![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 55. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by fires on February 21, 2005, at 11:07:43
I'm coming off my 3rd (?) banning. I find it almost impossible to state my opinions without getting banned. Seems some opinions are by their very nature considered uncivil, no matter how carefully they are stated. I've always been careful to attack ideas only -- not people -- but I still get banned.
Also, It seems to me that some folks get away with uncivil behavior by asking me rhetorical questions -- analagous to : "When did you stop beating your wife?"
Anyone else share my views? All comments welcome.
Please -- no rhetorical questions. :)
Posted by snoozin on February 21, 2005, at 12:06:46
In reply to Civility or censorship?, posted by fires on February 21, 2005, at 11:07:43
I truly empathize with you.
This board is an extraordinarily controlled environment with its own rules, laid down by Dr. Bob. The real world (with its globally-defined ethics and morals and etiquette) does not apply here, even if we would like it to. This disparity can be extraordinarily unnerving at times, and I do think, to a very real degree, very emotionally unhealthy.
I don't know what to tell you, really. There is a lot of fun and emotional support to be found here from fellow posters. But posting within the confines of the board's narrow, sometimes obscure, and often illogical rules of civility can be maddening at best.
Of course, try not to ever hurt another. But that means don't hurt another *human.* Just because a particular post doesn't conform to the civility rules, it does not in fact mean the post has hurt, embarassed, shamed, or otherwise injured another poster. And the opposite is true, too. Some posts can harm others while conforming to the civility rules.
Bottom line, this is not a real-life universe. We can't treat it as such. Even though we are real-life humans.
Is it worth it?
Susan
> I'm coming off my 3rd (?) banning. I find it almost impossible to state my opinions without getting banned. Seems some opinions are by their very nature considered uncivil, no matter how carefully they are stated. I've always been careful to attack ideas only -- not people -- but I still get banned.
>
> Also, It seems to me that some folks get away with uncivil behavior by asking me rhetorical questions -- analagous to : "When did you stop beating your wife?"
>
> Anyone else share my views? All comments welcome.
> Please -- no rhetorical questions. :)
Posted by fires on February 21, 2005, at 12:22:35
In reply to Re: Civility or censorship? » fires, posted by snoozin on February 21, 2005, at 12:06:46
>>The real world (with its globally-defined ethics and morals and etiquette) does not apply here, even if we would like it to. This disparity can be extraordinarily unnerving at times, and I do think, to a very real degree, very emotionally unhealthy<<
Yes! Well said. That's what I find so paradoxical about the site(s). I've never posted on a forum where merely stating an opinion -- such as "type XXX therapy is unscientific", can get one banned.
Thanks
Posted by AuntieMel on February 21, 2005, at 13:27:14
In reply to Re: Civility or censorship? » snoozin, posted by fires on February 21, 2005, at 12:22:35
welcome back. I missed your last two blocks, so I don't know what they are all about.
One problem with a statement like that, as I see it, is that if another poster is involved in just that treatment they may feel like they personally are being criticized and can be very sensitive about criticism. I know you aren't intentionally wanting to hurt someone, but that is sometimes the result.
But (gentle ribbing, nod nod wink wink) isn't the statement you just made a contradiction? You say that you are merely stating an opinion, but the quote you put in is stating something as if it is fact.
If you have any doubts about style, you can babblemail me and I'll try to answer [civility buddy]. But don't go away - I like discussing things with you.
Posted by fires on February 21, 2005, at 13:45:52
In reply to Re: Civility or censorship? » fires, posted by AuntieMel on February 21, 2005, at 13:27:14
Yes. I believe that they are facts, but to try and be more civil I state that they are opinions. It's been my experience as a skeptic/rationalist that some people "don't let the facts get in the way of their opinions." :) I may disappear for a short time due to very bad weather here in southern California(again).
Posted by AuntieMel on February 21, 2005, at 14:03:12
In reply to Re: Civility or censorship? » AuntieMel, posted by fires on February 21, 2005, at 13:45:52
Yes, So. Cal has been wetter than usual. My mother in law lives there and I hear all about it.
Meanwhile down here on the south coast it's sunny and in the 70s.
Perhaps you could point me to the post in question. But it seems to me that all of psychology is theory and/or art and there isn't any one "right" answer.
I'm a scientist, and like you I tend to be skeptical. But (In My Opinion) the important thing here is that the people involved in the therapies are being helped. And whether it's because it's a good therapy, or time would have healed it but this is an anchor that gives them the time they need, or if it's even a placebo effect the only thing that really matters at the end of the day is their improvement.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 21, 2005, at 15:03:40
In reply to Re: Civility or censorship? » AuntieMel, posted by fires on February 21, 2005, at 13:45:52
>I find it almost impossible to state my opinions without getting banned. Seems some opinions are by their very nature considered uncivil, no matter how carefully they are stated.
>I've always been careful to attack ideas only -- not people -- but I still get banned.
Maybe it is the 'attacking' nature of it (I am quoting you by your own admission). That kind of thing tends to result in getting peoples backs up and escalating the situation. A 'carefully stated' attack is an attack nonetheless. Not very supportive I would have thought.
> Yes. I believe that they are facts, but to try and be more civil I state that they are opinions.
Hmm. So have you made your mind up on that before you have even heard other people say what they have to say? If that is so then once again you will find that people are most likely to respond defensively.
>It's been my experience as a skeptic/rationalist that some people "don't let the facts get in the way of their opinions."
Ouch. You don't seem to think too highly of other people and their opinions. The facts aren't fixed anyway.
You also seem to be confusing facts with opinions (by your own admission). You say you state 'facts' as 'opinions' in an attempt to be more civil. Then you say other people don't let the 'facts' (or do you mean to say your opinions) get in the way of theirs.I think a civility buddy could be a good idea...
I too like to argue. But I don't like to have people get their backs up when discussing things with me. If people get upset then that tends to get in the way of what could have been a productive discussion at the very least.Nobody has a fixed view on the facts.
Not you.
Not me.
Not any of us.
If you want to discuss things so as to hear other perspectives so that you may come to learn something then that is great.
If you just want to have an arguement and get some sort of pleasure out of upsetting people and if you are convinced you are right before you even bring up the topic - not saying you do do this, but if you do - then I think it only fair that you get blocked.Just my opinion FWIW
Something to think about...
Posted by AuntieMel on February 21, 2005, at 15:32:15
In reply to Re: Civility or censorship? » fires, posted by alexandra_k on February 21, 2005, at 15:03:40
Alexandra - I would have thought you and fires would hit it off - and I'm not being sarcastic.....
You both have logical minds and like to discuss topics directly and to the point.
Fires got off to a bad start in the beginning, but I've found him/her (which is it, fires??) quite interesting and we've had some good discussions on a theoretical level. No back raising at all.
But the general consensus is that the psychology board is for support only and no debate is allowed.
Posted by fires on February 21, 2005, at 16:00:07
In reply to Re: Civility or censorship? » fires, posted by alexandra_k on February 21, 2005, at 15:03:40
> >I find it almost impossible to state my opinions without getting banned. Seems some opinions are by their very nature considered uncivil, no matter how carefully they are stated.
>
> >I've always been careful to attack ideas only -- not people -- but I still get banned.
>
> Maybe it is the 'attacking' nature of it (I am quoting you by your own admission). That kind of thing tends to result in getting peoples backs up and escalating the situation. A 'carefully stated' attack is an attack nonetheless. Not very supportive I would have thought.Attack was used loosely. Just disagreeing with someone on these forums seems to be taken as an attack, i.e., "if you disagree with me, you are attacking me".
>
> > Yes. I believe that they are facts, but to try and be more civil I state that they are opinions.
>
> Hmm. So have you made your mind up on that before you have even heard other people say what they have to say? If that is so then once again you will find that people are most likely to respond defensively.
>Certainly. I've done my homework on the issues I'm talking about. Maybe those who respond defensively need to be directed to a link which will explain how they can avoid such a response?
> >It's been my experience as a skeptic/rationalist that some people "don't let the facts get in the way of their opinions."
>
> Ouch. You don't seem to think too highly of other people and their opinions. The facts aren't fixed anyway.You stated: "You don't seem to think too highly of other people and their opinions."
I think that if I had stated that I would have been banned. I don't find the statement offensive, but I do suspect that some here would/will. "They" could/will say it could hurt my feelings.
I have a lot of respect for opinions that are based on logical reasoning, but not much for those based on pseudoscience, yet I don't use ad hominem attacks against anyone. I never have and don't plan to start now.
>> You also seem to be confusing facts with opinions (by your own admission). You say you state 'facts' as 'opinions' in an attempt to be more civil. Then you say other people don't let the 'facts' (or do you mean to say your opinions) get in the way of theirs.I think I know the difference between a fact and an opinion. ;)
>
> I think a civility buddy could be a good idea...
> I too like to argue. But I don't like to have people get their backs up when discussing things with me. If people get upset then that tends to get in the way of what could have been a productive discussion at the very least.
>I don't like to argue, I like to debate. Also, I can only control my feelings. If someone gets offended because I say I disagree with them or chooses to take offense at my comments -- who needs to reconsider their feelings?
> Nobody has a fixed view on the facts.
> Not you.
> Not me.
> Not any of us.How ture. New evidence must always be considered.
Also, it must be dismissed if found insufficient/lacking.
> If you want to discuss things so as to hear other perspectives so that you may come to learn something then that is great.
> If you just want to have an arguement and get some sort of pleasure out of upsetting people and if you are convinced you are right before you even bring up the topic - not saying you do do this, but if you do - then I think it only fair that you get blocked.
>I believe that it is possible to respect someones' "perspective", but to strongly disagree with it. BTW, this is the only site(s) which find(s) me "uncivil" -- opinionated, maybe a little arrogant, but not uncivil.
I wouldn't bring up a topic of which I had no knowledge. That seems counterproductive to me.> Just my opinion FWIW
Like an English teacher once explained to me: "It's a given that it's your opinion unless you say otherwise. Stating 'in my opinion' is redundant" ;) Also, why not leave off the "just"?
> Something to think about...
>Hopefully my responses demonstrate that I gave it some thought.
Thanks
Posted by fires on February 21, 2005, at 16:06:49
In reply to Re: Civility or censorship? I'm surprised » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on February 21, 2005, at 15:32:15
> Alexandra - I would have thought you and fires would hit it off - and I'm not being sarcastic.....
>
> You both have logical minds and like to discuss topics directly and to the point.
>
> Fires got off to a bad start in the beginning, but I've found him/her (which is it, fires??) quite interesting and we've had some good discussions on a theoretical level. No back raising at all.
>
> But the general consensus is that the psychology board is for support only and no debate is allowed.
>
>
>Support only? No debate? No wonder I've been banned. Perhaps if I would have been told that... rather than being banned for being uncivil...
Maybe a "hot topics" or "debate" forum can be added to this site?
Posted by alexandra_k on February 21, 2005, at 16:10:04
In reply to Re: Civility or censorship? I'm surprised » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on February 21, 2005, at 15:32:15
> Alexandra - I would have thought you and fires would hit it off - and I'm not being sarcastic.....
Actually I dare say that fires and myself got off to an exceptionally bad start. He quoted the DSM crieria for Borderline Personality Disorder and said 'In my opinion it would be hard to trust or communicate with someone who exhibits such severe symptoms as these' or something similar.
As someone who has been diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder it seems that fires would find it very hard to trust or communicate with me. That was his preconception at the start of the conversation, and perhaps you can see why the conversation progressively deteriorated.
And now that I know he expresses what he considers 'facts' as 'opinions' in an attempt to avoid blockings I am all the more indignant.
But compassion, empathy, kindness, and faith in others intentions are not matters of logic. I hope that I never let logic get in the way of those things. I have little tolerance for people who do.
> But the general consensus is that the psychology board is for support only and no debate is allowed.
??? I have seen some debate on the psychology board. Worthwhile debate. I don't think that it is all that appropriate to post things to the effect that recovered memories are ALWAYS therapist induced, or that therapy is ALWAYS a sham, however.
Whether it be taken to be *fact* or mere *opinion* it is extremely invalidating of others experiences. It does not take them into account at all. If one wants to question these things then I don't see that that is necessarily a problem - but one should be very careful to do it in a SUPPORTIVE and COMPASSIONATE way.
Something that is beyond logic.
Posted by AuntieMel on February 21, 2005, at 16:43:18
In reply to Re: Civility or censorship? I'm surprised, posted by fires on February 21, 2005, at 16:06:49
Well, the politics board was put in for topics that "might be divisive." I've asked it to be renamed "current events" (see thread above) but ......
Posted by AuntieMel on February 21, 2005, at 17:44:51
In reply to Re: Civility or censorship? I'm surprised » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on February 21, 2005, at 16:10:04
Well. We've come full circle. The first time I was told the psych board was for 'support' and not debate actually had to do with fires, too.
There were so many people riled up that when we *did* try to have a genuine debate it upset some people, too.
I can send you links if you want.
Posted by Dinah on February 21, 2005, at 18:09:49
In reply to Re: Civility or censorship? I'm surprised » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on February 21, 2005, at 17:44:51
This is the post from a guest expert that shaped Dr. Bob's new application of the civility rules. I think that probably explains things better than I could, and since it's a guest expert, she's unlikely to be PBC'd. :)
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040717/msgs/374513.html
Posted by alexandra_k on February 21, 2005, at 18:45:02
In reply to Re: Civility or censorship? I'm surprised » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on February 21, 2005, at 18:09:49
Yeah.
I guess that wasn't directed at anyone in particular - more a comment on a process that *some* (unspecified) people partake in - which may be why it wasn't uncivil ;-)
But yeah, I agree. The *manner* is important. It isn't so much *what* you have to say as *why* you are saying it and the *way* in which you go about saying it. If you do want a dialogue and are open to others opinions then that comes across very differently to when you are trying to convince them of your opinions or facts or whatever.
The whole tone is different.
Something I need to get better at myself is asking myself 'why am I posting this' before I hit 'submit'. What effect is this likely to have on people? If it is likely to have a negative effect then do I at least consider that a greater good could come of it???
And if it is the latter then there is always the risk that it may blow up in my face.
Posted by fires on February 21, 2005, at 22:47:29
In reply to Re: Civility or censorship? I'm surprised » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on February 21, 2005, at 16:10:04
> > Alexandra - I would have thought you and fires would hit it off - and I'm not being sarcastic.....
>
> Actually I dare say that fires and myself got off to an exceptionally bad start. He quoted the DSM crieria for Borderline Personality Disorder and said 'In my opinion it would be hard to trust or communicate with someone who exhibits such severe symptoms as these' or something similar.
>
> As someone who has been diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder it seems that fires would find it very hard to trust or communicate with me. That was his preconception at the start of the conversation, and perhaps you can see why the conversation progressively deteriorated.
>
> And now that I know he expresses what he considers 'facts' as 'opinions' in an attempt to avoid blockings I am all the more indignant.
>
> But compassion, empathy, kindness, and faith in others intentions are not matters of logic. I hope that I never let logic get in the way of those things. I have little tolerance for people who do.
>
> > But the general consensus is that the psychology board is for support only and no debate is allowed.
>
> ??? I have seen some debate on the psychology board. Worthwhile debate. I don't think that it is all that appropriate to post things to the effect that recovered memories are ALWAYS therapist induced, or that therapy is ALWAYS a sham, however.
>
> Whether it be taken to be *fact* or mere *opinion* it is extremely invalidating of others experiences. It does not take them into account at all. If one wants to question these things then I don't see that that is necessarily a problem - but one should be very careful to do it in a SUPPORTIVE and COMPASSIONATE way.
>
> Something that is beyond logic.
>
>You didn't mention that at the time I was on the receiving end of numerous rhetorical questions from "MPD" patient(s) whom I still believe were posting using multiple "handles". "
Posted by alexandra_k on February 21, 2005, at 23:32:34
In reply to Re: Civility or censorship? I'm surprised » alexandra_k, posted by fires on February 21, 2005, at 22:47:29
> You didn't mention that at the time I was on the receiving end of numerous rhetorical questions from "MPD" patient(s) whom I still believe were posting using multiple "handles".
I didn't mention that because I didn't know that. I am sorry if you felt you have gotten a hard time by some one / people from this site. If you think that someone is posting under multiple posting names then it may be worthwhile to pass that on to Dr Bob - that is not allowed here.
Regardless of whether that was or was not the case that doesn't address or alter anything I have said. Though I can understand that sometimes people do things they regret when they are hurting. Is that what you mean? That you were hurting and said stuff you regret either to them or to other posters?
You might find people to be more sympathetic to your hurts if you show more sympathy to their hurts.
>I'm coming off my 3rd (?) banning. I find it almost impossible to state my opinions without getting banned. Seems some opinions are by their very nature considered uncivil, no matter how carefully they are stated. I've always been careful to attack ideas only -- not people -- but I still get banned.
This leads me to think that you are trying to work out what (if anything) you did wrong.
A lot of people find it hard to work that out.
People here may be willing to help you figure that out if you genuinely want to know.
I regret having gotten so upset about what you said in the BPD thread. But can you see how someone with BPD could take your comments as a personal attack against them? - and not just because they are mentally unwell.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 22, 2005, at 1:09:09
In reply to Re: Civility or censorship? I'm surprised » fires, posted by alexandra_k on February 21, 2005, at 23:32:34
> > I'm coming off my 3rd (?) banning. I find it almost impossible to state my opinions without getting banned.
>
> This leads me to think that you are trying to work out what (if anything) you did wrong.
>
> A lot of people find it hard to work that out.
>
> People here may be willing to help you figure that out if you genuinely want to know.I have the utmost respect for people who try to work out what (if anything) they're doing wrong. It isn't easy.
> drama is the story of my life.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050128/msgs/458719.html
> How about a new chapter in your story? :-)
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050128/msgs/459596.html
> writer's BLOCK, I guess
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050128/msgs/459727.html
That use of "BLOCK" was interesting, one way to look at it is that blocking the old story facilitates a new one...
Bob
Posted by Toph on February 22, 2005, at 1:49:28
In reply to Re: working things out, posted by Dr. Bob on February 22, 2005, at 1:09:09
> That use of "BLOCK" was interesting, one way to look at it is that blocking the old story facilitates a new one...
>
> BobI confess that it is kind of a thrill when you notice my posts. Why is that anyway? Believe it or not it's kind of like the illusion that God answers your prayers every now and then. It keeps you praying.
Not that you're God or anything.
It's the whole facilitator thing that bugs me . You might as well have said, "blocking the old story coerces a new one..." It has the paradoxical effect of bringing out the rebelliousness in me and probably others, most of whom are no longer with us. The word facilitate implies that you have a conscious design to change us.
But if I am truely honest I do seek your approval as much as I hate to admit it Bob. If I may venture into object relations theory (amateur that I may be) the idealization of you as a parental object is a need that you use to get us to conform to your family norms. Then as we mature (on PB)we integrate this belief system as our own thereby reducing the need for an idealized other. We incrimentally through a system of rewards and punishments (maybe I'm unwittingly talking about behaviorism) into better citizens as the separation struggle is ameliorated.
Jeez, I'm glad I returned to social work.
What am I tring to say here? I hope if I am entering a new chapter at PB, it has less to do with wanting to please you as it does with wanting to stay with my friends. While I may seek your approval, I am devastated (maybe a little strong)when another Babbler thinks I am some kind of a jerk, witness the Atticus fiasco.
It's late, I let the dog out, and here I am having this imaginary conversation with Bob. Surreal. Hope at least some of it will make sense in the morning.
Toph
Posted by alexandra_k on February 22, 2005, at 1:59:12
In reply to Re: working things out, posted by Toph on February 22, 2005, at 1:49:28
Is it such a bad thing to internalise civility rules do ya think???
Posted by Toph on February 22, 2005, at 2:05:06
In reply to Re: working things out, posted by Dr. Bob on February 22, 2005, at 1:09:09
I just peeked at that post again to check my stream of consciousness, and I realized that this wasn't my thread, that you used me as an example of working things out, and you said, I think, that you had the utmost respect for me.
Maybe this idealization thing works both ways.
Posted by Toph on February 22, 2005, at 2:08:48
In reply to Re: working things out » Toph, posted by alexandra_k on February 22, 2005, at 1:59:12
Nope, of course not. But don't tell Bob I said so, OK?
Posted by AuntieMel on February 22, 2005, at 8:59:01
In reply to Re: Civility or censorship? I'm surprised » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on February 21, 2005, at 16:10:04
Actually, since we've beaten this poor horse so many times it's amazing it still looks like a horse, I'm not surprised other folks had this reaction.
It *does* surprise me that it comes from you. Please don't read this as criticism or a put down. I'm just seeing some similarities between this and a situation you ran into.
Here you say:
"He quoted the DSM crieria for Borderline Personality Disorder and said 'In my opinion it would be hard to trust or communicate with someone who exhibits such severe symptoms as these' or something similar."
and:
"But compassion, empathy, kindness, and faith in others intentions are not matters of logic. I hope that I never let logic get in the way of those things. I have little tolerance for people who do."
but on social you said:
"Can you say something that is educational though possibly a bit hurtful (though not uncivil).
In the sense that sometimes it is painful to face up to stuff... but that the long term goods outweigh the initial 'ouch'. Not that we have the final word on the truth or anything, but can we say what we think and leave the uptake to the other person. They can reject it if they will..."
-------------------------------------
I posted a diagnostic criteria for someone to consider. Posted a link to a criteria (list of symptoms) and a bit of a discussion about the experience of those symptoms.
Said 'just a thought' with the links.
Told off for 'armchair diagnosing'.
That was not my intention.
The poster could have done what they wanted with it but in this case they got MOST OFFENDED.Anyways. I just presented it as something to consider.
A genuine attempt to be helpful
------------------------------------------------
And they could have said 'had a look, but I really don't think it applies' in which case I would have left it there.
--------------------------------------------------
I knew this person would get pissed off.
But I thought they might reconsider what I had said sometime when they were ready to look at it...+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Anyway, I know you didn't mean to hurt anyone, and I don't believe fires did either. It seems to me that you both have (have had) good intentions and the delivery went astray. So, does that explain a bit why I was surprised?
Posted by fires on February 22, 2005, at 11:41:14
In reply to Re: Civility or censorship? I'm surprised » fires, posted by alexandra_k on February 21, 2005, at 23:32:34
> > You didn't mention that at the time I was on the receiving end of numerous rhetorical questions from "MPD" patient(s) whom I still believe were posting using multiple "handles".
>
> I didn't mention that because I didn't know that. I am sorry if you felt you have gotten a hard time by some one / people from this site. If you think that someone is posting under multiple posting names then it may be worthwhile to pass that on to Dr Bob - that is not allowed here.
>I expressed my concerns to the poster, but couldn't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person was also another poster.
> Regardless of whether that was or was not the case that doesn't address or alter anything I have said. Though I can understand that sometimes people do things they regret when they are hurting. Is that what you mean? That you were hurting and said stuff you regret either to them or to other posters?
>
> You might find people to be more sympathetic to your hurts if you show more sympathy to their hurts.
>
> >I'm coming off my 3rd (?) banning. I find it almost impossible to state my opinions without getting banned. Seems some opinions are by their very nature considered uncivil, no matter how carefully they are stated. I've always been careful to attack ideas only -- not people -- but I still get banned.
>
> This leads me to think that you are trying to work out what (if anything) you did wrong.
>I don't feel that I've done anything "wrong". I probably could have said some things better though.
> A lot of people find it hard to work that out.
>
> People here may be willing to help you figure that out if you genuinely want to know.
>
> I regret having gotten so upset about what you said in the BPD thread. But can you see how someone with BPD could take your comments as a personal attack against them? - and not just because they are mentally unwell.
>
>I'd have to go back and read the posts. I'm not up to it right now. I had a bad experience with Cymbalta, and my recently Dxed RLS/PLMD [Restless Leg Syndrome/Periodic Limb Movement Disorder (Sleep disorder)], appears to be causing me problems of a "psych" nature.
Thanks
Posted by AuntieMel on February 22, 2005, at 11:47:11
In reply to Re: Civility or censorship? I'm surprised » alexandra_k, posted by fires on February 22, 2005, at 11:41:14
I remember the time and as I remember it "accusations" were going both ways on that issue.
The person that *was* a blocked poster using a different name was on the psych board using the pseudoname 'mister.' Dr. Bob was away at that time and the whole thing got to be a huge mess.
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.