyone -- even those people who blasted me with some (completely uncalled for) insults. Actually, I don't really believe it's possible for me or anyone else to "make" anyone feel a certain way. The healthiest way to deal with one's feelings is to own them, not simply try to blame others for one's reactions. IMO.
-e
Posted by Elizabeth on May 17, 2001, at 16:55:07
In reply to Re: Good by board » Dr. Bob, posted by JahL on May 17, 2001, at 14:09:22
> Are you implying this is an unsupportive board inhabited by horrible individuals? :-)
Yeah, you know, all those horrible drug pushers! < g >
> ps, as a neutral(ish) observer, having never tried opiates, & having no intention of trying full-agonist opioids, I see all the negative & unsupportive posts coming from 'anti-opiate' quarters. Seems to me that one or two individuals here are expected to defend themselves from vicious personal attacks in as meek a fashion as possible, presumably in a language that does not exhibit any *education* or intelligence.
Glad to hear that I'm not alone in my interpretation of what's been going on.
As always, much gratitude for the support.
-elizabeth
Posted by Mr.Spike on May 17, 2001, at 17:39:50
In reply to Re: p.s., posted by Elizabeth on May 17, 2001, at 16:53:08
> *shrug* What I said was that it wasn't my intention to offend anyone -- even those people who blasted me with some (completely uncalled for) insults. Actually, I don't really believe it's possible for me or anyone else to "make" anyone feel a certain way. The healthiest way to deal with one's feelings is to own them, not simply try to blame others for one's reactions. IMO.
>
It is entirely possible to make someone feel or think a certain way.... especially if they are new tho all this.
Posted by stjames on May 22, 2001, at 13:36:59
In reply to Re: p.s., posted by Mr.Spike on May 17, 2001, at 17:39:50
> > > It is entirely possible to make someone feel or think a certain way.... especially if they are new tho all this.
james here....
How ? I am responsible for my own feelings. No one can make me feel or think anything. I can let others effect me, but that is my choice.
James
Posted by Shar on May 27, 2001, at 23:39:27
In reply to Re: p.s., posted by stjames on May 22, 2001, at 13:36:59
I tell you, if I could make people feel a certain way, I would "make" everyone happy....certainly not depressed, manic, inferior, superior, critical, judgemental, suicidal, or related ways.
Shar
> > > > It is entirely possible to make someone feel or think a certain way.... especially if they are new tho all this.
>
> james here....
>
> How ? I am responsible for my own feelings. No one can make me feel or think anything. I can let others effect me, but that is my choice.
>
> James
Posted by Lorraine on June 17, 2001, at 12:35:09
In reply to Re: redirect from p-b-elizabeth, posted by MorganW on May 16, 2001, at 19:47:42
A couple of points:
1. I think Elizabeth is one of the most valuable posters on the board. I don't find her posts condescending. I think she goes out of her way to engage in extended conversations with people who really need help.
2. I think Elizabeth does get unfairly attacked for taking opiates for her condition.
3. I think that there are some people on the board that are anti-drug. I don't think that is a useful approach to a board that I think is drug-approach oriented. I also think that some of the anti-drug stuff is intentionally beligerant as though people were trying to start a war. I mean you don't ordinarily go into a gay bar and bash gays, do you? I respond to this by ignoring those posts. I think that this is what Elizabeth was telling other people to do--quit feeding the flames of people who are getting off on negative energy. That view point has to be correct.
4. As someone who is medically ill, I don't need to hear about how drugs are wrong. To say that drugs are wrong reflects a moral judgment about the validity of mental illness. It is the whole stigma thing that we get in the real world. Why do we find this behavior acceptable here? Why is it wrong to gay bash but not to bash people who take drugs for mental illnesses? This is the same as bashing people who are mentally ill. Why do we find this behavior acceptable here?!! I think we are way too tolerant of an insidious form of prejudice against the mentally ill under the guise of allowing a diversity of viewpoints.
5. I also believe (and I have not been diagnosed as paranoid---yet :-) that there are people who are trying to generate anti-drug sentiment to fuel plaintiff's law suits against manufacturers. (disclaimer: I'm an attorney so I'm pretty sensitive to "ambulence chasing" sorts of tactics by the plaintiff's bar.) I left an unmoderated board because it really seemed as tho that board was being manipulated and stirred up into a frenzy to support these types of lawsuits. I see some of the same manipulation on this board as well. Again, not fueling the flames of this type of activity seems the best approach.
6. I think that what Elizabeth said about chetah was simply that we should feed the flames of innappropriate or counter-productive topics on the board. I agree. I'm not sure why the penalty being exacted here--a one week ban from posting--is so strict. I think the only thing she did offensive was use the word "trolls" in her message. So, I would think that a weekend ban would have been sufficient.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2001, at 18:21:49
In reply to Re: Hoopla about Elizabeth, posted by Lorraine on June 17, 2001, at 12:35:09
> 3. I think that there are some people on the board that are anti-drug. I don't think that is a useful approach to a board that I think is drug-approach oriented.
> 4. As someone who is medically ill, I don't need to hear about how drugs are wrong. To say that drugs are wrong reflects a moral judgment about the validity of mental illness. It is the whole stigma thing that we get in the real world. Why do we find this behavior acceptable here? ... I think we are way too tolerant of an insidious form of prejudice against the mentally ill under the guise of allowing a diversity of viewpoints.
On the one hand, I agree, it's not very supportive in a community like this to be anti-drug -- for whatever reason. OTOH, I do like a diversity of viewpoints. Maybe if it includes anti-drug ones, it helps people who are still kind of "on the fence" to think it through?
> I also think that some of the anti-drug stuff is intentionally beligerant as though people were trying to start a war. I mean you don't ordinarily go into a gay bar and bash gays, do you? I respond to this by ignoring those posts.
I agree that some people seem to want to provoke, and that ignoring them should probably be the standard response. I think the catch is, in a group like this, that it's hard to get everyone to do that.
> 6. ... I'm not sure why the penalty being exacted here--a one week ban from posting--is so strict.
Strictness is relative, it's kind of new, making it time-limited at all. :-)
Bob
Posted by Lorraine on June 17, 2001, at 19:04:26
In reply to Re: Hoopla about Elizabeth, posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2001, at 18:21:49
> > 3. I think that there are some people on the board that are anti-drug. I don't think that is a useful approach to a board that I think is drug-approach oriented.
>
> > 4. As someone who is medically ill, I don't need to hear about how drugs are wrong. To say that drugs are wrong reflects a moral judgment about the validity of mental illness. It is the whole stigma thing that we get in the real world. Why do we find this behavior acceptable here? ... I think we are way too tolerant of an insidious form of prejudice against the mentally ill under the guise of allowing a diversity of viewpoints.
>
> On the one hand, I agree, it's not very supportive in a community like this to be anti-drug -- for whatever reason. OTOH, I do like a diversity of viewpoints. Maybe if it includes anti-drug ones, it helps people who are still kind of "on the fence" to think it through?Bob: I don't think it helps people who are on the fence think it through. I think it scares them to death. I remember when I first confronted the fact that I needed to be medicated and then confronted the fact that I needed to tell important people in my life about that. I needed a lot of "support" to make my first step onto medication. As for communicating to important people in my life, it has taken years to one-by-one take them on for the amount of prejudice and bias that they hold onto when they say "so when will you be off of the medication?" I am a very strong person. If I had been exposed to the anti-drug bashing early in my process, I think I just would have shut down completely. As it was, I had to bring my husband into therapy with me for him to understand that this was a medical condition. Bob, the people I am close to are bright, educated people who wouldn't dream of making derogatory comments to other groups of people that are discriminated against (like blacks or gays etc). These comments are just mean-spirited. Also, the pro-medication/anti-drug comments are not open minded discussions. This topic is as polarized as the abortion/pro-choice issue is. Look at it this way, suppose this was a support group for women who have abortions. Would you invite comments from the pro-life contingency into that arena? Would you see them as extending the field of discussion or as pouring salt on raw wounds? Don't you think that we all have good friends and relatives who are happy to share their anti-drug views with us? As for diversity of opinion, I think that you will get it within the group of people who are not anti-drug. After all, I am now trying neurofeedback--a highly experimental approach that seeks to minimize the amount of drugs necessary in treatment.
> > I also think that some of the anti-drug stuff is intentionally beligerant as though people were trying to start a war. I mean you don't ordinarily go into a gay bar and bash gays, do you? I respond to this by ignoring those posts.
>
> I agree that some people seem to want to provoke, and that ignoring them should probably be the standard response. I think the catch is, in a group like this, that it's hard to get everyone to do that.I know. That is the hard part. Which is why we need to have people be able to say the strategy of not responding in their messages. We get lots of new members that need to be told what to do. There are other strategies. I have been way-laid by the course of my depression recently, but it brings me back to the issue of charging a price of admission to be on this board. Although a lot of people have strong views on it, even a small price of admission would tend to keep out people who are just interested in stirring up controversy.
> > 6. ... I'm not sure why the penalty being exacted here--a one week ban from posting--is so strict.
>
> Strictness is relative, it's kind of new, making it time-limited at all. :-)I know you have an impossible job monitoring this board. I have a lot of respect for you for trying to do it at all. I think it might be useful for us all to think about what is appropriate and what is not. Take the topic name-calling. Is it ok to say someone is a drug addict or drug user but not ok to use the word "trolls". Maybe it's just not ok to name call period. Maybe that is where the line is drawn. If that is the rule, then let's all be clear about it. It's not ok to call someone a drug addict and it's not ok to call someone (by inference) a troll. (Although truth be known, I'd rather be known as a troll than a drug addict. It's a lot less hurtful in my book.
As to length of time of punishments, as a parent I have found that a 5 minute time out works for a 13 year old very effectively. Here, maybe you start with a warning, then a day, then a weekend, then a week, then??? Whatever, it's just to say lots of approaches work.
Your the guy at the top. It's a lonely job. I know this is true from experience, and I hope that my comments are a help rather than a hinderance. By the way, I wouldn't dream of critcizing you. I don't think anyone could do a better job, although I think we can all spot areas for improvement. That's the easy part.
>
> Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2001, at 14:44:33
In reply to Re: Hoopla about Elizabeth, posted by Lorraine on June 17, 2001, at 19:04:26
> > On the one hand, I agree, it's not very supportive in a community like this to be anti-drug -- for whatever reason. OTOH, I do like a diversity of viewpoints. Maybe if it includes anti-drug ones, it helps people who are still kind of "on the fence" to think it through?
>
> Bob: I don't think it helps people who are on the fence think it through. I think it scares them to death.Maybe, but maybe that's part of the process?
> Also, the pro-medication/anti-drug comments are not open minded discussions. This topic is as polarized as the abortion/pro-choice issue is. Look at it this way, suppose this was a support group for women who have abortions. Would you invite comments from the pro-life contingency into that arena? Would you see them as extending the field of discussion or as pouring salt on raw wounds?
If it weren't just women who had already had abortions, and if the pro-lifers were civil...
> it brings me back to the issue of charging a price of admission to be on this board. Although a lot of people have strong views on it, even a small price of admission would tend to keep out people who are just interested in stirring up controversy.
How small? :-)
> I hope that my comments are a help rather than a hinderance. By the way, I wouldn't dream of critcizing you. I don't think anyone could do a better job, although I think we can all spot areas for improvement. That's the easy part.
Thanks, they are, and constructive criticism is fine. :-)
Bob
Posted by Sulpicia on June 19, 2001, at 2:51:17
In reply to Re: Hoopla about Elizabeth, posted by Lorraine on June 17, 2001, at 12:35:09
> 4. As someone who is medically ill, I don't need to hear about how drugs are wrong. To say that drugs are wrong
reflects a moral judgment about the validity of mental illness. It is the whole stigma thing that we get in the real
world. Why do we find this behavior acceptable here? Why is it wrong to gay bash but not to bash people who
take drugs for mental illnesses? This is the same as bashing people who are mentally ill. Why do we find this
behavior acceptable here?!! I think we are way too tolerant of an insidious form of prejudice against the mentally
ill under the guise of allowing a diversity of viewpoints.5. I also believe (and I have not been diagnosed as paranoid---yet :-) that there are people who are trying to
generate anti-drug sentiment to fuel plaintiff's law suits against manufacturers. (disclaimer: I'm an attorney so I'm
pretty sensitive to "ambulence chasing" sorts of tactics by the plaintiff's bar.) I left an unmoderated board because
it really seemed as tho that board was being manipulated and stirred up into a frenzy to support these types of
lawsuits. I see some of the same manipulation on this board as well. Again, not fueling the flames of this type of
activity seems the best approach."Lorraine: your post just helped me to understand what's been going on in another forum I frequent.
I can't believe I didn't realize how pervasive the anti-med sentiment has been as of late, tho our
quarrel is cast in terms of science vs. wacko alt med stuff.
I wonder how many other forums are experiencing this?
Come on, somebody tell me I'm being paranoid, please...
S.
Posted by Lorraine on June 20, 2001, at 0:31:17
In reply to Re: anti-drug comments, posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2001, at 14:44:33
> > > On the one hand, I agree, it's not very supportive in a community like this to be anti-drug -- for whatever reason. OTOH, I do like a diversity of viewpoints. Maybe if it includes anti-drug ones, it helps people who are still kind of "on the fence" to think it through?
> >
> > Bob: I don't think it helps people who are on the fence think it through. I think it scares them to death.
>
> Maybe, but maybe that's part of the process?Bob, my point was that people have enough fear already without getting a dose of it in a support group.
> > Also, the pro-medication/anti-drug comments are not open minded discussions. This topic is as polarized as the abortion/pro-choice issue is. Look at it this way, suppose this was a support group for women who have abortions. Would you invite comments from the pro-life contingency into that arena? Would you see them as extending the field of discussion or as pouring salt on raw wounds?
>
> If it weren't just women who had already had abortions, and if the pro-lifers were civil...Well, if we were talking about free speech I might agree with you, but we are talking about a support group. And support groups do not need to and should not make room at the table for all viewpoints when that means inviting those who are not supportive of the very people the group was set up to support. By the way, it's not the people who post about various supplements that are the problem (I'm one of those on occassion). It's the people who use headings likes "YOU'RE ALL DRUG ADDICTS" that I am talking about. By-and-large, it's not a discussion these posters are after, but a confrontation.
>
> > it brings me back to the issue of charging a price of admission to be on this board. Although a lot of people have strong views on it, even a small price of admission would tend to keep out people who are just interested in stirring up controversy.
>
> How small? :-)I was really just thinking of a small amount as a barrier to entry. Even filling out a form will deter people who aren't really interested. I was thinking about $25 for a year's membership. You could even allow people to read posts (and thereby get the flavor of the site), but not post until they have registered and paid their membership.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 20, 2001, at 14:35:57
In reply to Re: anti-drug comments, posted by Lorraine on June 20, 2001, at 0:31:17
> > > > I do like a diversity of viewpoints. Maybe if it includes anti-drug ones, it helps people who are still kind of "on the fence" to think it through?
> > >
> > > Bob: I don't think it helps people who are on the fence think it through. I think it scares them to death.
> >
> > Maybe, but maybe that's part of the process?
>
> Bob, my point was that people have enough fear already without getting a dose of it in a support group.I agree, but it wasn't the extra dose that I thought might be helpful, but the opportunity to think it through...
> support groups do not need to and should not make room at the table for all viewpoints when that means inviting those who are not supportive of the very people the group was set up to support... It's the people who use headings likes "YOU'RE ALL DRUG ADDICTS" that I am talking about. By-and-large, it's not a discussion these posters are after, but a confrontation.
Fair enough. Maybe I should take a harder line on that. Did I just let that go and not even warn that person?
> > > it brings me back to the issue of charging a price of admission to be on this board. Although a lot of people have strong views on it, even a small price of admission would tend to keep out people who are just interested in stirring up controversy.
> >
> > How small? :-)
>
> I was really just thinking of a small amount as a barrier to entry. Even filling out a form will deter people who aren't really interested. I was thinking about $25 for a year's membership.So that would be $6.25 for a quarter? I was thinking about making it quarterly...
> You could even allow people to read posts (and thereby get the flavor of the site), but not post until they have registered and paid their membership.
Right, I was thinking that, too...
Bob
Posted by Jane D on June 20, 2001, at 16:50:10
In reply to Re: anti-drug comments, posted by Dr. Bob on June 20, 2001, at 14:35:57
> > > > > I do like a diversity of viewpoints. Maybe if it includes anti-drug ones, it helps people who are still kind of "on the fence" to think it through?
> > > >
> > > > Bob: I don't think it helps people who are on the fence think it through. I think it scares them to death.
> > >
> > > Maybe, but maybe that's part of the process?
> >
> > Bob, my point was that people have enough fear already without getting a dose of it in a support group.
>
> I agree, but it wasn't the extra dose that I thought might be helpful, but the opportunity to think it through...
I think it does exactly that. I walk away from this board more reassured about my decisions because not everyone agrees. For one thing the majority are clearly on the side of drug use. Negative posts are outnumbered by positive ones. Some of the reasoning I will probably appropriate when I next need to argue the issue.The other factor is which set of posters I identify with the most. They are the ones who are quite comfortable with their decision to use medication. I've read articulate accounts of finding your entire life changed for the better by medication and of wondering now how you lasted as long as you did without it. Some of these have made my breath catch because the details were so close to my own. On the other hand, I can sympathize with some posters in the withdrawal threads who claim that, in hindsight, their life wasn't that bad before but I cannot identify with them. I also can't really identify with the people who feel that sexual disfunction outweighs the benefits of antidepressants. But if these are the people whose stories resonate the most with you then maybe your choices should be different from mine. If a whole set of views is excluded how will you ever know?
> > support groups do not need to and should not make room at the table for all viewpoints when that means inviting those who are not supportive of the very people the group was set up to support... It's the people who use headings likes "YOU'RE ALL DRUG ADDICTS" that I am talking about. By-and-large, it's not a discussion these posters are after, but a confrontation.
>
> Fair enough. Maybe I should take a harder line on that. Did I just let that go and not even warn that person?There was a little more to it than that. But it got quickly dealt with by the other posters and no harm was done. I think they modeled restraint and tolerance fairly well. And while it was an inflamatory post it's not clear to me that that was the intent. The only thing that bothered me a little about the latest suspension that hasn't been mentioned here was that there was a more conciliatory post dated only a few minutes after the post that earned the suspension. So the immediate problem had resolved itself. Again though, I doubt any harm was done.
>
> > > > it brings me back to the issue of charging a price of admission to be on this board. Although a lot of people have strong views on it, even a small price of admission would tend to keep out people who are just interested in stirring up controversy.It's funny. My first reaction was that this would have the opposite effect. People would feel that, having already paid for the privilege, they were going to express their views no matter how many people were offended. Now it's possible to just walk away for a while. It will be interesting to see what happens.
> > >
> > > How small? :-)
> >
> > I was really just thinking of a small amount as a barrier to entry. Even filling out a form will deter people who aren't really interested. I was thinking about $25 for a year's membership.
>
> So that would be $6.25 for a quarter? I was thinking about making it quarterly...
>
> > You could even allow people to read posts (and thereby get the flavor of the site), but not post until they have registered and paid their membership.
>
> Right, I was thinking that, too...
>
> BobI know that you can't personally subsidize this site forever but I still think this will be a very sad change. It has been very special. Anybody out there with a trust fund who would like to do a good deed?
Jane
Posted by Jane D on June 20, 2001, at 16:56:57
In reply to Re: Hoopla about Elizabeth/trend?, posted by Sulpicia on June 19, 2001, at 2:51:17
> 5. I also believe (and I have not been diagnosed as paranoid---yet :-) that there are people who are trying to
> generate anti-drug sentiment to fuel plaintiff's law suits against manufacturers. (disclaimer: I'm an attorney so I'm
> pretty sensitive to "ambulence chasing" sorts of tactics by the plaintiff's bar.) I left an unmoderated board because
> it really seemed as tho that board was being manipulated and stirred up into a frenzy to support these types of
> lawsuits. I see some of the same manipulation on this board as well. Again, not fueling the flames of this type of
> activity seems the best approach."
>
> Lorraine: your post just helped me to understand what's been going on in another forum I frequent.
> I can't believe I didn't realize how pervasive the anti-med sentiment has been as of late, tho our
> quarrel is cast in terms of science vs. wacko alt med stuff.
> I wonder how many other forums are experiencing this?
> Come on, somebody tell me I'm being paranoid, please...
> S.Well... :-)
If they really are doing that here I suspect they will soon be called on the carpet for their poor business judgment. After all, businesses are cutting back their internet advertising budgets drastically because it just didn't bring enough return. It would make so much more sense to try and plant a story on "20/20"...Jane
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.