![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 38 to 62 of 112. Go back in thread:
Posted by zazenducke on April 22, 2010, at 21:49:20
In reply to Hi verne (nm), posted by zazenducke on April 22, 2010, at 21:46:36
Posted by kaylabear on April 23, 2010, at 0:10:14
In reply to Re: what might have happened, posted by Dr. Bob on April 22, 2010, at 15:26:00
Well, Bob, you are really putting people at risk by not knowing how this happened to Fayroe. And now, thanks to you, we cannot investigage this further being Fayeroe was blocked. If this site's features pose a unknwn security risks, it should be stopped until you do get it figured out.
It seems people can be logged into their facebook accounts without realizing it while using this site on the same computer. Many sites use cookies and automatically log you in - and there's no way to log out (like here). Yet, many of those same sites will not work without cookies enabled.
The growing complication of all the online services are increasingly more difficult to sort through, fix, or understand which jeopardizes people's privacy and identity concealment. Security and privacy settings change or are "updated" for all sorts of accounts, and they are becoming more complicated and numerous. For example Google automatically linked all user emails for public view after people joined a service and were unaware of it. What you are doing is not much different.
Its becoming more difficult to navigate the appropriate settings for your accounts with all the automations such as automated linking. I don't even understand what all the security settings mean, as some are so abbreviated and vague. And sometime you have to send an email and cannot possibly go through all your settings each time to ensure they have not changed.
It seems having the Twitter/FB link capabilities and now capturing and storing all the posts is benefiting no one but you-your research. Most people here do not want it, and it has harmed several people already. Barely anyone is using it; again, except you. You seem to be one of the very few interested in this media, yet you claim this forum is for member support.
Five years from now, people will wish they thought of such things, and laws will be created to offer more protection. But that it a slow process and right now, YOU can ensure members are safe by taking appropriate actions. But you are not.
Posted by zazenducke on April 23, 2010, at 8:02:49
In reply to Re: Don't answer that » zazenducke, posted by gardenergirl on April 22, 2010, at 21:42:57
Would Mr Cow have been happier if he'd never had that one last break for freedom?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/opinion/19shriver.html?pagewanted=print
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------February 19, 2010
Op-Ed Contributor
Not Grass-Fed, but at Least Pain-Free
By ADAM SHRIVER
St. LouisIN the 35 years since Peter Singers book Animal Liberation was published, jump-starting the animal rights movement in the United States, the number of animals used in cosmetics testing and scientific research has dropped significantly, and the number of dogs and cats killed in shelters has fallen by more than half. Nevertheless, because the amount of red meat that Americans eat per capita has held steady at more than 100 pounds a year as the population has increased, more animals than ever suffer from injuries and stress on factory farms.
Veal calves and gestating sows are so confined as to suffer painful bone and joint problems. The unnatural high-grain diets provided in feedlots cause severe gastric distress in many animals. And faulty or improperly used stun guns cause the painful deaths of thousands of cows and pigs a year.
We are most likely stuck with factory farms, given that they produce most of the beef and pork Americans consume. But it is still possible to reduce the animals discomfort through neuroscience. Recent advances suggest it may soon be possible to genetically engineer livestock so that they suffer much less.
This prospect stems from a new understanding of how mammals sense pain. The brain, it turns out, has two separate pathways for perceiving pain: a sensory pathway that registers its location, quality (sharp, dull or burning, for example) and intensity, and a so-called affective pathway that senses the pains unpleasantness. This second pathway appears to be associated with activation of the brains anterior cingulate cortex, because people who have suffered damage to this part of the brain still feel pain but no longer find it unpleasant. (The same is true of people who are given morphine, because there are more receptors for opiates in the affective pain pathway than in the sensory pain pathway.)
Neuroscientists have found that by damaging a laboratory rats anterior cingulate cortex, or by injecting the rat with morphine, they can likewise block its affective perception of pain. The rat reacts to a heated cage floor by withdrawing its paws, but it doesnt bother avoiding the places in its cage where it has learned the floor is likely to be heated up.
Recently, scientists have learned to genetically engineer animals so that they lack certain proteins that are important to the operation of the anterior cingulate cortex. Prof. Min Zhuo and his colleagues at the University of Toronto, for example, have bred mice lacking enzymes that operate in affective pain pathways. When these mice encounter a painful stimulus, they withdraw their paws normally, but they do not become hypersensitive to a subsequent painful stimulus, as ordinary mice do.
Prof. Zhou-Feng Chen and his colleagues here at Washington University have engineered mice so that they lack the gene for a peptide associated with the anterior cingulate gyrus. Like the animals given brain lesions, these mice are normally sensitive to heat and mechanical pain, but they do not avoid situations where they experience such pain.
Given the similarity among all mammals neural systems, it is likely that scientists could genetically engineer pigs and cows in the same way. Because the sensory dimension of the animals pain would be preserved, they would still be able to recognize and avoid, when possible, situations where they might be bruised or otherwise injured.
The people who consumed meat from such genetically engineered livestock would also be safe. Knockout animals have specific proteins removed, rather than new ones inserted, so theres no reason to think that their meat would pose more health risks for humans than ordinary meat does.
If we cannot avoid factory farms altogether, the least we can do is eliminate the unpleasantness of pain in the animals that must live and die on them. It would be far better than doing nothing at all.
Adam Shriver is a doctoral student in the philosophy-neuroscience-psychology program at Washington University.
Posted by zazenducke on April 23, 2010, at 8:08:58
In reply to I think Bob has a personality disorder don't you? » gardenergirl, posted by zazenducke on April 22, 2010, at 21:33:54
(such as people suffering from personality disorders) might have found offensive
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2010, at 9:30:30
In reply to I think Bob has a personality disorder don't you? » gardenergirl, posted by zazenducke on April 22, 2010, at 21:33:54
> I think Bob has a personality disorder
Please don't post anything that could lead others (including me) to feel accused or put down.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person, and I'm sorry if this hurts you. I don't want anything bad to happen to you. In a crisis, please also get help in person. You may also wish to check out a listing compiled by a poster of helpful web pages on coping with crisis at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/psycho-babble-tips/links/Coping_with_crisis_001012507973
I do hope that you choose to remain a member of this community and that this community helps you, if needed, to avoid future blocks.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express yourself, including a link to a nice post by Dinah on I-statements, are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceYou might want to consider asking another poster to be your "civility buddy" and to preview your posts before you submit them.
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
PS: According to the formula:
duration of previous block: 52 weeks
period of time since previous block: 8 weeks
severity: 2 (default)
block length = 82.28 capped = 52 weeks
Posted by BabyToes on April 23, 2010, at 10:26:52
In reply to Re: blocked for 52 weeks » zazenducke, posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2010, at 9:30:30
> > I think Bob has a personality disorder
>
> Please don't post anything that could lead others (including me) to feel accused or put down.
Just wondering about the rules, trying to still get it, Dr. Bob.If Duck said "I think Bob has a cold (a physical condition) ," would that be considered a post that would make someone feel accused or put down? Would that lead to a block?
What I am wondering is if you block someone for saying that they think you have a personality disorder (which according to you) is considered to be a put down, than isn't it also saying something about how YOU perceive people who do have personality disorders- as being a negative thing to have? Is having a personality disorder such a bad thing that if someone thinks you have one and you don't, it is very offensive if they tell you that they think you have one?
I am just trying to figure out why it is such a put down to you. Are people with personality disorders something that means something really bad to you?
I am just trying to follow the logic and waiting for your response to this as I am confused...
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2010, at 11:02:54
In reply to Re: what might have happened, posted by kaylabear on April 23, 2010, at 0:10:14
> Might it not have been worked out on the boards without a block having to take place?
>
> PartlyCloudyI would've preferred that, and one poster did try to help her avoid being blocked again, but she declined to rephrase or apologize.
--
> Well, Bob, you are really putting people at risk by not knowing how this happened to Fayroe. And now, thanks to you, we cannot investigage this further being Fayeroe was blocked. If this site's features pose a unknwn security risks, it should be stopped until you do get it figured out.
As I said before, it's not even clear to me what happened, let alone how it happened.
She's now blocked from posting, but she can still babblechat, receive babblemail, and send and receive email.
Unknown risks are always possible. Again, the only way to be completely safe from those risks is to abstain from this activity.
> Many sites use cookies and automatically log you in - and there's no way to log out (like here). Yet, many of those same sites will not work without cookies enabled.
That's a good point, privacy has always been a priority here, so there are tools for that. There's a way to log out. This site works (in a basic way) without cookies (or Javascript). Your password cookie is encrypted. It's easy to see all your cookies and to erase your name and password cookies. Babblemail enables you to communicate directly with each other without sharing your email address.
> The growing complication of all the online services are increasingly more difficult to sort through, fix, or understand which jeopardizes people's privacy and identity concealment. Security and privacy settings change or are "updated" for all sorts of accounts, and they are becoming more complicated and numerous. For example Google automatically linked all user emails for public view after people joined a service and were unaware of it.
>
> Its becoming more difficult to navigate the appropriate settings for your accounts with all the automations such as automated linking. I don't even understand what all the security settings mean, as some are so abbreviated and vague. And sometime you have to send an email and cannot possibly go through all your settings each time to ensure they have not changed.I agree, things are becoming increasingly complicated -- and interconnected. Maybe another way Babblers can support and educate each other is on topics like this. As gg just did above.
> It seems having the Twitter/FB link capabilities and now capturing and storing all the posts is benefiting no one but you-your research. Most people here do not want it, and it has harmed several people already. Barely anyone is using it; again, except you. You seem to be one of the very few interested in this media, yet you claim this forum is for member support.
>
> kaylabearA couple clarifications: Babble has always captured and stored posts, that's what makes archives possible. And Babble is not currently considered research.
In what ways have people been harmed already?
There are more than a few people interested in Facebook and Twitter! People on Facebook and Twitter can also benefit from support and education. Sharing and tweeting links to posts might lead them to the thoughtful and intelligent discussions here, and then they might join Babble and contribute new perspectives and energy.
You're clearly passionate about these issues. If you stay, you can make sure your concerns are heard.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on April 23, 2010, at 11:49:10
In reply to Re: what might have happened, posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2010, at 11:02:54
Dr. Bob...
I do understand your desire to be treated with respect. But I also think there's more than one way to express regret. Fayeroe didn't say "I'm sorry" but, in my opinion, her frank expression of her pain and fear and disappointment in how she wished you had responded were more conciliatory and expressive of a wish to restart than many an apology you've found acceptable have been. I really really hoped you would see it that way, even though the words "I'm sorry" weren't contained.
I think, had you responded in kind, a lot of reconciliation could have been achieved. Far more than another block.
Wouldn't it have been more conducive to peace in the long run to simply request that next time anyone with a question of that sort simply ask you with respect and you'll be happy to answer? Or to point out that no one feels all that much like responding politely unless they were addressed with politeness? From a sheer practical standpoint, aside from civility standards.
You *know* I have no problem with the civility guidelines or blocks, even long blocks in some cases. But... An invitation like that doesn't come along all that often. I wish you'd have accepted it. Just as you wished that Faye had accepted your invitation to use the words "I'm sorry."
I have a feeling that a bad precedent wouldn't have been a major threat.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2010, at 12:59:29
In reply to Re: what might have happened » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 23, 2010, at 11:49:10
> Wouldn't it have been more conducive to peace in the long run to simply request that next time anyone with a question of that sort simply ask you with respect and you'll be happy to answer? Or to point out that no one feels all that much like responding politely unless they were addressed with politeness?
Those are among the possible take-home lessons, thanks for spelling them out.
> An invitation like that doesn't come along all that often. I wish you'd have accepted it. Just as you wished that Faye had accepted your invitation to use the words "I'm sorry."
I think we can learn a lot by looking at who we do (and don't) invite to do what and what invitations from others we do (and don't) accept.
But I don't invite posters to be civil, I require it. So in this context authority and power are complicating dynamics.
Bob
Posted by 10derHeart on April 23, 2010, at 13:19:12
In reply to Re: blocked for 52 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by BabyToes on April 23, 2010, at 10:26:52
Posted by muffled on April 23, 2010, at 23:01:59
In reply to I had the exact same question/thoughts (nm) » BabyToes, posted by 10derHeart on April 23, 2010, at 13:19:12
http://www.olweus.org/public/bullying.page
What is Bullying?
Dan Olweus, creator of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, provides us with this commonly accepted definition for bullying in his book, Bullying at School: What We Know and What We Can Do:
"A person is bullied when he or she is exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other persons, and he or she has difficulty defending himself or herself."
This definition includes three important components:
1. Bullying is aggressive behavior that involves unwanted, negative actions.
2. Bullying involves a pattern of behavior repeated over time.
3. Bullying involves an imbalance of power or strength.
Posted by 10derHeart on April 24, 2010, at 1:37:22
In reply to So....who is the bully I wonder....?, posted by muffled on April 23, 2010, at 23:01:59
Including Dr. Bob. I really don't.
I realize you and others may have differing opinions. It's just that this question was posted back to the post with my name on it so I thought I'd better clarify.
I was agreeing with BT that those are natural questions, especially in this community, i.e., why and even if, wondering or even asserting a person has a mental health condition is really so negative. That's all. Seems that word **disorder (ed)** is the true trigger as several have mentioned (see thread on Psych board) After all, I'll bet if if someone posted, "I think Dr. Bob is anxious," or "I think Dr. Bob is depressed," would the reaction be the same? Maybe, but.....
Bullies...hmm.
Looking at *only* those three criteria, I could apply them to every law enforcement officer doing their jobs (depending what is exactly meant by *aggressive*) in the view of a 'perpetrator' anyway. Context and circumstances are really crucial, I think. Although law enforcement officers are certainly capable of bullying behavior *within* the bounds of their duties, unfortunately...:-(
But, what do I know, really? I am no expert on anything about human behavior. Hardly understand my own.
Bullying is not good. Bad things happen. I feel sad for the victims and the bullies.
Must disappear now...can't really be here any more.
(hi muffy)
Posted by muffled on April 24, 2010, at 8:41:18
In reply to I don't think anyone is a bully here » muffled, posted by 10derHeart on April 24, 2010, at 1:37:22
Sorry 10der, just I had worked thru the thread and then clicked reply.
I agree it seems some (like me) are VERY affected by the blocks.
My sense of fairness is challeneged by the inconsistancies.
To me blocks feel punitive becuase of their length. They are not just a time out to get control, the are a punishment. And IMHO sometimes the punishment FAR outweighs the crime.
Thats why I need to stay away from here.
This is not a safe place to get to know other people cuz I come to care about people here, and then I get very angry at the punishments that occur. It is very upsetting to me.
No chance to talk things out, just banishment.
This is Bobs site. Bobs rules. Bobs decision what happens here(when he is even around). There is no democracy here. whatsoever.
I can't feel safe here.
Hope you are doing ok.
TC
M
Posted by BabyToes on April 24, 2010, at 11:56:53
In reply to Re: I don't think anyone is a bully here » 10derHeart, posted by muffled on April 24, 2010, at 8:41:18
All this kinda reminds me being a character in the movie Changeling. I feel like Kristine Collins fighting for what is right, but yet I get blocked (or sent to a mental institution as in the movie) to silence me when I question decisions of those in authority.
It is easy to notice that my questions have not been addressed. I am trying to understand the rules here because they just don't make sense to me. I keep getting blocked and warned, and I don't understand the rules. I have asked for clarifications from Dr. Bob and I am still waiting for a reply.
I would like to know why Dr. Bob thinks it was a put down for DUcky to say he had a personality disorder, especially since he is a psychiatrist.
If I had a personality disorder I would probably be feeling rather put down (especially by a psychiatrist) saying a personality disorder was something that he considered a put down when it was associated with him as having one. It just seems to go against his own rules, so I am confused.
Link to the movie could be triggering to some.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKRHWIh_K3E
Posted by Deneb on April 24, 2010, at 12:38:43
In reply to Re: blocked for 52 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by BabyToes on April 23, 2010, at 10:26:52
Dr. Bob, I do feel a bit put down because you consider it a put down to say someone has a personality disorder.
What if someone said you had depression? Would that be a put down?
Deneb
Posted by Dinah on April 24, 2010, at 14:08:40
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, a question, posted by Deneb on April 24, 2010, at 12:38:43
I think context means a lot.
I didn't consider Dr. Bob's actions to be a negative statement about personality disorders at all.
Posted by BabyToes on April 24, 2010, at 14:45:36
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, a question, posted by Dinah on April 24, 2010, at 14:08:40
> I think context means a lot.
>
> I didn't consider Dr. Bob's actions to be a negative statement about personality disorders at all.I viewed Duck's statement to be a playful joke, not something to be taken seriously. There was very little context other than the one sentence.
But this is what Dr. Bob posted...
> I think Bob has a personality disorder"Please don't post anything that could lead others (including me) to feel accused or put down."
To me there is little room to as what this means, but I guess we need to hear from Dr. BOb. I am so confused.
Posted by Willful on April 24, 2010, at 16:02:36
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, a question » Dinah, posted by BabyToes on April 24, 2010, at 14:45:36
It seems to me that it's a reasonable under the circumstances to think that the phrase wasn't being used in a complimentary way. Bob might have been wrong in taking it that way, but it's not unreasonable .
There a sense of what that type of sentence generally means-- in common usage. I don't think that has anything to do with whether Bob personally thinks it should be (or is) a put down.
Willful
Posted by Deneb on April 24, 2010, at 18:38:07
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, a question, posted by Dinah on April 24, 2010, at 14:08:40
Thanks Dinah. At first I didn't think so either, but then everyone kept saying it was so I got confused.
Posted by PartlyCloudy on April 25, 2010, at 7:06:12
In reply to Re: what might have happened, posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2010, at 12:59:29
Please look at this piece that appeared in the New York Times on April 21st - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/fashion/22life.html
I bring it to the attention of the board, and to you, Dr Bob, for several reasons. The internet is utterly unlike face to face communication. The anonymity it affords has lent itself to escalated emotional outbursts from its very inception; "flame wars", which you have attempted to control with the evolution of the civility guidelines.
One important aspect to remember about the nature of this forum, though, is that some of the members here react to trigger situations (such as mysterious messages in their long inactive Facebook accounts) in ways that are not consistent with the general population of society. In short, we are already traumatized by past events, and so are reliving, in a very immediate sense, those past events when they are re-triggered by seemingly benign new events. Our (that is, MY) reactions are knee-jerk, not always properly thought out, and in my personal experience, out of proportion to the situation, even at that very moment when I'm madly typing and hitting that Submit button.
It's happened to me here on the boards. I've reacted poorly and regretted my actions, yet at the time, it's really and truly been out of my hands because it's been a trauma reaction. There is no stopping a trauma reaction, whether it's abundant tears, shouting and screaming at our most loved ones, or posting in reaction to a perceived threat on the boards. This has been explained to me by my therapist and pdoc, and part of my recovery process has been to avoid the environment here. It's helped me a great deal. It's only now, that my recovery has progressed to a degree that I feel secure in my reactions to many trigger situations, that I felt I was able to speak out here on the boards.
I do think that by blocking Fayeroe when you did - before she had an opportunity to enter into an open discussion with *you*, whom she seem to have offended, was unfortunate. Perhaps it might have been prejudicial and based on previous behavior. I think it was a lost chance for growth here.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 25, 2010, at 9:49:09
In reply to Re: I don't think anyone is a bully here, posted by BabyToes on April 24, 2010, at 11:56:53
> All this kinda reminds me being a character in the movie Changeling.
I'd just like to plug the double double quotes feature at this site:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#amazon
The first time anyone refers to a book, a movie, or music without using this option, I post this to try to make sure he or she at least knows about it. It's just an option, though.
Thanks!
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on April 25, 2010, at 11:19:31
In reply to My perspective » Dr. Bob, posted by PartlyCloudy on April 25, 2010, at 7:06:12
Thanks for sharing it.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 25, 2010, at 11:46:37
In reply to My perspective » Dr. Bob, posted by PartlyCloudy on April 25, 2010, at 7:06:12
> I agree it seems some (like me) are VERY affected by the blocks.
> To me blocks feel punitive becuase of their length. They are not just a time out to get control, the are a punishment. And IMHO sometimes the punishment FAR outweighs the crime.
> This is not a safe place to get to know other people cuz I come to care about people here, and then I get very angry at the punishments that occur. It is very upsetting to me.
> No chance to talk things out, just banishment.
> There is no democracy here. whatsoever.
> I can't feel safe here.
> M> Please look at this piece that appeared in the New York Times on April 21st - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/fashion/22life.html
>
> I bring it to the attention of the board, and to you, Dr Bob, for several reasons. The internet is utterly unlike face to face communication. The anonymity it affords has lent itself to escalated emotional outbursts from its very inception; "flame wars", which you have attempted to control with the evolution of the civility guidelines.
>
> some of the members ... are already traumatized by past events, and so are reliving, in a very immediate sense, those past events when they are re-triggered by seemingly benign new events.
>
> at the time, it's really and truly been out of my hands because it's been a trauma reaction. ... It's only now, that my recovery has progressed to a degree that I feel secure in my reactions to many trigger situations, that I felt I was able to speak out here on the boards.
>
> I do think that by blocking Fayeroe when you did - before she had an opportunity to enter into an open discussion with *you*, whom she seem to have offended, was unfortunate. ... I think it was a lost chance for growth here.
>
> PartlyCloudyFrom that piece:
> What confounds me is why online commenters are so gratuitously nasty; why, when given the opportunity to have an educated disagreement with an author or other readers, they use the space allotted to spew venom instead of presenting a well-reasoned argument.
>
> Kathleen Taylor, the author of "Cruelty: Human Evil and the Human Brain," has a theory. Were evolved to be face-to-face creatures, she said in a recent interview. We developed to have constant feedback from others, telling us if it was O.K. to be saying what were saying. On the Internet, you get nothing, no body language, no gesture.
>
> knowing the pouncing quality of many commenters really does silence me.
>
> several news media outlets, including this one and The Washington Post, are rethinking their approach to anonymous reader comments. The idea is to hold users more accountable and to prevent some of the user-generated vitriol that takes place online.I agree with muffled, people can be upset by blocks. Both when they're blocked themselves and when they see others blocked. For them, this may be an unsafe place.
No, blocks aren't just a time out. They're also in part to punish, as in:
> 1 a : to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation
Blocks (and the requests to be civil before them) could be seen as the feedback and holding posters accountable that are missing on other sites. I regret that anyone's been traumatized, but nastiness, venom, vitriol, and the resulting fear of being pounced on -- "a face full of cat", seldomseen said once -- aren't conducive to support and education.
A block may seem to outweigh a particular incivility, but remember that I also take into account the poster's "record". A third strike is different than a second.
Sometimes there's a chance to talk things out. There was this time. But a trauma reaction may also lead someone to miss a chance to grow. But fayeroe will have more opportunities here when her block is up. And hopefully she has opportunities elsewhere in the meantime.
PC, I'm glad your recovery's progressing and you're back.
There's some democracy here. The block was my decision, but before that, those who saw her post and my follow-up had the opportunity to "vote" -- by trying to show her how she might rephrase or encouraging her to apologize. One poster did that.
> I feel like Kristine Collins fighting for what is right, but yet I get blocked ... to silence me when I question decisions of those in authority.
>
> BabyToesPosters don't get blocked for questioning my decisions. Posters get blocked for being uncivil. Do you think you may have felt traumatized by decisions made by those in authority in the past?
Bob
Posted by BabyToes on April 25, 2010, at 12:11:17
In reply to Re: double double quotes » BabyToes, posted by Dr. Bob on April 25, 2010, at 9:49:09
Pardon me, but this isn't hardly the first time I have ever quoted books or movies on this site. Do you get some kind of financial rewards for doing this or something? Then to do it twice in the same thread? Really?
> > All this kinda reminds me being a character in the movie Changeling.
>
> I'd just like to plug the double double quotes feature at this site:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#amazon
>
> The first time anyone refers to a book, a movie, or music without using this option, I post this to try to make sure he or she at least knows about it. It's just an option, though.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Bob
Posted by BabyToes on April 25, 2010, at 12:30:47
In reply to Re: My perspective, posted by Dr. Bob on April 25, 2010, at 11:46:37
Dr. Bob,
No, I haven't been traumatized by decisions made in authority. Thanks for asking though.
So when are you going to actually answer my questions on two separate posts on this thread? I posted the links and the posts here again for your convenience.http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/944693.html
> > I think Bob has a personality disorder
>
> Please don't post anything that could lead others (including me) to feel accused or put down.
Just wondering about the rules, trying to still get it, Dr. Bob.If Duck said "I think Bob has a cold (a physical condition) ," would that be considered a post that would make someone feel accused or put down? Would that lead to a block?
What I am wondering is if you block someone for saying that they think you have a personality disorder (which according to you) is considered to be a put down, than isn't it also saying something about how YOU perceive people who do have personality disorders- as being a negative thing to have? Is having a personality disorder such a bad thing that if someone thinks you have one and you don't, it is very offensive if they tell you that they think you have one?
I am just trying to figure out why it is such a put down to you. Are people with personality disorders something that means something really bad to you?
I am just trying to follow the logic and waiting for your response to this as I am confused...
http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/babble.pl
All this kinda reminds me being a character in the movie Changeling. I feel like Kristine Collins fighting for what is right, but yet I get blocked (or sent to a mental institution as in the movie) to silence me when I question decisions of those in authority.It is easy to notice that my questions have not been addressed. I am trying to understand the rules here because they just don't make sense to me. I keep getting blocked and warned, and I don't understand the rules. I have asked for clarifications from Dr. Bob and I am still waiting for a reply.
I would like to know why Dr. Bob thinks it was a put down for DUcky to say he had a personality disorder, especially since he is a psychiatrist.
If I had a personality disorder I would probably be feeling rather put down (especially by a psychiatrist) saying a personality disorder was something that he considered a put down when it was associated with him as having one. It just seems to go against his own rules, so I am confused.
Link to the movie could be triggering to some.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKRHWIh_K3E
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.